HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2022 08. Update on City of Yakima 2017 Equity Study 1
sirF`
4''+
A
I,C: r',,
\III'or :
k#,C"), :..... ..1?"1/
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 8.
For Meeting of: December 13, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Update on City of Yakima 2017 Equity Study
SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport, Community Development Director
Sara Watkins, City Attorney
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
At the July Council Retreat, staff was requested to provide information about the 2017 Equity
Study. The Final Report, prepared by the Washington State University Metro Center of the 2017
Equity study is attached as well as a presentation that was provided to the City Council in
December of 2017.Additionally, there is a vast amount of related data and the Equity Study on the
City of Yakima website:
https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/equity-study/
ITEM BUDGETED:
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION:
Review summary status document. Provide direction, if additional information is requested.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type
D summary 12/9/2022 Corer Memo
❑ City Council Presentation, Dec 2017 10/20/2022 Backup Material
D City of Yakima Equity Study, WSU 10/20/2022 Backup Material
__ w \\\' 2
r o F Yly
`\`, off COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
�'o,, Joan Davenport, AICP, Director
9 O•. 1,�) 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901
. 0 Phone (509)575-6183 • Fax(509) 575-6105
Wiry « �' . r
•
3
i,,. `'.PORA,,.. " www.yakimawa.gov/seraices/community-development
\\\\Ntia�ov
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 15, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Thru: Robert Harrison, City Manager
From: Joan Davenport, Community Development Director
Sara Watkins, City Attorney
Tom Sellsted, Supervising Senior Analyst
Randy Bonds, Senior Full Stack Developer
Rosylen Oglesby,Assistant City Manager
Randy Beehler, Communication and Public Affairs Manager
Subject: Summary of 2017 Equity Study
At the July retreat, City Council requested an update regarding the 2017 Equity Study at a
future City Council meeting. This briefing provides City Council a foundation for the
discussion.
Background Information
On December 12, 2017,the Yakima City Council accepted the final report from the
Washington State University (WSU) Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and
Extension entitled the "City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis." This report was produced in
response to City Council's direction for a study to do the following: (1) review historical
data regarding public investments in parks, street lights, code enforcement, transit, and
public safety; (2) use 16th Avenue as the boundary between East and West, contrast the two
portions of the City; (3) create a profile of the city population using population and other
characteristics derived from the US Census data.
To support the work of the WSU Metro Center, City staff provided extensive data and
created GIS mapping catalogs about the items requested for analysis and many other city
characteristics. The data, maps,and the WSU Metro Center report are published on the City
of Yakima website (https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/equity-study/).
The study cost$25,000, took about nine months to complete, and was funded by the ACLU
lawsuit that resulted in the formation of the court order City Council districts. The City
received $100,000 to be used to fund projects that encouraged equity. The remaining funds
were used to support the school mentorship intern program.
Yakima
kiZekrili
urrm
;ii
2015
Code Administration(509)575-6126-Planning(509)575-6183-Office of Neighborhood&Development Services(509)575-6101 1994
3
Recommendations of the 2017 Equity Study
The Final Report from the WSU Metro Center concluded:
1. The City has done a professional job collecting and handling data. This data can be used
as an "initial conditions statement" and a base to build data-driven decisions. Data
presented in the study identifies significant differences in the population and land
characteristics east and west of 16th Avenue. The study notes that this is primarily
attributed to annexation and growth patterns in the City over time. There is no evidence
of intentional bias found in the data regarding investments
2. The City should assess what additional data it needs to collect based on the questions it
wants to address in the future. Using the history, growth, and size of park parcels, east
and west of 16th Avenue, as context,the Equity Study stated that the city could
strategically address existing disparity without needing an expensive historical analysis.
3. The final report of the Equity Study notes that many cities have developed an "Equity
Lens"process to evaluate the impact of a program or policy on diverse groups. However,
critical to developing any Equity Lens decision process, the City needs to set some goals.
An example was creating a ranked list of investment opportunities for philanthropy,
which could be distributed to community partners to encourage funding of amenities
within facilities in diverse communities.
4. The study concludes that authentic community and stakeholder engagement is a
cornerstone of equitable decision-making. Additional resources for fostering community
engagement were provided in the report.
Conclusions
1. The 2017 Equity Study Analysis is a standalone document, analyzing data from the
specific evaluation period. The study urged the City of Yakima to utilize the data and the
process of examining additional data and findings to assist in data-driven decision-
making and encourage investment in areas of diverse populations.
2. The Community Integration Committee was established in 2017 to advise City Council
on various items related to community engagement and diversity.
3. One example of utilizing this data is the commitment to construct an east-side swimming
pool.
4. The 2022 revision of City Council Districts utilized updated population characteristics
from the US Census Bureau and created a third "Minority Majority" City Council
District. The 2022 Redistricting process used the socioeconomic population
characteristics along 16th Avenue to define the revised boundaries.
5. If the City Council wishes to direct future projects to implement the Equity Report, they
may wish to hold a Study Session in order to set goals, define terms and establish
expectations.
Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and Extension
Alt; Washington State University
• .
City of Yakima
. .....
..,..
.._. _ „.. _ Equity Study Analysis
• '''' ''' ,, ,. ,._ . ._,_.. .
