Needs and Assets Assessment of
Washington, DC Youth
Executive Summary
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
December 2011
INTRODUCTION
In the past decade, there has been an increase in youth positive outcomes in Washington, DC;
however they still lag behind youth nationally. This report is intended to provide valuable data for
planning for youth services to continue to increase outcomes. The full report includes (1) a
descriptive analysis of youth in DC; (2) a qualitative assessment of youth and stakeholders regarding
their perceptions of the needs and challenges currently faced by youth; (3) a guide to the resources
and services that are currently available in Washington, DC for youth. This assessment focuses on
the goal that children and youth develop positive behaviors. It is intended to provide useful
information to help community stakeholders deepen their knowledge and understanding of youthrelated issues, needs, assets, and community strategies in Washington, DC.
The intended areas of focus for the needs assessment were demographics (including age, race, SES,
household, ward, and housing), educational factors (including high school and college graduation
rates, attendance and behavior problems in school, high school dropout rates), criminal justice
(including bullying and violence issues, arrests, and homicides) and health and recreation (including
STD, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, obesity, and mental health). The population includes all
youth in DC, however specific subgroups including youth with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) population and homeless youth were not included as three other
organizations are currently working on an in-depth analysis of these populations in DC. Once the
results are available they will be provided in the full report.
This study was sponsored by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (the Trust)
and was conducted by the Trust and George Washington University School of Public Health and
Health Services (GWU SPHHS). GWU contributors for the descriptive analysis and resource scan
include Amanda Asgeirsson, Christopher Burton, Kristina Beall, Ninma Idowu-Fearon, Christine
Iverson, Nakita Kanu, Janice Llanos-Velazquez, Reena Mathew, Briana Nord, Chelsi Stevens, and
Nicole Vij. GWU contributors for the qualitative analysis include Ghada Khan, Yasir Shah, and John
Wedeles. Comments and questions are welcome and can be directed to Nisha Sachdev who oversaw
the project, at [email protected]. More information about the Trust can be found at www.cyitc.org.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Descriptive Overview of DC Youth
Descriptive data that has already been collected plays an important part in the comprehensive needs
assessment process. The role of data helps determine the current extent of the problems by
establishing a baseline, where the city wants to be in the future, and provides information to set and
track goals. For the purpose of the needs assessment, this descriptive analysis is organized in five
main categories: (1) general demographics; (2) culture; (3) education; (4) health and recreation, (3)
criminal justice; and (5) juvenile crime data. Although these categories are described in separate
sections, it should be noted that they are all interrelated in the development of youth.
Demographics
According to the U.S. Census (2010), the total population of the District of Columbia (DC) was
601,723. This reflects about a five percent increase over the past decade, compared to an average
national of about ten percent. The population is about evenly split between males (47.2%) and
females (52.8%). A majority of the population of DC is African-American (50.7%), with the
remaining White (38.5%), Asian (3.5%), American Indian/Alaska native (0.3%) and Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.1%). Some people identify as more than one race, and just over
9.1%, of the population identifies as having Hispanic or Latino origin. About 21% of the population
of DC is 19 years or younger (123,720) (See Table 1). The median age in DC is 33.8 years.
The average family size in DC is 3.01 and the average household size is 2.11 (Census Bureau, 2011).
About 57% of children in the city come from single-parent families and 26% live in poverty. Also,
41% of DC children live in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment (Annie
Casey Foundation, 2010).
Overall, Ward 8 has the largest percentage of children, at 30%, and Ward 2 has the smallest
percentage of children, at 5.8%. Ward 1 has the highest rate of those who were born in a foreign
country, at 25%. Ward 7 has the largest percentage of Black non-Hispanic people, at 96%; Ward 3
had the lowest percentage, at 5.6%. In Ward 3, 78% of the population is White non-Hispanic,
whereas Ward 7 had the lowest percentage of White persons, at 1.4%. Ward 1 has the highest rate of
Hispanics, at 21%, and Ward 8 has the lowest percentage of Hispanics, at 1.8%. Ward 7 has the
lowest percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander, at 0.2%, and Ward 2 has a high rate of 10% for
Asian/Pacific Islander. Ward 8 has the highest level of poverty, at 35%. Ward 3 has the lowest
poverty level, at 6.9%. In Ward 8, almost half of the children lived in poverty (48%). This is
compared to only 3.1% in Ward 3. (Neighborhood Info DC, 2010). The District of Columbia is split
into eight Wards. Because demographics differ greatly between Wards, it is important to note that a
where available, Ward-specific data will be provided to identify what the specific state and needs are.
Table 2 gives a population and race breakdown for each Ward.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Table 1. Age Category by Sex in 2010
Number (%)
Age Category
Both sexes
Male
Female
Total population
601,723 (100)
284,222 (100)
317,501 (100)
Under 5 years
32,613 (5.4)
16,533 (5.8)
16,080 (5.1)
5 to 9 years
26,147 (4.3)
13,198 (4.6)
12,949 (4.1)
10 to 14 years
25,041 (4.2)
12,641 (4.4)
12,400 (3.9)
39,919 (6.6)
18,951 (6.7)
20,968 (6.6)
15 to 19 years
Source: U.S. Census, 2011.
