Impact Thursday 4: Tackling Economic Inequality, Revisited Continuing Legal Education Materials

Impact Thursday 4: Tackling Economic
Inequality, Revisited
Continuing Legal Education Materials
DATE: Thursday, March 3, 2016
TIME: Program 5:30 p.m – 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: New York Law School
185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013
PANELISTS: Eric Alterman, Author, Inequality and One City
Commissioner Steven Banks, NYC Human Resources
Administration
Commissioner Gladys Carrion, NYC Administration for Children’s
Services
Maya Wiley, Counsel to the Mayor
MODERATOR:
CLE:
Professor Andrew Scherer, Policy Director, Impact Center for
Public Interest Law at New York Law School
1.5 Continuing Legal Education credits, Areas of Professional
Practice, Transitional and Non-Transitional
Impact Thursday:
Tackling Economic Inequality, Revisited
March 3, 2016
Table of Contents
Timed Agenda……………………...………………………………………………………………….……..2
Panelist Biographies…………………………………………………………...……………………...……..3
HRA January 2016 Fact Sheet ……………….………………………………………..…….……...........6
NYC Administration for Children’s Services Flash Sheet January 2016…………….....…………......9
Articles from Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality:
Income Inequality Hits Home, Steven W. Bender ……….........................……………...….43
The Price of Equal Justice: How Establishing a Right to Counsel for People Who Fact
Losing Their Homes Helps Tackle Economic Inequality, Andrew Scherer………………....50
Ending Child Poverty in New York, Melanie Hartzog and Patti
Banghart…………………………………………………………………………………...…........58
Remarks: The New York City Human Resources Administration’s Role in Fighting Poverty
and Income Inequality and Preventing Homelessness, Steven Banks .......……………….66
Excerpts from the New York State Community Action Association’s New York State Poverty
Report, 2016……………………………….…………..........................................................................71
Excerpts from One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City, Mayor de Blasio’s Report…...91
The CLE materials are available online at
http://www.nyls.edu/impact-center-for-public-interest-law/impact-events/ under
Impact Thursday: Tackling Economic Inequality: Revisited
1.5 CLE credits are available in Areas of Professional Practice (transitional and non-transitional)
Timed Agenda
Impact Thursday 4: Tackling Economic Inequality, Revisited
5:30 – 5:40:
•
•
•
•
Introductions
Eric Alterman, Author, Inequality and One City
Commissioner Steven Banks, NYC Human Resources Administration
Commissioner Gladys Carrion, NYC Administration for Children’s Services
Maya Wiley, Counsel to the Mayor
5:40 – 6:45:
Moderated Panel discussion and Question and Answer
Panel Description:
This moderated panel discussion on the de Blasio administration’s efforts to tackle economic
inequality during the administration’s first two years and it’s plans for the future will address
questions such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why tackle economic inequality?
The racial and gender dimensions of economic inequality.
What has worked and what hasn’t?
What are the most significant obstacles to success and how can they be addressed?
The role of the federal and state governments.
Policy and legal measures affecting family life, housing and homelessness, education, income and jobs,
the digital divide, and more.
6:45 – 7:30:
Reception
2
Impact Thursday:
Tackling Economic Inequality, Revisited
March 3, 2016
Panelist Biographies
Eric Alterman is Distinguished Professor of English and Journalism, Brooklyn College, City
University of New York, and Professor of Journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.
He is also “The Liberal Media” columnist for The Nation, a senior fellow at the Center for American
Progress in Washington, DC, and the Nation Institute and the World Policy Institute in New York,
as well as former columnist for The Daily Beast, The Forward, Moment,Rolling Stone, Mother
Jones, the Sunday Express (London) etc, Alterman is the author of ten books, including the
national bestseller What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News. His first book, Sound
& Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy (1992), won the George Orwell Award, and hisIt Ain’t No
Sin to Be Glad You’re Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen (1999) won the Jack London
Literary Prize.
Alterman has been called “the most honest and incisive media critic writing today” in the National
Catholic Reporter and author of “the smartest and funniest political journal out there,” in The San
Francisco Chronicle. A winner of the George Orwell Prize, the Jack London Literary Award and the
Mirror Award for media criticism, he has previously taught at Columbia and NYU and has been
Hoover Institution Media fellow at Stanford University. Alterman received his B.A. in History and
Government from Cornell, his M.A. in International Relations from Yale, and his Ph.D. in US
History from Stanford.
Commissioner Steven Banks was appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio as Commissioner of
the New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services (HRA) on
February 28, 2014, and he has served in that position since April 1, 2014. As Commissioner,
Banks serves as chief executive of the largest local social services agency in the country, which
serves over 3 million New Yorkers through the administration of more than 12 major public
assistance programs, with 15,000 employees and an operating budget of over $9 billion.
Commissioner Banks is a key leader in implementing Mayor de Blasio’s agenda to expand
opportunity for more New Yorkers, address income inequality, and ensure that New Yorkers
receive the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled.
Commissioner Banks has dedicated his entire career to improving the lives of low-income New
Yorkers and is recognized as one of New York City’s leading public interest lawyers. Throughout
his 33 years with the Legal Aid Society, Banks developed an extensive track record of working
productively with a unionized workforce and helping the city’s most vulnerable residents – including
seniors, survivors of domestic violence, immigrants, and people living with HIV/AIDS – navigate
HRA’s programs and services. From 2004 until his appointment, Banks was the Attorney-in-Chief
of the Legal Aid Society, the country’s oldest and largest not-for-profit legal services organization.
During his tenure, he led the organization through a complete financial and managerial
restructuring to save it from bankruptcy in 2004. With an annual budget of $225 million, he
3
managed a staff of 1,900, including some 1,100 lawyers, and was responsible for all aspects of the
legal practice and operations of the organization’s criminal, juvenile rights, and civil programs in
New York City. Prior to becoming the Attorney-in-Chief, Banks held the positions of Associate
Attorney-in-Chief, Deputy Attorney-in-Charge of the Civil Practice, Coordinating Attorney of the
Homeless Rights Project, and Director of Government Relations for the Civil Practice. He began
his career at Legal Aid in 1981 as a Staff Attorney in the organization’s Staten Island Neighborhood
Office. He has also previously served as counsel to the Coalition for the Homeless, and he was the
lead attorney in major class action litigation requiring the provision of lawful shelter and services to
homeless New Yorkers.
He is credited with helping reach a landmark settlement with the City in 2008 over its treatment of
homeless children and adults, which resulted in the establishment of a permanent enforceable right
to shelter for homeless families in New York City.
The American Lawyer has listed him as one of the top 45 public interest lawyers in the United
States, The Daily News described him as “perhaps the City’s most legendary Legal Aid attorney in
this generation,” and New York Magazine called him one of the most influential New Yorkers.
Banks graduated from the New York University School of Law in 1981, and from Brown University
in 1978.
Commissioner Gladys Carrión has been recognized as a national leader in her efforts to
reform the Juvenile Justice system in New York State and a fearless advocate for children and
families involved in the child welfare system. She has received numerous awards and has served
on several national advisory committees focused on reforming the juvenile justice system and
promoting the well-being of young adults. She was appointed Commissioner of the New York City
Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in January 2014, where she is charged with providing
child welfare, early childhood care and juvenile justice services to the City’s most vulnerable
children and families. She is now responsible for implementing Close to Home, the City’s juvenile
justice program.
Prior to her appointment to ACS, Gladys Carrión was Commissioner of the Office of Children and
Family Services (OCFS), overseeing New York State’s child welfare, early childhood care and
juvenile justice systems. As OCFS Commissioner, Carrión is credited with implementing a
differential response model- FAR-the Family Assessment Response in New York State and
overhauling the juvenile justice system. Under her leadership, Carrión shut down 21 juvenile
centers, diverting juvenile justice involved youth to less costly and more effective therapeutic
programs located closer to home.
Maya Wiley is currently serving as Counsel to the Mayor, under Mayor de Blasio. Wiley advises
the Mayor on legal matters involving City Hall and the executive staff, and also provides counsel to
the Mayor on the legal aspects of policy and administrative matters. She spearheads special
projects, such as expanding affordable broadband access across all five boroughs, jobs for all New
Yorkers and civil and human rights and gender equity. She is the City's Minority/Women Owned
Business Enterprise Director and the Mayor's liaison to the Mayor's Advisory Committee on the
Judiciary. She also serves on the City's Procurement Policy Board, and the Board of the Fund for
4
the City of New York. She is the Founder and former President of the Center for Social Inclusion, a
national policy strategy organization on racial inclusion. A civil rights attorney and policy advocate,
she has litigated, lobbied the U.S. Congress and developed programs to transform structural
racism in the U.S. and in South Africa. Maya holds a J.D. from Columbia University School of Law
and a bachelor's degree in Psychology from Dartmouth College.
Andrew Scherer is the Policy Director of the Impact Center for Public Interest Law at New York
Law School and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor at the law school, where he teaches Land Use
Regulation. He also directs the Impact Center’s Right to Counsel Project. Professor Scherer is the
author of the treatise, Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in New York (Thomson Reuters), originally
published in 1994 and updated annually, and of numerous law review articles and other published
works. Professor Scherer is also an Adjunct Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School
of Architecture, Planning and Preservation and has taught at CUNY Law School, NYU Law School
(in the Root-Tilden public interest scholars program), Yangon University in Myanmar, and
Bennington College. He has lectured widely in the U.S. and in Latin America, Africa and Asia. He
received his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. from NYU Law School. He is
fluent in Spanish.
5
`
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION
Ellen Levine
Chief Program Planning and
Financial Management Officer
Lisa Garabedian
Office of Planning and
Performance Management
STEVEN BANKS
Commissioner
Deputy Commissioner
Report # MCA40
HRA FACTS:
CASH ASSISTANCE
Cash Assistance Unduplicated Recipients
(1 month) A
Recurring Assistance
Emergency Assistance Only B
January 2016
JANUARY 2016
DECEMBER 2015
JANUARY 2015
JANUARY 2011
367,127
358,130
8,997
370,742
360,398
10,344
351,491
343,400
8,091
351,807
346,834
4,973
FAP (formerly AFDC)
60 Month converted to SNA
SNA (formerly HR)
143,957
86,418
136,752
146,587
87,146
137,009
142,977
79,585
128,929
151,363
87,443
113,001
Cases
FAP (formerly AFDC)
60 Month converted to SNA
SNA (formerly HR)
194,856
61,364
26,963
106,529
196,822
62,528
27,393
106,901
188,160
61,773
25,180
101,207
188,428
68,278
28,462
91,688
Children
FAP (formerly AFDC)
60 Month converted to SNA
SNA (formerly HR)
177,035
103,422
55,778
17,835
179,399
105,218
56,333
17,848
173,744
104,718
52,539
16,487
187,378
114,519
60,324
12,535
Cash Assistance Unduplicated Recipients
(12 Months) C
Recurring Assistance
Emergency Assistance Only B
Total Cash Assistance
Gross Expenditures A
FAP (formerly AFDC)
60 Month converted to SNA
SNA (formerly HR)
598,432
491,268
107,164
597,347
489,693
107,654
590,827
486,209
104,618
626,335
518,197
108,138
$124,656,921
$42,767,345
$17,371,121
$64,518,455
$130,411,075
$45,381,198
$18,223,391
$66,806,486
$123,755,311
$43,961,126
$16,464,322
$63,329,863
$112,649,318
$41,260,614
$18,290,650
$53,098,054
EMPLOYMENT
D
HRA Assisted Entries into Employment
Retention:
Retention - 3 Months
Retention - 6 Months
JANUARY 2016
3,432
DECEMBER 2015
5,101
JANUARY 2015
3,602
JANUARY 2011
4,475
84%
73%
82%
74%
85%
74%
90%
80%
SNAP
SNAP Recipients
Cash Assistance
Non-Cash Assistance & SSI
SNAP Households
Cash Assistance
Non-Cash Assistance & SSI
JANUARY 2016
1,676,822
409,452
1,267,370
942,019
197,829
744,190
DECEMBER 2015
1,688,470
411,672
1,276,798
947,736
199,001
748,735
JANUARY 2015
1,722,856
397,882
1,324,974
963,436
191,889
771,547
JANUARY 2011
1,805,763
409,438
1,396,325
991,577
197,649
793,928
PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE
Medicaid Enrollees (HRA Administered)
Medicaid - Only
Managed Care Enrollees
Child Health Plus Enrollees
JANUARY 2016
2,196,950
1,423,364
1,621,650
103,369
DECEMBER 2015
2,207,727
1,442,141
1,643,820
103,956
JANUARY 2015
2,504,263
1,739,949
1,973,363
100,230
JANUARY 2011
2,903,849
2,130,487
1,999,434
141,707
SSI
SSI Recipients
Aged
Disabled & Blind
JANUARY 2016
424,477
106,252
318,225
DECEMBER 2015
425,442
106,854
318,588
JANUARY 2015
433,950
107,937
326,013
JANUARY 2011
421,882
102,831
319,051
6
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Total Cases (With Orders)
CA Support Cases
NCA Support Cases
Total Collections - $000
DECEMBER 2015
283,606
33,269
250,337
65,265
NOVEMBER 2015
282,939
33,634
249,305
56,210
DECEMBER 2014
284,624
32,658
251,966
61,993
DECEMBER 2010
280,007
33,504
246,503
66,926
HOMELESSNESS:
NOVEMBER 2015
OCTOBER 2015
DECEMBER 2014
DECEMBER 2010
7,138
1,490
11.44%
10,552
2,028
14.35%
6,065
1,213
15.33%
9,218
2,006
18.39%
EMERGENCY & INTERVENTION
SERVICES
Office of Domestic Violence:
Average Number of Families Served per Day
Nonresidential Program Active Caseload
DECEMBER 2015
NOVEMBER 2015
DECEMBER 2014
DECEMBER 2010
785
1,596
797
1,483
782
3,482
762
2,789
HASA
Total HASA Cases
Family Cases
Single Cases
Homemaker Cases
Rental Assistance/Housing Cases
DECEMBER 2015
31,270
3,529
27,741
82
N/A
NOVEMBER 2015
31,261
3,543
27,718
83
N/A
DECEMBER 2014
31,939
3,693
28,246
99
26,707
DECEMBER 2010
31,843
4,478
27,365
237
25,905
HOME CARE
Total Home Care Cases
Total Home Attendant Cases
Housekeeper Cases
Long Term Home Health Care Cases
Managed Long Term Care
DECEMBER 2015
126,433
3,504
1,125
58
121,746
NOVEMBER 2015
124,577
3,478
1,113
67
119,919
DECEMBER 2014
123,191
3,594
1,052
193
118,352
DECEMBER 2010
82,279
36,048
5,079
15,031
30,121
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Referrals Received
Assessment cases
Undercare Cases
DECEMBER 2015
1,976
3,847
6,844
NOVEMBER 2015
1,844
3,774
6,879
DECEMBER 2014
1,900
3,709
6,202
DECEMBER 2010
1,479
3,334
5,994
DIVISION OF VOLUNTARY & PROPRIETARY
HOMES FOR ADULTS
Total Supportive Housing Beds
DECEMBER 2015
NOVEMBER 2015
DECEMBER 2014
DECEMBER 2010
14,032
14,031
13,685
13,242
PREVENTION or DIVERSIONE
Households Serviced
Homeless Households Serviced
Diverted: by HRA at PATH
Source: New York City Human Resources Administration,
Office of Planning and Performance Management, January, 2016.
For more detailed information call (929) 221-7038
A
Prior to June 2013, some “60 Month Converted” cases that were changed by New York State programming directives to the Family Assistance category continued to be reported as 60
Month Converted cases. Beginning in June 2013, these cases are reported correctly in the Family Assistance category. While month to month and year to year changes in total cases
and total persons are not affected by the recategorization, the changes do not permit May to June 2013 and year to year comparisons between the three case types.
B
Emergency Assistance excludes the category "Safety Net Emergency Assistance" due to systems limitations
C
Cash Assistance Recipients Unduplicated (12 months) reports the unduplicated number of recipients of Cash Assistance within the current and previous 11 months and allows for a
more precise representation of the total number of recipients served by HRA over time.
D
As of January 2014, the indicator HRA Assisted Entries into Employment replaced the prior indicator for reporting Job Placements. The new indicator only reports entries into
employment for recipients who participated in an HRA program or obtained employment independently while receiving HRA benefits.
E
Beginning February 2015, all data for Homelessness: Prevention or Diversion will be published with a two month lag. This is due to the increase in service volume which requires
more time for the program to collect, analyze and report data.
7
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION
Ellen Levine
Chief Program Planning and Financial
Management Officer
Lisa Garabedian
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Planning
& Performance Management
STEVEN BANKS
Commissioner
Report # Q03
HRA FACTS QUARTERLY SUPPLEMENT
JANUARY 2016
CASH ASSISTANCE (CA)a
RECIPIENTS BY BOROUGH
Manhattan
Bronx
Queens
Brooklyn
Staten Island
Othersd
Total
Family Assistance Program (FAP)b
Persons
Cases
16,507
7,601
59,637
24,779
18,414
8,049
42,382
18,037
6,757
2,747
260
151
143,957
61,364
BENEFITS
Total Maximum Cash Assistance
Grant by Household size
NYS Maximum Shelter
Allowance: Private Only
Average CA Grant
Average Food Stamp Benefite **
Safety Net Assistance (SNA)c
Persons
Cases
22,653
20,698
39,467
31,684
21,894
17,988
47,871
32,274
4,457
3,514
410
371
136,752
106,529
60 mo. Converted to SNA
Persons
Cases
9,123
3,128
40,453
12,517
8,518
2,658
24,642
7,621
3,591
1,013
91
26
86,418
26,963
JAN 2016
Family Size
1
$398
JAN 2015
Family Size
JAN 2014
Family Size
3
$789
1
$398
3
$789
1
$398
3
$789
$215
$472
$145
$400
$783
$436
$215
$491
$145
$400
$667
$436
$215
$477
$144
$400
$770
$431
AVERAGE MONTHLY PER PERSON
FS AND TANF GRANT,
NATIONAL vs. NYC, FFY 2014f
$350
CA POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
$338
$300
$250
Ages
FAP
SNA
Children:
0-12 months
13 month - 4 years
5 - 13 years
14 - 17 years*
3%
17%
32%
11%
1%
2%
4%
1%
60 Mo. Converted to SNA
$200
$150
0%
4%
17%
8%
$146
$125
$115
$100
$50
$0
FS Grant
TANF Grant
NYC
Total CA
Children
National
4%
0-12 mos.
23%
FAP
SNA
92%
7%
1%
74%
24%
1%
FAP
SNA
0 to 8th grade
9th to 11th grade
HS or post HS grade
5%
37%
58%
11%
34%
55%
Sex
Male Adults
Female Adults
FAP
19%
81%
SNA
52%
48%
CASELOAD PROFILE:
Citizenship: (Case Head)
Citizen
Permanent Resident
Asylum/Refugees/Other
20%
13mos.-4 yrs.
5-13 yrs.
14-17 yrs.
53%
60 Mo. Converted to SNA
90%
10%
0%
60 Mo. Converted to SNA
Education: (Adult Case Head)
Adults
18 - 24 years
25 - 44 years
45 - 64 years
65+
FAP
6%
14%
3%
0%
SNA
5%
16%
29%
11%
60 Mo. Converted to SNA
2%
10%
3%
0%
Adult
Total CA
Adults
11%
14%
18-24 yrs.
25-44 yrs.
35%
HRA/DSS
Total Full-Time Employees
45-64 yrs.
40%
65+ yrs.
4%
45%
50%
60 Mo. Converted to SNA
14%
86%
Children
Avg # of Children
per case
Cases with Children under 3 g
1.69
0.17
2.07
29%
3%
14%
Ethnicity: (Case Head)
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
42%
49%
6%
3%
48%
32%
10%
9%
52%
41%
4%
3%
JAN 2016
OCT 2015
13,833
14,109
JAN 2015
14,249
* Total percentage is rounded for category 14-17years
** As of January 2008, to conform with State and Federal practice, this report includes Food Stamp Issuances for the Residential Treatment Services Center.
a Formerly referred to as Public Assistance.
b Formerly Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC).
c Formerly Home Relief (HR).
d Non-NYC residents included.
e Food Stamp Eligibility Report represents data from Jul 2014/ Jul 2013 / Jul 2012.
f National data comes from ACF-HHS & SNAP and NYC data comes from CA Composite Roll & CRM 100.
g Data includes children not in school.
8
JAN 2014
14,068
.
Flash
January 2016
9
Early Care and Education
Children Enrolled in Contracted EarlyLearn Programs
Children Using Vouchers for Child Care
January 2012 – December 2015 (End of Month)
January 2012 – December 2015 (End of Month)
80,000
80,000
70,000
Number of Children
60,000
50,000
66,501
60,000
66,446
50,000
40,000
30,886
30,000
30,248
20,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
70,000
10,000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
Note: Beginning October 1, 2012 ACS converted its early care and education system to a new model, EarlyLearn NYC.
10 available because contractors were in the midst of
Enrollment data for the transitional months of October – December 2012 are not
implementing the data collection systems.
2
Child Protection
SCR Intakes
January 2012 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,277
5,148
5,000
4,000
3,000
CY 2012 Total = 61,284
CY 2013 Total = 60,998
2,000
CY 2014 Total = 61,630
CY 2015 Total = 61,466
1,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
11
See Pages 28 through 32 of the Appendix for supporting data.
3
Child Protection
SCR Consolidated Investigations
January 2012 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,661
4,622
4,000
3,000
2,000
CY 2012 Total = 55,489
CY 2013 Total = 55,079
1,000
CY 2014 Total = 55,773
CY 2015 Total = 54,683
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
12
2015
4
Child Protection
SCR Investigation Indication Rate
January 2012 – October 2015
45%
40%
37.0%
35%
33.6%
CY 2012 Total = 40.2%
30%
CY 2013 Total = 38.0%
CY 2014 Total = 39.5%
CY 2015 YTD = 38.0%
25%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
13
5
Child Protection
Average P/D Combined Caseload*
October 2014 – December 2014 & October 2015 – December 2015
10.7 10.8
11.6
10.6
11.4
9.0
11.3 10.9
12.5 11.9
11.8
9.6
11.1 11.6 11.2 11.5
13.0
9.4
2014
Oct-14
9.6
10.6
Nov-14
11.2
10.7
9.3 8.9
8.4
11.8
Dec-14
12.5
10.4 9.9
9.6
10.5
11.4
10.2 10.0
11.4
9.3
2015
Oct-15
Nov-15
NYC
Bronx
Brooklyn
Dec-15
Manhattan
14
Queens
Staten Isl.
* Caseloads are of protective/diagnostic caseworkers only and exclude the caseloads carried by Level I and Level II Supervisors.
6
Child Protection
OSI Investigations by Program
December 2014 – December 2015
55
40
34
49
30
60
52
54
46
23
35
42
39
162
179
143
199
159
196
152
152
140
134
167
144
166
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Dec-15
Foster Care
Number of
Investigations
Day Care
Dec
2014
Jan
2015
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
Apr
2015
May
2015
Jun
2015
Jul
2015
Aug
2015
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
Dec
2015
192
213
166
239
208
251
212
206
186
173
219
186
201
15
7
Child Protection
Article 10 Total Filings & Filing Outcomes, CY 2012 – December 2015
9.2%
9.8%
34.7% 28.9%
10.1% 14.2%
9.5%
27.7% 31.5%
25.4% 24.2% 29.4%
56.2% 61.3% 62.2% 54.3%
CY
2012
CY
2013
CY
2014
65.0%
9.3%
8.0%
26.6% 21.5% 26.9%
65.1% 62.7% 61.1%
14.5% 12.3% 10.2% 11.9%
23.4% 23.1% 23.1% 22.3%
60.3% 60.3% 65.4%
62.4% 64.6%
67.4%
24.2%
63.9%
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
Court Ordered Supervision
Article10
Filings
12.3% 18.2% 12.8% 11.2%
Removal
Other/Unspecified
CY
2012
CY
2013
CY
2014
Jan
2015
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
Apr
2015
May
2015
Jun
2015
July
2015
Aug
2015
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
Dec
2015
8,913
9,318
9,900
812
924
1,012
892
940
959
875
769
752
772
743
807
16
Note: The category “Other/Unspecified” includes released with no supervision,
no order issued and no outcome specified. Outcomes of cases heard
the next day are not captured in this report
8
Child Protection
Article 10 Filing Removals, December 2014 – December 2015
Dec-15
43.1%
Nov-15
56.9%
41.0%
Oct-15
35.4%
Sep-15
56.2%
48.1%
51.9%
39.6%
Apr-15
60.4%
34.4%
65.6%
50.6%
49.4%
41.3%
Jan-15
Dec-14
57.8%
43.8%
May-15
Feb-15
58.6%
42.2%
Jul-15
Mar-15
64.6%
41.4%
Aug-15
Jun-15
59.0%
58.7%
37.1%
62.9%
41.2%
58.8%
Pre-Filing Emergency Removals (court approved at initial hearing)
Dec
2014
Number of Removals
262
Jan
2015
256
Feb
2015
235
Mar
2015
245
Apr
2015
May
2015
262
250
17
Post-Filing Removals (court ordered at initial hearing)
Jun
2015
206
July
2015
235
Aug
2015
180
Sep
2015
174
Oct
2015
178
Nov
2015
166
Dec
2015
195
9
Preventive Services
New Preventive Cases*
January 2012 – December 2015
1,400
1,227
New Cases
1,200
1,000
1,122
800
600
CY 2012 Total = 10,830
400
CY 2013 Total = 11,235
CY 2014 Total = 12,372
200
0
CY 2015 Total = 12,063
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
*Notes: 1) New preventive cases do not include cases transferred from one preventive program to another. 2) See Pages 33 and 34 of the Appendix for
18
supporting data.
10
Preventive Services
New Preventive Cases* by Program Type
December 2014 – December 2015
15
19
135
7
25
69
56
211
112
14
77
4
20
55
54
166
5
86
5
21
64
64
148
123
2
15
81
66
197
99
10
105
3
21
89
61
199
84
103
9
117
4
29
75
40
11
103
6
38
105
7
12
61
2
19
65
48
9
64
3
3
87
47
63
192
194
175
190
119
92
115
89
4
62
2
17
84
30
132
93
68
12
13
120
2
15
60
56
111
165
162
65
68
20
66
34
120
1
22
90
60
JJI
FAP
Sexually E xploited
169
Medically Fragile
Intensive Family
102
Specialized Teen
Converted EBMs
FTR
GP
593
368
505
672
531
488
559
453
Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15
Number of New
Preventive Cases
468
Jul-15
403
384
385
551
Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
Dec
2014
Jan
2015
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
Apr
2015
May
2015
Jun
2015
Jul
2015
Aug
2015
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
Dec
2015
1,227
826
1,001
1,270
1,103
1,048
1,196
967
965
827
879
859
1,122
19
Note: New preventive cases do not include cases transferred from one preventive program to another.
11
Foster Care
Average Pre-Placement Residential Monthly Population
December 2014 – December 2015
2.7%
3.5%
4.3%
2.2%
0.6%
0.3%
4.7%
2.3%
0.7%
3.0%
2.4%
0.0%
3.6%
52.8%
54.8%
45.5%
43.7%
50.9%
49.9%
53.3%
47.6%
52.7%
50.7%
46.3%
48.5%
64.8%
6.3%
10.9%
16.0%
15.9%
20.1%
17.5%
10.5%
10.8%
13.8%
11.8%
11.1%
9.9%
8.3%
9.9%
11.5%
13.0%
13.0%
14.8%
10.0%
9.5%
7.0%
20.4%
19.9%
13.1%
18.8%
11.2%
12.4%
13.9%
7.5%
7.9%
9.9%
10.2%
15.8%
11.0%
10.9%
12.5%
12.0%
13.5%
8.2%
6.6%
7.5%
10.8%
8.6%
12.7%
13.9%
15.8%
6.2%
8.1%
5.5%
10.8%
9.9%
10.7%
Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
Newborn - 3 years old
Dec
2014
Average Number
of Children
Jan
2015
44
51
4-6 years old
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
39
50
7-10 years old
Apr
2015
52
11-13 years old
May
2015
Jun
2015
60
50
14-18 years old
July
2015
Aug
2015
42
40
> =19 yrs
Sep
2015
36
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
45
*Beginning in December 2014 the pre-placement residential population includes children at the Children’s Center and at the MercyFirst
20
Reception Center.
40
Dec
2015
40
12
Foster Care
Total Monthly Placements
January 2012 – November 2015
800
700
600
500
400
300
280
231
200
CY 2012 Total = 5,237
CY 2013 Total = 4,527
100
CY 2014 Total = 4,281
CY 2015 YTD = 3,566
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
21
13
Foster Care
Reason for Initial Placements into Foster Care
November 2014 – November 2015
11
23
26
15
3
10
20
10
3
21
18
9
11
22
16
12
7
13
17
8
16
29
16
10
6
25
22
5
7
22
21
14
14
3
16
23
10
22
21
13
16
19
19
21
5
20
20
9
27
15
19
7
237
324
295
277
313
301
276
268
264
263
219
258
163
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Article 10
Nov
2014
Number of
Placements
280
Dec
2014
399
Jan
2015
356
PINS
JD
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
322
Voluntary
Apr
2015
364
22
372
Other/Unknown
May
2015
334
Jun
2015
332
Jul
2015
334
Aug
2015
315
Sep
2015
273
Oct
2015
333
Nov
2015
231
14
Foster Care
Placements* by Age
CY 2012 - November 2015
31.7%
32.5%
29.7%
35.5%
26.9%
28.6%
32.9%
34.6%
32.3%
32.8%
28.4%
33.4%
22.8%
21.7%
20.3%
20.8%
23.9%
21.9%
18.8%
24.1%
46.6%
CY 2012
47.2%
CY 2013
40.4%
CY 2014
Jan-15
49.2%
Feb-15
48.3%
Mar-15
Newborn - 5 years old
Placements
(without JDs)
Apr-15
24.0%
34.9%
22.9%
21.2%
21.8%
22.9%
48.6%
48.4%
25.7%
43.6%
46.0%
May-15
Jun-15
47.0%
6-11 years old
Jul-15
47.6%
Aug-15
19.3%
51.4%
Sep-15
43.6%
45.8%
Oct-15
Nov-15
12 years old and over
CY
2012
CY
2013
CY
2014
Jan
2015
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
Apr
2015
May
2015
Jun
2015
Jul
2015
Aug
2015
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
4,823
4,170
3,983
344
305
346
356
312
311
313
292
253
314
212
23
*Excludes JD placements.
15
Foster Care
Children in Foster Care*
November 2014 – November 2015 (end of month)
3,560
32.5%
3,591
32.5%
3,610
3,589
32.4%
32.4%
242
242
241
240
3,592
32.3%
3,615
3,589
32.5%
32.3%
3,543
32.4%
240
248
244
240
3,437
32.4%
3,405
32.7%
3,367
32.6%
3,362
32.7%
3,260
32.4%
239
233
230
231
223
5,337
5,397
5,415
5,419
5,425
5,393
5,392
48.7%
48.8%
48.5%
48.9%
48.8%
48.4%
48.5%
5,298
48.5%
5,136
48.4%
4,991
47.9%
4,935
47.8%
4,905
47.6%
921
936
946
929
920
913
915
905
880
897
884
910
900
895
900
945
916
930
912
895
899
8.6%
8.7%
887
859
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
8.2%
Nov-14
8.1%
8.5%
Dec-14
Jan-15
934
976
968
8.3%
8.4%
8.8%
8.7%
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Residential
Nov
2014
Number in Foster Care
10,955
Treatment FFC
8.5%
8.6%
Jun-15
Jul-15
Regular FBH
Special Medical
4,833
48.0% 48.7%
8.6%
8.5%
Kinship
Dec
2014
Jan
2015
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
Apr
2015
May
2015
Jun
2015
Jul
2015
Aug
2015
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
11,066
11,157
11,093
11,111
11,137
11,112
10,920
10,604
10,421
10,315
10,295
10,075
24 in foster homes or residential care facilities with their mothers who are in foster
*Excludes JD placements and includes approximately 400 young children who are living
care (8D children).
16
Foster Care
Children Freed for Adoption, Surrender by at Least One Parent
November 2014 – November 2015
26
25
24
15
19
42
18
25
18
25
24
26
22
45
59
46
38
61
67
40
56
56
54
68
47
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
no surrender
Nov
2014
Number
Freed for Adoption
69
Dec
2014
84
Jan
2015
61
Feb
2015
64
Mar
2015
33
Nov-15
surrender
Apr
2015
79
93
May
2015
64
Jun
2015
74
Jul
2015
81
Aug
2015
96
Sep
2015
87
Oct
2015
72
Nov
2015
55
25
17
Foster Care
Permanency and Non-Permanency* Discharges from Foster Care**
November 2014 – November 2015
33
61
21
52
53
196
48
23
40
55
61
23
26
61
54
23
39
13
31
75
45
19
15
123
96
90
59
49
59
16
30
21
77
69
49
65
62
15
186
169
172
181
239
208
239
236
212
191
197
203
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Reunifications
Nov
2014
Number of
Discharges
436
Dec
2014
280
Adoptions
Jan
2015
311
Feb
2015
322
KinGAP
Mar
2015
398
Apr
2015
350
187
167
Nov-15
Non-Permanency Discharges
May
2015
410
Jun
2015
439
Jul
2015
352
Aug
2015
347
Sep
2015
346
Oct
2015
329
Nov
2015
414
*Non-permanency discharges include AWOL, APPLA , other discharge destinations such as psychiatric institutions and correctional facilities and discharges
26
with unspecified destinations.
**Excludes discharges of youth who entered care as a JD.
18
Foster Care
Residential Care Capacity and Utilization
November 2014 – November 2015
161
154
115
145
127
84
117
136
155
147
145
156
184
894
901
946
916
934
977
950
931
912
896
898
887
859
Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15
Used
Capacity
Jul-15
Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15
Not Used
Nov
2014
Dec
2014
Jan
2015
Feb
2015
Mar
2015
Apr
2015
May
2015
Jun
2015
Jul
2015
Aug
2015
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
1,055
1,055
1,061
1,061
1,061
1,061
1,067
1,067
1,067
1,043
1,043
1,043
1,043
27
22
Juvenile Justice
Total Monthly Admissions to Detention
February 2012 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
450
400
350
300
250
217
200
188
150
CY 2012 Total = 3,806
CY 2013 Total = 3,319
100
CY 2014 Total = 2,928
50
0
CY 2015 Total = 2,727
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
28
20
Juvenile Justice
Admit Authority on Admissions
December 2014 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
6.4%
4.2%
4.7%
5.0%
5.9%
7.4%
4.7%
5.5%
4.2%
4.3%
3.7%
2.7%
4.1%
41.0%
37.1%
34.0%
31.8%
30.7%
29.7%
38.7%
38.7%
30.5%
35.9%
31.5%
32.7%
34.1%
52.7%
58.8%
61.3%
63.2%
63.4%
62.9%
56.6%
55.8%
65.3%
59.8%
64.8%
64.6%
61.8%
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Dec-15
Police
Dec
2014
Number of
Admissions
188
Jan
2015
240
Feb
2015
191
Mar
2015
258
Apr
2015
202
Court
May
2015
256
Other
Jun
2015
256
July
2015
217
Aug
2015
239
Sep
2015
209
Oct
2015
219
Nov
2015
223
Dec
2015
217
29
Note: Other Admit Authority includes the Sheriff Department, Department of Corrections and ACS.
.
21
Juvenile Justice
Monthly Average Daily Population
January 2012 – December 2015
Secure Detention
Non-Secure Detention
250
250
200
Number of Children
200
150
150
96
100
100
67
60
93
50
0
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
30
2015
22
Juvenile Justice
Total Monthly Releases from Detention
January 2012 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
450
400
350
300
250
217
200
213
150
CY 2012 Total = 3,870
100
CY 2013 Total = 3,361
CY 2014 Total = 3,001
50
0
CY 2015 Total = 2,707
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
2013
2014
2015
31
23
Juvenile Justice
Close to Home Intakes*
60
January 2013 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
50
40
30
25
20
16
10
CY 2013 Total =417
CY 2014 Total =309
CY 2015 Total =226
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2013
2014
2015
32
*Beginning in December 2015 Close to Home Intakes include LSP as well as NSP.
24
Juvenile Justice
Close to Home Placement, in 24-hour Care
December 2014 – December 2015 (Point-in-Time)
5
13
32
37
5
8
3
7
32
6
6
30
4
9
4
5
26
32
4
10
30
26
39
33
39
34
28
25
31
97
12/31/14
93
82
95
76
1/30/15
2/28/15
General Male
12/31/14 1/30/15
Number in
Placement
24
91
92
184
176
1
11
2
10
1
7
34
2
8
10
33
28
25
27
89
89
2
9
2
33
31
24
21
22
79
80
82
8/31/15
9/30/15
10/31/15
75
3/31/15
4/30/15
5/31/15
General Female
2/28/15
145
6/30/15
Specialized Male
7/31/15
Specialized Female
3/31/15 4/30/15 5/31/15 6/30/15 7/31/15 8/31/15
164
168
173
141
33
149
145
TFCO
11/30/15
12/31/15
LSP Female
9/30/15
10/31/15
11/30/15
12/31/15
144
148
157
156
25
Juvenile Justice
Releases from Close to Home to Aftercare
January 2013 – December 2015 (Monthly Total)
60
50
40
30
29
20
17
10
CY 2013 Total = 233
CY 2014 Total = 301
CY 2015 Total = 237
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2013
2014
2015
34
26
Appendix
Figure 1: SCR Intakes by Borough, OCT 14 – DEC 14 and OCT 15 – DEC 15
35
27
Table 1 - SCR Intake Changes by Borough, OCT 14 – DEC 14 and OCT 15 – DEC 15
Month
Year
Bronx
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Queens
Staten Island
OSI
Other
Total
OCT
2014
2015
% Change
1,814
1,694
-6.6%
1,753
1,526
-12.9%
826
797
-3.5%
1,088
1,117
2.7%
305
304
-0.3%
166
158
-4.8%
165
129
-21.8%
6,117
5,725
-6.4%
NOV
2014
2015
% Change
1,548
1,596
3.1%
1,409
1,440
2.2%
647
756
16.8%
971
1,057
8.9%
266
297
11.7%
114
137
20.2%
90
147
63.3%
5,045
5,430
7.6%
DEC
2014
2015
% Change
1,559
1,552
-0.4%
1,370
1,377
0.5%
711
772
8.6%
980
1,024
4.5%
277
285
2.9%
125
124
-0.8%
126
143
13.5%
5,148
5,277
2.5%
Total
2014
2015
% Change
4,921
4,842
-1.6%
4,532
4,343
-4.2%
2,184
2,325
6.5%
3,039
3,198
5.2%
848
886
4.5%
405
419
3.5%
381
419
10.0%
16,310
16,432
0.7%
36
28
Figure 2: Citywide SCR Intakes by Reporter Group, OCT 14 – DEC 14 and OCT 15 – DEC 15
37
29
Table 2 - SCR Intakes by Reporter Group, OCT 14 – DEC 14 and OCT 15 – DEC 15
Year
Child Care/
Substitute
Care
Personnel
Educational
Personnel
Anonymous
Friends/
Neighbors/
Other
Relatives
NonMandatedOther
Parent
Foster Parent
Total
2014
2015
% Change
58
49
-15.5%
1,528
1,352
-11.5%
341
457
34.0%
427
464
8.7%
22
27
22.7%
Bronx
960
962
0.2%
360
365
1.4%
406
400
-1.5%
623
573
-8.0%
191
193
1.0%
2
0
-100.0%
4,918
4,842
-1.5%
2014
2015
% Change
49
52
6.1%
1,438
1,301
-9.5%
431
473
9.7%
380
388
2.1%
24
22
-8.3%
Brooklyn
770
757
-1.7%
346
344
-0.6%
368
366
-0.5%
530
453
-14.5%
193
185
-4.1%
1
2
100.0%
4,530
4,343
-4.1%
2014
2015
% Change
37
28
-24.3%
525
540
2.9%
272
294
8.1%
233
266
14.2%
11
12
9.1%
Manhattan
459
484
5.4%
145
150
3.4%
168
185
10.1%
258
257
-0.4%
73
107
46.6%
0
0
--
2,181
2,323
6.5%
2014
2015
% Change
26
29
11.5%
1,033
1,045
1.2%
269
263
-2.2%
280
314
12.1%
11
15
36.4%
Queens
594
628
5.7%
197
194
-1.5%
203
265
30.5%
299
318
6.4%
127
127
0.0%
0
0
--
3,039
3,198
5.2%
2014
2015
% Change
8
13
62.5%
314
281
-10.5%
57
82
43.9%
80
87
8.8%
3
7
133.3%
Staten Island
118
109
-7.6%
84
90
7.1%
66
104
57.6%
64
88
37.5%
52
25
-51.9%
1
0
-100.0%
847
886
4.6%
2014
2015
% Change
24
26
8.3%
44
33
-25.0%
20
15
-25.0%
43
34
-20.9%
4
6
50.0%
28
36
28.6%
20
23
15.0%
80
107
33.8%
54
67
24.1%
4
1
-75.0%
406
419
3.2%
2014
2015
% Change
5
2
-60.0%
31
38
22.6%
90
71
-21.1%
51
45
-11.8%
1
2
100.0%
Other
119
128
7.6%
16
17
6.3%
23
26
13.0%
36
47
30.6%
38
51
34.2%
0
0
--
410
427
4.1%
2014
2015
% Change
207
199
-3.9%
4,913
4,590
-6.6%
1,480
1,655
11.8%
1,494
1,598
7.0%
76
91
19.7%
Citywide
3,105
3,139
1.1%
1,176
1,196
1.7%
1,254
1,369
9.2%
1,890
1,843
-2.5%
728
755
3.7%
8
3
-62.5%
16,331
16,438
0.7%
Medical/
Law
Mental Health
Enforcement
Personnel
MandatedOther
Social
Service
Personnel
OSI
85
71
-16.5%
38
30
Figure 3: SCR Allegations, OCT 15 – DEC 15
Total Allegations = 41,057
Allegations are grouped as follows: Physical Abuse - burn, fatality, fracture, choking, twisting, shaking, excessive corporal punishment, internal injuries,
lacerations, bruises, welts, poisoning, noxious substances; Educational Neglect – educational neglect; Lack of Medical Care – lack of medical care;
Neglect - inadequate guardianship, inadequate food, clothing, shelter, lack of supervision, malnutrition, failure to thrive, swelling, dislocations, sprains;
39
Psychological Abuse - isolation, emotional neglect; Sexual Abuse – sexual abuse; and Other -parental drug use, child drug use, abandonment,
inappropriate custodial conduct.
31
Table 3 - SCR Allegations, OCT 14 - DEC 14 and OCT 15 – DEC 15
Year
Physical Abuse
Educational
Neglect
Lack of Medical
Care
Psychological
Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Other
Total
2014
2015
% Change
1,452
1,488
2.5%
1,381
1,086
-21.4%
509
490
-3.7%
Bronx
7,854
7,818
-0.5%
61
62
1.6%
255
233
-8.6%
1,624
1,645
1.3%
13,136
12,822
-2.4%
2014
2015
% Change
1,514
1,384
-8.6%
1,076
1,015
-5.7%
464
393
-15.3%
Brooklyn
6,931
6,598
-4.8%
58
49
-15.5%
244
226
-7.4%
1,397
1,422
1.8%
11,684
11,087
-5.1%
2014
2015
% Change
510
562
10.2%
380
359
-5.5%
187
220
17.6%
Manhattan
2728
2900
6.3%
24
26
8.3%
68
106
55.9%
568
618
8.8%
4,465
4,791
7.3%
2014
2015
% Change
1,074
1,076
0.2%
463
434
-6.3%
280
247
-11.8%
Queens
4,118
4,267
3.6%
56
55
-1.8%
139
148
6.5%
893
1,061
18.8%
7,023
7,288
3.8%
2014
2015
% Change
278
255
-8.3%
194
174
-10.3%
73
97
32.9%
Staten Island
1,273
1,444
13.4%
18
14
-22.2%
35
42
20.0%
324
383
18.2%
2,195
2,409
9.7%
2014
2015
% Change
263
236
-10.3%
49
40
-18.4%
53
54
1.9%
OSI
1,044
1,051
0.7%
8
3
-62.5%
49
59
20.4%
183
172
-6.0%
1,649
1,615
-2.1%
5
4
-20.0%
28
35
25.0%
214
222
3.7%
1,104
1,045
-5.3%
230
213
-7.4%
818
849
3.8%
5,203
5,523
6.2%
41,256
41,057
-0.5%
Neglect
2014
2015
% Change
130
125
-3.8%
51
31
-39.2%
42
40
-4.8%
Other
634
588
-7.3%
2014
2015
% Change
5,221
5,126
-1.8%
3,594
3,139
-12.7%
1,608
1,541
-4.2%
Citywide
24,582
24,666
40
0.3%
32
TABLE 4 - Purchased Preventive Cases
Opened and Closed
January 2012 to December 2015
Month
Opened
Cases
Closed
Cases
2012
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Apr-12
May-12
Jun-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
Sep-12
Oct-12
Nov-12
Dec-12
870
889
944
997
1,117
965
853
917
727
875
738
938
629
835
991
870
979
869
979
1,007
900
915
702
871
2013
Jan-13
Feb-13
Mar-13
Apr-13
May-13
Jun-13
Jul-13
Aug-13
Sep-13
Oct-13
Nov-13
Dec-13
960
873
962
940
864
863
868
802
844
933
901
1,106
884
916
1,171
988
1,337
780
1,004
1,084
724
765
685
552
2014
Jan-14
Feb-14
Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14
Nov-14
Dec-14
983
987
1,146
1,074
1,042
976
1,050
944
987
1,050
818
1,268
640
679
874
896
888
762
1,077
943
705
819
638
721
2015
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Dec-15
826
1,001
1,270
1,103
1,048
1,196
967
965
827
41 879
859
1,122
716
590
686
743
842
797
1,070
891
847
772
652
707
33
Table 5 - Referrals to Purchased Preventive Services by Source
January 2012 to December 2015
Month
Total
Referrals
Division of Child
Protection
Foster Care
Agencies
PPRS
Transfer
School
Self
Other
Sources*
2012
Jan-12
1,431
66.5%
0.7%
8.5%
3.6%
3.8%
Feb-12
1,043
78.2%
1.1%
9.0%
1.9%
6.7%
3.1%
Mar-12
1,525
73.6%
0.9%
6.0%
1.8%
3.9%
13.8%
17.0%
Apr-12
1,370
72.8%
1.0%
9.4%
1.2%
4.2%
11.4%
May-12
1,463
70.9%
1.0%
7.6%
1.1%
4.4%
15.0%
Jun-12
1,279
73.8%
0.5%
5.9%
1.0%
4.7%
14.2%
Jul-12
1,308
77.4%
1.2%
7.0%
0.3%
3.7%
10.5%
Aug-12
1,391
74.0%
0.9%
11.7%
0.3%
2.9%
10.2%
Sep-12
1,110
70.5%
1.9%
9.6%
1.2%
5.0%
11.9%
Oct-12
1,159
61.1%
1.4%
12.6%
2.7%
4.9%
17.3%
Nov-12
1,106
67.0%
1.0%
9.9%
2.2%
4.7%
15.3%
Dec-12
1,206
68.7%
0.8%
5.8%
2.7%
5.6%
16.4%
15,391
71.3%
1.0%
8.5%
1.6%
4.5%
13.1%
CY 2012
2013
Jan-13
1,474
74.1%
1.2%
7.3%
1.2%
3.7%
12.5%
Feb-13
1,308
75.8%
1.1%
8.0%
1.6%
2.9%
10.6%
Mar-13
1,270
73.5%
1.2%
6.7%
2.4%
3.9%
12.3%
Apr-13
1,421
77.9%
0.8%
7.4%
0.9%
3.0%
10.1%
May-13
1,320
68.4%
0.5%
10.2%
1.5%
3.8%
15.5%
Jun-13
953
69.2%
1.2%
9.4%
2.6%
5.0%
12.6%
Jul-13
1,014
66.3%
1.9%
14.4%
1.6%
3.9%
11.9%
Aug-13
1,212
70.5%
0.7%
11.8%
0.7%
4.7%
11.6%
Sep-13
1,262
64.0%
2.1%
11.3%
1.7%
6.7%
14.2%
Oct-13
1,319
61.0%
1.1%
9.0%
2.9%
7.5%
18.5%
Nov-13
1,249
55.9%
1.6%
10.5%
4.6%
9.2%
18.3%
Dec-13
1,464
62.2%
1.2%
8.2%
2.3%
9.2%
17.0%
15,266
68.3%
1.2%
9.4%
2.0%
5.3%
13.8%
CY 2013
2014
Jan-14
1,537
70.0%
1.2%
6.6%
2.3%
5.8%
14.2%
Feb-14
1,334
69.7%
0.8%
8.4%
1.7%
5.5%
13.9%
Mar-14
1,612
70.0%
1.4%
8.6%
1.6%
5.3%
13.1%
Apr-14
1,525
70.2%
0.9%
7.6%
2.1%
3.7%
15.4%
May-14
1,580
74.4%
0.7%
8.3%
1.4%
5.2%
10.0%
Jun-14
1,550
78.6%
1.2%
6.3%
1.2%
3.2%
9.4%
Jul-14
1,659
79.6%
1.5%
6.7%
0.4%
4.2%
7.6%
Aug-14
1,395
72.2%
1.6%
10.8%
0.3%
4.9%
10.3%
Sep-14
1,597
49.4%
1.5%
7.6%
0.3%
4.5%
36.8%
Oct-14
1,634
68.2%
1.9%
10.0%
1.2%
4.6%
14.1%
Nov-14
1,311
66.4%
0.9%
14.3%
2.4%
3.9%
12.1%
Dec-14
1,785
71.1%
1.4%
8.8%
2.9%
4.8%
11.0%
18,519
70.1%
1.3%
8.6%
1.5%
4.6%
14.0%
9.7%
CY 2014
2015
Jan-15
1,430
74.4%
1.6%
8.7%
1.8%
3.8%
Feb-15
1,538
76.5%
0.8%
8.1%
1.8%
4.7%
8.2%
Mar-15
1,798
74.6%
0.9%
7.3%
1.6%
4.8%
10.8%
Apr-15
1,719
78.2%
1.3%
7.2%
0.6%
3.5%
9.1%
May-15
1,561
77.2%
1.0%
5.1%
1.5%
4.5%
10.8%
Jun-15
1,716
77.4%
1.1%
7.7%
1.2%
3.5%
9.1%
Jul-15
1,511
79.6%
0.9%
7.2%
0.3%
3.8%
8.2%
Aug-15
1,418
79.3%
2.2%
7.8%
0.2%
3.1%
7.5%
Sep-15
1,209
72.1%
2.8%
10.4%
0.5%
5.5%
8.6%
Oct-15
1,338
70.4%
1.9%
8.3%
2.1%
5.8%
11.6%
Nov-15
1,220
68.2%
1.8%
9.6%
1.4%
6.2%
12.8%
Dec-15
1,526
73.5%
421.6%
8.0%
2.0%
5.0%
9.9%
*Other Community Sources includes the Department of Homeless Services, Family Court, FAP, Hospitals and Medical facilities, the NYC Housing Authority, PINS/DAS, Probation, and Sponsor
Agencies.