. : .
. ................,..„....._ , ,
- '"------„_ _
i..
,. -, , .
, 4 ,,,.. .,% IC -F. .„ • e, rf•
t . . :•3; r.• ' ..,-*- -I, ,
r
Pige-
--- '.).. • 3 44!. .1e. . . . .1;4 ..,,,., ..qt.y.- , .., 4-,..„-•
''° • 4, .. : 'A. t..• '' ... . -.?5°-i,AT ••• -
Adak.- '-' • '.i 44 7' le ' '.-'' • .. .r.:- ef ot .. ..:4--r•••• -7 - '..
-1110.1-. - • 1111 J. 11:. ' -.- '..• . .. - : f-- -
_ "..- - • • I •
ilit; tist , ,.:Iir
, , • ; Yakima City Council Meeting
__.....i
. -
_ _
_ _
..,-...m.mio.._ yek7ii• immeg - _ December 12 201 7
, _- ----_, ...,_ - , italt-..__ ,. 7,,.,L,
..
. .- , - ...
--.111 ...._— _ _, ____
. ..:-_.,.... :,. . ....-- ,...._:„.,.....,,,,s.,
,... --- .„-.,-,......,,,,,,.,y.,-,.,,_...„..-..,...,,f_....q.,...„..„4.,_.: ...,... ... ,... . .. ..
McGuinness Park(2017) Photo by Connie Com bs/Kizz Prussia ..,-
. . .. „
Project Team
WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and
Extension
Martha Aitken , Senior Associate , Project Manager
Brad Gaolach , Ph . D. , Director
UW Department of Urban Design and Planning
Branden Born , Ph . D. , Associate Professor
• Philip M . Hurvitz, Ph . D. , Research Assistant Professor
• Connie Combs , MUP
Kizz Prussia, MUP candidate
Scope of Work
Assess Equity Study data: process and accuracy audits
2 . Analyze existing Equity Study data
Input - Demographics Output
Race Public safety calls for service
Education level Street lights
Marital status Code compliance requests
Home owner or renter Parks
Property value Transit ridership, shelters,
Property age benches
Geographical dividing line - 1 6th Avenue
Results: Process/Accuracy Audit
• Professional process for collecting , storing and
analyzing data
• Staff is knowledgeable in the data infrastructure
• No evidence of explicit bias
• Handled in an appropriate manner for its original
intent : to support city' s geospatial data and land
use planning
• Opportunities to improve data quality and quantity
related to an equity analysis
Analysis strategy
City GIS data generally did not contain time attributes (e. g. ,
streetlight installation date)
Did not allow assessment of City infrastructure over time
The team felt it necessary to provide some analysis of
changes to the City over 1980-201 5
Extensive GIS analyses were used to characterize census
tracts in the City with respect to:
Demographic changes over time
Parks (which did contain dates—more on this follows) in
relation to demographics over time
Current infrastructure in relation to current
demographics
GIS Analysis
Required because city limits do not overlap with tracts precisely
Legend
i__'i=ract_2015
0 y2015.the_geom_2286
....."N„....<1
I_, h
1
- \ I
ii
-ii
r ---' r—+ iII.
1^ t 1
fill IIiLr� )ter
'1\I I 11 J� I
1
__do,i L ,
I \.. .VA ''
1 0 1 2 _ 4kn
I I I I I I I
GIS Analysis
Simplified schematic
census unit overlay with city polygon
population: 200
quttrpattitin of
pzigelat2:5f.l050
annexation unit
GIS Analysis
Example with data
L
;� -- 2.9
�� Annex.`:n 7344 5194.5
Area:0.3 Sr m 4.1
i
r'
', 7 7 1
`--- �i�!i i i
i \.-, r ,
i +'-1 Ann-i ein
_I i i i t Are. 1.4
Population:tion:7344 psu Area of city limits within census
Po
Area:4.1 sq.ml
_ . % Annexation tract has estimate population of
<< Area:2.9 sq.mi a
P[
At 5195 persons
L,
,
,
1 Census 2015
v vs 1 is 2 ml Population:
, 1 1 I I
Area:1 sq.n
Median family income has increased
. . . but more so on the West side of 16th
median family income median family income
60000-
40000-
30000- RI 40000-
zone_16th
j j ■e
20000 ■w
20000-
1 0000-
0- 0-
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
Yakima is now > 40% Hispanic
. . . but with the greatest increases on the East side
percent Hispanic percent Hispanic
60
40 -1111 li
-
30-
40- I I. zone 16th
c c
U U ■e
Q 20- a ■w
20-
10-
1
0- 0- 11 ■
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
College graduation rates have generally improved
. . . but continue to decrease on the East side
percent college graduate percent college graduate
1 e
9 15-
im -- .
