Analysis

Diversity Stats 117th Congress

Statistics for the 117th Congress

In the spring of 2017, the partners of United by Interest (UBI) formed an LLC and signed paperwork to create the first majority-minority-owned bipartisan lobbying and public affairs firm in Washington, D.C. Our partners understand the world is changing but many in DC are stuck in the past, using outdated strategies that routinely fail. UBI builds strategies that reflect today’s political realities. We certainly have our political differences, but what unites us is agreement on something fundamental: the importance of diversity in advocacy, public affairs, and the coverage of politics.

This summer we conducted extensive research based on the most recent census data comparing the 100 poorest and 100 wealthiest congressional districts. Below are our findings.

Center out strategies don’t acknowledge that America and the Congressional landscape is changing.

  • In 107th Congress in 2001 there were 63 minority Members
  • In 117th Congress there were 124 minority Members 

In the past 20 years, Congress has become more racially diverse[1]:

  • Black representation in the 117th House has increased by 64% from the 107th House (36 Members in 2001 to 59 in 2021).
  • Hispanic representation in the 117th House has increased by 142% from the 107th House (19 Members in 2001 to 46 in 2021).
  • American Indian/Native American representation in the 117th House has increased by 500% from the 107th House (1 Member in 2001 to 6 in 2021).
  • Asian representation in the 117th House has increased by 143% from the 107th House (7 Members in 2001 to 17 in 2021).

Participation in moderate caucuses has declined substantially and participation in caucuses that represent the bases of both parties have increased substantially. 

Moderate caucuses:

  • House New Democrats has dropped by 9%
  • Republican Main Street Partnership has dropped by 28%
  • House Blue Dog Caucus has dropped by 44%
  • Tuesday Group has dropped by 52%

Base caucuses:

  • Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has increased by 42%
  • Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) has increased by 29%.
  • House Freedom Caucus (HFC) has increased by 13%
  • Republican Study Committee (RSC) has increased by 8%

Members in base caucuses make up more of the House of Representatives than Members in moderate caucuses

  • Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)/Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC)/Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC)/Republican Study Committee (RSC)/House Freedom Caucus (HFC) make up 68% of the House of Representatives
  • New Democrats/Blue Dogs/Tuesday Group/Republican Main Street Partnership make up 37% of the House of Representatives

Moderate caucuses represent wealthy districts that are out of touch with most of America.[2]

  • The 100 wealthiest districts have 55% higher median household income that the rest of the country
    • The White MHI in the 100 wealthiest districts is 54% higher than in the other districts. 
    • The Black MHI in the 100 wealthiest districts is 58% higher than in the other districts. 
    • The Hispanic MHI in the 100 wealthiest districts is 44% higher than in the other districts. 
    • The Asian MHI in the 100 wealthiest districts is 57% higher than in the other districts.
  • The 100 wealthiest districts have 62% more median 4-year college graduates that the rest of the country
    • There are 58% more White bachelor graduates than in the other districts. 
    • There 64% more Black bachelor graduates than in the other districts. 
    • There are 27% more Asian bachelor graduates than in the other districts. 
    • There are 36% more Hispanic bachelor graduates than in the other districts.
  • The 100 wealthiest districts have 14% less median unemployment than the rest of the country 
  • The 100 wealthiest districts send 28% fewer people into the military than the rest of the country

The political power of moderate white men and women form the ‘groupthink’ in the media and on K Street to the exclusion of others. These groups share similarly comfortable socioeconomic backgrounds and judge any viewpoint different from their own as “unreasonable”.

  • Since 2017, people of color have only increased from 17% to 22% of the salaried workforce among news publications and from 13% to 19% of newsroom managers[3]
  • Of The Hill’s 350 Top Lobbyists from 2020 86% were white and 14% were people of color.[4]
  • Of the Fortune 100 companies from 2020 the C-Suite had 17% people of color: 5% Blacks, 4% Hispanics, 7% Asian, and 1% Other.[5]
  • Of the S&P 500 companies there are 5 Black CEO’s.[6]

Caucuses representing both parties’ bases make up a very powerful bloc of Congress. 