34
Income Inequality Hits Home
Steven W. Bender1
Much has been written about the subprime mortgage crisis of recent years, with considerable
attention paid to allocating blame among participants in the home loan and securitization
structure stretching from Main Street to Wall Street. Many politicians and pundits have pointed
fingers at residential borrowers, particularly blaming borrowers of color, for alleged improvident
behavior. Their accusations connect to longstanding stereotypes and derogatory constructions of
people of color as unworthy for other financial opportunities such as college admission.2
This essay isolates a less discussed catalyst for the breakdown of the American dream of
homeownership in the subprime morass—income inequality. Reaching employers and residents
in almost every zip code and shaking the foundations of the American dream, income inequality
threatens that iconic goal. Highlighting the role of income inequality in the mortgage meltdown
adds fresh urgency to the imperative of reversing the runaway rise in inequality in recent decades,
in the interest of preserving equality of opportunity toward the human right to decent housing
and what has been regarded as a cornerstone of the American dream—that through hard work
U.S. residents can achieve and maintain homeownership.3
Income inequality played a considerable role in the design and eventual implosion of vast
numbers of loans during the subprime lending era of the 1990s and early 2000s. Mortgage loans
during the subprime era encompassed an array of “exotic” loan programs and relaxed qualifying
standards, in many cases offering these new programs to borrowers with subpar credit histories
who previously might have been denied mortgage financing. These loans failed at staggering rates,
ousting millions of borrowers from stable housing. Apparent in the aftermath of the subprime
foreclosure crisis is the reality that many borrowers, particularly borrowers of color, who received
high-cost mortgage loans with significant fees or an above-market interest rate, or both, in fact
Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at Seattle University School of
Law. The former co-president of SALT (Society of American Law Teachers) and LatCrit (Latina and Latino Critical
Legal Theory, Inc), he is the author of several books encompassing legal, social, and historical issues: Greasers and
Gringos: Latinos, Law, and the American Imagination (2003); One Night in America: Robert Kennedy, César Chávez, and
the Dream of Dignity (2007); Everyday Law for Latino/as (2008); Comprende?: The Significance of Spanish in English-Only
Times (2008); Tierra y Libertad: Land, Liberty, and Latino Housing (2010); Run for the Border: Vice and Virtue in U.S.Mexico Border Crossings (2012); and Mea Culpa: Lessons on Law and Regret from U.S. History (2015).
1
See generally andré douglas pond cummings, Racial Coding and the Financial Market Crisis, 2011 Utah L. Rev. 141
(2011) (debunking the myth of minority fault as causing the subprime mortgage crisis).
2
This American Dream of homeownership has been racially skewed through much of its history by public and private
actors, bolstering the White privilege of homeownership. Among the most destructive racial housing policies and
practices were those of the federal Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA), the latter created in 1934 to spark development of residential neighborhoods through government mortgage
insurance. The FHA disdained inner-city investment and rehabilitation, and encouraged White flight to the suburbs
by promoting new construction in residential subdivisions. As its most blatant policy, the FHA once promoted
racially restrictive neighborhood covenants barring nonwhite buyers thought to impair property values. High-risk
lending neighborhoods were designated by federal officials as those with Black, Mexican, or Asian residents.
Resultantly, most federally-backed loans were made to White buyers in middle-class suburbs. See generally Steven
W. Bender, Tierra y Libertad: Land, Liberty, and Latino Housing 45-47 (2010).
3
43
Housing and Community
19
qualified for conventional market terms and thus overpaid for their mortgage loans.4 But it is
also true that given superheated investor demand for residential mortgage-backed securities,
many borrowers with bruised credit histories or inadequate income or down payments under
conventional lending standards nonetheless were given home loans in exchange for higher fees
and interest than prime rate borrowers paid.
Because home prices in most U.S. locations had risen considerably during the previous decades,
the subprime lending model was infeasible under traditional mortgage lender underwriting
standards. Higher interest rate loans meant higher monthly loan payments, thereby imperiling
the traditional lender insistence on a debt-income ratio that capped home-related expenses, such
as mortgage loan payments, property insurance and taxes, and condominium or homeowner
association fees, at a reasonable amount in relation to anticipated income to ensure the borrower
had adequate monthly income for her other living expenses. Higher loan fees meant either
borrowers needed a larger savings account to pay the costs at closing, or that the fees, added to
the loan balance and paid over the life of the loan, would increase the monthly payments and thus
imperil debt ratio standards.
All would be well if borrower incomes and savings, inexorably connected, were rising sufficiently
to keep mortgage loan payments in balance with what had been seen as a comfort zone for
the borrower’s home debt and total debt from other sources in relation to monthly income—
typically between 30 and 40 percent.5 But at the same time that home prices and mortgage loan
costs were rising, employee wages for the last few decades stagnated or even decreased.6 With
wages stagnating at a time of rising consumer prices not just in the housing market but across the
marketplace to encompass gasoline, utilities, and food prices, savings accounts also suffered.
Inadequate income and savings lurk behind much of the subprime loan experience. As an example
of this dynamic, a 2007 Oregon appeals court decision awarded compensatory and punitive
damages to borrowers duped by a subprime lender into an unfair refinance of their home loan.7
The borrowers, both Mexican immigrants, had emigrated from Mexico in the late 1980s and
4
For discussion and statistics on the disproportionate subprime borrowing of Latino/Latina and Black residents, see
Vicki Been et al., The High Cost of Segregation: Exploring Racial Disparities in High-Cost Lending, 36 Fordham Urb.
L.J. 361, 362, 364 (2008) (discussing how U.S. Blacks were almost three times more likely to receive a subprime
home purchase loan than Whites, and Latinos/Latinas 2.6 times more likely; also addressing that high-cost loans
were much more often issued to borrowers of color in New York City than White borrowers); andré douglas pond
cummings, Families of Color in Crisis: Bearing the Weight of the Financial Market Meltdown, 55 How. L.J. 303,
310-12 (2012); Raul Hinojosa Ojeda, Albert Jacquez & Paule Cruz Takash, The End of the American Dream for Blacks
and Latinos (2009).
See generally Jason Hahn, Debt to Income Ratios, Diving Deeper (June 17, 2010), http://realestate.aol.com/
blog/2010/06/17/home-affordability/ (suggesting some lenders may allow even greater total-debt ratios). These
numbers varied widely over time and by lender and loan program, and by the borrower’s credit score and income
level. Traditionally, most lenders also deploy a front-end ratio in which the total housing expenses (exclusive of
other debt such as credit card balances, student loans, and car loans) do not exceed a smaller percentage of
income, typically around 28 to 30 percent. Id. For purposes of the new ability to repay standard adopted pursuant
to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376,
the mortgage lender generally must not allow the back-end, total debt, ratio to exceed 43 percent in order for the
loan to be a qualified mortgage that presumptively satisfies the new ability to repay standard.
5
See David Cay Johnston, Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality x-xiii (David Cay Johnston ed., 2014) (detailing
the stagnation or shrinkage of income for most U.S. residents in recent years); Dave Johnson, 9 Photos That Reveal
America’s Obscene Division of Wealth, Alternet (Jan. 6, 2015), http://www.alternet.org/economy/9-photos-revealamericas-obscene-division-wealth (discussing how between 1979 and 2008 real incomes rose 73 percent for U.S.
families in the top 5 percent of income, whereas they decreased 4.1 percent for families in the lowest income fifth,
and the rest of U.S. families saw stagnant or very little increase in real income).
6
Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 152 P.3d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
7
20
44
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
worked in the same Portland factory for more than a decade, making wages at or barely above
minimum wage despite their long tenure at the factory.8 Although they were frugal enough, albeit
with help from friends and family, to purchase a modest home financed by a prime rate home
loan, their meager income left them unable to save for necessities such as home maintenance.9
Resultantly, they borrowed money from Beneficial Oregon to finance the purchase of a vacuum
cleaner, which prompted Beneficial to send them solicitations for its home loans.10 When the
borrowers needed a new roof, they sought additional financing from Beneficial, which combined
the roof loan with the vacuum cleaner loan and their other debts into a second priority (junior)
home loan of $17,948, carrying a 23 percent interest rate despite the borrowers’ good credit
history.11 Still, the lender wasn’t done. Next, the lender defrauded them (by means of their limited
English) into a replacement loan for all their debt, specifically the prime rate first priority home
loan.12 Despite the lender’s representations of overall savings, the replacement loan was a worse
bargain than what they were paying before.13 At the time of the fraud trial in 2004, both Mexican
immigrant borrowers earned only about $7.75 an hour,14 a touch above the $7.05 state minimum
wage at the time.15 No doubt, these low wages brought them into the clutches of a lender that
practiced deceit. Had the borrowers been compensated in the workplace for their experience and
loyalty, or been paid a living wage, perhaps they would have been able to afford a cash purchase of
the vacuum cleaner and to have either paid for routine roof maintenance to extend the life of their
roof, or amassed a savings account sufficient to afford its replacement without financing.
Something had to give for millions of similarly-situated borrowers in a climate of unaffordable
homes and stagnant wage growth. Either mortgage loan costs and interest had to come down,
wages (income) had to increase, or lenders needed to relax their approval standards and develop
new loan structures to account for the affordability problem of high home loan payments
constituting a higher than customary percentage of the borrower’s income. Wages were stuck in
neutral, and with the originating lender quickly selling the mortgage loan and its loan sales people
earning hefty bonuses based on the fees charged, there was little incentive to reduce loan fees. So
lenders chose the last alternative, and an array of subprime loan features and programs followed
that, for the most, failed spectacularly. •
8
Id. at 943.
9
Id.
10
11
Id.
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 944. (The loan documents were in English but the loan discussions were in Spanish. The replacement loan
did not contain an escrow account for real estate taxes and insurance. Therefore, the overall monthly loan payment
on the consolidation loan, which was facially cheaper than the total payments on the prior senior home loan (that
included a tax and insurance escrow) and the junior home loan, disguised that the overall replacement loan was
more expensive. The borrowers discovered they had been defrauded when their annual tax bill arrived and they
realized the lender was not collecting escrow monies to pay the taxes as part of their regular monthly payment.)
14
Id. at 943.
15
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Changes in Basic Minimum Wages in Non-Farm Employment Under
State Law: Selected Years 1968 to 2013, U.S. Dep’t of Labor (revised Dec. 2014), http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/
stateMinWageHis.htm.
45
Housing and Community
21
The Variety of Subprime Loan Approaches to Bridging the Affordability Gap16
Adjustable rate mortgages were one of the artifices used to qualify borrowers with high debtto-income ratios. Adjustable rate mortgages arrived on the scene in the late 1970s and early
1980s, when double-digit prime lending rates imperiled the affordability of consumer credit. By
offering a rate floating by reference to a market index, lenders could reduce the cost of the initial
interest rate, as the rate no longer needed to account for the risk of inflation throughout the
life of the loan.17 Thus, adjustable rate loans were invented with the aim of lowering the cost
of mortgage financing, at least initially. Of course, from the borrower’s perspective, if inflation
and other factors such as reduced investor demand drove up rates during the life of the loan,
the adjustable loan could end up more expensive than a fixed rate loan. Also, because there is
not necessarily a correlation between upward adjustments in the market interest rate over time
and the borrower’s wages, it is dangerous to approve the borrower for a loan using the initial
interest rate to calculate affordability, as later rate increases might outpace any wage increases.
Adopting this model of qualifying borrowers for financing based on the initial adjustable interest
rate, subprime lenders upped the dangerous ante by offering teaser/special introductory interest
rates. Teaser rates (which might be in the low single digits) were effective at the outset of the
loan for a defined period, often from one to three years, after which the loan would reset to a
specified adjustable rate formula producing a rate considerably in excess of the teaser percentage,
without regard to actual fluctuations of interest rates in the marketplace, in order to compensate
the lender for the below-market introductory rate. By qualifying the borrower at an introductory
interest rate of (say) 3 percent instead of a prevailing market fixed rate of interest of 6 percent, the
mortgage lender could approve an adjustable rate applicant with considerably less income than
a fixed market-rate loan applicant. But beware the date of the reset, as no doubt the borrower
cannot expect a salary bonanza at her work coinciding with the reset that might more than double
the previous monthly loan payment.
Other innovations stemmed from the desire to artificially lower the monthly loan payments.
Rather than lowering the interest portion of the payment, monthly payments could be reduced
by stretching out the loan amortization period or eliminating amortization of principal entirely
by means of interest-only payments for the life of the loan. Traditionally, home mortgage loans
(at least in the modern era after the creation of the Federal Home Administration) offered the
borrower thirty years to pay off the loan, with each monthly payment including the accrued
interest and a portion of the loan principal amount calculated so that after the same monthly
payment amount over 360 months the loan balance would be fully repaid. Reducing the loan
period to fifteen years for a fully amortized loan would significantly boost the monthly payment
amount, yet lessen the lender’s risks of default collectability and inflation, resulting in a lower
interest rate. But instead of encouraging such a reduction of the loan repayment period, some
subprime lenders stretched the loan term in the opposite direction beyond thirty years, offering
forty-, forty-five-, and fifty-year repayment periods, with the goal of reducing the monthly
payments despite the potential for a slightly higher interest rate to cover the additional risk of
For further discussion of subprime mortgages, see generally Bender, Tierra
Housing, supra note 3, at 45-56.
16
y
Libertad: Land, Liberty,
and
Latino
Still, the rate needed to account for the risk of default and the prospect of the lender failing to realize the full
balance of the loan through its enforcement remedies (in theory this risk can be spread across a variety of loans
to compensate the creditor for just those loans that fail, which traditionally has been a small percentage for
residential lending outside of the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Depression), as well as the lender’s cost
of borrowing the funds it in turn lent to the borrower, and a reasonable rate of return on the lender’s investment in
lending the funds.
17
22
46
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
the extended loan period and minimal principal repayment in early loan years. Moreover, some
lenders introduced the interest-only home loan, whose loan payments encompassed only accrued
interest and no repayment of principal during the life of the loan, resulting in a balloon payment
at loan maturity of the entire original loan balance. Presumably the borrower would have to
refinance the debt or sell her home to surmount that balloon payment obligation.
Best showcasing the affordability problems of subprime mortgage loans was the introduction of
so-called pay-option or flex-payment mortgage loans. Mortgage lenders took the concept from
credit card issuers who offered some card holders the discretion to occasionally skip a month’s
payment, or to pay a lesser amount, as determined by the borrower, than the regular monthly
payment. In the mortgage loan context, mortgage brokers or loan officers might appease a worried
borrower, having stretched her budget to make the loan payments and concerned about the lack
of a rainy day fund for emergencies or of the stability of her income, by pointing to the flex feature
that allows the strapped borrower periodically to skip a payment or reduce the full payment to a
more desirable amount. To the extent the borrower’s skipped or reduced payment does not fully
satisfy the accrued interest since the prior monthly payment, that unpaid interest is added to the
principal balance, potentially resulting (particularly for an otherwise interest-only payment loan)
in a new principal balance that exceeds the original loan balance.
Even with these techniques to lower the borrower’s monthly payment, oftentimes the high loan
fees and interest rate bumped up against the traditional standards for a prudent debt-to-income
ratio, particularly as wages remained stagnant and house prices rose dramatically as more money
entered the mortgage market. Addressing this disconnect was the no-doc or stated-income loan,
a mainstay of home mortgage financing in the subprime era. Rather than verifying income with
the borrower’s employer, or relying on a steady history of past self-employment income, lenders
offered a loan program whereby the borrower might supply any salary or income figure (typically
an amount necessary to comfortably satisfy the lender’s debt-income ratio) and not face its
verification by the lender with her employer or other income records, such as bank statements,
paychecks, and tax returns. The derogatory moniker of liar loans, suggesting borrower fraud, was a
misnomer in many instances, as oftentimes the borrower had no idea of the actual income amount
filled in the loan application by the mortgage broker or loan officer. Even when approached more
overtly, the conversation with the no-doc borrower addressing income might begin along the
lines, as it did once for me with a mortgage broker, of “How much do you think you could earn
next year if you had to do whatever it took to earn as much money as possible from any source?”
Of course, as an alternative to the hijinks of stated income loans, lenders might maintain their
rigor of income verification, but simply relax their income qualification standards, as many did.
One mortgage broker suggested to me that for clients with high credit scores, a lender might be
willing to allow a total debt-to-income ratio exceeding 50 percent.18
Even if the borrower earns enough income to meet required debt-to-income ratios, the
applicant may run afoul of the lender’s loan-to-value requirement. Customarily, home buyers
were required to make a down payment of at least 20 percent of the purchase price. The Garn.St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 198219 prohibited home lenders from refusing
consent to subsequent home equity loans obtained by the borrower. It became commonplace
18
It makes sense to allow more leeway in the debt ratio for higher incomes, as some expenses, such as gasoline,
utilities, and food, might be similar for differently situated income-earners, therefore allowing the higher earner
more leftover income to devote to housing and other recurring credit expenses.
Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-320, 96 Stat. 1469.
19
47
Housing and Community
23
for homeowners to borrow additional monies on the value of their home as needed, even up
to the full appraised value of the home, albeit at a higher interest rate to reflect the greater risk
under a junior loan if foreclosure and collection proved necessary. During the subprime lending
heyday, lenders dispensed with the formality of deferring borrowing on the home’s equity value
until after closing the purchase loan, and began making so-called 80-20 loans—a first mortgage
loan for 80 percent of the home purchase price, and a simultaneous loan, ultimately securitized
in a different loan pool, for the remaining 20 percent of the purchase price. The upshot is that a
borrower, living paycheck to paycheck on wages that were insufficient to accumulate a nest egg
for any down payment, was nonetheless able to surmount the loan-to-property value requirement
without having saved any down payment whatsoever. But what about the closing costs of the loan
(such as upfront points) and the home purchase (e.g., escrow agent fees), and the costs of moving
into the new home and any utility deposits or transfer fees owing to a condo or homeowner’s
association? Lenders had that scenario covered, too, for the borrower with insufficient savings—
an initial combination of home loans exceeding the purchase price, predicated on the assumption
that property values would surely rise over time, which might even put cash back into the home
buyer’s pocket to use toward furniture or other move-in expenses.
In sum, mortgage lenders, at least temporarily, developed loan products to confront the
disconnect between home affordability and U.S. wages stuck in neutral. But those loan programs
were not sustainable. Waves of foreclosures swept across the country and prompted lenders to
abandon many of these programs as imprudent and unlikely to appeal to ultimate purchasers
in the securitization markets once they appreciated the strong likelihood of default. Federal
legislation addressing the crisis (the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act of 201020 as interpreted by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations21) now
prohibits or discourages subprime lenders from using some of these devices once used to bridge
the affordability gap. For example, the borrower ability to repay standard under the Act, satisfied
by so-called qualified mortgages, generally means that home lenders will be verifying income and
discontinuing interest-only loans, loans that result in balloon payments or negative amortization
(such as flex loans that add skipped payments to the loan balance), and loan terms that exceed
thirty years.22
Looking Ahead
Now that the subprime artifices introduced by financial markets to overcome wage stagnation
are disappearing due to diminished investor demand or new rules on ensuring loan affordability,
it is time to confront the structural roots of the affordability problem that extend to income and
wealth inequality, particularly for borrowers of color who were the lifeblood of the exploitative
subprime mortgage market. Whether immigrants or native-born, Latinos/Latinas (and Black
24
20
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (codified
as amended at 12 U.S.C. § 5301 (2012)).
21
See Ability to Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z), U.S.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, http://www.consumerfinance.gov/regulations/ability-to-repay-and-qualifiedmortgage-standards-under-the-truth-in-lending-act-regulation-z/#rule (last visited June 7, 2015).
22
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Shopping For A Mortgage? What You Can Expect Under The Federal Rules (2014),
available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401_cfpb_mortgages_consumer-summary-new-mortgage.pdf
(addressing teaser introductory interest rates that often reset one to three years after the loan was made; the
Dodd-Frank Act requires the lender to assess affordability based on the maximum interest rate the borrower would
have to pay in the first five loan years).
48
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
residents) earn less than White workers, but even for White residents there is a growing divide
between the working class and the wealthy. Structural reform benefitting these diverse residents
comes slowly, if at all, and presents a daunting challenge to those desiring fair and equal housing
opportunity. Elsewhere I have detailed a blueprint for achieving housing equity for the working
class, particularly low-wage workers.23 Encompassing educational initiatives, job creation, and
living-wage reform, and accomplished through interracial and ethnic coalitions that forge
antipoverty alliances among voters in lower economic classes, structural reform is vital to restore
the luster and feasibility of the American dream of homeownership.24 Failing that, more U.S.
residents will occupy the serf class of tenants beholden to the dictates of wealthy landowners, with
subprime lending in retrospect the closest grasp of many to the brass ring of homeownership that
ultimately came up empty. •
23
See Bender, Tierra y Libertad (suggesting reforms for Latina/os and other groups).
Critiques of the value of homeownership include A. Mechele Dickerson, The Myth of Home Ownership
and Why Home Ownership Is Not Always a Good Thing, 84 Ind. L. Rev. 189 (2009); Dorothy Brown, How
Home Ownership Keeps Blacks Poorer Than Whites, Forbes (Dec. 10, 2012), http://www.forbes.com/sites/
forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/ (confronting the lack
of appreciation in values in segregated Black neighborhoods, in contrast to majority White neighborhoods and
the benefits of the stock market, the province of Whites). An affordability crisis exists too for rents, such as
revealed in a New York University Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy 2012 report that concluded that,
between 2007 and 2011, New York City’s median household income decreased by 6.8 percent while its rents rose
8.6 percent. Meredith Bennett-Smith, New York City, Income Inequality Capital of America, Now Facing Soaring
Rent Prices: Report, Huffington Post (July 31, 2013), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/new-york-incomeinequality-rent_n_3678746.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york.