zone—
16th
a) ■
m _ ca� 10-
U
!? I Q ■•
W
5-
0- k iL. 1111 0- J
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
Average year built
. . . older on the East side , newer on the West side
year built year built
1970- 1970-
1960- 1960-
zone_16th
■e
1 il .w
1950- 1950- II il il il II
1940- 1940-
1980 1990 2000 10 I 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
Anatomy of an XY ("scatter") plot
A 1980: park area per capita x median family income
a
0-
a)
co
U)
1000-
U
� CAve
de colors represent
rts ,n=6East, West
t ,n=4
500-
fO
Q low income,
CO higher income'Q 0
low area
a low area
U
N 0-
0_ 10000 15000 20000 25000
median family income ($)
income increase across x
Anatomy of an XY ("scatter") plot
1980: park area per capita x median family income
income is higher on the East
side; no clear pattern in area
with respect to income
1000-
}, 16th Ave divide
cts e,n=6
a)
al w,n=4
income is low: r on the East side
but area • • - • - '• -ase wit income
liino clear overall pattern in
area with respect to income
10000 ... -.... 5000
median family income ($)
Anatomy of an XY ("scatter") plot
"outliers" compress axes
1980: park area per capita x median family income 1980: park area per capita x median family income
0 apparent outlier is this now a
an "outlier"?
1000-
200
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
0 - e,n=6 c6 - e,n=6
N a)c� w,n=4 asw,n=3
500-
100
0 + 0
1C000 15000 20000 25000 ! IC000 15000 20000 25000
median family income($) median family income($)
"outlier" removed
Census Tract Maps
1980 2015
l �34�q,
\"600 4c 3]O c
` 3001c 011 C ! 3J0 w `, , 20C e \
a 300 G00 c ` ` s_� 400 w, + 600 e , / 1\\
Ism _000
e 1
,w
1 soD:� , :Rnn:w _
( 301 H WAG,Dh—`o1@s O
oo= \ \
{'—C ° 1zoa e — iso2 c \)
r�— r—5522 [[���_ IL,I cp�:�,t G 2C2
e S��UL�
LdCO e�
_100 w _ 1300 c`L�DO e , ti
` 13]Oc
11 a
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi t
I I I I 11111
Police Department calls for service
Areas with greatest count per capita are on East side, but across a
range of demographics
YKPD calls x percent Hispanic YKPD calls x median family income
�1._
•
note general 300
cs 20- •3400 demographic co 20-
16th Ave divide a 16th Ave divide
U stratification
N e,n=14 6 e,n=14
West East w,n=10 w,n=10
U 10- 1602 1400 v 10- 1400 160�
• 300 20. 1502 •00
3400
•
• 1502 300 3400
1100 700• 1501• 1501 • •700 1 100
800 1000 • 1202 • 1600 1000• 800
• 1201 • • • •
400••500 r• 600 1202 • 1300 • • •
•
901g • 2802 •902 1300 1201 • 500 2802•902 901. 400•
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Fire Department calls for service
No apparent patterns
YKFD calls x median family income YKFD calls x percent Hispanic
8- 8- -
as 16th Ave divide cs 16th Ave divide
V U
m e,n=14 N e,n=14
Q Q
4- 100 w,n=10 4- w,n=10
o • • 1702 0 ••00 •
•
o 300 3400 0 3400 1702 100
•• • •
•
1300 800 800 1300
2- 200 2-3400
1400 700 500 3400 J1602 500• 1100 700 200
1501 \ 1502 • • • • • 40� •• 2802•-9 1400 1202 1502
• • 902 1100 1602 • • 902 • 1 —• •
600. 120! 1201 • 11000 90' 2802 901 400 .1000 •1201 1501 G00•
40000 60000 80000 20 40 60 80
median family income($) percent Hispanic
Streetlights
Slightly more streetlights with lower income and higher Hispanic
population
Street lights x percent Hispanic Street lights x median family income
600- 600-
0 N
a) a2
8 16th Ave divide 0 16th Ave divide
CT400- 3i 00 e,n=13 0 400- •3 00 e.n=13
L
Q w,n=9 Q • w,n=9
• 600 •
80� 700 t201 700 :OD 50� i00
O 100�•500 • �2 v 1501 • • 901
v 200-9.1 1201 200
2802 300 l 1501 20 150: • 2802
• • 12D9 200 300 •
•
• 902r • 1202 • • • 1100 •
400 1100 1400 1400 90� • 400
0 •1602 1702• 1300 0_ 1300 1702• 1602
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Code Compliance Requests
More requests from tracts with higher renter-occupancy
More requests from tracts with lower median family income
Code compliance requests x percent of housing renter-occupied Code compliance requests x median family income
300• •700
0.06- 0.06-
0 150� 0 1501
Q 1502 200 Q 200 1502
• 16th Ave divide cs • . 16th Ave divide
v 0.04 • 1201 600 0 0.04- • 1201
L •
Q 1202 1 00 • e,n=13 Q 600 1202 100• � e,n=13
c 1100 w,n=10 r w,n=10
•
p • Q 300 1100 2802
• • •
800 2802 5;00 0 • 500 800 4nn
0.02- h 0.02- • •
1702 400 1702 3400
3400• •
901
901 • 902 1400 3400
•3400 1400 • • •
• 902 •
0.00-1602 0.00- 1602
30 50 70 90 40000 60000 80000
percent of housing renter-occupied median family income($)
Parks* built up to 1980
Area of park per resident
1980: park area per capita x median family income 1980: park area per capita x percent Hispanic
0 apparent outlier
1000- 1000-
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
