Economic Hardship and Sustainable Development Goals in Carroll County

Executive Summary

A recent county survey indicates a significant level of economic instability among Carroll County families, despite a comparatively low official poverty rate for the state of Maryland. This report analyzes the findings through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting challenges to achieving key global targets at a local level.

Key Findings on Household Economic Status

1. Official Poverty Rate: Carroll County maintains a low poverty rate relative to other Maryland jurisdictions.
2. Prevalence of “ALICE” Households: The survey identified that nearly 25% of families in the county are classified as “ALICE” (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed).
3. Definition of ALICE: This designation applies to households with earnings above the Federal Poverty Level but below a basic cost-of-living threshold, indicating a struggle to afford essential necessities.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The prevalence of ALICE households directly impacts the progress toward several critical SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The data reveals a significant population experiencing economic hardship that is not captured by traditional poverty metrics. The ALICE statistic underscores the challenge of ending poverty “in all its forms everywhere,” as a substantial portion of the community lacks financial security despite being officially above the poverty line.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The fact that ALICE families are employed yet unable to make ends meet points to a deficit in “decent work.” This situation challenges the goal of achieving full and productive employment that provides a living wage and economic security for all.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The existence of a large group of financially struggling families within a county with a low overall poverty rate highlights underlying economic inequality. Addressing the needs of the ALICE population is crucial for reducing income-based disparities within the community.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: A community where nearly one-quarter of families struggle to afford basic needs is less resilient and sustainable. Ensuring access to affordable housing, transportation, and healthcare for these households is fundamental to making the community inclusive, safe, and sustainable.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues directly related to the following Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  This is the most prominent SDG addressed. The article explicitly discusses the “poverty rate” in Carroll County and identifies a specific group of people who are “struggling to make ends meet,” which is the central theme of SDG 1.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article’s focus on “ALICE” families (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) points to economic inequality. These families are working but their income is insufficient to cover basic costs, highlighting a disparity between wages and the cost of living. This relates to reducing economic inequalities within a community.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

• Target 1.2: Reduce poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

  The article directly addresses this target by discussing poverty beyond a single federal measure. It mentions both the “federal poverty line” and a “state designation” called “ALICE.” This demonstrates a focus on understanding and addressing poverty in its various dimensions as defined at national and sub-national levels.

• Target 10.2: Promote social, economic and political inclusion of all

  The existence of a significant population of “ALICE” families, who are employed yet financially struggling, points to a lack of full economic inclusion. These families are participating in the labor market but are not reaping sufficient economic benefits to be financially secure, which is a core concern of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies specific indicators for measuring progress:

• Indicator for Target 1.2

  The article provides data that can be used as indicators for measuring poverty according to national definitions:

  • Carroll County’s poverty rate: This is a direct measure corresponding to Indicator 1.2.1 (Proportion of population living below the national poverty line).
  • The proportion of “ALICE” families (“nearly 1 in 4”): This statistic serves as a specific measure for Indicator 1.2.2 (Proportion of people living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions), as “ALICE” is a specific, nationally-relevant definition of financial hardship.

• Indicator for Target 10.2

  The article implies an indicator for measuring economic inclusion:

  • The proportion of families living above the federal poverty line but still struggling financially (the “ALICE” population): This can be used as an indicator to measure the extent of economic exclusion. A high or rising proportion of such families suggests that economic growth is not inclusive and that many are being left behind despite being employed.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: baltimoresun.com