24
49
Housing and Community
25
The Price of Equal Justice:
How Establishing a Right to Counsel for
People Who Face Losing Their Homes Helps
Tackle Economic Inequality
Andrew Scherer1
New York City is at the epicenter of the astoundingly large and growing divide between rich
and poor in the United States. This wealth gap is a source of major concern, and the current
city administration has, with good reason, made tackling economic inequality one of its primary
policy objectives. One particularly troublesome result of disparity in wealth is disparity in access
to justice. The equation is simple: no money, no counsel;2 no counsel, no access to justice. This
essay argues that the City is well-positioned to guarantee a right to counsel for low-income
households that face losing their homes in legal proceedings and that, among other compelling
reasons to do so, establishing the right to counsel will significantly further the administration’s
goal of tackling economic inequality.
The New York City Council and the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio are considering
adopting legislation that would make New York City the first jurisdiction in the United States
to guarantee a right to counsel for low-income people who cannot afford legal help and who
face loss of their homes in eviction and foreclosure proceedings.3 For many reasons, it would
be sound social and fiscal policy for the City to establish this right. The right to counsel would
protect affordable housing and stabilize low-income families and communities. The right to
counsel would stem the tide and rising costs of homelessness. And the right to counsel would
vindicate the important constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. These and
other arguments have been addressed at length elsewhere.4 However, the literature on the right
to counsel has not yet addressed the relationship of the right to counsel to income inequality and
wealth-based access to justice.
Establishing the right to counsel in eviction and foreclosure cases will help ameliorate economic
inequality, both concretely and symbolically. It will greatly enhance people’s ability to avoid
Policy Director, Impact Center for Public Interest Law at New York Law School, and Distinguished Adjunct Professor,
New York Law School.
1
Or, at best, people without money have severely limited access to counsel through free legal assistance programs.
2
See Intro. 214 (City of New York 2014), available at http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.
aspx?ID=1687978&GUID=29A4594B-9E8A-4C5E-A797-96BDC4F64F80&Options=ID. The Right to Counsel NYC
Coalition, a citywide coalition of housing and other advocacy groups, academic institutions, legal services providers
and others, was formed in 2014 to advocate for a right to counsel for households facing eviction in NYC and has
been actively supporting the legislation.
3
See, e.g., Panel Discussion: International, National, and Local Perspectives on Civil Right to Counsel, An Obvious
Truth: Creating an Action Blueprint for a Civil Right to Counsel in New York State, 25 Touro L. Rev. 81 (2009);
Raymond Brescia, Sheltering Counsel: Toward a Right to a Lawyer in Eviction Proceedings, 25 Touro L. Rev.
187 (2009); and other articles in the same volume, available at http://www.tourolaw.edu/LawReview/uploads/
pdfs/_7_WWW_PanelDiscussion_SM_Final_12.23.08_.pdf; Andrew Scherer, The Importance of Collaborating
to Secure a Civil Right to Counsel, 30 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 675 (2006), available at http://courts.state.
ny.us/ip/partnersinjustice/right-to-counsel-collaboration.pdf. The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel also
maintains a comprehensive bibliography on the civil right to counsel. Civil Right to Counsel Bibliographies, Nat’l
Coal. for a Civil Right to Counsel, http://civilrighttocounsel.org/resources/bibliography (last visited June 5, 2015).
4
50
Housing and Community
29
homelessness and displacement, and it will protect their ability to remain in their homes and
communities. A home is, for most of us, and particularly for those with low incomes, our
most important material possession. It serves as the center of our lives as family members and
community members. It attaches us to schools, work, friends, and health care. It enables us to
vote and otherwise participate in the political process. Helping people retain this all-important
asset helps them retain whatever wealth they have managed to accrue and gives them a perch from
which to access additional wealth. At the same time, guaranteeing a right to counsel addresses the
inequitable distribution of justice and conveys a strong and sorely-needed message of respect for
the rights and dignity of the city’s low-income residents.
The statistical data on growing economic inequality keeps mounting. Between 1979 and 2007,
incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent in the United States rose 275 percent, more than fifteen times
the increase for households in the poorest 20 percent.5 Income disparity in New York City is
particularly extreme. In 2013, the wealthiest 20 percent of households in the City had incomes
more than twenty-six times greater than the poorest 20 percent.6 In Manhattan, the wealthiest 20
percent had incomes more than forty-two times those of the poorest 20 percent, giving Manhattan
the dubious distinction of being the county with the highest disparity in income in the United
States.7 And the American wealth divide has pronounced racial and ethnic dimensions. In 2009,
the median net worth of White households in the United States was twenty times that of Black
households and eighteen times that of Latino households.8
Because we have an adversarial system of dispute resolution that contemplates that both sides will be
represented by counsel, in most litigation, a litigant needs an attorney to have meaningful access to
the court system. Yet meaningful access to justice is denied to those who cannot afford counsel. The
importance of counsel to the fair administration of justice has long been recognized by the United
States Supreme Court, which said, finding a right to counsel in death penalty cases in 1932, that
“[e]ven the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law.”9
And in another context in 1964, the Supreme Court stated that “[l]aymen cannot be expected to
know how to protect their rights when dealing with practiced and carefully counseled adversaries.”10
Access to justice is, in effect, a commodity, and like other commodities, it can be bought if one
has the financial resources and can be denied if one does not. In other words, disparities in wealth
also dictate disparities in access to justice. This commodification of justice has led to a yawning
justice gap that parallels the wealth gap. In 2010, New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge
Jonathan Lippman established The Task Force to Expand Delivery of Legal Services in New York,
which has, since it was convened, issued an annual report that tracks the justice gap in New York.
The Task Force’s 2014 report found, for example, that in 2013 more than 1.8 million people in
5
Congressional Budget Office, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979
available at https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/10-25-HouseholdIncome_0.pdf.
6
Andrew Beveridge, Tackling Inequality: Some Data on Changing Inequality in NYC, Impact Center for Public Interest
Law at New York Law School (April 17, 2015), http://www.nyls.edu/impact-center-for-public-interest-law/wp-content/
uploads/sites/140/2013/07/Income-and-Wealth-CLE.pdf.
7
Id.
8
Rakesh Kochhar et al., Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics: Twenty-to-One,
Pew Research Center (July 26, 2011), http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/wealth-gaps-rise-to-record-highsbetween-whites-blacks-hispanics/.
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932).
9
10
30
Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1, 7 (1964).
51
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
and
2007 ix (2011),
New York State had to litigate without representation, and that in New York City, 99 percent of
tenants are unrepresented in eviction proceedings.11 These local figures reflect the state of access
to justice nationally as indicated by an American Bar Association finding that, in 2005, only 1
percent of the lawyers in the U.S. worked in “practice settings” in which they provided civil legal
services or criminal defense to low-income people (and that fraction is diminishing: in 1980 the
figure was 2 percent).12
Wealth-based disparity in access to justice has profound implications, particularly in legal matters
involving issues of fundamental human need, such as legal proceedings at which one’s home is at
stake. In eviction cases, denial of counsel can, and often does, result in loss of the respondent’s home.
Counsel makes a determinative difference in the outcome of eviction proceedings. One study of
New York City’s Housing Court found that tenants who were represented by counsel had fewer
defaults, fewer judgments and warrants of eviction against them, and greater success in obtaining
services and repairs from their landlords.13 A recent study of the impact of representation in eviction
proceedings by the Boston Bar Association found that represented tenants were able to remain in
their homes twice as often as unrepresented tenants and that represented tenants received a financial
benefit in the litigation that was five times greater than that received by unrepresented tenants.14
Evictions, in turn, have devastating short- and long-term consequences for those who are evicted.
Low-income households that are evicted in New York City face a housing market that presents
them with practically no options because of the severe lack of affordable housing. Housing New
York, a Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan for affordable housing, released by the Mayor in May of
2014, reported that “[t]here are nearly one million households who earn less than 50 percent
of Area Median Income (AMI), or just under $42,000 for a family of four,” yet there are only
425,000 housing units available in the City with rents suitable for that income level.15 No wonder
that more than one-third of the families entering the homeless shelter system report “eviction”
as the precipitating factor for their homelessness.16 Families who experience homelessness have a
very tough time in life.17 But families suffer deeply from the experience of eviction as well. One
recent study of the consequences of eviction found that:
. . . eviction has negative effects on mothers in multiple domains. Compared to
those not evicted, mothers who were evicted in the previous year experienced more
material hardship, were more likely to suffer from depression, reported worse health
11
The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York, Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New
York 20 (2014), available at https://www.nycourts.gov/ip/access-civil-legal-services/PDF/CLS%20TaskForce%20
Report%202014.pdf.
See American Bar Association, Lawyer Demographics 2010 (2011), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
administrative/market_research/lawyer-demographics-tables-2014.authcheckdam.pdf.
12
13
See Carroll Seron et al., The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City’s Housing
Court: Results of a Randomized Experiment, 35 Law & Soc’y Rev. 419, 428 (2001).
14
Boston Bar Association Task Force on the Civil Right to Counsel, The Importance of Representation in Eviction Cases
and Homelessness Representation: A Report on the BBA Right to Counsel Pilots 2 (2012), available at http://www.
bostonbar.org/docs/default-document-library/bba-crtc-final-3-1-12.pdf.
The City of New York, Housing New York a Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan 2, available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/
housing/assets/downloads/pdf/housing_plan.pdf.
15
New York City Independent Budget Office, Estimate of the Cost of Legal Counsel in Housing Court and Potential Shelter
Savings Due to Averted Evictions 5 (2014), available at http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/2014housingcourtletter.
pdf.
16
Nancy Smith et al., Understanding Family Homelessness in NYC, An In-Depth Study of Families Before and After Shelter
(2005), available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/downloads/pdf/vera_Study.pdf.
17
52
Housing and Community
31
for themselves and their children, and reported more parenting stress. Some evidence
suggests that at least two years after their eviction, mothers still experienced significantly
higher rates of material hardship and depression than peers. Our findings indicate that
to fully understand the lives of disadvantaged women, we should examine not only
events related to work, welfare, and family, but also those related to housing, eviction
being among the most consequential of them.18
Access to commodities is, to a greater or lesser extent, generally understood to be dictated by the
economic marketplace—one can only get what one is able to pay for. However, access to justice
is commonly understood—as it should be—in other than market-based terms. “Equal justice for
all” is a bedrock principle of our democratic culture and values and a notion that shapes legitimate
expectations about fairness and meaningful access in our legal system. This concept that justice is
neutral, fair and impartial, and available to all without regard to ability to pay is deeply embedded
in the foundation of American jurisprudence. Just recently, Justice Roberts, writing for the
Supreme Court majority and upholding restrictions on judicial fundraising in Williams-Yulee v.
Florida Bar, explained that bedrock ideological, philosophical notion as follows:
Judges, charged with exercising strict neutrality and independence, cannot supplicate
campaign donors without diminishing public confidence in judicial integrity. This
principle dates back at least eight centuries to the Magna Carta, which proclaimed, “To
no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.” [ ] The same
concept underlies the common law judicial oath, which binds a judge to “do right to all
manner of people . . . without fear or favour, affection or ill-will,”[ ] and the oath that
each of us took to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to
the poor and to the rich,” [ ](emphasis added and internal citations in endnote).19
Wealth-based access to justice presents a jarring contrast between our fundamental ideology and
our actual practice. Indeed, when the rhetoric of equality in justice is belied by the inequitable
distribution of justice and its relationship to wealth, these lofty principles are defiled. And, this
wealth/justice gap is a direct consequence of government policy, both what government does and
what it fails to do. Government certainly has the power to foster a more equitable distribution
of justice by guaranteeing and funding a right to counsel. In New York, government has done
so in a number of areas, including criminal defense (as have all the states following Gideon v.
Wainright),20 civil commitment and child custody matters. In 1993, New York City created a
right to counsel for respondents in court proceedings where the City seeks removal or detention
due to tuberculosis infection.21
Yet, not only does government fail to make access to justice available on an equitable basis, all
too often, government exacerbates the inequitable distribution of justice by, in fact, supporting
and subsidizing access to the judicial system for the rich to a far greater degree than for the poor.
For example, it is clear that tax deductions for the wealthy for legal expenses result in loss of
18
Matthew Desmond & Rachel Tolbert Kimbro, Eviction’s Fallout: Housing, Hardship,
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/DesmondKimbro_Evictions_Fallout_SF2015.pdf.
and
Health (2015), available at
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13-1499, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2983, at *19-20 (U.S. 2015) (quoting Cl. 40 (1215), in W.
McKechnie, Magna Carta, A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John 395 (2d ed. 1914); 10 Encyclopedia of the
Laws of England 105 (2d ed. 1908); 28 U. S. C. § 453 (2012)).
19
32
20
Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
21
24 R.C.N.Y. § 11.21(e)-(f) (2015).
53
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
government revenues that greatly outweigh government’s expenditures on legal services for
the poor. Although there is no available disaggregated hard data on the amount of those tax
deductions, a very rough approximation of the federal tax system subsidy for legal expenses for
the wealthiest 1 percent of the U.S. population can be arrived at by estimating the amount of legal
expenses deducted by the wealthiest Americans and the approximate tax deductions taken based
on those legal expenses. A conservative estimate of the tax benefit is approximately $23.6 billion
annually. This figure is arrived at by looking at the self-reported revenues of the top 100 revenuegrossing law firms, considering that figure a very rough proxy for the deductions taken by the 1
percent, and applying the income tax rate for earners in the highest income bracket.22 In contrast
to this figure of $23.6 billion in tax forgiveness for the wealthy, the federal government funds
legal services for the poorest 25 percent of the U.S. population at under $400 million annually.23
This all translates into a per capita benefit of $11 for each poor person,24 contrasted with a (very
approximate) per capita tax subsidy for legal assistance for the wealthiest 1 percent of $754,25 or—
based on these rough, but conservative estimates— almost seventy times as much federal assistance
for legal services per person in the top one percent as for each person living in poverty. New York
City’s taxation of individual and corporate income follows the federal practice of allowing legal
expenses to be deducted from income, and, although the disaggregated figures for deductions
for legal expenses are not available either, it can be assumed that New York City similarly forgoes
enormous amounts of revenue in order to subsidize legal expenses for the wealthy.
Of course, because the integrity of the justice system is a cornerstone article of faith, the dissonance
between ideology and practice created by wealth-based access to justice severely undermines faith
in the justice system. Faith in the civil justice system is particularly challenged by the experience
tenants have in defending themselves, unrepresented, in eviction proceedings in New York City.
A significant number of New York City’s low-income households are exposed to the civil justice
system through their experience with eviction proceedings. About 11.5 percent of the city’s lowincome households are served with eviction proceedings every year.26 About a third of the people
22
Under the Internal Revenue Code, legal expenses of corporations and other businesses are tax deductible. 26
U.S.C. § 162. According to American Lawyer, gross revenue for the 100 highest grossing law firms in the U.S. in
2010 was 67.42 billion (and 17 law firms grossed over $1 billion). Available (for charge) at http://almlegalintelligence.
com/. Using that $67.42 billion as a very rough (but very conservative) proxy for the legal expenses of the top
1 percent and applying the 35 percent income tax rate for earners in the highest income bracket (http://www.
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf), the U.S. treasury foregoes $23.6 billion in tax revenue, in effect subsidizing legal
assistance for the 1 percent to the tune of $23.6 billion.
23
See Legal Services Corporation, Fact Book 2010 (2011), available at http://lsc.gov/sites/default/files/LSC/pdfs/
LSC_2010_Fact_Book.pdf.
24
Id. (Dividing the 2010 federal Legal Services Corporation budget of $394,582,437 by the 36,0013,627 people in
poverty, we arrive at a figure of about $11 per poor person).
25
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. and World Population Clock, U.S. Department of Commerce (May 28, 2015), http://www.
census.gov/main/www/popclock.html (One percent of the U.S. population in 2012 is about 3.13 million people, the
$23.6 billion in tax revenues forgone by the government divided by number of one percenters is $754.).
This 11.5 percent figure is arrived at as follows: 3,345,154 people in NYC were living below 200 percent of poverty in
2013 (citing U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013, NYC Pop. Data 2013 ACS_13_1YR_B17002).
There were 248,732 cases in Housing Court in 2013. See Statistical Report of Activity of L & T Clerk’s Office, ST-30L&T Clerk’s Office (March 6, 2014), available at http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Case_Filings_2013.
pdf. 59.5 percent of the Housing Court litigants are too poor to afford a lawyer. See Community Training and Resource
Center, Housing Courts, Evictions and Homelessness: The Costs and Benefits of Providing a Right to Counsel iv (1993),
available at http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/donaldson.pdf. There are thus 147,995 Housing Court cases
of people too poor to afford counsel (59.5 percent of 248,732). The average number of people per household in
NYC (2009-2013) is 2.61, so there are 386,267 people too poor to afford counsel who have housing court cases
in one year (147,995 x 2.61), or 11.5 percent of the City’s poor population (386,267/ 3,345,154). U.S. Census
Bureau, State and County Quick Facts: New York City, New York, U.S. Department of Commerce (April 22, 2015), http://
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html.
26
54
Housing and Community
33
served with eviction proceedings each year show up in court to defend themselves,27 and the
vast majority of them are low-income people who are forced to defend their homes without any
access to counsel28 in complex legal proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply and that are
governed by a host of substantive and procedural rights. Close to 30,000 families end up evicted
each year—one family is evicted about every 4.5 minutes of the workweek.29 As one low-income
tenant put it, describing her Housing Court experience, “what we are asking for is respect and
dignity. We want to live like everyone else in the world. We have a right to have housing, to be
able to participate in the society as citizens. The question is, do they just want all people of color
to pack up and get out of the city?”30
The sentiment expressed by Ms. Cortes about her experience with Housing Court echoes a broader
current of concern in New York City’s communities and in the country about the justice system
in general. The deaths of Eric Garner on Staten Island, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,
and Freddy Gray in Baltimore, among others, have heightened the perception that we have “two
systems of justice,” in which race and economic status lead to vastly different treatment. The
message to poor litigants (mostly people of color) in Housing Court that they can be removed
from their homes by an armed City Marshal, pursuant to an order of a judge, as a consequence of a
complex and technical legal proceeding in which they are deprived of the benefit of legal counsel,
is unmistakable: Your homes, your families, and your lives don’t really matter.
Studies have shown that most people believe there already is a “right to counsel” in legal matters
such as eviction proceedings.31 This misconception is probably related to the fact that there
actually is a right to appear by counsel. The right to appear in court by counsel is a longstanding
right that precedes the founding of the nation.32 People with the financial means to hire counsel
can exercise that right. People who do not have the financial means cannot. At best, they can
obtain free legal assistance—if and when it is available—not as a matter of right, but rather
through government-funded and/or privately-funded programs, or from attorneys who are
willing to provide representation on a pro bono basis. However, a right cannot be dependent on the
largesse of government, the beneficence of the private sector, or the good graces of a volunteer.33
Legal scholarship confirms what most people intuitively understand: a right is a “claim[] that a
27
Statistical Report of Activity of L & T Clerk’s Office, ST-30-L&T Clerk’s Office (March 6, 2014), available at http://
cwtfhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Case_Filings_2013.pdf.
28
Supra note 11.
29
30
Maria Cortes, What the Experts are Saying, Impact Center for Public Interest Law and Coalition for a Right to Counsel
in Housing Court, available at https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/righttocounselnyc/pages/23/attachments/
original/1433269447/FINAL_expert_report.pdf?1433269447.
31
Boston Bar Association Task Force on the Civil Right to Counsel, The Importance of Representation in Eviction Cases
and Homelessness Representation: A Report on the BBA Right to Counsel Pilots 1 (2012), available at http://www.
bostonbar.org/docs/default-document-library/bba-crtc-final-3-1-12.pdf.
32
See generally Julian Cook, Rule 11: A Judicial Approach To An Effective Administration Of Justice In The United
States, 15 Ohio N. Univ. L. Rev. 397, 409 (1988).
33
34
The estimate of an eviction every 4.5 minutes was arrived at as follows: there were 26,857 residential evictions in
2014. NYC Department of Investigation, Summary of Evictions, Possessions & Ejectments Conducted: Jan. through Dec.
2014 (2015), available at http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Evictions-by-Marshal-2014-_-DOI.pdf. There
are 52 weeks and 5 work days per week each year; subtracting an estimated 10 holidays leaves 250 work days, or
2000 hours, or 120,000 minutes. (8- hour days = 2000 hours x 60 = 120,000 minutes in the work days per year).
120,000 minutes divided by 26,857, the number of evictions = 1 eviction every 4.5 minutes.
While there are important measures in New York to expand the availability of pro bono resources for delivery of
legal services, such as the recently implemented rule requiring fifty hours of pro bono work for admission to the
New York bar (see 22 NYCRR § 520.16 (2015)), these measures are no substitute for a government guarantee and
adequate funding of representation.
55
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
government is obligated to respect.”34 The U.S. Supreme Court has described a statutory right as
having three attributes: 1) it must be intended to benefit the claimant; 2) it must create a binding,
mandatory obligation on the government; and 3) it must be “sufficiently specific and definite” to
be judicially enforceable. 35
Funding for access to counsel for those who cannot afford to pay, of course, helps. A huge influx
of New York City appropriated funds for eviction-prevention legal assistance is expected in 2015,
as is passage of legislation creating an Office of the Civil Justice Coordinator. These measures will
help enormously by expanding the availability of counsel and placing much-needed focus on the
importance of civil legal services. But funding, unaccompanied by a “right,” keeps the funder and
the organizations that provide legal services as the gatekeepers to the justice system rather than
shifting power to the people who are affected themselves. If there is no right and the money runs
out or the funding is reduced, or if nonprofit legal services organizations are without sufficient
staff resources to take another case, access can be denied. To truly shift the balance and change the
justice paradigm, there must be a right to counsel. 36
The inequitable distribution of justice is a result of the actions and inactions of all levels of
government, and while the federal, state, and city governments all do something to address
that inequity by funding civil legal services in fluctuating amounts, no level of government does
enough. New York City has the legal authority, compelling policy, and fiscal reasons and the
growing political will to do something much more significant—and game-changing—about it.
New York City has the power. Its powers are delegated to it from the State, through the New
York State Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law, both of which grant the City the
power to adopt local laws for the “protection, order, conduct, safety, health and well-being of
persons or property”;37 and the right to counsel certainly protects New Yorkers and advances
their well-being. New York City has compelling fiscal and policy reasons. Establishing a right to
counsel furthers several of the administration’s key objectives: it keeps people out of the shelters
and saves money otherwise spent on sheltering people;38 it mitigates the growing housing crisis
by enabling low-income people to stay in affordable housing; and it sends a strong message that
we are one New York City that strives to address inequality and matters of fundamental justice.
And New York City has the political will to take this action. New York City’s current political
leadership—Mayor Bill de Blasio, City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, and the members
of the City Council—have clearly recognized the importance of access to counsel for those who
face losing their homes, in both their words and their deeds. A large majority of the Council has
co-sponsored the pending legislation that would create the right to counsel.39
34
Sarah H. Cleveland, The Legacy of Louis Henkin: Human Rights In The “Age of Terror,” 38 Columbia Human Rights L.
Rev., 499 (2007).
35
Wilder, Governor of Virginia, et al., v. Virginia Hospital Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 510 (1990).
36
A right to counsel would, of course, lose its meaning unless it is implemented through a system that provides
high-quality representation. Critiques of state criminal defense systems are instructive on this point. See generally
The Justice Policy Institute, System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing Public Defense (2011), available at http://
www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/system_overload_final.pdf.
37
New York State Constitution Article IX § 2(c)(ii); N.Y. Mun. Home Rule § 10(1)(ii)(a)(12) (2015).
38
New York City Independent Budget Office, Estimate of the Cost of Legal Counsel in Housing Court and Potential Shelter
Savings Due to Averted Evictions (2014), available at http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/2014housingcourtletter.pdf.
(Note that while this IBO report finds that the savings from a right to counsel would exceed the cost of providing
counsel, the report assumes that those savings would be shared by the state and federal governments, while the
cost of counsel would be solely the responsibility of the City.)
39
See supra note 3. As of publication, Intro 214 had 39 sponsors, including NYC Public Advocate, Letitia James. There
are 51 members of the City Council. Council members Mark Levine and Vanessa Gibson have led the legislative
push within the Council.