�; e,n=6 slightly rr re per capita park e,n=6
w,n4 on West ode with fewer Hispanics w,n=a
500- 500-
income is lower on the East side
o 12
•400
1500 1000
600 on 1 so • 12��•600 15000
0 • •
0�• _ •800 i0 200 100
10000 1500G 20000 25000 5 10 15 20 25
median family income ($) percent Hispanic
* only parks without any private funding included; only tracts having overlap with parks
Parks* built up to 2015
Area of park per resident
2015: park area per capita x median family income 2015: park area per capita x percent Hispanic
0apparent outlier
3000- 3000-
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
2000 -- 2000-
cs ern=8 c3 ern=8
2
0w,n=7 c`s w,n=7
1000 1000- less per capita park on East side
• • with more Hispanics
300 1100 1100
• •
000 300 902 1000 SO2 300
0- 1.01 �1202• • • • • 400e 0-4oO ••• 30D• 70�• �202 • :Oi
100 200 700 1000 500 800• •800 500 100 200 1501
40000 60000 80000 20 40 60 80
median family income ($) percent Hispanic
* only parks without any private funding included
Bus Ridership
Higher ridership with greater % Hispanic and lower income
Bus ridership x percent Hispanic Bus ridership x median family income
•
1501
750000- 750000-
N N
t
N N
0 16th Ave divide 0 16th Ave divide
N500000- e.n=12 Cl) 500000- e.n=12
L
Q w,n=9 115 300 w,n=9
• •
m 300
v 250000- .Dn 0 250000 10� 700
1602 1000 1400 200 1400 •
1 800 i • • 00 20• 1502 i1201 �00 •100D 1602
9 •01 SON 902 300 1201 • • 600
600•• ••1502 902 50\0 901 800
•
1202 • 400
•
0- • 40a 2802 1100 1300• 0_ 1202 1300• 1 100 2802• •
20 40 60 80 40000 • 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($}
Bus Ridership
Slightly lower on East side in areas with more youth;
Slightly lower in tracts with more seniors
Bus ridership x percent< 18 years Bus ridership x percent>= 65 years
750000- 750000-
N N
N
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
Cl) 500000- e.n=12 0- 500000- e.n=12
L L
300
w,n=9 Q w,n=9
• 30c r
v 250000- �Do 700 0 250000- :00
\1400 200 • 1400
1000 300 • 200 700 • 1602
•• • 502 • • 800 300�
• 7602• :UU • • 1201 • 1000 • •
800 901 5U`• 1300 1•
202 1201 1502 1202 9D0 a
1 100 �00
0- 1100 ,400 902 ♦28D2 0"600 2802 •1300 90• 400
20 25 30 35 40 10 20
percent< 18 years percent>= 65 years
Bus Stop Shelters
More shelters with greater % Hispanic and lower income
Bus stop shelters x percent Hispanic Bus stop shelters x median family income
7.5- 7.5-
N N
a) a)
cc 16th Ave divide cc 16th Ave divide
D 5.0- 5.0-
co 700 e,n=B co
700 e,n=B
• •
Q w,n=7 Q w,n=7
• •
= 300 = 100 •
300
8 2.5- 1400 •100 1501• V 2.5- 1501 1400
• • •
1201 200 1201
1602 500 902 200 • 902 500 1602
•U. •• • • • •
901 800 • • Fi'-`'
0.0 • •400 1100 0.0_ 1100 901• 400'-
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Bus Stop Shelters
Slightly more in tracts with higher youth proportion
Fewer in tracts with more seniors
Bus stop shelters x percent < 18 years Bus stop shelters x percent >=65 years
7.5- 7.5-
N N
0 16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
D 5.0- 0" 5.0-
rn e,n=8 O e,n=8
• •
8 700 wn-7 Q 700 1: wn=7
•
300 300•
O • •501 V • :00
V 10C ••
2.5 1400 120• 2"5 1501 • •
1400
2C0 1201
• 1602 902
• •200 902 1602 500
• • •• • • • •
• 901 500 • 800 400
1100 400 1100 •901 •
0.0- 0.0-
20 25 30 35 10 20
percent< 18 years percent >=65 years
Bus Stop Benches
More benches with greater % Hispanic and lower income
Bus stop benches x percent Hispanic Bus stop shelters x median family income
i0- 7.s
a> a>
E 30-
a) a)
cs • 16th Ave divide (s 16th Ave divide
3 700 0 5.0-
N" e,n=12 N" 700 e,n=8
N 20- 300 w,n=9 a) w,n=7
• "00 600 Q •
j • • • j 1001 300
0 1000 1202 1502 V •• 1400
10-800• 500 • 01 2.5 1501
1400 •
90' • • • •
200 1201
1 1100 120' 200 •
902 500 1602
• •
• 902 1300 • 800
0- 4001602~2802 1100 901• 400•
•
0.0- ,
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Bus Stop Benches
Slightly more in tracts with higher youth proportion
Fewer in tracts with more seniors
Bus stop benches x percent < 18 years Bus stop benches x percent >= 65 years
a� 2
30- 30-
• 16th Ave divide (s • 16th Ave divide
�" 70C e,n=12 700 e,n=12
20- 300 w,n=9 20- w,n=9
Q 100 • 500 Q- 600 100 300•
• • • •
• 1202 1502• • �00
V 1000 •• V 1502 •
10-800• 1400 • 1201 10_ •1501 1202 1400 800• •
•
1501 T • • • •
901• 500 1300 200 200 1201 1300 1100 • 500
•1100 �1602 I, • •
2802 902* • 901 •400
0- 400 902
0- 1602
• 2802•
20 25 30 35 40 10� 20
percent< 18 years percent>= 65 years
Results
Complete results for each selected GIS data layer,
including all graphs , are available at:
http ://gist. gis .washington . edu/yakima_equity/
Will be transferred to the city in the near future .