Table 2. Population and Race by Ward in 2010
DC
Total
601,723
Population
Persons under
17%
18 years
White non35%
Hispanic
Black non51%
Hispanic
Hispanic
9.1%
Ward
1
Ward
2
Ward
3
Ward
4
Ward
5
Ward
6
Ward
7
Ward
8
76,197
79,915
77,152
75,773
74,308
76,598
71,068
70,712
12%
5.8%
13%
20%
17%
13%
25%
30%
41%
67%
78%
20%
15%
47%
1.4%
3.3%
33%
13%
5.6%
59%
77%
42%
96%
94%
21%
9.5%
7.5%
19%
6.3%
4.8%
2.3%
1.8%
10%
8.2%
2%
1.7%
5%
0.2%
0.5%
Asian/Pacific
Islander non4.2%
5%
Hispanic
Source: Neighborhood Info, 2011.
Ward 1
Ward 1 is the smallest and most densely populated Ward in DC. According to the Brookings
Institution, 20009, a zip code within Ward 1, is one of the most diverse zip codes in the entire region
(Jim Graham, 2010). The Ward is made up of a young population, with more than half of the
residents between 5 and 34 years. Between 2005 and 2009, a quarter of the population in Ward 1 was
foreign born. The poverty rate of Ward 1 residents is 22%, and has the highest percentage of
residents below poverty of any Ward west of the Anacostia River (Jim Graham, 2010). In 2010, the
average family income was $98,485. From 2005 to 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.2% however,
71% of the population 16 years and older was employed. About 19% of the population did not have a
high school diploma. Ward 1 has the second highest percent of renters (71.6%) falling below Ward 8.
Ward 2
A large portion of the population in Ward 2 consists of a nonfamily household (about 76%). Sixty
one percent of those households consists of individuals that live alone, with 9.4% being 65 years or
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
older. Also, many of the residents in Ward 2 have never been married. A majority of the population
enrolled in school in Ward 2 are college or graduate students (82.7%). The overall population is very
well educated, with 44.5% holding a Graduate or Professional degree, 28.4% a Bachelor’s degree,
and 2.7% an Associate’s degree (DC Office of Planning, 2010). From 2005 to 2009, the poverty rate
in Ward 2 is 15% and the average family income was $190,692. The unemployment rate was 4.0%.
Ward 3
Ward 3 is the most affluent Wards in the District and is composed of many community and family
oriented neighborhoods. It includes nine public schools, nine recreation centers and a brand new
aquatic center. (Mary Cheh, 2010). The poverty rate in Ward 3 from 2005 to 2009 was 6.9% and the
unemployment rate was 3.4%. This Ward is also well-educated; with only 3.4% of the population not
have a high school diploma. In addition, only 3.1% of the children in the Ward were in poverty and
the average family income was $256,386.
Ward 4
Ward 4 borders Maryland and has a diverse population. Although part of the Ward is characterized
by affluent individuals, the rest shares negative indicators as Wards 7 and 8. In Ward 4, 19% of the
population was foreign born between 2005 and 2009. In addition, about 10% of the population lived
in poverty and the unemployment rate was 7.6%. The average family income was $116,668. In Ward
4, 17% of individuals did not have a high school diploma.
Ward 5
Ward 5 houses nearly 72,000 residents, and one in five of those residents are children. Ward 5 is the
home of many new development projects and is currently in the process of 35 projects, which cost
approximately $4 billion. These projects include grocery stores, art sites, parking and residential
units, high school renovations and senior housing. (Harry Thomas, 2010). The poverty rate from
2005 to 2009 was 19% and the unemployment rate was 13%. Over half (54%) of the population 16
years or older was employed and 19% of the population did not have a high school diploma. The
average family income was $78,559.
Ward 6
Ward 6 is the only Ward in DC to include portions of each of the four quadrants (NW, NE, SW, SE)
of the city. The population is diverse and the neighborhood characteristics are equally diverse. The
Ward covers parts of Downtown, Penn Quarter, Gallery Place, as well as Federal buildings, retail
areas, museums, theaters, Federal buildings, and part of the southwest waterfront and Nationals
Stadium (DC Office of Planning, 2010). The poverty rate from 2005 to 2009 was 18% and the
unemployment rate was 8.4%. The average family income was $120,526.
Ward 7
Ward 7 is known for its Civil War fort sites, as well as parks. The Fort Dupont Park is the largest city
owned park in the District. Additionally, Ward 7 is characterized by houses, single family homes and
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
apartment buildings (DC Office of Planning, 2010). The poverty rate from 2005 to 2009 was 26%
and the unemployment rate was 19%. About 20% of the population did not have a high school
diploma and 40% of the children lived in poverty. The average family income was $54,677.
Ward 8
Ward 8 is one of the poorest Wards in DC. It has the highest percentage of persons receiving SNAP
funds, and a very high unemployment rate. The population has changed the most of any of the other
Wards, as it increased by 1.3% from 2000 to 2005, higher than the 0.2% increase in DC overall.
Ward 8 is home to historic Anacostia, as well as Congress Heights. The Bolling Air Force base, and
Saint Elizabeths Hospital is also located in the Ward (DC Office of Planning, 2010). The poverty rate
was 35% between 2005 and 2009 and the unemployment rate was 17%. The average family income
was $44,076 and 48% of children were living in poverty.