56
Housing and Community
35
New York City has a rich history of leading the nation in protecting and advancing the rights of
its residents, particularly around housing, discrimination, and due process. The list of the City’s
accomplishments is long and includes the first housing code (1905), the first public housing
program (1934), and some of the strongest tenant protection anti-discrimination legislation in
the country. New York City’s current political leaders now have a unique and timely opportunity
to take a bold step, lead the nation, and create a lasting legacy by changing the paradigm around
the wealth-based distribution of access to justice and establishing a right to counsel in court
proceedings for people who face losing their homes. To paraphrase the much-quoted words of a
religious philosopher of more than two millennia ago, “if not now, when, and if not the current
New York City leadership, who?” •
36
57
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
Ending Child Poverty in New York
Melanie Hartzog and Patti Banghart1
Current state of child poverty and inequality
Nationally, nearly 15 million children in the United States lived below the official poverty line—
$23,834 for a family of four—in 2013.2 Despite having the world’s largest economy, the United
States has the second highest relative child poverty rate among 35 industrialized nations.3 Worse
yet, income inequality in the U.S. is growing. The total income share going to the top 1 percent of
earners rose from 10.5 percent in 1964 to 22.5 percent of overall income in 2012.4
New York has the fifth highest child poverty rate in the nation, at 20 percent, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (“SPM”), which takes into account the cost
of living and the impact of public benefits.5 Not counting most government supports, more than
one in five New York children—958,610—were poor in 2012.6 Poverty also disproportionately
impacts children of color in New York. Nearly one in three Black children (32.8 percent) and
more than one in three Hispanic children (35 percent) in New York were poor in 2012, compared
to 13.9 percent of White children.7 Moreover, the youngest, most vulnerable, children in New
York were the poorest age group, with over one in four children under the age of six (346,565)
living in poor families in 2012.8
The cost of child poverty
Growing up poor has lifetime negative consequences on a child’s development. Child poverty
creates gaps in cognitive skills starting from infancy; it decreases the likelihood of graduating
from high school; poor children are more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system;
child poverty increases the likelihood of becoming a poor adult; and poor children suffer from
worse health outcomes.9
Melanie Hartzog is Executive Director and Patti Banghart is a Senior Early Childhood Education Policy Associate at
Children’s Defense Fund-New York.
1
Thomas Gabe, Congressional Research Service, Poverty
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf.
2
Child Well-being in Rich Countries, UNICEF Office
Card-11/.
3
in the
of
United States: 2013 2 (Jan. 2015), available at https://
Research-Innocenti (2013),
http://www.unicef-irc.org/Report-
Estelle Sommeiller & Mark Price, EPI, The Increasingly Unequal States of America: Income Inequality by State, 1917 to
2012 5 (Jan. 26, 2015), available at http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-1917-to-2012/.
4
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Measuring Access to Opportunity in the United States 3 (2015), available at http://www.aecf.
org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-MeasuringAccesstoOpportunityKC2-2015.pdf.
5
Children’s Defense Fund, Children in the States: New York 1 (May 6, 2014), available at http://www.childrensdefense.
org/library/data/state-data-repository/cits/2014/2014-new-york-children-in-the-states.pdf.
6
Children’s Defense Fund, the State of America’s Children 4 (2014), available at http://www.childrensdefense.org/
library/state-of-americas-children/2014-soac.pdf.
7
8
Id.
Greg J. Duncan & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Consequences of Growing Up Poor 12 (1999); Greg J. Duncan & Jeanne
Brooks-Gunn, The Effects of Poverty on Children, 7 The Future of Children 2 (Summer/Fall 1997), https://www.
princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_02_03.pdf; Greg J. Duncan et al. , How Much Does Childhood
Poverty Affect The Life Chances Of Children?, 63 Am. Soc. Rev. 406-23 (1998), available at http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2657556?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
9
58
Lessons from New York City
111
Child poverty also has substantial economic costs. Research shows that the reduced productivity
and extra health and crime costs resulting from child poverty add up to roughly $500 billion
a year, or 3.8 percent of the GDP.10 Additionally, other studies point to the economic gains of
investing in children early—before the age of five. One study found that eliminating child poverty
between the prenatal years to age five increases lifetime earnings by up to $100,000 per child,
equaling a benefit of $20–$36 billion for all babies born in a given year.11
What Works:
1. E
nding Child Poverty Requires Boosting Resources of Poor Families with
Children and Ensuring Children’s Basic Needs are Met.
Safety net programs lift many families out of poverty, giving their incomes a boost, and they
can have long-term benefits. Federal safety net programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit
(“EITC”) and food stamps—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”)—
improve child outcomes. Children from families whose income received a boost from such
programs have better birth outcomes, higher test scores, higher graduation rates, and higher
college attendance rates.12 Children who received access to SNAP before the age of five were also
more likely to have better health as an adult and have better financial stability.
The Children’s Defense Fund (“CDF”) sought to identify policy improvements—ways to improve
the economic circumstances of poor children—that would reduce child poverty and alleviate
its harm and high costs immediately. With the understanding that these safety net policies lift
families out of poverty and improve child outcomes, CDF asked the question: “How close could
the nation get to ending poverty for today’s children by simply investing more in approaches that
work?”
The CDF report, Ending Child Poverty Now,13 addresses this question. An analysis by the Urban
Institute, included in the report, models the effects of policy improvements on child poverty
using the SPM and 2010 Census and administrative data. The model does not limit the policy
improvements to families below 100 percent poverty but is more inclusive since so many families
living just above the poverty line also struggle financially and since many safety net programs are
available to families above the poverty line. The model looks at the effects on child poverty if the
nation were to make the following nine program and policy improvements:
n
Increase the EITC for lower-income families with children;
n
Increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10;
Harry J. Holzer et al., Center for American Progress, The Economic Costs of Poverty: Substantial Effects of
Children Growing Up Poor 1 (Jan. 24, 2007), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
issues/2007/01/pdf/poverty_report.pdf.
10
Greg J. Duncan et al., Economic Costs of Early Childhood Poverty 4 (Issue Paper #4, Partnership for America’s
Economic Success 2008), available at http://readynation.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/EconomicCosts-Of-Early-Childhood-Poverty-Report.pdf.
11
Chuck Marr et al., EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, And Support Children’s Development,
Research Finds, Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, (updated Apr. 3, 2015), http://www.cbpp.org/research/eitcand-child-tax-credit-promote-work-reduce-poverty-and-support-childrens-development.
12
Children’s Defense Fund, Ending Child Poverty Now (2015), available at http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/
mediaresources/ending-child-poverty-now.pdf [hereinafter “CDF Report”].
13
112
59
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
n
reate subsidized jobs programs for unemployed and underemployed individuals between the
C
ages of 16 and 64 in families with children;
n
Make child care subsidies available to all eligible families below 150 percent poverty;
n
Make the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable with a higher reimbursement rate,
n
Base SNAP benefits on the USDA’s Low-Cost Food Plan for families with children;
n
Make the Child Tax credit fully refundable;
n
n
ake housing subsidies available to all households with children below 150 percent poverty
M
for whom the fair market rent exceeds 50 percent of their income; and
equire child support to be fully passed through to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
R
(“TANF”) families, fully disregarded for TANF benefits, and partially disregarded for SNAP
benefits.14
The analysis revealed that if the nation were to make all of these nine policy and program
improvements, child poverty could be reduced by 60 percent, lifting 6.6 million children out
of poverty.15 Moreover, it would reduce poverty among Black children, who suffer the highest
child poverty rates, by 72 percent, and reduce poverty by 64 percent for children under three,
who are the most vulnerable to poverty’s harmful effects. Reducing child poverty by 60 percent
would cost the nation $77.2 billion (in 2010), only 2 percent of U.S. government spending or 0.5
percent of the 2010 U.S. Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”), and only 15 percent of the estimated
$500 billion the nation spends every year for the costs associated with children growing up poor.16
Just over half of the $77.2 billion (54 percent) would go to families below 100 percent of SPM
poverty, and 84 percent would go to families with incomes below 150 percent of poverty.17
The same policy improvements would reduce child poverty by an impressive 73 percent in
New York, having a bigger impact—more than 10 percentage points—than in the other
three largest states (California, Florida, and Texas).18 New York State policymakers have the
opportunity to work with Congress to significantly reduce child poverty in New York, which was
0.6 million according to the SPM in 2010,19 by investing in effective state programs and policies
that are shown in CDF’s analysis to have the biggest impact on reducing child poverty. Table A
compares the top, most effective, policy and program improvements for ending child poverty in
both New York State and the nation, which includes: expanding housing subsidies, increasing
SNAP benefits, increasing EITC and the Child Tax Credit, and supporting parents’ employment
through subsidized jobs and child care subsidies.
14
Id. at 8.
15
Id.at 7-8.
16
Id. at 8.
17
Id. at 30.
Id. at 45. It is likely that the larger impacts projected for New York arise because the state has a lower prevalence of
undocumented immigrants compared to the three other states (3.2 percent in New York vs. 4.5 percent in Florida,
6.7 percent in Texas, and 6.8 percent in California). Id. at 35.
18
19
Id. at 35.
60
Lessons from New York City
113
Table A. Comparison of Child SPM Poverty Impacts in New York and at the National
Level20 New York
National
Child Poverty rate
0.6 million (13.7%)
10.9 million (14.6%)
Child poverty reduction with all policy changes
-72.7%
-60.3%
Child poverty reduction with housing
subsidy expansion
-38.1%
-20.8%
Child poverty reduction with SNAP increase
-15.7%
-16.2%
Child poverty reduction with EITC increase
-14.5%
- 8.8%
Child poverty reduction with Child Tax Credit
increase
-13.5%
-11.6%
Child poverty reduction with subsidized jobs
-11.1%
-10.7%
Child poverty reduction with child care
subsidy expansion
-4.2%
- 3.1%
Expanding housing subsidies: As is shown in Table A, expanding housing subsidies to all
households with children below 150 percent poverty for whom the fair market rent exceeds
50 percent of their income, would have the biggest impact in New York, reducing child
poverty by over 38 percent alone. This large impact is most likely due to the high cost of housing
in New York as a significant contributor to the state’s high poverty rate. In 2013, more than three
full-time minimum wage jobs were necessary to be able to afford a fair market rent two-bedroom
apartment and still have enough left over for food, utilities, and other necessities.21 New York’s
housing affordability crisis has driven many families with children into homelessness. New York
ranks 49th (with 50th being the worst) among states in the extent of its child homelessness,
with more than 258,000 children (ages 0-17) homeless in 2012-2013.22 The state has also failed
to address affordable housing, ranking 41st in state policy and planning for homeless children and
families.23 In March 2015, there were over 14,000 families with nearly 25,000 children sleeping in
a New York City municipal shelter each night.24
Recent investments and advancement of proposals to provide more equitable housing policies,
such as rent stabilization, at the state level and the New York City level mark significant steps in
the right direction, but more must be done.
Increase participation in New York’s SNAP program: Children made up 39 percent of SNAP
recipients in New York in 2014.25 The program is a critical support for the many families and
20
Id. at 45 (Table A3.5).
21
Children’s Defense Fund, supra note 6.
American Institutes For Research, America’s Youngest Outcasts: A Report Card On Child Homelessness 55 (Nov. 2014),
available at http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/mediadocs/280.pdf.
22
23
Id.
New York City Homelessness: The Basic Facts, The Coalition For The Homeless, http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.
org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/NYCHomelessnessFactSheetMARCH2015_2.pdf (updated May 2015).
24
New York Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Center
www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/NY.pdf.
25
114
on
Budget & Policy Priorities (Feb. 27, 2015), http://
61
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
children facing hunger, providing an average of $426 per household with children per month for
groceries. Over 3 million New Yorkers (16 percent of the population) relied on SNAP benefits in
2014,26 with about 80 percent of all eligible persons participating.27
According to the CDF’s report, an increase in the federal budget for SNAP benefits would
have the second largest effect in New York and would result in a 15.7 percent reduction
in child poverty.28 Federal cuts in SNAP benefits in 2013 and 2014 hurt many families and
increased the number of food- insecure households. While recent state level investments for aid
to emergency food providers have helped alleviate immediate hunger needs, additional funding
for expanding eligibility and streamlining application processes can help improve access to food
stamps. New York can increase access to SNAP by raising the Gross Income Test level (currently
set at 130 percent of poverty) for working families or families with children up to 18 who do not
incur dependent care costs. It can also increase participation by sharing eligibility information
across benefit programs to make it easier for families to apply to SNAP.
Expand the refundable state EITC: The federal EITC is a refundable tax credit that is one of the
nation’s most effective tools for reducing child poverty among working families. It encourages
work by providing a credit to low-income working families and increases with higher earnings
up to a maximum. A substantial body of research shows that the federal EITC provides work,
income, educational, and health benefits to its recipients and their children.29 According to the
CDF’s report, expanding the federal EITC would have the third largest impact of the policy
improvements in New York, reducing child poverty in the state by 14.5 percent.30 New York
currently is one of about half of the states that also offers a state EITC that builds on the federal
credit—offering a refundable 30 percent state credit.31
While New York’s most recent budget does not include an increase for the State EITC, the EITC
is one of the best ways to “make work pay” for low-income families. The EITC also positively
impacts children: research shows that the children of EITC recipients do better in school and are
healthier. At a time when income inequality in New York continues to grow, it is important that
the State support working families by increasing the EITC to 40 percent of the federal benefit.
According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, by increasing the EITC to 40 percent of the federal
benefit, New York State would effectively increase EITC benefits by one-third for all recipients.
The average NYS EITC benefit would rise from about $690 to $920, an increase of $230, at a cost
of about $370 million. Such an increase would provide a much-needed boost to the incomes of
1.6 million low- and moderate-income families and improve the well-being and life chances for
two million children.32
Food Research & Action Center, Snap (2015), available at http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snapdata2014_
nov.pdf.
26
USDA, Reaching Those In Need: Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates In
2012 (Feb. 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Reaching2012.pdf.
27
28
CDF Report, supra note 13, at 45.
29
Marr, supra note 12.
30
CDF Report, supra note 13, at 45.
31
Id. at 46.
NYS Can Help Low-income Working Families with Children by Increasing its Earned Income Tax Credit, Fiscal Policy
Institute (2014), http://fiscalpolicy.org/nys-can-help-low-income-working-families-with-children-by-increasing-its-eitc.
32
62
Lessons from New York City
115
Expand the number of child care slots for low-income children: Making high-quality child care
affordable to families reduces child poverty by enabling parents to work, and it helps prevent
poverty in the long run by promoting the safe, nurturing, and stimulating environments that
improve children’s development and future academic success. However, many New York families
lack access to affordable, high-quality child care and the demand for subsidized child care far
exceeds available supply. Fewer than 25 percent of all eligible children receive a child care subsidy
due to funding restrictions.
In the CDF’s estimate, investments in child care subsidies would reduce child poverty by
over 4 percent.33 This is also likely underestimating the impact, since the Supplemental Poverty
Measure only captures changes in families’ out-of-pocket child care costs and not the total value
of the care paid for by the subsidies. In recent years, New York only made modest additional
investments to expand child care subsidies.34 Much more must be done to reach families eligible
but unable to receive subsidies, and help raise the eligibility to be 200 percent poverty for every
county in New York, since many are unable to serve all of these families.
2. E
xpanding opportunities for poor children to help them succeed and
reverse the effects of poverty.
While improving the immediate economic circumstances for poor children helps lift them
out of poverty in the near term and helps interrupt the cycle of poverty in the long term, other
investments are also crucial to ensure that poor children can escape poverty as adults. The cradle to
prison pipeline that disproportionately affects children of color must be replaced with a pipeline
to college and career readiness. Children need access to affordable health care, high-quality early
development and learning opportunities, after-school programming, high-performing schools
and colleges, economic opportunities as young adults, and youth justice services that ensure
justice-impacted young people are treated in age- appropriate ways that meet their rehabilitative
needs and ensure their safety while in the system and decrease the likelihood that they will reenter
the system in the future. New York State has made progress in several of these areas.
Investments in universal preschool: It is well documented that quality early care and education
have the ability to eliminate disparities for disadvantaged children; their benefits include
improved academic achievement, better health outcomes, and reduced need for costly social
spending. Investments in quality early care and education programs provide an economic return
to society at a rate of 7 to 10 percent per year.35
New York State’s recent investment in the well-being and success of young children through the
expansion of its public prekindergarten programs is a positive step toward ending child poverty.
In the 2015-16 school year, an expected 70,000 four-year olds will have access to high quality, fullday pre-K in New York City,36 and districts across the State have the opportunity to expand pre-K
33
CDF Report, supra note 13, at 45.
34
Id. at 21.
Investing in Early Childhood Development and Learning is Key to the Success of Our Children and Our Nation’s
Long-Term Economic Growth, Children’s Defense Fund (July 2014), http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/data/
early-childhood-short.pdf.
35
See Pre-K for All: 22,000 Families Apply for Pre-K on First Day, NYC (Mar. 17, 2015), http://www1.nyc.gov/office-ofthe-mayor/news/174-15/pre-k-all-22-000-families-apply-pre-k-first-day#/0.
36
116
63
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
to three-year-olds in high-need communities. The next step is to realize the goal of achieving
universal access to all four-year-olds by investing needed funding to reach the 90,000 four-yearolds outside of New York City who still lack access to any type of preschool program.
Access to affordable health care coverage: Affordable health insurance coverage provides families
direct relief from the full costs of medical services and fosters greater economic self-sufficiency.
A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that children in states with more
generous Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility levels earned more as
adults, on average, than their peers in states with lower eligibility levels, and these adults paid
more in taxes offsetting much of the government investment in expanded eligibility levels.37
New York has a strong track record of providing robust, affordable health care coverage to all
children regardless of immigration status or family income. Before the full implementation of
New York’s health insurance marketplace, NY State of Health (“The Marketplace”), fewer than
4 percent of New York children were uninsured.38 Since then, thousands of children have newly
enrolled in Medicaid, Child Health Plus, or private coverage.39 New York recently expanded
affordable coverage to families and working adults by deciding to implement a Basic Health
Program (“BHP”). 40 The BHP will help bring financial stability to working low- and moderateincome families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but still find the costs of private
health insurance out of reach. By offering more affordable coverage through new programs like
the BHP, the Marketplace, and existing programs like Medicaid and Child Health Plus, New
York is sparing families the burden of potentially bankrupting health care costs, and protecting
them from the anguish of choosing one necessity, such as food and shelter, over another.
School-based health delivery: For New Yorkers to fully realize the economic benefits of improved
access to health care, coverage must directly lead to the receipt of high-quality care, which, in
turn, must result in improved health status. One of the most unique and promising vehicles for
connecting newly insured children to care is the delivery of health care services within schools.
In recent years, schools have swiftly developed the capacity to provide preventive and primary care
services along with robust chronic disease management, all while keeping a child from missing
precious academic seat time. Each year, children miss about 14 million school days because of
problems associated with asthma alone.41 School-based health services can effectively treat issues
like asthma and reduce the number of school days a child has to miss. Children who are absent
less often are more likely to graduate and attain higher levels of education. Improved educational
outcomes better position children for lifelong success and boost their future earning potential, all
while equipping them to escape the cycle of poverty.
David W. Brown Et Al., NBER, Medicaid As An Investment In Children: What Is The Long-Term Impact On Tax Receipts?
(Jan. 2015), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w20835.
37
Children’s Defense Fund, supra note 7, at 57 (Table F–3, “Children Uninsured, Enrolled in Medicaid/CHIP, or Eligible
but not Enrolled”), available at http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/state-of-americas-children/2014-soac.
pdf?utm_source=2014-SOAC-PDF&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=2014-SOAC.
38
New York State of Health, 2014 Open Enrollment Report (2014), available at http://info.nystateofhealth.ny.gov/sites/
default/files/NYSOH%202014%20Open%20Enrollment%20Report_0.pdf
39
Press Release: NY State of Health Announces the Expansion of Private Health Insurance Coverage through
Innovative New Program, New York State of Health, April 17, 2015, http://info.nystateofhealth.ny.gov/news/pressrelease-ny-state-health-announces-expansion-private-health-insurance-coverage-through.
40
U.S. HHS, U.S. DOE, Managing Asthma: A Guide
gov/files/docs/resources/lung/asth_sch.pdf.
41
for
Schools (revised July 2003), available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.
64
Lessons from New York City
117
Investments in the programs described above help children escape poverty and the cradle to
prison pipeline. Expanding each program also contributes to more positive child health and wellbeing, higher academic and life success, and less costly social spending.
Conclusions
New York has the opportunity to end child poverty now. Using a two-generation approach—
simultaneously helping parents and children with their needs to help them thrive—child poverty
could be dramatically reduced in New York (by 73 percent) if there were federal investments
in the programs described above. CDF-NY recommends that the State make the following
investments to further reduce child poverty:
1. E
xpand state housing subsidies available for low-income families and enact rent control and
stabilization policies statewide that protect affordable housing;
2. Increase participation in SNAP by expanding eligibility levels and increasing access to the
program by integrating enrollment with other benefit enrollment systems;
3. Expand the refundable state EITC to 40 percent of the federal credit;
4. E
xpand child care subsidies to serve all eligible children in the state up to 200 percent poverty;
and
5. E
xpand programs to poor children that help improve their outcomes, including increasing
access to universal pre-K, health care, etc.
If the above policy improvements were made, children from families whose income received a
boost from these investments would also reap benefits such as: better birth outcomes, higher
academic achievement rates, higher high school graduation rates and higher college attendance
rates, better health outcomes, and better financial stability as an adult. Moreover, if policy efforts
to increase the economic resources of poor families were supplemented by policies that ensure
children and families have access to quality early learning and affordable and accessible health
care, New York would further break the cycle of poverty for many of its children. •
118
65
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
On April 17, 2015, the Impact Center for Public Interest Law at New York Law
School held a symposium called “Tackling Inequality.” The symposium addressed
one of the most pressing and vexing issues of our time, and the subject of this
collection of essays: how to address the rapidly growing disparities of income and
wealth in the United States. The efforts of the de Blasio administration in New York
City to address economic inequality were a primary focus of the symposium, and
panels included top officials of the administration as well as prominent academics,
policy analysts, and nonprofit leaders. We are printing below the remarks given by
NYC Human Resources Commissioner Steven Banks at the symposium about his
agency’s role in addressing economic inequality in New York City.
The New York City Human Resources
Administration’s Role in Fighting Poverty
and Income Inequality and Preventing
Homelessness
Remarks of Steven Banks
Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration
As you know—every day in all five boroughs—the City’s Human Resources Administration
(“HRA”) is focused on carrying out the Mayor’s priority of fighting poverty and income inequity
and preventing homelessness. With an annual budget of $9.7 billion and a staff of 14,000, HRA
provides assistance and services to some three million low-income children and adults, including:
n
n
n
conomic support and social services for families and individuals through the administration
E
of major benefit programs (cash assistance, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
benefits (food stamps), Medicaid, and Child Support Services);
H
omelessness prevention assistance; educational, vocational, and employment services; assistance
for persons with disabilities; services for immigrants; civil legal aid; and disaster relief; and
or the most vulnerable New Yorkers: HIV/AIDS Services, Adult Protective Services, Home
F
Care, and programs for survivors of domestic violence.
HRA is about more than cash assistance; we help low-income workers stay on the job and we
work to prevent homelessness. While most of the public focus tends to be on how many people
receive cash assistance, it is important to note that a large number of the New Yorkers receiving
some assistance from HRA are already working and that HRA’s support helps them remain in
the workforce. Living in a very expensive city, low-income workers, who are generally struggling
to begin with, can be derailed by a variety of emergencies and unexpected expenses. Among other
assistance, HRA provides these key work supports:
n
n
n
n
124
2 .5 million New Yorkers receive Medicaid through HRA, and tens of thousands more through
the new State health insurance exchange;
1 .7 million New Yorkers receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) food
assistance and millions of meals served through food panties and community kitchens;
700,000 New Yorkers receive home energy assistance every winter; and
1 00,000 New Yorkers receive one-time cash assistance each year to prevent evictions and utility
shutoffs or provide assistance with other emergencies.
66
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
For all these New Yorkers, these supports can be critical in maintaining employment. Having
health insurance means workers can stay healthy and working and avoid the economic disaster
that severe illness can impose on those with no insurance. Food and energy assistance, child
support, and the Earned Income Tax Credit strengthen households and help families survive
on low-income jobs. Emergency cash assistance and services to prevent homelessness can also
stabilize families and individuals and keep them from losing employment in the face of sudden
emergencies. Clearly, efforts aimed at keeping low-income workers in the workforce are much less
expensive and more efficient than having to help New Yorkers return to the workforce, especially
after an extended absence.
HRA also helps thousands of the most vulnerable New Yorkers, providing shelter and supportive
services to families recovering from the trauma of domestic violence, support for people living
with HIV and AIDS, protective services for adults unable to care for themselves and home care
services for seniors and individuals with physical or mental disabilities, and legal services to
address the harassment of tenants, avert homelessness, and help immigrants.