Median household income r7"
Median i000sus
Household 2015
p lo•2o
p r0• )0
Income IN rik aim.
b:�
2015 .. ,o
moo $ us
10 - 20 IIIIIIIMM 1
20 - 30
Mil 30 - 40 F
40 - 50
50 - 60 III
60 - 70
0 0s 1 iS 7n
l I 1 1 J
MI I
Potential Next Steps
Equity Lens
4'4
- _ r A practical tool to help
• I c �Utli ` ^ "`c.e u insure that tannin
• • w' decision making and
A • T A resource allocation
s _ ` . I
41,1 . _ • lead to policies and
- programs that help to
i*_ achieve equity across
the community,
... .., .. .., in 1 ..
let' ,, racially, socially and
., economically.
Equity Toolkit
Sample Questions
What is the policy or decision you are considering?
• Who does this intend to serve and who is it actually serving?
• What data or evidence guides this policy?
• What are the communities that will be most affected by, or
concerned with, this policy?
• What are the benefits and burdens these communities will
experience with the policy?
Potential Next Steps
The Kettering Foundation - National Issues Forum . To
make choices with others about difficult issues, and
work toward creating reasoned public judgment.
https://www.nifi.org/
The Poverty Immersion - an interactive workshop that
helps participants develop a better understanding of
community needs, ultimately improving policy and
program development and decision making .
http://metrocenter.wsu.edu/workshops-and-training/poverty-immersion/
Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and Extension
Alt; Washington State University
• .
City of Yakima
. .....
..,..
.._. _ „.. _ Equity Study Analysis
• '''' ''' ,, ,. ,._ . ._,_.. .
. : .
. ................,..„....._ , ,
- '"------„_ _
i..
,. -, , .
, 4 ,,,.. .,% IC -F. .„ • e, rf•
t . . :•3; r.• ' ..,-*- -I, ,
r
Pige-
--- '.).. • 3 44!. .1e. . . . .1;4 ..,,,., ..qt.y.- , .., 4-,..„-•
''° • 4, .. : 'A. t..• '' ... . -.?5°-i,AT ••• -
Adak.- '-' • '.i 44 7' le ' '.-'' • .. .r.:- ef ot .. ..:4--r•••• -7 - '..
-1110.1-. - • 1111 J. 11:. ' -.- '..• . .. - : f-- -
_ "..- - • • I •
ilit; tist , ,.:Iir
, , • ; Yakima City Council Meeting
__.....i
. -
_ _
_ _
..,-...m.mio.._ yek7ii• immeg - _ December 12 201 7
, _- ----_, ...,_ - , italt-..__ ,. 7,,.,L,
..
. .- , - ...
--.111 ...._— _ _, ____
. ..:-_.,.... :,. . ....-- ,...._:„.,.....,,,,s.,
,... --- .„-.,-,......,,,,,,.,y.,-,.,,_...„..-..,...,,f_....q.,...„..„4.,_.: ...,... ... ,... . .. ..
McGuinness Park(2017) Photo by Connie Com bs/Kizz Prussia ..,-
. . .. „
Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and Extension
4)1; Washington State University
•
•
__ City of Yakima
•
d � EquityStudy y E uit Analysis
jiii
_ ___ Yakima City Council Meeting
,,,_ __,
�: ►�. la\'� . , b I
_ December 12 201 7
McGuinness Park(2017). Photo by Connie Combs/Kizz Prussia . ',....:i:-s:�.._..,'
Project Team
WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and
Extension
Martha Aitken , Senior Associate , Project Manager
Brad Gaolach , Ph . D. , Director
UW Department of Urban Design and Planning
Branden Born , Ph . D. , Associate Professor
• Philip M . Hurvitz, Ph . D. , Research Assistant Professor
• Connie Combs , MUP
Kizz Prussia, MUP candidate
Scope of Work
Assess Equity Study data: process and accuracy audits
2 . Analyze existing Equity Study data
Input - Demographics Output
Race Public safety calls for service
Education level Street lights
• Marital status Code compliance requests
Home owner or renter Parks
• Property value Transit ridership, shelters,
Property age benches
Geographical dividing line - 1 6th Avenue
Results: Process/Accuracy Audit
• Professional process for collecting , storing and
analyzing data
• Staff is knowledgeable in the data infrastructure
• No evidence of explicit bias
• Handled in an appropriate manner for its original
intent : to support city' s geospatial data and land
use planning
• Opportunities to improve data quality and quantity
related to an equity analysis
Analysis strategy
City GIS data generally did not contain time attributes (e. g. ,
streetlight installation date)
Did not allow assessment of City infrastructure over time
The team felt it necessary to provide some analysis of
changes to the City over 1980-201 5
Extensive GIS analyses were used to characterize census
tracts in the City with respect to:
Demographic changes over time
Parks (which did contain dates—more on this follows) in
relation to demographics over time
Current infrastructure in relation to current
demographics
GIS Analysis
Required because city limits do not overlap with tracts precisely
Legend
i__'i=ract_2015
0 y2015.the_geom_2286
....."N„....<1
I_, h
1
- \ I
ii
-ii
r ---' r—+ iII.