Language
According to the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), 107 different home languages were
represented in their enrolled youth as if 2009. DCPS identified 7,445 (16.3%) of their students as
being linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD). Within this population, a majority was Hispanic
(70.4%) with the remaining identified as Black (12.9%), Asian (8.9%), White (6.7%) and 1% as
other ethnicities. In the 2010 academic year, the top 10 languages represented in DCPS students were
Spanish, Amharic (Ethiopia), Chinese, French, Vietnamese, Russian, Arabic, Creole English,
Tagalog and Bengali (DCPS 2009). The highest linguistically and culturally diverse population is
found in Ward 1 with 2,648 LCD students (35.6%). In the District as a whole, 14.2% of residents
over the age of 5 speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Of these
LCD students, those that are not scored as English Proficient on the District’s ACCESS for ELLs test
are designated as English language learners (ELLs). In the 2009-2010 school year, 4,269 (57.3%)
LCD students were designated as English language learners. This represents 9.3% of the entire DCPS
population (DCPS 2009). Table 3 shows a breakdown of LCD and ELL students by Ward in 2009.
Table 3. LCD and ELL Youth in DCPS by Ward in 2009
DC
Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward
1
2
3
4
5
6
Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Youth in DCPS
Ward
7
Ward
8
Number of youth
7,445
2,648
788
1,103
1,820
263
613
170
40
Percent of DCPS
students
16.3%
35.6%
10.6%
14.8%
24.4%
3.5%
8.2%
2.4%
0.5%
English Language Learners in DCPS
Number of youth
4,269
Percent of DCPS
9.3%
students
Source: DCPS, 2009.
2,648
788
1,103
1,820
263
613
170
40
38.7%
11.1%
11.9%
27.8%
2.8%
4.5%
2.6%
0.5%
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Health
DC high school students experience worse health than that of the national average. Six main
indicators of current alarm are (1) asthma; (2) obesity; (3) HIV/AIDS; (4) teenage pregnancy; (5)
substance abuse; and (6) access to health care. Overall, DC youth, specifically those between 9th and
12th grade, have been found to have higher rates of each of the above indicators (Comey et al., 2009).
Asthma
In DC, asthma affects nearly 12% of children under age 18 (about 13,000 children), compared to a
national rate of less than 9% (DCAsthma.org, 2011). According the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System (YRBSS), 26% of high school students were diagnosed with asthma; this is a
six percent increase since 2005 (CDC, 2008). More Black youth in DC were found to be diagnosed
with asthma in comparison to Hispanics and Whites. Reasons for this include more exposure to dust
and second hand smoke. A recent RAND Health analysis reveals Ward-specific asthma in 2003 with
Ward 5 are 14.9%, Ward 6 at 12.6%, Ward 7 at 17.9%, and Ward 8 at 12.1% (DCAsthma.org, 2011).
DC children ages 1 to 17 years averaged more than 4,200 emergency room (ER) visits to DC
hospitals for asthma per year between 2002 and 2006 (Impact DC, 2010).
Obesity
Excessive weight is likely to contribute to low self-esteem and poor mental health, which may affect
an individual’s performance. Lack of physical activity also contributes greatly to the incidence of
obesity. This will further be discussed in the recreation section. Among youth ages 6 to 12 years in
DC, 15% are overweight and 19% are obese. Furthermore, the overweight rate among children aged
10 to 17 years in the District is 35.4%, higher than the national average at 31.6% (Trust for Americas
Health, 2010). Rates of obesity among public high school students were found to be more likely than
the national average (18% in DC versus 13% nationally) (DC Children’s Fact Sheet DC, 2011). If the
classification of overweight is added to this statistic, the percentage jumps to almost 36%, (CDC,
2008 & Garner et al., 2010). This could be explained by the fact that fewer children in Wards 1, 6, 7,
and 8 were found to exercise regularly (ACF, 2010). Table 4 has a breakdown of obesity indicators
by Ward.
Table 4. Obesity Indicators in the District of Columbia by Ward.
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Percent Overweight
39%
35%
31%
39%
38%
30%
33%
30%
Percent Obese
19%
13%
12%
22%
30%
19%
40%
42%
37
32
30
35
24
32
Percent consuming at
least 5 servings of
37
33
fruits and vegetables
Source: DC Department of Health, 2010.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Mental Health
Many youth in DC experience mental health problems or developmental delays. Mental health
conditions have been found to contribute to 14% of inpatient hospital stays among those aged 5 to 17
years in DC (Chandra et al., 2010). About five percent of ER visits by older youth were for mental
health illness. The percentage of children aged 12 to 17 years who have one or more emotional,
behavioral or developmental condition such as ADD/ADHD, anxiety, depression or developmental
delay was 16.9% among DC youth compared to 14.9% nationwide (ACF, 2010). The two main
conditions that mentally affect the health of youth in DC are depression and suicide attempts. About
27% of DC’s high school students (9th to 12th graders) were found to be depressed (CDC, 2008).
However, it should be noted that this rate was not found to be statistically different from the national
average. In terms of race, Hispanic youth were found to be more likely to be depressed (29%) than
Black teens (27%). Suicide attempts have been found to be alarmingly high in the District when
compared with the national average with 12% of high school students actually attempted suicide one
or more times in 2007. The most suicide attempts were made by females (12.4%) and homeless
youth (32%) (CDC, 2008). DC rates of attempted suicide rose from seven percent to 12% between
1999 and 2003, and have remained stable since then, as opposed to national rates which have
decreased. Despite there being a high rate of suicide attempts, the actual rate of committed suicides is
low.