Reforms
For the past year, we have been focused on implementing significant reforms to better serve
low-income New Yorkers. As part of this ongoing process, I met with frontline staff in all five
boroughs, created staff focus groups and surveys, and reorganized the senior level of HRA’s
management to move the reform process forward. We also looked to our external stakeholders
soliciting input from clients and engaging the advocates, community-based organizations, and
legal representatives to seek input.
Our reforms focused on addressing HRA policies that harmed clients, were barriers preventing
New Yorkers from accessing assistance, had an adverse impact on staff workload and morale, and
subjected the City to potential financial penalties for unnecessary fair hearings. With more than
two dozen key reforms in place, we continue our work to ensure that those in New York City who
need to access our programs and services are able to do so and that relief is effective and assists
low-income New Yorkers in working toward more permanent stability.
These reforms have had no impact on the most accurate measure of the number of people
receiving public assistance. The annual unduplicated caseload of New Yorkers receiving recurring
cash assistance has remained steady at 500,000 during the past year, as it has since at least 2008.
The number of people receiving cash assistance during any given month fluctuates around
360,000. As one would expect, ending the policy of churning clients on and off the caseload,
which artificially reduced the monthly number, has resulted in a small variance in that number.
Since the churning of people on and off the caseload subjects the City to a potential $10 million
New York State penalty for unnecessary fair hearings, keeps clients from participating in job
training, and is associated with shelter applications, reducing churning is good, fiscally sound
public policy. An analysis of the Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”) shelter applications
during a six-month period in 2013 found that 23 percent of the applicants had an HRA case
closing or case sanction within the prior 12 months.
Three representative new initiatives highlight the impact of the ongoing reform efforts.
67
Lessons from New York City
125
Employment Plan
HRA spends approximately $200 million a year on employment programs. Every two years, we
are required to file with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance an
employment plan for how we will be using those funds to help our clients. We submitted a new
plan last year, and it was approved by the State on December 31, 2014. It will take us about two
years to replace all of the current contracts and completely implement the new program.
The new plan reflects a new approach based on these principles:
n
n
n
Improving assessments to address each client’s actual strengths and needs. This will improve
outcomes compared to the prior one-size-fits-all approach, which resulted in one out of every
four clients who received employment assistance returning to the caseload within 12 months.
aximizing education, training, and employment-related services, which will open job
M
opportunities and create the basis for building career pathways out of poverty.
liminating unnecessary punitive and duplicative actions that lead to preventable negative
E
actions and fair hearings (and that subject New York City to potentially $10 million in financial
penalties). This will allow staff to focus on more effective problem solving and allow clients to
avoid delays in accessing services, finding jobs, and moving into sustainable employment.
Of the approximately 360,000 New Yorkers receiving assistance in any given month, most are
not subject to work requirements, according to the same state and federal rules applied by prior
Administrations. That is because about half are children and many more are seniors or clients who
have barriers to employment because of either permanent or temporary disabilities.
Moreover, of the approximately 90,000 clients who are subject to work requirements, 25,000
actually have jobs; however, they make so little they still qualify for cash assistance. This underscores
why the Mayor’s call for an increase in the minimum wage is so important for addressing poverty
and income inequality—as well as for reducing our caseload.
During the phase-in of our Employment Plan:
n
n
ur overall goal is to ensure HRA’s employment and training programs are effective in
O
connecting and/or reconnecting New Yorkers to the workforce.
We want to maximize education, training, and employment-related services.
– 6 0 percent of employable clients lack a high school diploma or equivalent degree, so we will
allow recipients up to age 24 to participate in full-time basic education.
–A
s permitted under a 2014 state law that we supported, we will allow participation in a
four-year college-degree program. And we are putting supports in place to help clients
successfully complete their education.
–W
e will increase access to targeted training for jobs in high-growth industries and utilize
available Career Pathway programs.
n
n
126
s noted, instead of one-size-fits-all, we are creating new employment strategies for youth,
A
clients with limited English proficiency, shelter residents, those with work limitations, those
with justice system involvement, and older clients.
e are also working to enhance program participation and the resolution of disputes before a
W
fair hearing is requested.
68
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
One specific goal is to phase out the Work Experience Program (“WEP”) because it required public
assistance recipients to work for no compensation in jobs that provided little or no job training
or valuable job training. We intend to replace WEP with more effective and sustainable work
activities. Our Employment Plan provides for a two-year WEP phase-out period. HRA has already
collaborated with the City University of New York (“CUNY”) to implement a paid work-study
program to phase out WEP for CUNY students who are receiving cash assistance and need to meet
an HRA work requirement. As a result of this collaboration, we have phased out approximately 500
CUNY WEP slots, about 10 percent of the total number of WEP slots throughout the City.
Legal Services
The provision of legal services is an important program to address poverty and income inequality;
civil legal aid, for example, was a significant initiative in the War on Poverty. At the beginning of our
current fiscal year on July 1, 2014 (FY ’15), the Mayor consolidated legal services from the DHS, the
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”), the Department of Youth and
Community Development (“DYCD”), and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (“MOCJ”) and
placed them under the administration of HRA in order to enhance coordination and effectiveness.
Contracted services include: anti-eviction and anti-harassment tenant protection, immigration
assistance, representation of domestic violence survivors, help securing federal benefits, and other
legal assistance. We are also developing a study of the unmet needs in Housing Court to evaluate
what programs will be most effective in preventing homelessness.
The civil legal services programs and the $18.8 million in associated funding in the City’s baseline
budget that were consolidated at HRA in FY ’15 are as follows:
n
n
$13.5 million for anti-eviction legal services, which represents an increase of $7.1 million above
the previous funding levels, as part of the Mayor’s new initiatives to prevent homelessness that
were announced in September; and
$ 5.3 million for legal assistance for immigrants, including legal services for survivors of
domestic violence, immigrant workers, and immigrant City residents with legal needs involving
citizenship and permanent residency.
During the course of this fiscal year, the Administration’s support for legal services has further
increased with the development of these new programs at HRA:
n
n
n
A
new program that will provide access to legal assistance for community residents identified as
victims of tenant harassment in order to prevent displacement, keep families and individuals in
their homes, and maintain affordable housing—when fully implemented this program will fund
$31 million in civil legal assistance and $5 million in HRA support services on an annual basis;
new program to assist children and adults with disabilities obtain federal disability benefits
A
in place of state and local public assistance—when fully implemented this program will be
funded at more than $2 million on an annual basis for Appeals Council Review and Federal
Court Services; and
new $660,000 program in FY ’15 to support legal assistance to help New Yorkers benefit
A
from the President’s Executive Action for immigrants.
In addition to the Administration’s commitment of resources in the baseline budget, as part
of the FY ’15 budget agreement between the Mayor and the City Council, $17.6 million in
69
Lessons from New York City
127
discretionary funding has also been added to HRA’s budget for this year for civil legal services,
including citywide civil legal services, legal services for low-income workers, legal assistance
to obtain unemployment insurance benefits and federal disability benefits, legal services for
survivors of domestic violence, legal services for veterans, anti-eviction and SRO housing legal
services, an Unaccompanied Minors Initiative, and a Family Unity Project to keep immigrant
families together and avert deportation.
In combination, as New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman has done for the New York
State Judiciary’s civil legal assistance initiative, these programs prioritize civil legal assistance in
core matters involving the “essentials of life”—legal problems in the areas of:
n
Housing (including evictions, foreclosures, and homelessness);
n
Family matters (including domestic violence, children, and family stability);
n
Access to health care and education; and
n
S ubsistence income (including employment wages, disability and other basic benefits, and
consumer debts).
Homelessness
As part of the de Blasio Administration’s effort to reduce homelessness, there has been a substantial
expansion of HRA’s homelessness prevention services.
For the first time, HRA has a Homelessness Prevention Administration, bringing together and
coordinating all our existing and new programs. It includes the following:
n
n
n
n
n
n
omelessness Diversion Units (“HDUs”) located at all HRA Job Centers and at the
H
Department of Homeless Services’ PATH intake facility are now utilizing new diversion tools
that include short-term financial support.
n-site staff are working at DHS Homebase offices around the City and at the New York City
O
Housing Authority’s administrative hearings office in addition to staff at the Housing Courts. ere is an Early Intervention Outreach Team (“EIOT”) for outreach to families and
Th
individuals in need of legal assistance or emergency rental assistance based on early warning
referrals from the Housing Court.
Because landlords are essential to fighting homelessness, we created the Landlord Ombudsman
Services Unit (“LOSU”) to address the needs and concerns of landlords and management
companies that provide permanent housing for families and individuals receiving public assistance.
Rental Assistance Program was formed to implement the Administration’s new Living in
A
Communities (“LINC”) rental assistance initiatives.
e Legal Assistance Initiatives Program now manages all the legal assistance programs that
Th
have been consolidated at HRA to enhance coordination and effectiveness.
HRA also recently created the Family Independence Administration’s Central Rent Processing
Unit to centrally process, issue, and deliver emergency rental assistance payments to landlords to
prevent evictions.
As these three examples highlight, we have accomplished a great deal over the past year, and we
will continue with our reform initiatives during the coming year. •
128
70
Impact: Collected Essays on the Threat of Economic Inequality
New York State
Poverty Report
2016
71
NYSCAA Board of Directors
The NYSCAA Board of Directors is made up of dedicated individuals from NYSCAA member agencies.
Board members are Executive Directors and key CAA staff from New York State Community Action Agencies
and a representative from the New York State Weatherization Directors Association.
Officers
President - Alan Jones
Vice-President - Laura Rossman
Treasurer - Lindy Glennon
Secretary - Laurie Piccolo
Immediate Past President - Amy Turner
NYSWDA Representative
Melinda Gault
At Large
Mike Bobbitt
Janelle Cooper
Diane Cooper-Currier
Lee A. Dillon
John Eberhard
Ed Fancher
L. Nathan Hare
Dan Maskin
Debra Schimpf
Naimah Sierra
Tina Sharpe
Elizabeth Carlton Spira
Denis Wilson
Tina Zerbian
72
Dear Colleague:
We are pleased to release this Ninth Annual New York State Poverty Report. We hope it is a
useful tool for you and your community. The Report is designed to be a comprehensive
resource for New York’s Community Action Agencies, community based organizations, policy
makers, advocates, community coalitions and the general public. While the report does not
recommend specific policy or system changes, it does provide data to inform dialogue about
how to address issues of poverty and income inequality. For your convenience, a key to the
data is found on page two and also on page 112.
Due to changes in the Census Bureau’s reporting, we are no longer able to provide three year
data; we have used five year data, spanning 2010 - 2014 whenever using census report data.
The Census Bureau no longer compiles three year data reports.
Another change this year is reflected in the data regarding eligibility for free or reduced cost
school lunch. Many schools in high poverty districts have adopted the Community Eligibility
Provision (CEP) which makes all students eligible for free lunch. The eligibility rates for those
schools 100% which may impact county rates.
You will find the report digitally on the NYSCAA website (http://nyscommunityaction.org/poverty-innew-york/povertydata/ ). You can download the entire report or specific county profiles. We
welcome your feedback about the report and can be reached directly from our home page
(www.nyscommunityaction.org) or by phone at us at 518-690-0491.
Sincerely,
Karla Digirolamo, CEO
73
Maps:
On each county profile page,
the map of NYS is included,
with the county highlighted in
red. The inset map shows the
county map with the county
seat noted. On city profile
pages, the map of NYS is again
included, with the county
highlighted in grey and the
cities noted in red. Inset map
is the county, with cities noted.
Data Key
Please see census.gov for more
specific definitions for any of the data
sourced from USCB reports.
Data on race is based on self-identification. There are a
minimum of five categories from which to select, including White and Black/African American. People are able
to self-identify as more than one race. People who
identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish may be
of any race. The data is from USCB Report S1701 ).
Race
& Poverty
Data
Population Data:
The population is the official
count of people from the US
Census Bureau’s (USCB)
BO1003 report.
The Population for Whom
Status is Determined reflects
the size of census samples
and is provided in USCB report S1701.
Poverty Data:
The poverty rate includes all
individuals living in poverty.
The numbers are then broken
down in three other categories: children under 18, adults
over 25 and adults over 65.
The percentage of each group
living in poverty is followed by
the number of individuals that
percentage represents.
Families in Poverty Data is
from USCB Report S1702 and
indicates the percentage of all
families with a female head of
household and at least one
child under 18 that are living
in poverty.
ALL Census Reports cited
are from the American
Communities Survey FIVE
year estimates
(2010 - 2014).
Access these reports at:
factfinder2.census.gov
Education & Poverty Data
The top numbers provided, next to the dark blue squares, indicate the total for each
category, as a percentage of the entire population and number of individuals. The number
below, next to the lighter square, shows the percentage of all people in that category living
in poverty and total number of individuals that indicates.
This data is from USCB Report S1701.
Income
& Poverty Data
Median Income - Total income is the sum of the amounts reported for wage/salary income, self
employment income,, interest, dividends, rental income, royalty income, income from estates or
trusts, Social Security or Railroad Retirement income, Supplementary Social Security, public
assistance or welfare payments, retirement/survivor/disability pensions and all other income.
The data is from USCB Report S1501.
Living Wage - The wage listed is the wage
an individual would need to earn as the
sole provider for a household consisting
of themselves and one child based on the
typical expenses in that county or city.
This wage is a minimum estimate of the
cost of living for a low wage family. Data
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator
(www.livingwage.mit.edu).
Hourly Wage - The hourly rate listed is
that which one person would need to
earn working year round, 40 hours per
week in order to afford a 2 bedroom
apartment at the fair market rate (FMR)
for that county, assuming 30% of income
is spent on housing. Data is provided by
the National Low Income Housing Coalition ‘s report: Out of Reach 2015
(www.nlihc.org ).
Health & Poverty
Insurance
Based on self reporting this includes people
who have: insurance from a current/former
employer, insurance purchased directly from an
insurance company, Medicare, Medicaid, Medical Assistance, any government assistance plan
for people with low income or disability, TRICARE or military health care, VA, Indian Health
Service or any other type of health insurance or
health coverage plan. Data from USCB Report
S2701.
Free/Reduced
Lunch Program
Of students who attend public schools where
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is
offered, the percentage of enrollment that is
eligible for free or reduced lunches. This does
not represent those attending private schools
or schools that do not administer NSLP. Data
is provided by Hunger Solutions New York.
Female Head of Household Of all households with a female head of household and children
under 18, this is the percentage living in poverty. The data is from USCB Report S1702.
74
2
NYS Profile
75
3
New York State
New York State Community Action Association
www.nyscommunityaction.org
Race &
2 Charles Blvd.
Guilderland, NY 12084
518.690.0491
Poverty
19,082,682
Population Under 18
4,203,772
Population 25 & Over
13,124,632
Population over 65
2,655,913
STATE
African American
23.5% (692,260)
Hispanic/Latino
25.9% (901,347)
Adult Population 25+ - 13,124,632
19,594,330
Overall
11.3% (1,401,545)
Education & Poverty
State Population:
Population for whom
poverty status is determined:
White
Educational Attainment
No Degree
High School
14.3% (1,879,563)
Total
28.8% (541,545)
Living in Poverty
26.8% (3,511,642)
Total
14.9% (522,072)
Living in Poverty
Bachelors or Higher
24.9% (3,265,223)
Total
10.6% (344,806)
Living in Poverty
Employment
& Poverty
Hourly Wage for
FMR, 2BR
Apartment
$26.19
$25.67
Health
No Health Insurance
Employed
13.1%
Unemployed
29.3%
Living In Poverty
Gender
Median
Income
Median Income
w/High School Diploma
$30,052
Free/Reduced
Lunch Program
58%
Of Those Families with
Female Heads of Household
and Children Present
& Poverty
High School Diploma
Only
34.0% (4,468,204)
Total
5.2% (233,357)
Living in Poverty
$40,394
Living Wage for
1 Adult, 1 Child
Household
& Poverty
Individuals
15.6% 2,978,521
Children (Under 18)
22.1% 929,832
Adults 25+
12.5% 1,641,780
Senior Citizens 65+
11.4% 303,910
Associate
Median
Income
Median
Income
$34,966
$24,407
38.4%
Live in Poverty
US Poverty Rate: 15.6% • NYS Poverty Rate: 15.6%
76
5
County Profiles
77
7
Bronx County
NYC Dept. of Youth & Community Development
www.nyc.gov/html/dycd
Race &
Poverty
2 Lafayette St. 18th Floor
NYC, NY 10007
646.343.6800
Overall
1,377,199
Population Under 18
359,419
Population 25 & Over
861,889
Population over 65
144,557
23.3% (67,807)
African American
27.5% (127,609)
Hispanic/Latino
36.4% (274,750)
Education & Poverty
County Population:
1,413,566
Population for whom
poverty status is determined:
White
Adult Population 25+ - 861,889
Educational Attainment
No Degree
High School
29.3% (252,349)
Total*
39.3% (99,265)
Living in Poverty
27.7% (238,705)
Total*
25.1% (59,830)
Living in Poverty
Bachelors or Higher
24.5% (210,808)
Total*
19.4% (40,954)
Living in Poverty
18.6% (160,027)
Total*
10.1% (16,121)
Living in Poverty
*DUE TO ROUNDING, THE TOTALS ADD UP TO 100.1%
Employment
& Poverty
Hourly Wage for
FMR, 2BR
Apartment
$27.44
$28.48
& Poverty
No Health Insurance
Employed
21.3%
29.7%
Gender
$25,219
Free/Reduced Lunch Program
Data for all 5 counties of NYC
Of Those Families with
Female Heads of Household
and Children Present
& Poverty
High School Diploma
Only
Median Income
w/High School Diploma
77%
Unemployed
Living In Poverty
Median
Income
$30,101
Living Wage for
1 Adult, 1 Child
Household
Health
Individuals
30.5% 419,580
Children (Under 18)
42.2% 151,567
Adults 25+
25.1% 216,170
Senior Citizens 65+
24.3% 35,096
Associate
Median
Income
Median
Income
$27,501
$21,623
49.9%
Live in Poverty
US Poverty Rate: 15.6% • NYS Poverty Rate: 15.6%
78
10
Kings County
NYC Department of Youth and Community Development
www.nyc.gov/html/dycd
Race &
2 Lafayette St. 18th Floor
NYC, NY 10007
646.343.6800
Poverty
White
21.0% (234,564)
African American
23.2% (199,910)
Hispanic/Latino
30.7% (153,980)
Education & Poverty
County Population:
2,570,801
Adult Population 25+ - 1,699,860
Population for whom
poverty status is determined:
Overall
2,549,012
Population Under 18
596,796
Population 25 & Over
1,699,860
Population over 65
296,886
Educational Attainment
No Degree
High School
21.0% (356,826)
Total
33.6% (119,948)
Living in Poverty
Associate
26.9% (457,202)
Total
22.4% (102,577)
Living in Poverty
20.4% (347,541)
Total
16.3% (56,649)
Living in Poverty
Employment
& Poverty
Hourly Wage for
FMR, 2BR
Apartment
$27.44
$28.48
& Poverty
No Health Insurance
Employed
16.9%
Individuals
23.4% 595,531
Children (Under 18)
33.4% 199,548
Adults 25+
19.1% 324,478
Senior Citizens 65+
22.8% 67,752
31.8%
Gender
Median Income
w/High School Diploma
$27,451
Free/Reduced Lunch Program
Data for all 5 counties of NYC
Of Those Families with
Female Heads of Household
and Children Present
& Poverty
High School Diploma
Median
Income
77%
Unemployed
Living In Poverty
31.7% (538,291)
Total
8.4% (45,304)
Living in Poverty
$36,330
Living Wage for
1 Adult, 1 Child
Household
Health
Bachelors or Higher
Median
Income
Median
Income
$31,428
$24,460
39.5%
Live in Poverty
US Poverty Rate: 15.6% • NYS Poverty Rate: 15.6%
79
31
New York County
NYC Dept. of Youth and Community Development
www.nyc.gov/html/dycd
Race &
2 Lafayette St. 18th Floor
NYC, NY 10007
646.343.6800
Poverty
Overall
1,572,363
Population Under 18
234,807
Population 25 & Over
1,201,362
Population over 65
219,488
10.8% (95,981)
African American
30.1% (71,382)
Hispanic/Latino
29.2% (119,504)
Education & Poverty
County Population:
1,618,398
Population for whom
poverty status is determined:
White
Adult Population 25+ - 1,201,362
Educational Attainment
No Degree
High School
13.5% (162,198)
Total*
37.6% (60,923)
Living in Poverty
12.7% (152,040)
Total*
26.4% (40,097)
Living in Poverty
& Poverty
Hourly Wage for
FMR, 2BR
Apartment
$27.44
$28.48
No Health Insurance
Employed
10.5%
28.6%
Gender
Median Income
w/High School Diploma
$25,028
Free/Reduced Lunch Program
Data for all 5 counties of NYC
Of Those Families with
Female Heads of Household
and Children Present
& Poverty
High School Diploma
Median
Income
77%
Unemployed
Living In Poverty
59.6% (716,333)
Total*
6.6% (47,447)
Living in Poverty
$57,159
Living Wage for
1 Adult, 1 Child
Household
& Poverty
Bachelors or Higher
14.2% (170,791)
Total*
17.6% (29,993)
Living in Poverty
Employment
Health
Individuals
17.7% 278,958
Children (Under 18)
24.0% 56,306
Adults 25+
14.9% 178,460
Senior Citizens 65+
18.0%
39,574
Associate
Median
Income
Median
Income
$27,230
$21,452
40.0%
Live in Poverty
US Poverty Rate: 15.6% • NYS Poverty Rate: 15.6%
80
38
Queens County
NYC Dept. of Youth and Community Development
www.nyc.gov/html/dycd
Race &
2 Lafayette St. 18th Floor
NYC, NY 10007
646.343.6800
Poverty
Overall
2,255,875
Population Under 18
460,966
Population 25 & Over
1,585,144
Population over 65
291,113
12.8% (119,610)
African American
14.4% (59,975)
Hispanic/Latino
19.1% (119,949)
Education & Poverty
County Population:
2,280,602
Population for whom
poverty status is determined:
White
Adult Population 25+ - 1,585,144
Educational Attainment
No Degree
High School
19.4% (308,180)
Total
22.7% (69,894)
Living in Poverty
27.2% (431,661)
Total
14.8% (63,810)
Living in Poverty
& Poverty
Hourly Wage for
FMR, 2BR
Apartment
$27.44
$28.48
No Health Insurance
Employed
21.8%
34.4%
Gender
Median Income
w/High School Diploma
$28,442
Free/Reduced Lunch Program
Data for all 5 counties of NYC
Of Those Families with
Female Heads of Household
and Children Present
& Poverty
High School Diploma
Only
Median
Income
77%
Unemployed
Living In Poverty
30.4% (481,359)
Total
7.2% (34,779)
Living in Poverty
$36,524
Living Wage for
1 Adult, 1 Child
Household
& Poverty
Bachelors or Higher
23.0% (363,944)
Total
10.8% (39,359)
Living in Poverty
Employment
Health
Individuals
15.3% 344,920
Children (Under 18)
21.0% 96,841
Adults 25+
13.1% 207,842
Senior Citizens 65+
13.6% 39,643
Associate
Median
Income
Median
Income
$31,770
$24,546
31.0%
Live in Poverty
US Poverty Rate: 15.6% • NYS Poverty Rate: 15.6%
81
48
Richmond County
NYC Dept. of Youth and Community Development
www.nyc.gov/html/dycd
Race &
Poverty
2 Lafayette St. 18th Floor
NYC, NY 10007
646.343.6800
Overall
465,457
Population Under 18
106,528
Population 25 & Over
316,429
Population over 65
61,852
9.5% (33,492)
African American
24.9% (12,089)
Hispanic/Latino
22.3% (18,437)
Education & Poverty
County Population:
471,522
Population for whom
poverty status is determined:
White
Adult Population 25+ - 316,429
Educational Attainment
No Degree
High School
11.5% (36,340)
Total
28.3% (10,272)
Living in Poverty
31.7% (100,407)
Total
11.9% (11,918)
Living in Poverty
& Poverty
Hourly Wage for
FMR, 2BR
Apartment
$27.44
$28.48
No Health Insurance
Employed
8.8%
24.1%
Gender
Median Income
w/High School Diploma
$36,376
Free/Reduced Lunch Program
Data for all 5 counties of NYC
Of Those Families with
Female Heads of Household
and Children Present
& Poverty
High School Diploma
Only
Median
Income
77%
Unemployed
Living In Poverty
30.8% (97,525)
Total
4.3% (4,147)
Living in Poverty
$49,984
Living Wage for
1 Adult, 1 Child
Household
& Poverty
Bachelors or Higher
26.0% (82,157)
Total
7.8% (6,398)
Living in Poverty
Employment
Health
Individuals
12.3% 57,405
Children (Under 18)
17.5% 18,617
Adults 25+
10.3% 32,735
Senior Citizens 65+
10.6%
6,526
Associate
Median
Income
Median
Income
$47,683
$26,174
36.7%
Live in Poverty
US Poverty Rate: 15.6% • NYS Poverty Rate: 15.6%
82
50
Infant Deaths
Infant deaths, death occurring under one year of age after a live birth, are recorded by county of residence. The data is from Table 45: Infant Deaths, Neonatal Deaths, Post Neonatal Deaths and Perinatal
Mortality by Resident County New York State 2013, NYS Department of Health. http://www.health.ny.gov/
statistics/vital_statistics/2012/table45.htm
County
# Infant Deaths Infant Death Rate
24
7.7
Allegany
1
21.