1^ t 1
fill IIiLr� )ter
'1\I I 11 J� I
1
__do,i L ,
I \.. .VA ''
1 0 1 2 _ 4kn
I I I I I I I
GIS Analysis
Simplified schematic
census unit overlay with city polygon
population: 200
quttrpattitin of
pziguilat2:W050
annexation unit
GIS Analysis
Example with data
L
;� -- 2.9
�� Annex.`:n 7344 5194.5
Area:0.3 Sr m 4.1
i
r'
', 7 7 1
`--- �i�!i i i
i \.-, r ,
i +'-1 Ann-i ein
_I i i i t Are. 1.4
Population:tion:7344 psu Area of city limits within census
Po
Area:4.1 sq.ml
_ . % Annexation tract has estimate population of
<< Area:2.9 sq.mi a
P[
At 5195 persons
L,
,
,
1 Census 2015
v vs 1 is 2 ml Population:
, 1 1 I I
Area:1 sq.n
Median family income has increased
. . . but more so on the West side of 16th
median family income median family income
60000-
40000-
30000- RI 40000-
zone_16th
j j ■e
20000 ■w
20000-
1 0000-
0- 0-
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
Yakima is now > 40% Hispanic
. . . but with the greatest increases on the East side
percent Hispanic percent Hispanic
60
40 -1111 li
-
30-
40- I I. zone 16th
c c
U U ■e
Q 20- a ■w
20-
10-
1
0- 0- 11 ■
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
College graduation rates have generally improved
. . . but continue to decrease on the East side
percent college graduate percent college graduate
1 e
9 15-
im -- .
zone—
16th
a) ■
m _ ca� 10-
U
!? I Q ■•
W
5-
0- k iL. 1111 0- J
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
Average year built
. . . older on the East side , newer on the West side
year built year built
1970- 1970-
1960- 1960-
zone_16th
■e
1 il .w
1950- 1950- II il il il II
1940- 1940-
1980 1990 2000 10 I 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
year year
Anatomy of an XY ("scatter") plot
A 1980: park area per capita x median family income
a
0
a)
co
U)
1000-
U
16th Ave divide colors represent
e,n=6 East, West
c� w,n=4
500-
COfU
Q low income,
CO higher income,
low area Q
a low area
U
0
0
Q 10000 15000 20000 25000
median family income ($)
income increase across x
Anatomy of an XY ("scatter") plot
1980: park area per capita x median family income
income is higher on the East
side; no clear pattern in area
with respect to income
1000-
16th Ave divide
co e,n=6
co w,n=4
income is low: r on the East side
but area • • - • • ' • -ase wit income
no clear overall pattern in
area with respect to income
10000 ...
median family income ($)
Anatomy of an XY ("scatter") plot
"outliers" compress axes
1980: park area per capita x median family income 1980: park area per capita x median family income
0 apparent outlier is this now a
an "outlier"?
1000-
200
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
0 - e,n=6 c6 - e,n=6
N a)c� w,n=4 asw,n=3
500-
100
0 + 0
1C000 15000 20000 25000 ! IC000 15000 20000 25000
median family income($) median family income($)
"outlier" removed
Census Tract Maps
1980 2015
l �34�q,
\"600 4c 3]O c
` 3001c 011 C ! 3J0 w `, , 20C e \
a 300 G00 c ` ` s_� 400 w, + 600 e , / 1\\
Ism _000
e 1
,w
1 soD:� , :Rnn:w _
( 301 H WAG,Dh—`o1@s O
oo= \ \
{'—C ° 1zoa e — iso2 c \)
r�— r—5522 [[���_ IL,I cp�:�,t G 2C2
e S��UL�
LdCO e�
_100 w _ 1300 c`L�DO e , ti
` 13]Oc
11 a
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi t
I I I I 11111
Police Department calls for service
Areas with greatest count per capita are on East side, but across a
range of demographics
YKPD calls x percent Hispanic YKPD calls x median family income
•
note general 300
20- •3400 demographic co 20-
cs 16th Ave divide a 16th Ave divide
U stratification
N e,n=14 6 e,n=14
West East w,n=10 w,n=10
U 10- 1602 1400 v 10- 1400 160�
• 300 20. 1502 •00
3400
•
• 1502 300 3400
1100 700• 1501• 1501r • •700 1 100
800 1000 • 1202 • • 1600 1000• 800
• 1201 • • • •
400••500 r• 600 • 1300 • • •
1202 1201 • • 500 2802•
901g • 2802 902 1300 902 901. 400•
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Fire Department calls for service
No apparent patterns
YKFD calls x median family income YKFD calls x percent Hispanic
8- 8- -
as 16th Ave divide cs 16th Ave divide
V U
m e,n=14 N e,n=14
Q Q
4- 100 w,n=10 4- w,n=10
o • • 1702 0 ••00 •
•