HIV/AIDS
There is a crucial need to establish programs and interventions to target young people who cannot be
reached through school-based HIV initiatives. In addition to school dropouts, young men who have
sex with men (MSM), homeless youth and incarcerated youth tend to be overlooked when creating
HIV initiatives for youth. The District has the highest rate of newly reported cases of AIDS in the
country. HIV infection among District youth is mostly the result of unprotected sexual behavior.
According to the HIV/AIDS Administration Strategic Information Bureau, there were 32 new cases
of HIV/AIDS in the District among youth aged 13 to 19 in 2008 (ACF, 2010). This represents a
decrease from the 34 new cases diagnosed in 2007. Approximately 60% of HIV cases among youth
ages 13 and 19 years progressed to AIDS within a year of diagnosis. Furthermore, rates of
Chlamydia and gonorrhea were nearly 3 times the national average. Wards 7 and 8 had the greatest
number of sexually transmitted diseases.
Teen Pregnancy
Teenage pregnancy continues to be a problem in the District. Although the teenage pregnancy rate
decreased in the District from 1997 to 2005, recent data indicates that since 2007, these rates are once
again increasing. Mothers under age 20 accounted for 12.2% of births in the District. Ward
differences are seen with regards to teenage pregnancy. Births to teenage mothers accounted for
19.6% of births in Ward 8 and 18.4% of births in Ward 7, but only 1.3% of births in Ward 3 (ACF,
2010). Between 1991 and 2008 there have been approximately 22,610 teen births in the District of
Columbia, costing taxpayers a total of $1.1 billion over that period.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Substance Use and Abuse
Substance abuse involves the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarette smoking. Smoking generally
increases one’s risk of developing respiratory diseases and heart problems as well. Consequences of
substance abuse include criminal arrest, motor vehicle accidents, and death by overdose. In addition,
health consequences as a result of substance use include AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Nearly
11% of District youth in grades 9 to 12 report currently smoking, compared to 20% nationally
(Chandra et al., 2010). DC had the nation’s highest rate of alcohol dependence or abuse for those 26
or older (8.1%), but the lowest rate among persons ages 12 to 17 years (3.0%) (SAMHSA,2011). The
same pattern exists for alcohol consumption whereby the DC rate is lower than the national level.
Only 12% of DC 9th to 12th graders reported binge drinking and this rate have declined steadily. The
prevalence of binge drinking was 12% among DC youth compared to 26% nationally. Cigarette,
marijuana, and alcohol use have all been found to decline among high school students between 2003
and 2005.
Access to Health Care
Most children in DC have some type of health insurance. In 2007, the rate of uninsured children in
DC was seven percent compared to the national rate of uninsured children (10%) (DC Children’s
Health Fact Sheet, 2008). However, parents in DC report greater difficulty seeing a specialist
compared to parents nationwide with children in Ward 7 found to have the greatest difficulty. District
parents, teens and providers also noted difficulty accessing dental and mental health care. Among the
insured children, the rate of office-based health care use was well below the national average. The
insured youth population uses the ER more than 3 to 5 times per year, as their primary source of care
(Chandra et al., 2010). One of the key factors found to limit access to care is the availability of
appointments. The distribution of pediatric specialists is uneven throughout the District and is not
correlated with children’s health needs. There is a lack of pediatric mental health specialists east of
the Anacostia River. Limited availability of providers who speak languages other than English,
limited amount of health education and limited health promotion in DC schools also serve as factors
which limit access to health care.
Recreation and Extracurricular Activities
Recreation Centers
Local parks and recreation departments are integral components to positive youth development
efforts, which not only help to increase social attitudes and skills but also reduce problem behaviors.
Participation in structured recreational activities helps promote youth autonomy, development of
identity, promotes positive social relationships and conflict resolution and leads to enhanced
academic success and health. Recreational programs and activities outside of school have been
shown to contribute to reduced juvenile delinquency, improved educational performance, increase of
positive behaviors, and decrease healthcare costs associated with obesity (Whitt et al., 2010).
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
The District of Columbia boasts a dynamic Parks and Recreation Department (DPR), which includes
over 80 Recreation centers located in every Ward as illustrated in Figure 1. Regardless of location
within DC, there is purportedly a recreation center no more than two miles from a given spot in the
District (The District of Columbia, 2011). Access to recreation centers in the District is far less
variable by Ward and Cluster than other indicators such as access to parks or grocery stores. “The
average resident in Ward 1 has the shortest distance to travel at 1,545 feet followed by the average
resident in Ward 2 at 1,815 feet, [while] the average resident in Ward 3 has the farthest to travel to a
recreation center at 2,338 feet” (Urban Institute 2010). Recreation centers are intended to be safe
zones for kids and families and include general recreation centers, fitness centers, senior service
centers, environmental education centers and community gardens and beehive locations (The District
of Columbia, 2011).
Figure 1. DPR Sites by Ward
Ward 8
13%
Ward 7
13%
Ward 1
8%
Ward 2
9%
Ward 3
14%
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
13%
Ward 6
Ward 5
16%
Ward 4
14%
Ward 7
Source: DC DPR, 2010.