Bronx
130
6.2
Broome
11
5.3
Cattaraugus
4
4.4
Cayuga
8
10.8
Chautauqua
14
10.4
Chemung
4
4.3
Chenango
2
4.0
Clinton
3
4.1
Columbia
5
9.3
Cortland
3
6.4
Delaware
1
2.7
Dutchess
17
6.6
Erie
63
6.4
Essex/Hamilton
0
0
Franklin
0
0
Fulton
4
7.6
Genesee
3
5.3
Greene
1
2.4
Hamilton/Essex
0
0
Herkimer
6
8.9
Jefferson
17
7.7
Kings
141
3.5
Lewis
3
9.4
Livingston
1
1.9
Madison
3
4.7
Monroe
55
6.6
Montgomery
3
5.1
Nassau
54
3.9
New York
60
3.3
County
Albany
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
St. Lawrence
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
# Infant Deaths Infant Death Rate
17
7.7
22
8.3
28
5.4
3
2.9
29
6.1
0
0
12
9.0
1
1.9
5
6.2
121
4.0
11
6.3
31
5.9
24
5.2
9
4.0
10
6.0
0
0
2
12.7
3
7.6
5
4.1
7
6.5
74
4.8
5
6.0
2
3.8
5
5.9
10
6.3
2
3.3
4
6.5
5
5.2
Westchester
50
Wyoming
5
1
Yates
4.7
12.9
3.3
To protect the confidentiality of females whose pregnancies resulted in spontaneous fetal deaths or induced
abortions in Hamilton County, it was decided to merge its events with Essex County for this chart.
83
107
A Comparative Look at County Poverty Levels
The ten New York State counties with the greatest number of people living in poverty, from highest to
lowest, are: Kings, Bronx, Queens, New York, Erie, Monroe, Suffolk, Westchester, Nassau, and Onondaga.
The ten counties with the highest percentage of the population living in poverty, from highest to lowest,
are: Bronx, Kings, Franklin, Montgomery, St. Lawrence, Tompkins, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, Oswego and
New York.
County
Number in Poverty
Rank by Number
Percent in Poverty
Rank by Percent
Albany
39,373
14
13.6%
32
Allegany
7,377
47
17.0%
13
Bronx
419,580
2
30.5%
1
Broome
33,527
16
17.8%
10
Cattaraugus
13,598
29
17.7%
11
Cayuga
9,360
37
12.4%
45
Chautauqua
24,707
19
19.4%
6
Chemung
13,295
31
16.0%
18
Chenango
8,075
42
16.4%
15
Clinton
11,268
32
15.2%
25
Columbia
6,258
49
10.4%
52
Cortland
6,173
50
13.5%
34
Delaware
6,089
52
13.5%
35
Dutchess
24,801
18
8.8%
58
Erie
131,644
5
14.7%
28
Essex
4,159
56
11.4%
50
Franklin
9,001
39
19.7%
4
Fulton
8,652
40
16.2%
17
Genesee
7,441
46
12.6%
43
Greene
6,296
48
13.9%
31
Hamilton
451
62
9.5%
56
Herkimer
10,023
35
15.9%
19
Jefferson
16,917
26
15.0%
27
Kings
595,531
1
23.4%
2
Lewis
3,551
60
13.3%
37
Livingston
8,644
41
14.7%
29
Madison
7,531
45
11.2%
51
Monroe
111,713
6
15.4%
22
Montgomery
9,366
36
19.1%
7
Nassau
83,615
9
6.3%
61
New York
278,958
4
17.7%
12
84
108
County
Number in Poverty
Rank by Number
Percent in Poverty
Rank by Percent
Niagara
28,624
17
13.6%
33
Oneida
36,529
15
16.5%
14
Onondaga
68,554
10
15.2%
26
Ontario
11,010
33
10.4%
53
Orange
45,944
12
12.6%
44
Orleans
6,127
51
15.5%
21
Oswego
21,565
20
18.5%
8
Otsego
9,288
38
16.4%
16
Putnam
5,476
53
5.6%
62
Queens
344,920
3
15.3%
24
Rensselaer
19,979
22
13.0%
38
Richmond
57,405
11
12.3%
46
Rockland
44,190
13
14.1%
30
Saratoga
19,710
28
19.7%
59
Schenectady
14,820
24
6.8%
42
Schoharie
19,361
57
12.8%
41
Schuyler
3,950
61
12.9%
36
Seneca
2,388
55
13.4%
39
St. Lawrence
4,175
23
13.0%
5
Steuben
15,439
27
15.9%
20
Suffolk
100,432
7
6.8%
60
Sullivan
13,346
30
18.0%
9
Tioga
4,736
54
9.5%
57
Tompkins
18,438
25
20.6%
3
Ulster
21,385
21
12.3%
47
Warren
7,690
44
11.9%
48
Washington
7,760
43
13.0%
40
Wayne
10,926
34
11.9%
49
Westchester
89,813
8
9.6%
55
Wyoming
3,861
58
10.2%
54
Yates
3,706
59
15.4%
23
This data from the US Census Bureau’s American Communities Survey (ACS) report S1701 - Poverty Status in the Past
12 Months, 2010 - 2014 five year estimates. (factfinder2.census.gov)
85
109
ACCORD Corporation
84 Schuyler Street
Belmont, NY 14813
585-268-7605
www.accordcorp.org
Allegany County
Action for a Better Community Inc.
550 East Main Street
Rochester, NY 14604
585-325-5116
www.abcinfo.org
Monroe and Ontario Counties
Adirondack Community Action Programs
7572 Court Street, Suite 2
P.O. Box 848
Elizabethtown, NY 12932
518-873-3207
www.acapinc.org
Essex County
Albany Community Action Partnership
333 Sheridan Ave.
Albany, NY 12206
518-463-3175
www.albanycap.org
Albany County
CACHE, Inc.
63-65 South Main Street
Liberty, NY 12754-1808
845-292-5821
www.sullivancountycache.org
Sullivan County
CAPC of Jefferson County, Inc.
518 Davidson Street
Watertown, NY 13601
315-782-4900
www.capcjc.org
Jefferson County
Cattaraugus Community Action, Inc.
25 Jefferson Street
Salamanca, NY 14779
716-945-1041
http://www.ccaction.org
Cattaraugus County
Cayuga/Seneca Community Action Agency
65 State Street
Auburn, NY 13021
315-255-1703
www.cscaa.com
Cayuga and Seneca Counties
Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc.
17 W. Courtney Street
Dunkirk, NY 14048
716-366-3333
www.chautauquaopportunities.com
Chautauqua County
New York State’s
Columbia Opportunities, Inc.
540 Columbia Street
Hudson, NY 12534
518-828-4611
columbiaopportunities.org
Columbia County
Dutchess County Community Action
Partnership, Inc.
77 Cannon Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
845-452-5104
www.dutchesscap.org
Dutchess County
ceo
2231 Fifth Avenue
Troy, NY 12180-2221
518-272-6012
www.ceo-cap.org
Rensselaer County
Economic Opportunity Program, Inc.
650 Baldwin Street
Elmira, NY 14901
607-734-6174
www.cseop.org
Chemung and Schuyler Counties
Community Action of Greene County
7856 Route 9W
Catskill, NY 12414
518-943-9205
www.cagcny
Greene County
EOC of Nassau County, Inc.
134 Jackson Street
Hempstead, NY 11550
516-292-9710
www.eoc-nassau.org
Nassau County
Community Action of Orleans & Genesee
409 East State Street
Albion, NY 14411
585-589-5606
www.ocacinc.org
Genesee and Orleans Counties
EOC of Suffolk County, Inc.
31 West Main Street, Suite 300
Patchogue, NY 11772
631-289-2124
www.eoc-suffolk.com
Suffolk County
Community Action Organization of Erie
County, Inc.
70 Harvard Place
Buffalo, NY 14209
716-881-5150
www.caoec.org
Erie County
Fulmont Community Action Agency, Inc.
Park St. County Annex Bldg.
Fonda, NY 12068
518-853-3011
www.fulmont.org
Fulton and Montgomery Counties
Community Action Partnership for
Madison County, Inc.
3 East Main Street, PO Box 249
Morrisville, NY 13408
315-684-3144
www.capmadco.org
Madison County
Cortland County Community Action
Program, Inc.
32 North Main Street
Cortland, NY 13045
607-753-6781
www.capco.org
Cortland County
Delaware Opportunities Inc.
35430 State Highway 10
Hamden, NY 13782
607-746-1600
www.delawareopportunities.org
Delaware County
86
JCEO of Clinton and Franklin Counties, Inc.
54 Margaret Street
Plattsburgh, NY 12901
518-561-6310
www.jceo.org
Clinton and Franklin Counties
Lewis County Opportunities, Inc.
8265 State Route 812
Lowville, NY 13367
315-376-8202
www.lewiscountyopportunities.com
Lewis County
Livingston County Planning Department
6 Court Street, Room 305
Geneseo, NY 14454-1043
585-243-7550
co.livingston.state.ny.us/planning.htm
Livingston County
110
Community Action Agencies
P.E.A.C.E., Inc.
217 S Salina Street, 2nd Floor
Syracuse, NY 13402
315-470-3300
www.peace-caa.org
Onondaga County
Tompkins Community Action, Inc.
701 Spencer Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-273-8816
www.tcaction.org
Tompkins County
ProAction of Steuben and Yates, Inc.
117 E Steuben Street
Bath, NY 14810
607-776-2125 • 800-553-2033
www.proactioninc.org
Steuben and Yates Counties
Ulster County Community Action, Inc.
70 Lindsley Avenue
Kingston, NY 12401
845-338-8750
www.uccac.org
Ulster County
Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. (RECAP)
40 Smith Street, PO Box 886
Middletown, NY 10940
845-342-3978
www.recap.org
Orange County
Warren/Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc.
190 Maple Street
PO Box 968
Glens Falls, NY 12801
518-793-0638
www.wahacaa.org/
Hamilton and Warren Counties
Saratoga County EOC, Inc.
40 New Street, PO Box 5120
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-3158
www.saratogaeoc.org
Saratoga County
Washington County EOC, Inc.
383 Broadway
Fort Edward, NY 12828
518-746-2390
www.washingtoncountyeoc.org
Washington County
Schenectady Community Action Program,
Inc.
913 Albany Street
Schenectady, NY 12307
518-374-9181
www.scapny.org
Schenectady County
Wayne County Community Action
Program, Inc.
159 Montezuma Street
Lyons, NY 14489
315-665-0131
www.waynecap.org
Wayne County
Schoharie County Community Action
Program, Inc.
795 East Main St., Suite 5
Cobleskill, NY 12043
518-234-2568 • 866-849-2402
www.sccapinc.org
Schoharie County
Westchester Community Opportunity
Program, Inc. (WESTCOP)
6470 Route 20A
Perry, NY 14530
585-237-2600
www.wccainc.org
Putnam, Rockland & Westchester County
Oswego County Opportunities, Inc.
239 Oneida Street
Fulton, NY 13069
315-598-4717
www.oco.org
Oswego
St. Lawrence County Community
Development Program, Inc.
One Commerce Lane
Canton, NY 13617
315-386-1102
www.slccdp.org
St. Lawrence County
Wyoming County Community Action, Inc.
6470 Route 20A
Perry, NY 14530
585-237-2600
www.wccainc.org
Wyoming County
Pathstone, Inc.
400 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
315-470-3300
www.pathstone.org
Statewide
Tioga Opportunities, Inc.
9 Sheldon Guile Blvd.
Owego, NY 13827
607-687-4222
www.tiogaopp.org
Tioga County
Mohawk Valley Community Action
Agency, Inc.
9882 River Road
Utica, NY 13403
315-624-9930
www.mvcaa.com
Herkimer and Oneida Counties
New York City Department of Youth and
Community Development
2 Lafayette St. 19th Fl., NYC, NY 10007
646.343.6800
www.nyc.gov/html/dycd
Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York
(Manhattan), Queens, and Richmond
(Staten Island) Counties
Niagara Community Action Program, Inc.
1521 Main Street
Niagara Falls, NY 14305
716-285-9681
www.niagaracap.org
Niagara County
Opportunities for Broome, Inc.
5 W. State Street
Binghamton, NY 13901
607-723-6493
www.ofbonline.org
Broome County
Opportunities for Chenango Inc.
44 West Main Street
PO Box 470
Norwich, NY 13815
607-334-7114
www.ofcinc.org
Chenango County
Opportunities for Otsego, Inc.
3 West Broadway
Oneonta, NY 13820
607-433-8000 • 800-986-5463
www.ofoinc.org
Otsego County
87
Yonkers Community Action Program, Inc.
164 Ashburton Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10701
914-423-5905
www.yonkerscap.org
Westchester County
111
Maps:
On each county profile page,
the map of NYS is included,
with the county highlighted in
red. The inset map shows the
county map with the county
seat noted. On city profile
pages, the map of NYS is again
included, with the county
highlighted in grey and the
cities noted in red. Inset map
is the county, with cities noted.
Data Key
Please see census.gov for more
specific definitions for any of the data
sourced from USCB reports.
Data on race is based on self-identification. There are a
minimum of five categories from which to select, including White and Black/African American. People are able
to self-identify as more than one race. People who
identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish may be
of any race. The data is from USCB Report S1701 ).
Race
& Poverty
Data
Population Data:
The population is the official
count of people from the US
Census Bureau’s (USCB)
BO1003 report.
The Population for Whom
Status is Determined reflects
the size of census samples
and is provided in USCB report S1701.
Poverty Data:
The poverty rate includes all
individuals living in poverty.
The numbers are then broken
down in three other categories: children under 18, adults
over 25 and adults over 65.
The percentage of each group
living in poverty is followed by
the number of individuals that
percentage represents.
Families in Poverty Data is
from USCB Report S1702 and
indicates the percentage of all
families with a female head of
household and at least one
child under 18 that are living
in poverty.
ALL Census Reports cited
are from the American
Communities Survey FIVE
year estimates
(2010 - 2014).
Access these reports at:
factfinder2.census.gov
Education & Poverty Data
The top numbers provided, next to the dark blue squares, indicate the total for each
category, as a percentage of the entire population and number of individuals. The number
below, next to the lighter square, shows the percentage of all people in that category living
in poverty and total number of individuals that indicates.
This data is from USCB Report S1701.
Income
& Poverty Data
Median Income - Total income is the sum of the amounts reported for wage/salary income, self
employment income,, interest, dividends, rental income, royalty income, income from estates or
trusts, Social Security or Railroad Retirement income, Supplementary Social Security, public
assistance or welfare payments, retirement/survivor/disability pensions and all other income.
The data is from USCB Report S1501.
Living Wage - The wage listed is the wage
an individual would need to earn as the
sole provider for a household consisting
of themselves and one child based on the
typical expenses in that county or city.
This wage is a minimum estimate of the
cost of living for a low wage family. Data
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator
(www.livingwage.mit.edu).
Hourly Wage - The hourly rate listed is
that which one person would need to
earn working year round, 40 hours per
week in order to afford a 2 bedroom
apartment at the fair market rate (FMR)
for that county, assuming 30% of income
is spent on housing. Data is provided by
the National Low Income Housing Coalition ‘s report: Out of Reach 2015
(www.nlihc.org ).
Health & Poverty
Insurance
Based on self reporting this includes people
who have: insurance from a current/former
employer, insurance purchased directly from an
insurance company, Medicare, Medicaid, Medical Assistance, any government assistance plan
for people with low income or disability, TRICARE or military health care, VA, Indian Health
Service or any other type of health insurance or
health coverage plan. Data from USCB Report
S2701.
Free/Reduced
Lunch Program
Of students who attend public schools where
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is
offered, the percentage of enrollment that is
eligible for free or reduced lunches. This does
not represent those attending private schools
or schools that do not administer NSLP. Data
is provided by Hunger Solutions New York.
Female Head of Household Of all households with a female head of household and children
under 18, this is the percentage living in poverty. The data is from USCB Report S1702.
88
112
NYSCAA (New York State Community Action Association) was
created in 1987 to provide New York State Community Action
Agencies with information, professional development and
technical assistance to enhance their capacity to serve as
effective, responsive community resources. Through statewide
legislative advocacy, training and technical assistance, peer
support , networking, information technology services, capacity building, recognition and information exchange NYSCAA serves
the collective interests of its members. NYSCAA convenes an annual Symposium on Poverty and Economic Security as well as a
statewide professional development conference and is the lead for national R.P.I.C. for Region 2, NY, NJ, PR & USVI.
New York State, Department of State, Division of Community Services administers the Community Services Block Grant
[CSBG] program in New York State. The Governor, in accordance with current federal statute, designated DOS as lead agency
for CSBG administration. DCS provides direction and support for local development
and implementation of comprehensive, integrated services in accordance with the
mission of CSBG and in compliance with applicable state and federal statutes and
regulations. For more information, visit DOS.NY.GOV/DCS.
The Community Action Partnership is the nonprofit, national membership organization representing the interests of the 1,100 Community Action Agencies (CAAs) across the country
that annually help 17 million low-income Americans achieve economic security. To learn
more, visit COMMUNITYACTIONPARTNERSHIP.ORG.
Hunger Solutions New York develops and distributes information and resources for community-based organizations
and agencies to use to further the fight against hunger.
For more information visit: HUNGERSOLUTIONSNY.ORG.
89
Karla Digirolamo, CEO, NYSCAA
[email protected]
Report Compilation By:
Kim McMann, CSBG Training Coordinator, NYSCAA
[email protected]
Contact Us:
New York State Community Action Association
2 Charles Boulevard, Guilderland, NY 12084
Phone: 518-690-0491 Fax: 518-690-0498
[email protected]
Funding support for this report comes from the Community Services Block Grant provided to
New York State Community Action Association by the
New York State Department of State Division of Community Services
© New York State Community Action Association, January 2016
90
One New York
The Plan for a Strong
and Just City
The City of New York
Mayor Bill de Blasio
Anthony Shorris
First Deputy Mayor
91
Executive
Summary
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
92
4
Ten years from now, New York City will enter its fifth century.
As we look ahead, we are asking critical questions about New York: what do we want
our city to be in ten years, twenty years, and beyond? What kind of city do we want
to pass on to our children—and to the generations to come?
This plan is our roadmap that will preserve and enhance New York City’s role as a
leading global city. As with past iterations of this report, we focus on economic
growth, sustainability, and resiliency. But we also seek to address issues of equity for
our residents—because we must serve all New Yorkers.
The bold initiatives we launch in OneNYC will speak to these challenges and
articulate the goals and long-term agenda of the de Blasio Administration. They
build on previous sustainability plans, as well as on the initiatives we have
announced over the past year regarding affordable housing, pre-kindergarten
education, the reduction of traffic fatalities, the fight against climate change,
bolstering our coastal communities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
economic development.
The plan lays down clear markers we will fight for, and sets out a comprehensive
blueprint to prepare New York City for the future. We envision a dynamic, thriving
economy, a city that is a responsible steward of the environment, and that is resilient
against shocks both natural and man-made. We have made equity an explicit guiding
principle—a lens through which we view all of our planning, policymaking, and
governing. Equity means we ensure that every New Yorker has equal access to
opportunities to reach his or her full potential and to succeed.
Our Vision for New York City
We have organized our vision for New York City’s fifth century around principles of
growth, equity, sustainability, and resiliency.
Our Growing, Thriving City
New York City will continue to be the world’s most dynamic urban economy
where families, businesses, and neighborhoods thrive.
To meet the needs of a growing population at a time of rising housing costs, the City
will implement the nation’s most ambitious program for the creation and
preservation of affordable housing. The City will support a first-class, 21st century
commercial sector. It will foster job growth, and build an inclusive workforce by
focusing investment in training in high-growth industries, as well as programs that
provide skills to the hardest-to-employ. We will support the burgeoning innovation
economy, create new high-speed wireless networks, and invest in transportation
infrastructure. As a regional hub, we will work closely with our neighbors on issues
including transportation, housing, and jobs.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
93
5
Our Just and Equitable City
New York City will have an inclusive, equitable economy that offers well-paying
jobs and opportunity for all to live with dignity and security.
With the measures in OneNYC, the City will lift 800,000 New Yorkers out of poverty
or near poverty by 2025. We will do this by fighting to raise the minimum wage, and
launching high-impact initiatives to support education and job growth. We will seek
to reduce premature mortality by 25 percent by ensuring that all New Yorkers have
access to physical and mental healthcare services and addressing hazards in our
homes. We will expand Family Justice Centers to help victims of domestic violence.
We will promote the citywide integration of government services, information, and
community data.
Our Sustainable City
New York City will be the most sustainable big city in the world and a global
leader in the fight against climate change.
We will strive to minimize our environmental footprint, reduce dangerous greenhouse
gas emissions, and have the cleanest air and water. The City is building on its goal to
reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050 (80 x 50)—the largest city in the world
to make that commitment—by expanding from an initial focus on buildings to
including energy supply, transportation, and solid waste as part of a comprehensive
action plan to reach our goal. We are committing to a goal of Zero Waste to landfills by
2030. We will keep organics out of the landfill, which will also cut greenhouse gas
emissions. The City will make major investments to remediate contaminated land, and
ensure that underserved New Yorkers have more access to parks.
Our Resilient City
Our neighborhoods, economy, and public services are ready to withstand
and emerge stronger from the impacts of climate change and other 21st
century threats.
As a resilient city, New York will be able to respond to adverse events like Hurricane
Sandy, deliver basic functions and services to all residents, and emerge stronger as a
community—with the goal of eliminating long-term displacement from homes and
jobs after shock events by 2050. The City will upgrade private and public buildings
to be more energy efficient and resilient to the impacts of climate change; adapt
infrastructure like transportation, telecommunications, water, and energy to
withstand severe weather events; and strengthen our coastal defenses against
flooding and sea level rise. We will strengthen homes, businesses, community-based
organizations, and public services to reduce the impacts of disruptive events and
promote faster recovery.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
94
6
New Challenges
The challenges of our fifth century will be as profound as those we’ve seen in the
past. Despite widespread prosperity, living costs and income inequality in New York
City are rising. Poverty and homelessness remain high. The city’s core
infrastructure—our roads, subways, sewers, and bridges—is aging. Affordable
housing is in short supply. Our air and water have never been cleaner, but our parks
and public spaces don’t always serve the needs of all New Yorkers. And, without
action, climate change is an existential threat to our future.
OneNYC is based on ideas coming from thousands of New Yorkers. We asked civic,
community, and business leaders what they thought we should be doing. We heard
from everyday New Yorkers—at town hall meetings and online, in polls and
surveys—who told us about what works and what could be better in their lives, and
what they imagine for New York’s future. We worked with over 70 City agencies and
offices and many regional partners. As we implement this plan, we will continue to
engage with New Yorkers. We will seek their opinions and suggestions about how to
make our city better.
