|
Statistics
and South Carolina’s Status and Position
On
a daily basis the citizens of South Carolina are exposed to
various statistics that claim to indicate how the state is
performing on some aspect of life.
More often than not these statistics indicate that the
state is performing poorly in comparison with the rest of the
nation. Indeed
these numbers are generally presented as a criticism of
government performance. The
source of these statistics is not always clear.
And like any statistic, the numbers are subject to
interpretation and misinterpretation. And because the numbers
are used in a political context, the statistics and the
interpretations are very often in conflict.
So
how is South Carolina really performing on key policy areas?
How can the state’s policy makers and citizens gauge
progress over time? What measures should be used? The South
Carolina Indicators (SCI) Project is designed to provide
citizens and policy makers with valid, reliable and comparable
statistical indicators of how South Carolina is performing in
eight key policy areas: education, the economy, the
environment, public safety, public health, social welfare,
culture and recreation, and government administration.
The
SCI Project Website
To
navigate the SCI Project web site, simply choose the topic or
policy area of interest below or on the adjacent navigation
bar.
For
each policy area (education, the economy, etc.), you will find
relevant indicators presented in summary form within a table
format on the “At-a-Glance” page. You will then see that indicators are divided into separate
categories. For each category, one or more indicators are then
listed and defined, and in brief, the significance or
relevance of the indicator is included. Most data on this site
are comparable to other states and historical data are
available. Select
state rankings are also provided. Where references are made
comparing South Carolina (SC) to the southeast (SE), it should
be noted that the southeastern states include Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee.
Additionally,
the data sources are indicated via hyperlink for each
indicator where possible. In other cases, sources are simply
referenced. Further, in some cases, a brief narrative or
discussion provides some analysis for each indicator. In
selected instances, more in-depth discussion is quoted from
various sources. Suggested
readings may be additionally provided to explain the technical
definitions, use, limitations, etc. of the data. Finally,
endnotes are included—as appropriate—for citation or
explanatory purposes.
We welcome comments and
suggestions from government
officials, legislators, and the
general public. To make suggestions,
recommend additional indicators, or
to report problems or broken links,
please direct your comments to scip@gwm.sc.edu.
|
|
Project News |
|
*** New***
A new addition to the
Indicators Project –More than 80 years of
consultants reports and studies aimed at
restructuring and improving management and policy in
South Carolina’s state government. Access each of
the 18 reports from the Griffenhagen study in 1920
to the GEAR Report of 2007, and at the same time,
trace the administrative history of South Carolina
state government by clicking
here.
South Carolina Infrastructure Study: Projections of
Statewide Infrastructure Costs, Savings, and
Financing Alternatives 1995-2015
In May
1997 the South Carolina Budget & Control Board and
the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations released a study of the state’s
infrastructure needs, defined as roads, bridges,
water and sewer lines, utilities, public service
buildings, public safety buildings, public
recreational buildings, and public works facilities.
That study,
South Carolina
Infrastructure Study: Projections of Statewide
Infrastructure Costs, Savings, and Financing
Alternatives 1995-2015 addressed what
were then the current costs as well as projected
costs, financing and savings alternatives, and
information resources and analyses. It serves as a
foundation for those who wish to update the State’s
assessment of its current infrastructure needs and
financing alternatives.
|
|
|
*** New***
July 2008 - America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators
of Well-Being 2008 The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, a
working groups of 22 federal agencies each of whom produces or
uses statistical data on children and families, has released its
2008
report. Key indicators are organized under each of eight
areas: Demographic Background, Family and Social Environment,
Economic Circumstance, Health Care, Physical Environment and
Safety, behavior, Education, and Health. To see updated data
and other details associated with this year’s report visit
the Forum’s website. |
June 4, 2008 –
Diplomas Count: School to College: Can State P-16
Councils Ease the Transition?
The Editorial Projects in
Education Research Center (ERC) along with the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation released its latest report in a four-year
project aimed at studying high school graduation rates and other
issues associated with secondary education. This third annual
report entitled
Diplomas Count: School to College: Can State P-16 Councils Ease
the Transition? looks at “P-16” and “P-20”
Councils which many states have formed to “bridge the divide”
between elementary and high schools on the one hand, and
post-secondary education on the other. As has been done each
year, this report also includes the latest graduation rate data
for each state. For the first time, it also reports such data
by federal congressional district. However, also as in the
past, analyses conducted for Diplomas Count by the EPE Research
Center continue to show wide disparities between state-reported
graduation rates and the Center’s estimates. For example,
average freshman graduation rates computed by the states and
reported by the U.S. Department of Education in its Digest of
Education Statistics shows the national average graduation rate
for 2004-05 to be 74.7%, whereas, the Education Research Center
computes a national average graduation rate for 2004-05 of
70.6%. The average freshman graduation rate in South Carolina
for 2004-05 is reported by the U.S. Department of Education to
be 60.1% while the Education Research Center computes a
graduation rate for South Carolina of 55.6% for the same
period. The difference is the method by which the numbers are
computed. The U.S. Department of Education reports data
submitted by the states reflecting aggregate student enrollment
data for an incoming freshman class and aggregate counts of the
number of diplomas awarded four years later. On the other hand,
the ERC uses the Cumulative Promotion Index (CPI) method which
incorporates the cumulative promotion rates from 9th
to 10th grade, 10th to 11th
grade, 11th to 12th grade and the number
of diplomas awarded that Spring after 12th grade
relative to the number of 12th graders enrolled the
previous Fall. Such disparities in the way graduation rates are
calculated and the inconsistencies that result, have led the
U.S. Department of Education to propose new rules that would
require all states to calculate graduation rates in a uniform
manner that would track student population cohorts as they
progress through high school. States would need to have those
methods in place by the end of the 2012-13 school year. States,
districts, and schools also would have to publish graduation
rates for subgroups of students, and use those results in
calculating progress to help close the kinds of gaps in
graduation rates. To access the report and other information
products made available
click here and follow the instructions.
|
|
*** New***
May 29, 2008 –
Upward Intergenerational Mobility in the United States
The Economic Mobility Project, a
collaborative effort of the Pew Charitable Trusts and scholars
from the Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, American
Enterprise Institute, and Urban Institute. This latest report
in the series introduces measures to examine upward relative
mobility—the extent to which children can rise above their
parents’ position when compared to their peers. It also
addresses factors that might account for racial differences in
upward economic mobility rates, including test scores that
measure academic skills, educational attainment, health, family
structure, and self esteem. Access this and all the other
reports through the Economic Mobility Project website by
clicking
here.
|
|
*** New***
May 29, 2008 –
Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan
America
The Brookings Institution released this
report which quantifies the amount and most significant
sources of carbon emitted from highway transportation and
residential energy consumption for the 100 largest metropolitan
areas in 2000 and 2005. See
this report in its entirety as well as access the
profiles for all 100 of the metropolitan areas covered in
the report, including the metropolitan areas of Columbia,
Charleston, and Greenville, South Carolina; Charlotte, North
Carolina; and Augusta, Georgia by clicking
here.
|
|
Current
Data on the Economy
Current data, as well as useful historical data, on
South Carolina’s employment status. Access by
clicking
here.
|
|
Additional Items that formerly appeared here have been
moved to Archives which can be accessed by clicking here.
|
|
|
|