Physical Activity
Despite these opportunities, as noted obesity remains a looming health threat for DC youth. The 2007
YRBSS data indicates that only about a third (30.2%) of students met the recommended levels of
physical activity (60 minutes for 5 or more days a week) and about a quarter (23.5%) did not
participate in at least 60 minutes of physical activity on any day (See Table 5) (CDC, 2008 & DC
Department of Health, 2010). In both of these indicators, boys had higher percentages for activity
level than girls by about nine percentage points. Boys were also about 20% more likely to play on a
sports team in high school than girls. Also revealed was that over half of the students (55.2%) did not
attend physical education classes in an average week and only 50% of students played on at least one
community or school sports team during the past 12 months. Television watching is also a
contributor to the sedentary lifestyle for DC youth as over half (52.5%) of students watched more
than three hours of television a day (CDC, 2008 & Garner et al., 2010).
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Research has shown that differences in obesity and activity rates are typically a function of race,
socioeconomic status and gender and that patterns of physical activity developed during childhood
tend to be maintained into adulthood (Vierling et al., 2007). Therefore minority youth from lowincome areas are more at risk for behaviors that negatively affect their health and wellbeing. Data on
DC indicate that obesity rises with lowered socio-economic status and that Hispanics and nonHispanic Blacks are much more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic Whites (DC Department of
Health, 2010). Interestingly, the 2007 YRBSS found that no significant racial disparities were found
among perceptions of being overweight or obese in neither middle school students nor high school
students. However, the survey found that among high school students, the percentage of Black youth
(55.9%) who watched more than three hours of television a day was much higher than the percentage
of Hispanic youth (39.1%). Alternatively, in middle school, fewer Hispanic students participate in
sports teams than those affiliated as Mixed Race and in high school; fewer Hispanics achieved the
recommended levels of physical activity (Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 2010).
Table 5. Recreation Indicators in the District of Columbia by Ward
Ward
1
Ward
2
Ward
3
Ward
4
Ward
5
Ward
6
Ward
7
Ward
8
Percent getting
recommended level of
physical activity
70%
81.4%
84.9%
61.7%
59.2%
84.9%
58.5%
54.7%
Average distance to a
park
132 m
135 m
165 m
157 m
206 m
127 m
170 m
254 m
Source: DC Department of Health, 2010.
Extracurricular Activities
In addition to government run facilities, youth in DC can also participate in recreational and sports
activities through a number of other organizations located in every Ward of DC. Some programs
cater to school or Ward specific youth while others are open to youth from any part of DC. Similarly,
many programs operate out of one specific location while others rotate throughout various locations
in the city. These opportunities include soccer, baseball, basketball, swimming, dance, boxing,
tennis, hiking, dragon boat racing, sailing, running and more. A seemingly equal number of
organizations cater to the recreational needs of younger kids from ten years old through seniors in
high school. Some programs are fee based while others are offered for free or at reduced cost. DC
Public Schools also offers an array of after-school programs for elementary through high school
students. The programs provide three hours of daily care after school and also include a dinner
provided at no cost (DCPS, 2011). Students can participate in credit recovery programs, sports, art
classes, theater, college prep classes, leadership and other recreational options directly through
DCPS. The program also partners with community-based organizations to provide additional
opportunities for students in both school locations and outside locations that can also include
religious or cultural programming as well as other recreational options (DCPS 2011). A 2004 report
compiled by The Urban Institute found that 1,100 nonprofits in the DC Metropolitan area had a direct
mission to serve children and youth (Twombly, 2004). These largely included social welfare groups,
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
youth development centers and education services. A current scan of the recreational programs
accessible to DC youth ages 10 to 18 include the specific organizations with numerous programs for
wide-ranging groups of DC youth. Figure 2 shows an initial result of the scan.
Figure 2. Distribution of Youth Resources and Services throughout DC
Source: CYITC, 2011.
Education
Young people who do not complete high school are unlikely to develop the minimum skills and
credentials necessary to meet the demands of today’s complicated workplace or be as successful in
society as a high school graduate. Furthermore, a high school diploma leads to higher income and
occupational status. Studies have also found that young adults with low education and skill levels are
more likely to live in poverty, receive government assistance longer, and become involved in crime.
Enrollment
In the 2007 academic year, over 60,000 students in DC were African American, comprising the
majority of students in the DC public school system (DCPS) (National Center for Educational
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Statistics, 2007). In 2010, students from Ward 8 had the highest enrollment in DCPS, whereas Ward
2 had the lowest. However, Ward 1 had the highest enrollment of students in PCS, with Ward 2
having the lowest enrollment (See Figure 2).
Figure 2: Enrollment in School by Ward
Source: Education Policy Dashboard, 2010.
High School Graduation
According to the Editorial Projects in the Education Research Center, about 49% of all students in
DC graduate from high school with a regular diploma in four years. The dropout rate between 2006
and 2007 was 7.1%. The students who dropped out from the 2008 graduating class will cost DC
almost $504 million in lost wages over their lifetimes (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). The
high school attendance rate in the 2007 academic year was 83.1% and the attendance rate was 91.6%
(The Washington Times, 2008). However, the truancy rate for the 2010 academic year was 20%,
meaning that 20% of DCPS students were truant for 15 days or more (Cardoza, 2011).