o 300 3400 0 3400 1702 100
•• • •
•
1300 800 800 1300
2- 200 2-3400
1400 700 500 3400 J1602 500• 1100 700 200
1501 \ 1502 • • • • • 40� •• 2802•-9 1400 1202 1502
• • 902 1100 1602 • • 902 • 1 —• •
600. 120! 1201 • 11000 90' 2802 901 400 .1000 •1201 1501 G00•
40000 60000 80000 20 40 60 80
median family income($) percent Hispanic
Streetlights
Slightly more streetlights with lower income and higher Hispanic
population
Street lights x percent Hispanic Street lights x median family income
600- 600-
0 N
a) a2
8 16th Ave divide 0 16th Ave divide
CT400- 3i 00 e,n=13 0 400- •3 00 e.n=13
L
Q w,n=9 Q • w,n=9
• 600 •
80� 700 t201 700 :OD 50� i00
O 100�•500 • �2 v 1501 • • 901
v 200-9.1 1201 200
2802 300 l 1501 20 150: • 2802
• • 12D9 200 300 •
•
• 902r • 1202 • • • 1100 •
400 1100 1400 1400 90� • 400
0 •1602 1702• 1300 0_ 1300 1702• 1602
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Code Compliance Requests
More requests from tracts with higher renter-occupancy
More requests from tracts with lower median family income
Code compliance requests x percent of housing renter-occupied Code compliance requests x median family income
300• •700
0.06- 0.06-
0 150� 0 1501
Q 1502 200 Q 200 1502
• 16th Ave divide cs • . 16th Ave divide
v 0.04 • 1201 600 c7 0.04 • 1201
L •
Q 1202 1 00 • e,n=13 Q 600 1202 100• � e,n=13
c 1100 w,n=10 r w,n=10
•
p • Q 300 1100 2802
• • •
800 2802 5;00 0 • 500 800 4nn
0.02- h 0.02- • •
1702 400 1702 3400
3400• •
901
901 • 902 1400 3400
•3400 1400 • • •
• 902 •
0.00-1602 0.00- 1602
30 50 70 90 40000 60000 80000
percent of housing renter-occupied median family income($)
Parks* built up to 1980
Area of park per resident
1980: park area per capita x median family income 1980: park area per capita x percent Hispanic
0 apparent outlier
1000- 1000-
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
�; e,n=6 slightly rr re per capita park e,n=6
w,n=4 on West ode with fewer Hispanics w,n=a
500- 500-
income is lower on the East side
•400
Ca,g_z_D15001000600
600 1 • 12��• 15000
• •
0n• _ •800 i0 200 100
10000 1500G 20000 25000 5 10 15 20 25
median family income ($) percent Hispanic
* only parks without any private funding included; only tracts having overlap with parks
Parks* built up to 2015
Area of park per resident
2015: park area per capita x median family income 2015: park area per capita x percent Hispanic
0apparent outlier
3000- 3000-
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
2000 -- 2000-
cs ern=8 c3 ern=8
2
0w,n=7 c`s w,n=7
1000 1000- less per capita park on East side
• • with more Hispanics
300 1100 1100
• •
000 300 902 1000 SO2 300
0- 1.01 �1202• • • • • 400e 0-4oO ••• 30D• 70�• �202 • :Oi
100 200 700 1000 500 800• •800 500 100 200 1501
40000 60000 80000 20 40 60 80
median family income ($) percent Hispanic
* only parks without any private funding included
Bus Ridership
Higher ridership with greater % Hispanic and lower income
Bus ridership x percent Hispanic Bus ridership x median family income
•
1501
750000- 750000-
N N
t
N N
0 16th Ave divide 0 16th Ave divide
N500000- e.n=12 Cl) 500000- e.n=12
L
Q w,n=9 115 300 w,n=9
• •
m 300
v 250000- .Dn 0 250000 10� 700
1602 1000 1400 200 1400 •
1 800 i • • 00 20• 1502 i1201 �00 •100D 1602
9 •01 SON 902 300 1201 • • 600
600•• ••1502 902 50\0 901 800
•
1202 • 400
•
0- • 40a 2802 1100 1300• 0_ 1202 1300• 1 100 2802• •
20 40 60 80 40000 • 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($}
Bus Ridership
Slightly lower on East side in areas with more youth;
Slightly lower in tracts with more seniors
Bus ridership x percent< 18 years Bus ridership x percent>= 65 years
750000- 750000-
N N
N
16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
Cl) 500000- e.n=12 0- 500000- e.n=12
L L
300
w,n=9 Q w,n=9
• 30c r
v 250000- �Do 700 0 250000- :00
\1400 200 • 1400
1000 300 • 200 700 • 1602
•• • 502 • • 800 300�
• 7602• :UU • • 1201 • 1000 • •
800 901 5U`• 1300 1•
202 1201 1502 1202 9D0 a
1 100 �00
0- 1100 ,400 902 ♦28D2 0"600 2802 •1300 90• 400
20 25 30 35 40 10 20
percent< 18 years percent>= 65 years
Bus Stop Shelters
