Using Administrative Data to Create Local-level Child Well-Being Indices

Robert GoergeRoopa Seshadri

Overview

Purpose

Background

Level of Aggregation

Data Description

Methods

Results

Use of the index

Purpose

• Build point-in-time indices of child well-being using administrative data

• Compare communities in Chicago• Compare indices with poverty rate – Is it

sufficient to use poverty rate in Chicago• How might it be used?

Level of aggregation

• Does it depend on purpose?• Chicago community area - 77 communities• Census tracts – 854 tracts• Or some combination of tracts?

• If interested in general well-being, 77 may be fine, but if we are trying to address the problems, 854 may be more appropriate.• Speaks to issues of resource allocation.

Chicago Community Areas

Variable Mean Std Dev Min 25th Pctl Median 75th Pctl Max

Area (sq. mi.) 2.94 1.81 0.59 1.75 2.85 3.55 110-5 population 3186 2124.1 94 1477 2772 4213 8980

0-17 population 8582 5621 577 4486 7859 11753 25946

• Described in the 1920s and divided Chicago into 77 areas.

• Collections of census tracts and roughly corresponded to neighborhoods.

• Although characteristics and homogeneity within the neighborhoods has changed over time, they continue to be used for research and policy planning purposes since their boundaries are static.

Data description• Poverty • Poverty rate, Head Start eligibility

• Birth• Birth rate, Births to single mothers, Birth weight

• Early Childhood• Elevated blood lead level,

• Childhood• Poverty rate, Educational outcomes, Child welfare

• Family/Neighborhood• MSF, Crime

Data are annual rates and range from 2007 to 2009, depending on availability.

Methods

• Robust centering and autoscaling of individual indicators. • Accounts for skewed distribution

• Standardized to a scale with mean=0 and SD=1.• Accounts for the different scales and ranges

• Composite scores calculated as the mean of the component indicators.• Equal weight to each indicator within an index

IndicesIndex Mean Std Dev Min 25th Pctl Median 75th Pctl Max

Poverty rate 0 1 -1.72 -0.79 -0.02 0.64 2.27

Early Childhood Risk Index 0 0.77 -1.52 -0.6 0.07 0.47 1.7

Child Well-being Index 0 0.75 -1.18 -0.62 -0.2 0.51 2.08

• ECRI: Composite measure of 5 indicators of early childhood (under age 6) focusing on health and welfare. • Originally created to assess home visitation for early

childhood care need• CWI: Composite measure of 10 indicators spanning

the entire range of childhood and multiple domains.

Early Childhood Risk Index (ECRI)

Indicator Min 25th Pctl Median 75th Pctl Max

Birth rate -2.2 -0.76 0.05 0.66 2.33

% Medicaid-paid births -2.28 -0.44 0.34 0.83 1.14

% Births to single mothers -1.72 -0.79 -0.02 0.94 1.53

% Low Birth Weight -1.46 -0.76 -0.34 0.6 3.91

0-5 Abuse-neglect rate -1.24 -0.81 -0.29 0.79 3.9

Child Well-being Index (CWI)

Indicator Min 25th Pctl Median 75th Pctl Max

0-17 Poverty rate -1.72 -0.79 -0.02 0.64 2.27

Children in MSF -1.13 -0.81 -0.24 0.74 2.43

Head Start eligibility -0.41 -0.37 -0.31 -0.17 6.29

% Low Birth Weight -1.46 -0.76 -0.34 0.6 3.91

0-5 Abuse-Neglect rate -1.24 -0.81 -0.29 0.79 3.9

% Elevated blood lead level -1.4 -0.77 -0.14 0.63 2.81

3rd grade retention rate -1.43 -0.78 -0.35 0.84 2.27

High school dropout rate -2.42 -0.66 0.08 0.59 2.26

Violent crime rate -1.02 -0.71 -0.34 0.43 3.59

Property crime rate -1.06 -0.67 -0.25 0.27 4.85

Poverty rate vs. ECRI

r=0.71

Poverty vs. ECRI

CCA0-17 poverty rate

Birth rate

% Medicaid births

% births to single mothers

% Low birth weight

0-5 abuse-neglect rate

ECRI better than Poverty rate

Near North Side 0.59 -2.01 -1.61 -1.1 -0.07 -0.43

Near West Side 1.09 -0.95 -1.06 -0.52 0.03 0.95

Douglas 1.73 -1.64 -0.13 0.45 1.54 0.2

Washington Park 2.27 0.19 0.85 1.4 1.24 1.48

ECRI worse than Poverty rate

Montclare -1.21 0.66 0.24 -0.29 -0.41 -0.88

Fuller Park 0.24 1.05 0.98 1.44 3.91 1.13

Archer Heights -1.07 1.44 0.77 -0.02 -0.88 -0.7

West Elsdon -0.9 2.32 0.4 -0.28 -0.38 -0.86

West Lawn -0.93 2.01 0.46 -0.12 -0.63 -0.82

Poverty rate vs. CWI

r=0.85

Poverty vs. CWI

CCA Poverty rate

0-17 in MSF

Head Start eligibility

% LBW

0-5 abuse-neglect rate

% Elevated BLL

3rd Grade retention rate

High-school dropout rate

Violent crime rate

Property crime rate

CWI better than Poverty rateSouth Lawndale 1.09 -0.59 -0.24 -0.81 -0.29 0.56 -0.82 -0.38 -0.2 -0.49

Lower West Side 1.05 -0.56 -0.3 -0.55 -0.35 0.49 -0.91 0.03 0.15 0.19

Douglas 1.73 1.1 -0.02 1.54 0.2 -1.12 0.09 0.42 -0.68 -0.73

Riverdale 1.99 1.95 1.74 0.46 3.9 -1.4 0.7 0.59 -0.72 -1.03

CWI worse than poverty rate

Loop -1.72 0.05 -0.41 -0.78 -1.24 -1.4 -0.61 -1.96 -0.35 1.55

Fuller Park 0.24 2.22 6.29 3.91 1.13 2.74 1.19 1.72 -0.69 -0.9

CWI vs. ECRI

r=0.8

Use of the (an) index

• Policymakers• Service providers• Funders• Real estate agents• Researchers