The total average freshman graduation rate (AFRG) for Washington, DC for the 2008 academic year
was 62.4% (NCES, 2008). The AFRG is an estimate of the percentage of an entering freshman class
graduating with a regular diploma in 4 years. (For 2007-2008 it equals the total number of regular
diploma recipients in 2007-2008 divided by average membership of the eighth grade class in 20032004, the ninth grade class in 2004-2005 and the tenth grade class of 2005-2006). For the same
academic year, Virginia had an AFGR of 78.1% and Maryland’s was 80.1%, significantly higher
than the district’s AFRG (NCES, 2008). Similar to the AFGR, the suburban area surrounding DC has
a higher graduation rate than the district, (in 2004 DC had 63.9% and the surrounding area’s
graduation rate was 78.2%). The graduation rate has increased and in 2009 was about 72.3%.
Math and Reading Proficiency
In 2005, only 44% of eighth graders in the District were meeting state reading proficiency standards,
and 40% of eighth graders met state math proficiency standards (NCES, 2005). In 2011, 52% of the
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
eighth graders in the District were below basic math achievement levels and 49% were below basic
reading achievement levels for that same year (ACF, 2010). Ward 3 has the highest achievement of
CAS proficiency for reading and math in DCPS, and Ward 8 has the lowest CAS proficiency for
reading and math in DCPS and the second lowest of the DC Public Charter Schools. Ward 5 has the
lowest CAS proficiency for Math in the DC Public Charter Schools (See Figure 3). Figure 4 shows a
map of DCPS proficiency levels.
Figure 3: DC CAS Reading and Math Proficiency by Ward
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DCPS Reading
PCS Reading
DCPS Math
PCS Math
Source: Education Policy Dashboard, 2010.
Figure 4: DCPS Proficiency by School
Source: DCPS, 2009 and CYITC, 2011.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Youth Violence
In 2010, the District of Columbia saw a seven percent decline in overall crime compared to 2009.
There were 131 homicides in 2010, which was a nine percent decrease from 2009 and the fewest
since 1963 (DC Metropolitan Police Department, 2010). The number of juveniles detained increased
in 2010. During the first half of 2011, there were 1,628 juvenile arrests in the District, which is less
than half of the number of juvenile arrests made in 2010. If the incidence of juvenile arrests
continues at the current rate 2011 could have the lowest number of juvenile arrests since before 2006.
When comparing the juvenile arrest trends from 2009 and 2010 with the first half of 2011, in
addition to the overall number of juvenile arrests decreasing, the downward trend in the frequency of
juvenile arrests for disorderly conduct and possession of an open container of alcohol (POCA) seems
to continue. Also, the number of juvenile arrests for prostitution and commercial vice is on the
decline. The number of arrests for aggravated assaults is also less than in 2009 and 2010; however,
the number of arrests related to non-aggressive assaults is on the rise. In the first half of 2011, 292
juveniles were arrested. The number of juvenile arrests related to thefts and stolen property is also on
the rise. Table 6 lists the number of juveniles arrested for crimes that the MPD has identified as the
top charges for the District of Columbia (MPD, 2010 and 2011).
The District of Columbia is divided into 7 police districts and each district is divided into five to
eight police service areas (PSAs). There are 46 PSAs in the District of Columbia. Police use the
PSAs to track to the location of arrests and where those who are arrested live (MPD, 2010). Between
January 1 and June 30, police district 1 and police district 7 had the most arrests, 357 and 360,
respectively. These districts had nearly six times the number of arrests that occurred in police district
2. During the first half of 2011, there were 63 juvenile arrests in police district 2 (MPD, 2011).
Knowing the home PSA of those being arrested is necessary in order to develop effective crime
prevention programs. As stated above, District 1 had the second highest number of juvenile arrests.
Most of those arrests occurred in PSA 107. Between January 1 and June 30, 187 juveniles were
arrested for crimes they committed in PSA 107. However, it must be noted that only 28 of those
arrested were residents of PSA 107. PSA 706 is home to 116 juveniles who were arrested; however,
only 87 arrests were made in that PSA. In some PSAs, like PSA 702, the difference in home PSA and
arrest location is much smaller. In the first half of 2011, 27 juveniles from PSA 702 were arrested
and 25 juveniles were arrested for committing crimes in that PSA. Figure 5 depicts the relationship of
youth arrests per capita according to the home PSA of juveniles committing crimes (MPD, 2011).
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Table 6: DC Juvenile Arrests from 2009 to June 30, 2011
2009
2010
2011
(Jan. 1 to June 30)
176
158
58
Arson
6
7
1
Burglary
61
73
21
Disorderly Conduct/POCA
202
100
29
Gambling
0
1
3
Homicide/Manslaughter
11
13
5
Larceny/Theft
167
107
63
Liquor Laws
1
0
1
340
253
126
1
0
5
Other Assaults (Non-Aggressive)
549
422
347
Other Felonies
326
322
105
1,013
1,226
453
Prostitution & Commercial Vice
13
13
3
Rape/Sexual Abuse
27
3
3
Release Violations/Fugitive
117
106
78
Robbery/Carjacking
353
381
158
Sex Offenses
24
8
0
Stolen Property
19
27
20
Theft from Auto
14
12
3
Traffic Violations
136
86
1
Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle
309
186
79
4
1
0
165
133
61
Top Arrest Charge
Aggravated Assault
Narcotic Drug Laws
Offenses Against the Family and Children
Other Misdemeanors
Vending Violations
Weapons
Source: MPD, 2010 and 2011.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Figure 4: Juvenile Arrests from 2006 to 2010
Source: MPD, 2011 & CYITC, 2011
Bullying and School Violence
School bullying and violence, and their associated short and long term effects, remains a problem in
the District of Columbia. Students who are victims of bulling or violence often experience decreased
academic achievement, including lower grade point averages (GPAs), standardized test scores, and
school participation, and are more likely to skip or drop out of school. They are also more likely to
retaliate through extremely violent measures (Stopbullying.gov, 2011). Research has shown that
being bullied as a youth may cause psychological problems that persist into adulthood. For example,
youth who are bullied have a higher risk of depression and anxiety and are more likely to have
thoughts about suicide as adults. Additionally, they are more like to have health complaints as adults
than those who are not victims of bullying or school violence (Stopbullying.gov, 2011).
