CWAC Neighborhoods
The earlier quality of life studies were focused exclusively on the
73 City Within a City (CWAC) neighborhoods. As a consequence the quality of life indices
that were calculated did not include wealthier, more suburban communities. A review of
Table 3 shows that CWAC neighborhoods remain structurally and socially disadvantaged when
compared with the larger community. On almost all of the variables used in the study, the
CWAC neighborhoods fall below the citywide norm.
In this report the CWAC neighborhoods have been treated in the same
fashion and subjected to the same standards as all Charlotte neighborhoods. This new
research framework will permit citywide bench marking of neighborhood quality of life in
the future. Consequently, Charlotte citizens and leaders will be able to track the changes
in quality of life across communities and within small geographies.
While this new framework is overwhelmingly positive, the immediate
impact on CWAC neighborhoods is to make them appear as if they have declined in quality of
life from the 1997 study. This is not the case.
Rather, the new larger-scale study area has effectively raised the standard for inclusion
in the stable and threatened categories. Thus, inner city neighborhoods that have been
historically disadvantaged are now being measured against new suburban communities. This
produces an appearance decline in the CWAC neighborhoods that is not real.
This relationship is clearly shown when the 73 CWAC neighborhoods
are separated from the larger citywide NSA pool, and a parallel analysis is carried out on
the CWAC communities using 20 variables. Figure 4 presents the CWAC-only analysis
findings.
A review of these data show that a number of stable communities has
grown significantly, from 24 in 1997 to 30 in 2000, and that there has been an
accompanying decline in fragile neighborhoods from 15 to 11. Although the number and
composition of the quality of variables has changed between the two studies, thus making
direct comparison impossible, the strategic shift to stable neighborhoods supports the
conclusion that CWAC neighborhoods are making substantial strides in community quality of
life.
Future citywide quality of life indices will, we expect, provide
further support for these limited data.
Table 3.
CWAC Data Values Compared to the City of Charlotte
Variable |
CWAC
Value |
City
Value |
Social |
Percent of Persons Receiving
Food Stamps |
10.8% |
4.9% |
Percent of Persons over Age 64 |
13.6% |
10.5% |
Average Kindergarten Score |
2.4 |
2.6 |
Dropout Rate |
12.7% |
8.3% |
Percent of Children Passing
Competency Exams |
34.4% |
53.1% |
Percent of Births to Adolescents |
13.3% |
7.6% |
Youth Opportunity Index |
N/A |
N/A |
Number of Neighborhood
Organizations |
N/A |
N/A |
Crime |
|
Violent Crime Rate |
2.0 |
1.0 |
Juvenile Crime Rate |
1.1 |
1.0 |
Property Crime Rate |
1.4 |
1.0 |
Crime Hot Spots |
N/A |
N/A |
Physical |
|
Appearance Index |
N/A |
N/A |
Percent Substandard Housing |
5.0% |
1.6% |
Percent Homeowners |
45.5% |
57.2% |
Projected Infrastructure
Improvement Costs |
N/A |
N/A |
Percent of Persons with
Access to Public Transportation |
91.7% |
65.0% |
Percent of Persons with
Access to Basic Retail |
18.4% |
17.1% |
Pedestrian Friendliness Index |
Low |
Low |
Economic |
|
|
Percent Change in Income |
19.0% |
26.0% |
Back
|