  • The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) make up 60% of the Democratic Conference in the House of Representatives.
  • The House Freedom Caucus (HFC) and Republican Study Committee (RSC) make up 77% of the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives.

There are 51 Republican districts and 49 Democratic districts in the 100 poorest congressional districts. The powerful base caucuses overwhelmingly represent the 100 poorest districts in Congress.

  • 34% of 100 poorest are in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC)
    • 20 members or 37% of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are from the poorest 100 districts. 
    • 15 members or 48% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) are from the poorest 100 districts.
  • 42% of 100 poorest are in the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) and Republican Study Committee (RSC)
    • 11 members or 24% of the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) are from the poorest 100 districts.
    • 38 members or 25% of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) represent the 100 poorest districts. 
  • 24% other

Members from the 100 poorest districts have similar political profiles:

  • Members from the 100 poorest districts serve as leaders on more committees:
    • 54% of the Members from the 100 poorest districts serve as subcommittee Ranking Members or higher, up from 25% last Congress.[7]
  • Members in the 100 poorest districts stay in Congress longer:
    • On average hold their tenure 31% longer than other Representatives, up from 22% last Congress.[8]
  • Members from the 100 poorest districts rarely lose elections:
    • Only 2 Representatives from the 100 poorest districts lost incumbency in the 2020 Congressional elections.[9]
  • Members from the 100 poorest districts raise fewer contributions:
    • On average raised 28% less in contributions than other Representatives during the 2019-2020 election cycle.[10]

While politically diverse, the top 100 districts are economically similar and share many needs. [11]

  • The 100 poorest districts have 39% less median household income that the rest of the country
    • The MHI of White households in the poorest 100 districts is 39% lower than the other districts. 
    • The MHI of Black households in the poorest 100 districts is 39% lower than the other districts. 
    • The MHI of Asian households in the poorest 100 districts is 45% lower than the other districts. 
    • The MHI of Hispanic households in the poorest 100 districts is 27% lower than the other districts.
  • The 100 poorest districts on average spend 11% more of their household income on rent than the rest of the country
  • The 100 poorest districts have 50% less median 4-year college graduates that the rest of the country
    • There are 45% fewer White people with a bachelor’s degree in the 100 poorest districts than in the other districts. 
    • There are 53% fewer Black people with a bachelor’s degree in the 100 poorest districts than in the other districts. 
    • There are 15.45% fewer Asian people with a bachelor’s degree in the 100 poorest districts than in the other districts. 
    • There are 41% fewer Hispanic people with a bachelor’s degree in the 100 poorest districts than in the other districts.
  • The 100 poorest districts have 25% more median unemployment than the rest of the country 

[1] Diversity data taken from Pew Research Center study https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/10/the-changing-face-of-congress/

[2] Statistics on median household income, bachelor’s degrees, unemployment, and military involvement for each congressional district and by race taken from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

[3] Statistics are from News Leaders Association’s 2019 Diversity Survey results, statistics from drawn from 429 publications’ responses  https://www.newsleaders.org/2019-diversity-survey-results

[4] Lobbyist data manually taken from https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/529550-the-hills-top-lobbyists-2020

[5] Statistics are from Stanford University study Stanford Closer Look | Diversity in the C-Suite

[6] Statistics taken from Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/black-ceo-ranks-dwindle-with-ken-frazier-s-exit-from-merck?sref=8w5tE3Nb

[7] Subcommittee membership data manually taken from House Committee websites 

[8] Tenure data manually taken from https://bioguide.congress.gov/ for each Representative

[9] T.J. Cox (CA-48) and Xochitl Torres Small (NM-2), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/03/who-lost-in-congress-2020-433816

[10] Contributions data manually taken from https://www.opensecrets.org/ for each Representative

[11] Statistics on median household income, median household income on rent, bachelor’s degrees, and unemployment for each congressional district and by race taken from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs