A pioneering tool for measuring disparities in quality of life, the Institute’s Wholeness Index combines 12 key indicators of wellbeing, using the latest analytical tools to bring razor-sharp clarity to the issues of disparity facing today's cities.  On each dimension, individually and as a composite, the Index calculates the degree of dissimilarity present within the city.

Each year, the annual Wholeness Index Summary Report will highlight the changes over time in this degree of dissimilarity.  In addition, the Summary Report contains a series of maps illuminating the spatial patterning of quality of life indicators within the city.  The approach is presently being replicated in other cities across the nation.  The Institute has conducted best practices research related to the disparities discovered by the Wholeness Index.  Click on the links below to learn more and download the research.

The Wholeness Index, vetted with community groups and academics, provides a visual picture of how neighborhoods differ, empowering the community to ask why.  How whole is your city? 

Last year we introduced the inaugural Wholeness Index, which revealed that many areas of our city were in fact not whole, and it became clear that our work was cut out for us.  In October 2007, we published the first updated Wholeness Index, Is Dallas Becoming More Whole?—a comprehensive look at where we are one year later.

The good news is that Dallas' overall 2007 wholeness score across all 12 indicators was 66.79, up 1.3 points from the 2006 score of 65.49.  While the realistic maximum score remains to be seen, an increase of 1.3 points indicates that greater wholeness is achievable, and that Dallas is making strides in the right direction.

As it was last year, Dallas is most whole on crime and wealth indicators.  Middle-class housing, fit housing, and SAT scores still are among the least whole indicators, but the increase in wholeness for middle-class housing did mean it is no longer the least whole of the 12 indicators (although the change may be largely attributable to rising interest rates rather than improvements to the housing stock.  Notable movement has occurred in the crime rate, graduation rate, and voter turnout rankings.  A significant increase in wholeness for crime means it led the pack even more strongly than last year.  A similar improvement in wholeness for graduation rates has moved that indicator from near the bottom of the list to roughly the middle.  Conversely, a decline in wholeness for voter turnout has moved it toward the bottom of the list.

Although analyzing wholeness indicator-by-indicator is a valuable tool for shaping public policy, quality of life is about the intersection of these indicators.  They must be understood in their collective context.  The data pinpoint both the magnitude and the geographic distribution of the disparities that prevent Dallas from being whole.  As the results of this first annual comparison suggest, these problems are not insurmountable.  Indeed, three measures of quality of life (crime, graduation rates, and middle-class housing) showed marked improvements.

Fundamentally, the 2007 Wholeness Index illustrates two key points.  First, increased wholeness is achievable.  In one year, the overall score for Dallas has improved by more than one point.  Second, greater wholeness is achieved by tackling specific problems in specific places.  Wholeness is achieved more swiftly when change is not uniform, but rather when resources are directed to the neighborhoods most in need of assistance.  The hope of the Williams Institute, looking to 2008 and beyond, is that reports such as this one, combined with subsequent in-depth analyses, will help policymakers direct resources effectively, moving Dallas toward greater wholeness.