DC-specific YRBSS data is currently only available through 2007. Figure 6 depicts trends in the
prevalence of behaviors that contribute to violence on school property among DC high school
students. Significantly, in 2007, students were more likely to skip school because they felt unsafe on
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
school premises or getting to/from school than in 2005. They were also more likely to participate in
one or more physical altercations on school property than in 2005.
Anecdotal evidence also points to high rates of bullying in DCPS. A recent article published in The
Examiner, highlighted survey results in which DCPS middle school students were asked to rate how
often they are made fun of for their appearance or speech. Sixty percent of students surveyed
responded “often” or “sometimes” to this question. At Ballou (Ward 8), the response rate to this
question was especially high; 73% of students said they were teased “sometimes” or “often for the
way they looked or acted (Gartner et al., 2011).
Students were also asked to rate how often fights occur at school; more than half of students who
attend stand-alone middle schools said fights occurred “often” or “sometimes.” Respondents at Eliot
Hine (Ward 6) and Shaw (Ward 1) Middle Schools selected these answers about 80% of the time,
respectively. The survey also asked students how often their property was damaged or stolen by their
peers. Eighty-five percent of students at Woodrow Wilson Senior High (Ward 3) reported damaged
or stolen property at least “sometimes” (Gartner et al., 2011).
DC is one of only two states/districts without anti-bullying laws on the books. Last year, the City
Council considered strict anti-bullying legislation, but was unable to enact it. The Council has yet to
act on related legislation this year (Gartner et al., 2011.)
Figure 6: Trends in Behaviors that Contribute to School Violence from 1993 to 2007
Source: CDC, 2008.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
An Exploration of DC Youth
Overview
Although the descriptive analysis and the assets scan provides valuable information on the current
state and available services for DC youth, there was a crucial need to complement this information
with a qualitative assessment for a more in-depth examination of perceptions of youth needs and
challenges from the views of different stakeholders including youth themselves. A qualitative study
was therefore conducted to gather information on local perceptions around the needs and challenges
faced by youth particularly around accessing DC’s services. It should be noted that this is just an
initial assessment and the full study is to be completed by January 2012.
Exploring the “why” behind the numbers is just as important as collecting the data. Focus groups
and interviews are processes for eliciting comments, opinions and perceptions about a particular
product, idea or problem. In addition, involving youth in the needs assessment process gives the
process credibility since the people who are affected by the problem are directly involved in the
process of developing solutions. Young people can also provide a realistic picture of what is
happening in a community. Target groups participating in this assessment include the following:
youth, school administrators and teachers, parents, volunteers, medical professionals, prevention and
treatment experts, and community based organization workers.
Methods
The needs assessment used a qualitative design consisting of focus groups with youth and
stakeholder interviews. The study was designed to answer questions about: perceptions of youth,
their needs and challenges, involvement in negative behaviors and recommended suggestions for
improvement in existing service delivery. Questions were carefully designed to gain an in-depth
understanding while allowing the youth and other stakeholders to feel comfortable. Sample questions
for the youth focus group included: How do you spend your time outside of school, how do you feel
about being a young person in Washington DC, what do you think are the biggest challenge that
youth face in DC, why do you think young people engage in negative behaviors? Examples of the
interview questions included: What are the perceptions of young people’s needs, how do you think
we can reach ‘difficult to reach’ youth in Washington DC, what youth programs are not available that
you would like to see? This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at GWU
SPHHS.
A total of 33 youth, 4 parents, and 2 youth experts are included in these initial findings. The focus
groups were held at various community centers and community based organizations that were
accessible to youth and the interviews were conducted over the phone. All interviews and focus
groups were audio-recorded and later transcribed for analysis. To gain a demographically
representative sample, youth were recruited from both genders, different age groups and many subgroups of the population including teenage parents, youth involved in gangs and the court system,
foster youth, youth who have dropped out of high school, and participants in local youth-focused
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
programs. There are 32 more scheduled interviews with other stakeholders including youth workers,
volunteers, business owners, funders, teachers/school administrators, and clinicians as well as 3 more
focus groups scheduled to reach about 20 more youth. Once the initial data was transcribed, NVIVO
version 8, a qualitative software, was used to code the transcribed data for emerging themes and
concepts. The coded data was then reviewed to determine emerging concepts of youth and
stakeholder perceptions of challenges, needs, negative behavior and future recommendations around
youth specific services.
Results and Recommendations
The initial results of the needs assessment are summarized, however it should be noted that the full
study is intended to be complete in January 2012. Overall, key themes were found.
Youth Labels
The label “hard to reach youth” may be limiting their acceptance and motivation to seeking help and
guidance. In addition, strategies should include listening to the individual’s needs or concerns
including issues they are facing and helping them navigate the system to reintegrate into positive
behaviors. These quotes are from “hard to reach” youth.
