2023 Tract-level Indicators of Potential Disadvantage for the DVRPC RegionTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act states that "no person in the United States, shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are directed to create a method for ensuring that Title VI compliance issues are investigated and evaluated in transportation decision-making. There is additional guidance from the FHWA’s Title VI and Additional Nondiscrimination requirements (2017), and FTA’s Title VI requirements and guidelines (2012). The Indicators of Potential Disadvantage (IPD) analysis is used throughout DVRPC to demonstrate compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.This assessment, called the Indicators of Potential Disadvantage Methodology, is utilized in a variety of DVRPC plans and programs. DVRPC currently assesses the following population groups, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau:YouthOlder AdultsFemaleRacial MinorityEthnic MinorityForeign-BornDisabledLimited English ProficiencyLow-IncomeCensus tables used to gather data from the 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year EstimatesUsing U.S. Census American Community Survey data, the population groups listed above are identified and located at the census tract level. Data is gathered at the regional level, combining populations from each of the nine counties, for either individuals or households, depending on the indicator. From there, the total number of persons in each demographic group is divided by the appropriate universe (either population or households) for the nine-county region, providing a regional average for that population group. Any census tract that meets or exceeds the regional average level, or threshold, is considered an EJ-sensitive tract for that group.Census tables used to gather data from the 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.For more information and for methodology, visit DVRPC's website:http://www.dvrpc.org/GetInvolved/TitleVI/For technical documentation visit DVRPC's GitHub IPD repo: https://github.com/dvrpc/ipdSource of tract boundaries: 2020 US Census Bureau, TIGER/Line ShapefilesNote: Tracts with null values should be symbolized as "Insufficient or No Data".Data Dictionary for Attributes:(Source = DVRPC indicates a calculated field)FieldAliasDescriptionSourceyearIPD analysis yearDVRPCgeoid2011-digit tract GEOIDCensus tract identifierACS 5-yearstatefp2-digit state GEOIDFIPS Code for StateACS 5-yearcountyfp3-digit county GEOIDFIPS Code for CountyACS 5-yeartractceTract numberTract NumberACS 5-yearnameTract numberCensus tract identifier with decimal placesACS 5-yearnamelsadTract nameCensus tract name with decimal placesACS 5-yeard_classDisabled percentile classClassification of tract's disabled percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedd_estDisabled count estimateEstimated count of disabled populationACS 5-yeard_est_moeDisabled count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of disabled populationACS 5-yeard_pctDisabled percent estimateEstimated percentage of disabled populationACS 5-yeard_pct_moeDisabled percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of disabled populationACS 5-yeard_pctileDisabled percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage disabledcalculatedd_scoreDisabled percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's disabled classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedem_classEthnic minority percentile classClassification of tract's Hispanic/Latino percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedem_estEthnic minority count estimateEstimated count of Hispanic/Latino populationACS 5-yearem_est_moeEthnic minority count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of Hispanic/Latino populationACS 5-yearem_pctEthnic minority percent estimateEstimated percentage of Hispanic/Latino populationcalculatedem_pct_moeEthnic minority percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of Hispanic/Latino populationcalculatedem_pctileEthnic minority percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage Hispanic/Latinocalculatedem_scoreEthnic minority percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's Hispanic/Latino classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedf_classFemale percentile classClassification of tract's female percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedf_estFemale count estimateEstimated count of female populationACS 5-yearf_est_moeFemale count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of female populationACS 5-yearf_pctFemale percent estimateEstimated percentage of female populationACS 5-yearf_pct_moeFemale percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of female populationACS 5-yearf_pctileFemale percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage femalecalculatedf_scoreFemale percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's female classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedfb_classForeign-born percentile classClassification of tract's foreign born percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedfb_estForeign-born count estimateEstimated count of foreign born populationACS 5-yearfb_est_moeForeign-born count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of foreign born populationACS 5-yearfb_pctForeign-born percent estimateEstimated percentage of foreign born populationcalculatedfb_pct_moeForeign-born percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of foreign born populationcalculatedfb_pctileForeign-born percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage foreign borncalculatedfb_scoreForeign-born percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's foreign born classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedle_classLimited English proficiency percentile classClassification of tract's limited english proficiency percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedle_estLimited English proficiency count estimateEstimated count of limited english proficiency populationACS 5-yearle_est_moeLimited English proficiency count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of limited english proficiency populationACS 5-yearle_pctLimited English proficiency percent estimateEstimated percentage of limited english proficiency populationACS 5-yearle_pct_moeLimited English proficiency percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of limited english proficiency populationACS 5-yearle_pctileLimited English proficiency percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage limited english proficiencycalculatedle_scoreLimited English proficiency percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's limited english proficiency classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedli_classLow-income percentile classClassification of tract's low income percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedli_estLow-income count estimateEstimated count of low income (below 200% of poverty level) populationACS 5-yearli_est_moeLow-income count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of low income populationACS 5-yearli_pctLow-income percent estimateEstimated percentage of low income (below 200% of poverty level) populationcalculatedli_pct_moeLow-income percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of low income populationcalculatedli_pctileLow-income percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage low incomecalculatedli_scoreLow-income percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's low income classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedoa_classOlder adult percentile classClassification of tract's older adult percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedoa_estOlder adult count estimateEstimated count of older adult population (65 years or older)ACS 5-yearoa_est_moeOlder adult count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of older adult populationACS 5-yearoa_pctOlder adult percent estimateEstimated percentage of older adult population (65 years or older)ACS 5-yearoa_pct_moeOlder adult percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of older adult populationACS 5-yearoa_pctileOlder adult percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage older adultcalculatedoa_scoreOlder adult percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's older adult classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedrm_classRacial minority percentile classClassification of tract's non-white percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above average, or well above averagecalculatedrm_estRacial minority count estimateEstimated count of non-white populationACS 5-yearrm_est_moeRacial minority count margin of errorMargin of error for estimated count of non-white populationACS 5-yearrm_pctRacial minority percent estimateEstimated percentage of non-white populationcalculatedrm_pct_moeRacial minority percent margin of errorMargin of error for percentage of non-white populationcalculatedrm_pctileRacial minority percentileTract's regional percentile for percentage non-whitecalculatedrm_scoreRacial minority percentile scoreCorresponding numeric score for tract's non-white classification: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4calculatedtot_ppTotal population estimateEstimated total population of tract (universe [or denominator] for youth, older adult, female, racial minoriry, ethnic minority, & foreign born)ACS 5-yeartot_pp_moeTotal population margin of errorMargin of error for estimated total population of tractACS 5-yeary_classYouth percentile classClassification of tract's youth percentage as: well below average, below average, average, above

In 2023, the average wage in Mexico achieved its highest level since 2009, amounting to around 20,090 U.S. dollars per year. Moreover, the average annual wage increased for the third consecutive year. Employment conditions In light of the crucial role that employment plays as a primary source of income, perceiving their working conditions to be poor, a sentiment held by nearly half of Mexico's workforce. Furthermore, the distribution of working hours skews towards non-monetarily compensated positions, particularly impacting the female demographic on households. This imbalance poses challenges to sustaining motivation. Informal employment also exhibits a higher prevalence among females, presenting regulatory complexities. Furthermore, a perceived gender-based disparity in employment opportunities subsists, amplifying the overarching concerns. As these factors coalesce, one out of every two individuals' harbors apprehensions about potential job loss. Salaries vs. Life expenses In 2023, the minimum wage has witnessed a considerable increase. Nevertheless, it continues to fall short of meeting essential living costs. Calculations indicate that a worker should ideally earn at least twice the amount of the latest increment to adequately cover these necessary expenses. A significant portion of the population—approximately one-third—finds itself residing beneath the threshold of basic food basket expenses. Consequently, Mexico ranks as the country where grocery expenses constitute the highest percentage of earnings. Furthermore, this predicament disproportionately impacts women, as they are often remunerated at lower wage rates.