More shelters with greater % Hispanic and lower income
Bus stop shelters x percent Hispanic Bus stop shelters x median family income
7.5- 7.5-
N N
a) a)
cc 16th Ave divide cc 16th Ave divide
D 5.0- 5.0-
co 700 e,n=B co
700 e,n=B
• •
Q w,n=7 Q w,n=7
• •
= 300 = 100 •
300
8 2.5- 1400 •100 1501• V 2.5- 1501 1400
• • •
1201 200 1201
1602 500 902 200 • 902 500 1602
•U. •• • • • •
901 800 • • Fi'-`'
0.0 • •400 1100 0.0_ 1100 901• 400'-
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Bus Stop Shelters
Slightly more in tracts with higher youth proportion
Fewer in tracts with more seniors
Bus stop shelters x percent < 18 years Bus stop shelters x percent >=65 years
7.5- 7.5-
N N
0 16th Ave divide 16th Ave divide
D 5.0- 0" 5.0-
rn e,n=8 O e,n=8
• •
8 700 wn-7 Q 700 1: wn=7
•
300 300•
O • •501 V • :00
V 10C ••
2.5 1400 120• 2"5 1501 • •
1400
2C0 1201
• 1602 902
• •200 902 1602 500
• • •• • • • •
• 901 500 • 800 400
1100 400 1100 •901 •
0.0- 0.0-
20 25 30 35 10 20
percent< 18 years percent >=65 years
Bus Stop Benches
More benches with greater % Hispanic and lower income
Bus stop benches x percent Hispanic Bus stop shelters x median family income
i0- 7.s
a> a>
E 30-
a) a)
cs • 16th Ave divide (s 16th Ave divide
3 700 0 5.0-
N" e,n=12 N" 700 e,n=8
N 20- 300 w,n=9 a) w,n=7
• "00 600 Q •
j • • • j 1001 300
0 1000 1202 1502 V •• 1400
10-800• 500 • 01 2.5 1501
1400 •
90' • • • •
200 1201
1 1100 120' 200 •
902 500 1602
• •
• 902 1300 • 800
0- 4001602~2802 1100 901• 400•
•
0.0- ,
20 40 60 80 40000 60000 80000
percent Hispanic median family income($)
Bus Stop Benches
Slightly more in tracts with higher youth proportion
Fewer in tracts with more seniors
Bus stop benches x percent < 18 years Bus stop benches x percent >= 65 years
a� 2
30- 30-
• 16th Ave divide (s • 16th Ave divide
�" 70C e,n=12 700 e,n=12
20- 300 w,n=9 20- w,n=9
Q 100 • 500 Q- 600 100 300•
• • • •
• 1202 1502• • �00
V 1000 •• V 1502 •
10-800• 1400 • 1201 10_ •1501 1202 1400 800• •
•
1501 T • • • •
901• 500 1300 200 200 1201 1300 1100 • 500
•1100 �1602 I, • •
2802 902* • 901 •400
0- 400 902
0- 1602
• 2802•
20 25 30 35 40 10� 20
percent< 18 years percent>= 65 years
Results
Complete results for each selected GIS data layer,
including all graphs , are available at:
http ://gist. gis .washington . edu/yakima_equity/
Will be transferred to the city in the near future .
Median household income r7"
Median i000sus
Household 2015
p lo•2o
p r0• )0
Income IN rik aim.
b:�
2015 .. ,o
moo $ us
10 - 20 IIIIIIIMM 1
20 - 30
Mil 30 - 40 F
40 - 50
50 - 60 III
60 - 70
0 0s 1 iS 7n
l I 1 1 J
MI I
Potential Next Steps
Equity Lens
4'4� � _ . _ �-;. r A practical tool to help
Iml "`�. g insure that planning,
• • w' decision making and
A • T A resource allocation
s _ ` . • 41,1 . _ • lead to policies and
programs that help to
*_ achieve equity across
mi
the community,
fifF
,,l, . .. • • i
. _L . ... , r:.-. :.i
racially, socially and
., economically.
Equity Toolkit
Sample Questions
What is the policy or decision you are considering?
• Who does this intend to serve and who is it actually serving?
• What data or evidence guides this policy?
• What are the communities that will be most affected by, or
concerned with, this policy?
• What are the benefits and burdens these communities will
experience with the policy?
Potential Next Steps
The Kettering Foundation - National Issues Forum . To
make choices with others about difficult issues, and
work toward creating reasoned public judgment.
https://www.nifi.org/
The Poverty Immersion - an interactive workshop that
helps participants develop a better understanding of
community needs, ultimately improving policy and
program development and decision making .
http://metrocenter.wsu.edu/workshops-and-training/poverty-immersion/
Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and Extension
4)1; Washington State University
•
•
__ City of Yakima
•
d � EquityStudy y E uit Analysis
jiii
_ ___ Yakima City Council Meeting
,,,_ __,
�: ►�. la\'� . , b I
_ December 12 201 7
McGuinness Park(2017). Photo by Connie Combs/Kizz Prussia . ',....:i:-s:�.._..,'