“We are not hard to reach. People are just not reaching us at where we are at. We want to be
reached.”
“If they gave different programs to fit the criteria to why you were locked up, services that help you
specifically, maybe even invest in psychologists.”
Developmentally Appropriate Outcomes
Strategies and programs need to be aligned with the specific needs of youth and their current
developmental state. Developmental outcomes should take into account where youth currently are
developmentally, and set realistic goals based on where youth are starting from, not just where we
want them to be. A common theme was the youth felt that there was a push for them to grow up too
fast and they felt stressed.
“There is a lot of pressure, you are getting older and people expect more and to take control of your
actions at too early of an age.”
“I feel stressed and ignored because I feel as though ok people are asking too much from me at one
time and they have like too high expectations for me and that stresses me out and makes me not focus
and anything and then I feel ignored by certain people.”
Positive Support
Youth expressed a desire to have more caring adults in their lives to help either guide them through
life situations and choices or motivate them. They discussed the importance of parents and although
almost all said their parents were supportive they said they had many friend’s whose parents “didn’t
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
care” and this not only affected their friend but also them indirectly. Note: the mentors do not have
to be part of an organized program but can be even a teacher.
“Guidance and someone there they can look up to that is on the right path. Support other than
tutoring, someone they can talk to sometimes if they have a problem.”
“You should not use your parents not being there as an excuse, but sometimes it is kind of hard to
like some people they might have brothers and sisters when their parents aren't there but then when
you don't even have your brothers and sisters support, it's pretty hard to finish up school and then if
you have your own child – trying to do that all by yourself. Cuz I know somebody they tried school,
they tried the GED Program, they tried the schools that train you for just one certain career and it
just never worked out because I guess they just didn't have the support.”
Belonging and Membership
Youth are looking for acceptance and something to belong to even if they know it is in the wrong
places. Youth explained the reason why they (or their peers) join engage in some negative/at-risk
behaviors including substance use, gang activity, and teenage pregnancy. An overarching theme was
that these youth are looking for support, love, acceptance, to fit in, and a reason to feel needed.
Acknowledging that they are looking for these things in the wrong place was a common theme
among youth.
“And I know some kids that's been in gangs because they don't have a family or their parents are in
drugs and not taking care of them so they go see their gang members for love and appreciation and
acceptance.”
“I think the biggest challenge - especially going through foster care and living in different homes is
love. When I mean love, it is someone that cares about you, someone that actually cares how your
day is. When you feel neglected, you do things that are pointless, and when you feel loved you feel
like there is a point, you feel like you want to do things in life for yourselves and them. That is why
there are young mothers because they are looking for love in the wrong places. That is why you have
young fathers because they are looking for love in the wrong places. When they join gangs - that is
what being said - this it comes with love and brotherhood, which is not love - you just have a strength
or skill they need.”
Assistance with Connecting to Resources/Navigating the System
Around the issue of dropping out of school, many youth who have dropped out actually want to
return, however need assistance navigating the system. Some common themes as to why youth drop
out and do not return to school include: they cannot navigate the system; they do not want to go back
to the school they were at but cannot get their paperwork in order to enroll elsewhere; they do not
have anyone to help them go back; GED programs are hard to attend every day when many youth
have to work.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011
Discussion
Before implementing or developing programs that would encourage positive behavior among local
Washington DC youth and facilitate a favorable transition into adulthood, it was imperative to
explore the specific perceptions of not just youth but various stakeholders themselves to better
understand the priorities within this population.
Reflections of the descriptive analysis show there is an uneven distribution of youth services and
resources throughout the community, there is no central repository for data related to DC youth, and
community organizations geared toward youth are often highly localized and may not have the
funding or staff capability to conduct outreach or publicity outside of their immediate service areas.
Services and resources for youth are unevenly distributed across DC and, in general, there is a lack of
legal and recreational services for youth. Many of the available programs are concentrated in Wards
1, 5, and 6. An examination of Wards 7 and 8 revealed that these Wards fare the worst on many of
the indicators, including SES. Of all the DC Wards, these two are the poorest. Unfortunately, they are
also home to the greatest percentage of children of any of the Wards in DC. Consequently, youth in
Wards 7 and 8 bear a disproportionate burden of the disparities in health, education, recreation,
culture and legal services. Additional targeted approaches are needed to effectively address these
disparities. Lastly, providing students in the District the option to attend schools that are not within
their school district could help disadvantaged students access better school programs. In a brief
released by the Urban Institute, stated that “public school choice programs in DC are successful;
disadvantaged students (i.e., economically disadvantaged students and students of racial and ethnic
minority groups) take advantage of the alternative public schooling options and are able to attend
higher-performing schools than their neighborhood public schools, even with a prolonged commute.”
(Özek, 2011).
The qualitative assessment provided insightful information about the needs and challenges of local
youth. The results build on the findings on past research from other cities and extend our
understanding of the more specific needs and challenges faced by youth in the DC metropolitan area.
Initial take-home lessons from this study is that youth often face the negative effects of peer pressure
and due to a lack of institutional and emotional support they find themselves engaging in negative
behaviors. A high demand for mentorship programs as well as youth-specific programs where they
can interact with like-minded and encouraging peers, confirms that aggressive outreach to local
youth will ensure that they begin making the positive decisions and choice towards a successful
transition into adulthood.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
DC Youth Needs Assessment
© CYITC, December 2011