Indicator HH.3.c Median household income

HH.3.c Median household income

Download PDF map.

Data Source

Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. Spring 2007 Update: Current Year Estimates. Methodology available at: http://www.appliedgeographic.com/library.html.

Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.

Map data is presented at the level of the census tract, which was calculated by assigning census block data to census tracts based on spatial location. The map also includes planning neighborhood names, in the vicinity of their corresponding census tracts.

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. While planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas than census tracts, census tracts do not always lie completely within a planning neighborhood. SFDPH used ArcGIS software and a 'centroids within' methodology to convert census blocks to geographic mean center points. We then assigned census blocks to planning neighborhoods based on the spatial location of those geographic mean center points and calculated the planning neighborhood totals for the table.

Detailed information regarding census data, geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:

http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.September_2009.pdf

http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php

Explanation and Limitations

In contrast to per capita income, weighted household median income presents an alternative picture of income distribution in San Francisco, accounting for the fact that many households pool their income. The neighborhood weighted median is calculated by weighting the respective census tract medians based on the number of households in each tract, and then applying the standard median calculation method.

Viewing median household income spatially helps illustrate the extent of residential economic segregation in San Francisco. The CA Budget Project Report "A Generation of Widening Inequality: The State of Working California 1979-2006," states that "Wage gains have been uneven. The inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical California worker – the worker exactly at the middle of the earnings distribution – increased by a modest 1.3 percent between 1979 and 2006. Meanwhile, the hourly wage of the state's low-wage workers – those with earnings at the 20th percentile of the distribution – declined by 7.2 percent, after adjusting for inflation, while that of California's high-wage workers – those with earnings at the 80th percentile of the distribution – increased by 18.4 percent." In addition, "Many California workers have fared worse than their US counterparts. The typical California worker's hourly wage experienced weaker gains than that of the typical US worker, whose hourly wage increased by 4.9 percent between 1979 and 2006, after adjusting for inflation. In addition, the hourly wage of the state's low-wage workers lost purchasing power, while that of similar workers in the nation as a whole increased by 4.0 percent, after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, the state's high-wage workers have fared better than their US counterparts. As a result, wage gaps have widened more in California than in the US. In 1979, the hourly earnings of high-wage workers were 2.4 times those of low-wage workers in both California and the nation. By 2006, the hourly earnings of California's high-wage workers were 3.1 times those of the state's low-wage workers, while the nation's high-wage workers earned 2.7 times as much per hour as low-wage US workers." The report and findings are available at: http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2007/0708_swc.pdf

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Segregated neighborhoods create conditions adverse to health in a number of ways. As places, these neighborhoods typically have fewer assets and resources such as schools, libraries, and public transportation.a Segregated low-income neighborhoods host unwanted land uses such as power plants, solid and hazardous waste sites, and bus yards.b Freeways and other busy roadways often run through low-income neighborhoods resulting in disproportionately higher exposure to noise and air pollution. Residents are often isolated from economic opportunities and marginalized in political decision-making, limiting their ability to effect change in their circumstances.c d The attributes of segregated neighborhoods have profound and diverse impacts on health.e f g Residents of high-poverty neighborhoods live about eight fewer years than non-poverty neighborhoods; they also suffer more preventable events like infant mortality, pedestrian injuries, and homicide. Research also demonstrates a relationship between residential segregation and teenage childbearing, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease, availability of food establishments serving healthy foods, and exposure to toxic air pollutants.h

A Housing and Urban Development (HUD) study has shown that when adults move to less segregated, higher income communities, they experience significant gains in mental health. Their levels of psychological distress and depression become substantially reduced.i

Among children of families in the HUD study who were moved to less segregated, higher income communities, girls have experienced marked improvements in psychological well-being, reporting lower rates of psychological distress, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder, and improved perceptions of their likelihood of going to college and getting a well paid, stable job as an adult. These girls' behaviors changed as well, with a larger group remaining in school instead of dropping out to work. In addition, they were less likely to engage in risky behavior, or use marijuana.j

  1. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Neighborhoods and Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
  2. Maantay J. Zoning, equity, and public health. Am J of Pub Health. 2001;91:1033-1041.
  3. Wilson WJ. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
  4. Bullard RD. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder: Westview, 1990.
  5. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997;277:918-924.
  6. Schulz AJ, Williams DR, Israel BA, Lempert LB. Racial and spatial relations as fundamental determinants of health in Detroit. The Milbank Quarterly. 2002; 80:677-707.
  7. Williams DR, Collins C. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports. 2001;116:404-416.
  8. Acevedo-Garcia D, Lochner KA, Osypuk TL, Subramanian SV. Future Directions in Residential Segregation and Health Research: A Multilevel Approach. Am J of Pub Health. 2003;93:215-221.
  9. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation. 2003 (www.huduser.org)
  10. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation. 2003 (www.huduser.org)