We will fight for New York to retain and enhance its status as a global leader—in
commerce, culture, trade, innovation, sustainability, climate resiliency, and more. We
will ensure that New York will always be a place where people can realize their
dreams on the world’s biggest stage, as generations have done in the past, and that
everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
The initiatives we announce today in OneNYC are far-reaching, but also realistic,
and will prepare New York City for the challenges we face today and in the years
ahead. By focusing our efforts on growth, equity, sustainability, and resiliency, we
will ensure that the city’s fifth century will be our strongest yet.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
95
7
Vision 2
Vision 2
Our Just and
Equitable City
New York City will have an inclusive, equitable
economy that offers well-paying jobs and
opportunities for all New Yorkers to live with
dignity and security
New York City will…
Lift 800,000 New Yorkers out of poverty or
near poverty by 2025
Reduce overall premature mortality by
25 percent by 2040 and dramatically
decrease racial and ethnic disparities
Increase median household income
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
96
112
Vision 2
Goals
Early Childhood
Every child in New York City will be nurtured, will be protected, and will thrive
Integrated Government & Social Services
All New Yorkers will have access to high-quality, conveniently located, communitybased City resources that promote civic engagement and enable them to thrive
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
New Yorkers of all ages will live, work, learn, and play in neighborhoods that
promote an active and healthy lifestyle
Healthcare Access
All New Yorkers will have access to the physical and mental healthcare services that
they need
Criminal Justice Reform
Among large U.S. cities, New York will continue to be the safest and will have the
lowest rate of incarceration, with a criminal justice system that leads the nation in
fairness and efficiency
Vision Zero
New Yorkers will continue to embrace Vision Zero and accept no traffic fatalities on
New York City streets
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
97
113
Vision 2
Nearly half of New York City
residents live in or near poverty
23.6%
Near Poverty
15.8%
Poverty
5.7%
Extreme Poverty
45.1%
Near poverty defined as below 150 percent poverty threshold;
poverty defined as $31,156 threshold for a family of four;
extreme poverty defined as below 50 percent poverty threshold
Total
The CEO Poverty Measure, 2013
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
98
We will lift 800,000 New
Yorkers out of poverty or
near poverty by 2025
This can be achieved through a broad set of anti-poverty initiatives including raising the
minimum wage—a particularly effective tool for reducing poverty and income inequality.
Scheduled and proposed minimum wage
increases and anti-poverty initiatives will help us reach
more than half of our goal
• Minimum wage is already scheduled to increase to $9 per hour in January 2016
(phased in from 2013 to 2016)
• Governor Cuomo has proposed raising the minimum wage to $11.50 per hour
• Early impact of anti-poverty initiatives (detailed below)
We will fight to raise the minimum wage to more than
$13 per hour in 2016, indexed to inflation so it rises to
$15 in 2019
We will not wait. OneNYC anti-poverty initiatives will
continue to move us toward our goal while we push to
secure the right starting wage for New York City
• Pre-K for All to provide early education and help parents re-enter the workforce
• Educational programs to prepare students for college and career success
• Workforce development programs to build skills and find New Yorkers
quality jobs
• Better transportation to increase accessibility to work
• Healthy environments and access to quality healthcare to help New Yorkers
stay in the workforce
• Affordable housing to reduce living costs for a range of households
• IDNYC—already issued to more than 100,000 New Yorkers—to access
government and community services
• Accessible broadband to enable full participation in the city’s civic and
economic life
99
Vision 2
Introduction
To truly achieve our aspirations, New York City must be
a place where all can participate and contribute.
Regardless of background or circumstance, all
residents must be able to fully engage in the
economic, civic, and social life of the region.
Equity is imbued in all the visions of OneNYC. Vision 1 of
this plan, for example, lays out a strategy for an inclusive
workforce that ensures all New Yorkers have the skills
they need to access well-paying jobs; Vision 3 aims to
improve greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, floodcontrol, and parks across all the boroughs; and Vision 4
sets out a plan for all of our neighborhoods to be ready to
withstand and emerge stronger from the impacts of
climate change and other 21st century threats.
Soccer game at Brooklyn
Bridge Park
Equity must inform all of our planning, policymaking, and governing. Through
this lens we assess who will benefit, who is burdened or needs help, and whether the
actions we undertake broaden the participation of underrepresented groups, reduce
disparities, and expand opportunities for all New Yorkers. Where someone starts
out in life should not determine where they end up. Equal opportunity and the
genuine possibility of upward mobility are our nation’s signature ideals, and New
York City has long been a place where these ideals can be achieved. Remarkable
stories of extraordinary individuals who beat the odds and achieved their dreams
provide inspiration to new generations of people seeking a better life for themselves
and their families.
But we know there is a gap between our ideals and the real-world experiences of many
New Yorkers. Too often, a person’s home address, parents’ income, race, or other
demographic traits can weigh on his or her life outcomes—from educational
attainment to future earnings, and even life expectancy. We must change these
underlying odds.
A commitment to reduce poverty
In 2013, 45.1 percent, or 3.7 million, of our residents were living below 150 percent
of the CEO poverty line, meaning they were in poverty or near poverty.
The economic insecurity of people living in or near poverty plays an outsized role in
undermining individual potential, and compounds other challenges. The hungry
student has difficulty focusing in the classroom; poor living conditions produce
health challenges; and financial stresses can lead to depression, which in turn can
affect the wellbeing of a family’s children. What might appear to be an issue specific
to education, health, safety, or another concern is often rooted in something more
basic: not having enough money.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
100
116
Vision 2
Center for Economic
Opportunity (CEO)
Poverty Measure
The CEO poverty rate is an
alternative, more comprehensive
poverty metric than the official,
federal poverty rate. It measures
the cost of living in New York City
and the resources available to
households after tax and social
policy are taken into account. CEO has developed a variety of
models that estimate the effects
of taxation, nutritional and
housing assistance, work-related
expenses, and medical out-of-pocket
expenditures on total family
resources and poverty status.
The most recent data available is
from 2013.
1. The poverty threshold for a
family of four in 2013 was
$31,156. The threshold to
move out of near poverty, 150
percent of the threshold, was
$46,734 for a family of this size
2. The most recent CEO poverty
rate for New York City is 21.5
percent, and the near poverty
rate is 45.1 percent
A higher minimum wage would be a powerful force in reducing poverty. In his
2015 State of the City address, the Mayor stated the City’s goal to raise the
minimum wage to more than $13 per hour in 2016, and to index it so that it is
expected to rise to $15 per hour by 2019. If this were to happen, and OneNYC
anti-poverty initiatives are implemented, 800,000 New Yorkers would be lifted
out of poverty or near poverty by 2025. The change would be transformative.
Ensuring all New Yorkers live a long and healthy life
We are committed to ensuring every New Yorker has the opportunity to live
a long and healthy life. Premature mortality—death before the age of 65—is closely
tied to poverty and a lack of access to critical services. There are significantly more
premature deaths among certain racial/ethnic groups and in certain neighborhoods.
In 2013, the age-adjusted premature mortality rate per 100,000 deaths was 276.1 for
black Non-Hispanic New Yorkers, 188.2 for white Non-Hispanic New Yorkers, 160.3
for Hispanic New Yorkers, and 98.5 for Asian New Yorkers.
As a City, we are committing to reduce the premature mortality rate by 25
percent by 2040, so as to dramatically decrease disparities among racial/ethnic
groups. OneNYC targets causes of premature death such as infant mortality,
chronic diseases, gun violence, and traffic fatalities. We will promote the
health, safety, and wellbeing of all of our residents.
Premature death by neighborhood
Rate per 100,000
75.6 - 137.8
137.9 - 171.7
171.8 - 226.5
3. As of 2013, the poverty and
near poverty rate has remained
essentially unchanged since 2011
226.6 - 367.1
Unpopulated areas
Concurrent with the publication
of this plan, CEO is releasing
its annual poverty report, this
year covering the period of 2005
through 2013.
See www.nyc.gov/ceo.
DOHMH, Bureau of Vital Statistics
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
101
117
Vision 2
Equity benefits us all
The city benefits from everyone’s contributions. We all gain when a child discovers a
passion for dance watching his first neighborhood performance; when a middleschooler can post to GitHub from her home because of broadband access; when a
high school student receives guidance to apply for financial aid and realizes he can
afford college after all; and when a parent goes to her job confident her toddler is
safe in affordable childcare. City investments can make all of these things
possible—and the future artistic works, entrepreneurial ventures, and productive
workforce these investments create enrich our city and drive it forward.
New York City’s economic and cultural leadership over time won’t last if we do not
make progress toward greater equity. Research is beginning to show that inequality
can stymie economic growth. It can also undermine the social cohesion necessary to
create resilient communities. We will all bear the consequences of inequality as our
budgetary and social costs rise in areas such as healthcare and criminal justice. It is
in our shared long-term interest to have a just city.
All New Yorkers deserve a chance to reach their potential, and over the next two
decades, we will work as a city to ensure access to these opportunities. New York
City will persist in its historic legacy as a city for everyone.
Taking action now
While the fight for a higher minimum wage goes on, New York City will not rest.
Dozens of initiatives across all four visions in OneNYC are aimed specifically at
reducing inequality and promoting opportunity. This plan describes the actions the
City will take even as the effort to enact a fair minimum wage continues, and
ultimately succeeds.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
102
118
18
0T
H
ST
BRONX
PARK
Neighborhood Spotlight
WEST
FARMS
CROTONA
PARK
VE
NT A
MO
E
R
T
Hunts Point Down to Earth
PARKCHESTER
Farmers Market and The
Point/Corbin Hill Farm Share
Pop up fresh food markets will
increase residents’ access to fresh
and healthy foods
EX
PY
BRONX
RIVER
HOUSES
5 2
A
CROTONA
PARK EAST
SHERID
AN EXPY
6
LONGWOOD
C
N
BRUCK
A
Y
ER EXP
B
UC
S
NT
KN
ER
BL
VD
SOUNDVIEW
PARK
HU
C
T
IN
PO
BR
B
KWY
IVER P
BRONX R
CR
OS
SBR
ON
X
In the Bronx River Corridor, investments into pedestrian safety, community resources, and access to fresh and healthy food will provide
residents with the resources needed to fulfill their potential.
VD
BL
HUNTS POINT
103
Vision Zero Priority Corridors
and Intersection
Safety improvements at Hunts
Point and Bruckner Boulevards
will increase pedestrian and
bike safety
Vision 2
Early Childhood
Goal: Every child in New York City will be
nurtured, will be protected, and will thrive
Overview
INDICATORS + TARGETS
Reduce infant mortality rate
by 20 percent to achieve
a historic low of 3.7 infant
deaths per 1,000 live births
citywide by 2040, and
dramatically decrease the
racial/ethnic disparity
All four-year-olds receive
access to free, full-day,
high-quality pre-kindergarten
Infant mortality rate
by race/ethnicity
Per 1,000 live births, 2013
Black
Non-Hispanic
8.3
Puerto
Rican
Other
Hispanic
4.8
4.3
Asian / Pacific
Islander
3.1
White
Non-Hispanic
3.0
The City is determined to close the opportunity gap that exists for young New
Yorkers, starting from the birth of every child. The infant mortality rate (IMR)—an
indicator of the entire population’s health and wellbeing—was the lowest in New
York City history in 2013, at 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. However, despite a
declining rate that is nearly 25 percent below the U.S. average, there are significant,
and in some cases widening, disparities between neighborhoods. According to NYC
Vital Statistics data, in 2013 infant mortality rates were nearly double in areas with
very high poverty compared to areas with low poverty (5.2 infant deaths per 1,000
live births vs. 2.8, respectively).
Among racial ethnic groups, the disparity is the starkest between black and white
babies. The 2013 infant mortality rate for black babies, 8.3 infant deaths per 1,000
live births, was the infant mortality rate for white babies more than 20 years ago.
Among Hispanics, the 2013 infant mortality rate for Puerto Rican babies, 4.8 deaths
per 1,000 live births, was over 1.5 times the rate for white babies, and was the infant
mortality rate for white babies nearly a decade ago. Other Hispanic babies had an
infant mortality rate of 4.3 deaths per 1,000 live births, a little under 1.5 times higher
than the rate among white babies in 2013.
To address infant mortality disparities, the City proposes achieving a historic low of
3.7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births citywide by 2040 and dramatically decreasing
the racial/ethnic disparity. The City will reach its commitment by targeting key
neighborhoods with high infant mortality rates and implementing social and
structural supports before, during, and after pregnancy.
High-quality early childcare and early childhood education lead to improved
academic and life outcomes. High-quality pre-kindergarten promotes cognitive and
academic gains that persist into adulthood, reduces involvement with the criminal
justice system, increases high school graduation rates, and increases college
attendance rates. When a child attends pre-kindergarten, his or her chances of
reaching advanced reading levels by the third grade—a critical indicator of future
success—increases by 18 percent. Studies have found that students who are
proficient readers by third grade are more likely to graduate high school and enter
college. However, not all families have the chance to provide pre-k for their fouryear-olds. In New York City, such strides have been made. Pre-K for All, launched in
January 2014, has helped bridge this gap for families with four-year-olds.
DOHMH, Bureau of Vital Statistics
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
104
120
Early Childhood
Vision 2
Initiative 1
Nurture and protect all infants so they thrive during
their first year of life and beyond
Disparities in the infant mortality rate arise from inequities including, but not
limited to, adverse working and living conditions, inadequate healthcare,
socioeconomic position, and discrimination. Thus, the City proposes a series of
projects that address these root causes of poor pregnancy outcomes and promote
safety in the first year of life in order to reduce the number of infant deaths.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Create neighborhood spaces dedicated to advancing women’s health
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) will explore
enhancing its Neighborhood Health Hubs (described further in goal on Integrated
Government & Social Services) with designated space for women’s health
Infant mortality rate by mother’s racial/ethnic group and education
Per 1,000 live births, 2013
Less than high school graduate
12
High school graduate
10.2
10
More than high school
7.8
8
7.2
6.4
6
5.3
5.1
4.4
4.3
4
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.3
4.3
4.6
3.5
3.0
2.0
2
Citywide
Non-Hispanic
Black
Non-Hispanic
White
Asian & Pacific
Islander
Puerto Rican
Other Hispanic
DOHMH, Bureau of Vital Statistics
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
105
121
Early Childhood
aY
oSe. Sleep a
pa
Cl
r
t.
St
Vision 2
Your baby sleeps safest alone
on her back in a crib or bassinet free of toys,
blankets and pillows.
EvEry yEar about 50 babiEs in nyC diE from a slEEp-rElatEd injury.
Bill de Blasio
Alcalde
Mary T. Bassett, MD, MPH
Comisionada
To learn more, call 311 or visit nyc.gov
and search “infant safety”
Bill de Blasio
Mayor
Bill
de Blasio
Department
of
Administration
Mayor
Health & Mental
for Children’s
Mary
T. Bassett, MD,Services
MPH
Hygiene
Commissioner
Mary T. Bassett, MD, MPH
Gladys Carrión, Esq.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Bill de Blasio
Mayor
Mary T. Bassett, MD, MPH
Commissioner
Safe Sleep
Campaign
Approximately 80 percent of
all infant deaths due to injury
are related to the infant’s
sleep position and environment. The City has launched
the Safe Sleep Campaign to
make parents and other caregivers aware of the potentially
fatal risks of sharing a bed
with an infant, and how to
prevent injuries and deaths
associated with other unsafe
sleep practices, such as excessive bedding, bumpers, and
toys in cribs. City hospitals
and community health centers
are leading these efforts.
promotion. Located in seven low-income, underserved areas, these hubs would
provide access to comprehensive women’s health and baby-friendly care, which
would help address infant mortality. Possible features include space for
supportive group work (e.g., parenting support and coaching, smoking cessation),
and exercise studios and equipment. In addition, the space would support healthy
birth outcomes by reducing stress and providing a physical space for women to
breastfeed, rest, exercise, and connect with each other. These structural supports
are often missing in communities with poor birth outcomes and high infant
mortality rates.
City programming in these spaces would also provide women with information
and resources they need to stay healthy before, during, and after pregnancy, and
offer them the support their young infants need. Some of the DOHMH’s key
initiatives to support infants and healthy mothers include breastfeeding and safe
sleep education, cribs for families that cannot afford them, home visitation during
pregnancy and early childhood, and promotion of women’s health, including
increasing access to contraception to help plan pregnancies.
B. Expand the number of “baby-friendly” hospitals to promote access to
breastmilk for newborns
The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) is a global program sponsored by
the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) to encourage and recognize hospitals and birthing centers that offer an
optimal level of care for lactation based on the WHO/UNICEF Ten Steps to
Successful Breastfeeding for Hospitals.
Breastfeeding has been shown to have many health benefits for infants, including
reducing the risk of ear infections, diarrhea, and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps
reduce infant mortality because it helps increase the likelihood of survival for
premature infants. Research shows that infants born at facilities that provide
recommended care for lactating mothers and babies, such as those that have
incorporated the WHO/UNICEF Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding, are more
likely to initiate breastfeeding, exclusively breastfeed, and continue to do so for
longer periods of time.
Of the 40 maternity facilities in New York City, 17 hospitals and one birthing center
are participating in the New York City Breastfeeding Hospital Collaborative, an
initiative to increase exclusive breastfeeding rates. Of these 18 participating
facilities, three are Baby-Friendly Designated, and seven are in the final phase of
designation. Under this initiative, the City will pursue and encourage physical
interventions in hospitals that will transform newborn nurseries into smaller
observational areas, assuring adequate space for newborns to safely sleep in the
same room with their mothers; establish space for breastfeeding education and
support, including a private place to breastfeed for mothers whose infants are in the
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; and establish a central place to store infant formula
for mothers who are not exclusively breastfeeding.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
122
Source Name
106
Early Childhood
Vision 2
Initiative 2
Offer free, full-day, high-quality
pre-kindergarten for every fouryear-old to ensure all New York
children have the opportunity to
enter elementary school with a solid
foundation for future success
Pre-K for All is New York City’s truly universal full-day
pre-kindergarten system. As of December 2013, fewer
than 27 percent of four-year-olds in the city had access
to full-day pre-kindergarten. Launching Pre-K for All
in January 2014, the City committed to ensuring all
four-year-olds whose families are interested in full-day
pre-k could participate in a high-quality program by
the 2015-2016 school year.
Children at a New York City public school
In September 2014, the City opened 245 new full-day
sites in all five boroughs. Recognizing the critical role
teachers play in early childhood education, the City
committed to recruiting high-quality pre-k teachers
with early childhood certification, as well as
supporting several hundred teachers in earning their
certification through a partnership with City
University of New York (CUNY). It also trained more
than 6,000 lead teachers, assistants, and
paraprofessionals. Programs are expected to support
all children in gaining the foundation needed to realize
their potential. These programs focus on curriculum,
instruction, and family engagement on the skills and
knowledge reflected in the comprehensive state pre-k
learning standards, known as the New York State
Prekindergarten Foundation for the Common Core.
Playground at PS 347 - The American Sign Language and English
Lower School
Full-day pre-kindergarten
enrollment
Number of four-year-olds
53,230
+173%
In conjunction with its commitment to offer a highquality, full-day pre-k seat to every four-year-old, the
City will continue to focus on developing high-quality
early childhood programs through teacher recruitment
and training as well as through increased support for
students whose native language is not English, students
with disabilities, and students from high-need areas.
19,500
2013-2014
2014-2015
The Center for Economic Opportunity and the
Department of Education are collaborating with Westat,
DOE
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
107
123
Early Childhood
Vision 2
Metis Associates, and Branch Associates, with supplemental support from the New York
University Institute for Human Development and Social Change, to undertake a
rigorous two-part research study of this work. It will include an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the implementation process and an impact study assessing the
kindergarten readiness of children in pre-k. The research is designed to inform future
years of program delivery as well as lay a foundation for future longer-term research.
Given the research that demonstrates how critical early childhood learning is, the
City will explore the possibility of expanding pre-kindergarten to three-year-olds.
Like Pre-K for All for four-year-olds, this program would help close the opportunity
gap among New York City students and will enable new parents to re-enter the
workforce earlier.
Initiative 3
“I am a social worker and
my husband is a postal
worker…We do not
qualify for affordable
childcare, so between
childcare, afterschool,
rent, and clothes, we
barely have money for
food. I visit the local
pantry at my church to
get help with food. Our
school-age children
attend public school, but
I pay $1,800 a year for
afterschool for one child,
$3,000 a summer for day
camp, $30,000 in rent,
and $18,200 on daycare
for my two-year-old.”
—Sanaya B., Manhattan
Develop a comprehensive plan for high-quality early
childcare
Childcare is a major expense for working families in New York City. Studies show
that providing increased access to high-quality childcare—and lowering the cost of
childcare—can significantly increase mothers’ employment rates and incomes. It can
also help businesses retain employees and, in turn, provide job stability. However, in
2014, New York was the least affordable state in the nation for childcare, with the
average price of center-based, infant childcare about 15 percent of the median
annual state income for married couples, and 54 percent for single mothers.
A 2011 Center for Urban Future (CUF) report found that only one in four low-income
children under the age of six was being served by center-based childcare programs
across the five boroughs. In addition, waiting lists for childcare centers in some parts
of the city were long, with as many as 40,000 parents in line for childcare services.
Several city neighborhoods, most notably the South Bronx, northern Manhattan, and
parts of Central Brooklyn, were underserved in subsidized and affordable childcare.
Currently, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) runs the Early Learn
initiative, which provides center-based and family-based early care and education to
more than 29,000 children from six weeks through four years of age. Early Learn is a
model for early care and education that brings together Head Start, childcare, and
pre-k services, and provides quality early learning opportunities at 350 centers in
the highest need areas.
As part of an effort to expand early-care and education programs, ACS is conducting
a large-scale community needs assessment to better understand the changing needs
of New York City communities. The City will use the findings to develop a plan to
close the gap in access to childcare. In drawing up the plan, the City will consider
subsidies, property and zoning concerns, and economic development initiatives to
increase the availability of group childcare in underserved communities.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
108
124
Vision 2
Early Childhood
TALK
TO YOUR BABY
THEIR
BRAIN
DEPENDS
ON IT
ANYTIME. ANYWHERE.
#TalkToYourBaby
Talking, reading and singing build your baby’s brain.
FOR TALKING TIPS
search nyc.gov/TalkToYourBaby, or text “Talk” to 877877
Message and data rates may apply. Reply “STOP” to opt-out.
Bill de Blasio
Mayor
Mary T. Bassett, MD, MPH
Commissioner
in partnership with the NYC Children’s Cabinet
Talk to Your Baby Campaign
On April 1, 2015, the City launched Talk to Your Baby, which is a campaign to encourage early
childhood language development and establish strong bonds between parents and children.
The campaign promotes talking, reading, and singing to babies to help build their brain.
Children of low-income parents typically hear 30 million fewer words by the time they reach
age four. This “word gap” persists over time, having a negative impact on their language development, school readiness, and academic achievement later in life. By providing parents with
free books and other information and resources, we are providing them with simple tools to
improve the lives of their children. Just like we encouraged thousands of new parents to sign
up for pre-kindergarten, we can get thousands of parents to start talking, reading, and singing
to their babies. These efforts are led by the Children’s Cabinet, the Mayor’s multi-agency
initiative intended to increase communication and coordination among City agencies and
develop strategies for a holistic approach to child safety and wellbeing.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
109
125
Vision 2
Integrated Government & Social
Services
Goal: All New Yorkers will have access to highquality, conveniently located, community-based
City resources that promote civic engagement
and enable residents to thrive
Overview
New York City is home to a world-class government and non-profit programs that
provide social services, civic engagement opportunities, and resources for improving
residents’ lives. Participation in these services and civic engagement opportunities,
however, is often inhibited by a variety of barriers, including inaccessible or
inconvenient locations, lack of information, timing constraints, immobility, lack of
language options, and lack of broadband access. In addition, in many cases, people
need help identifying their needs and which services can best help them.
We are working to give New Yorkers the right services at the right times in a
coordinated and integrated manner through both physical and digital approaches.
This involves meeting people where they are in their communities—their schools,
health providers, libraries—and providing them with a “one-stop shop” that
addresses their service and information needs. In addition, we need to invest in a
data platform that helps us identify the services that New Yorkers need most.
The City is looking to build on existing successes and work toward establishing
physical hubs, which will provide a cohesive range of social and community services.
Hubs allow access to City government and community information, and civic
engagement opportunities specific to those neighborhoods. We will use existing
government-owned and non-profit-owned real estate to the greatest extent possible
and build on local initiatives.
With the expansion of the Department of Education’s (DOE) Community Schools
and the launch of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s (DOHMH)
Neighborhood Health Hubs, we have already begun to break down service silos.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
110
126
Vision 2
Integrated Social & Government Services
Initiative 1
Transform schools into Community Schools
Community Schools are an effective model for engaging communities,
delivering services, and improving student performance. The City is
laying the groundwork for expanding the Community Schools initiative,
which began transforming 128 schools in 2014, with the goal of
eventually making every school a Community School.
Salomé Ureña de Henríquez
Campus School
Located in Washington Heights, the Salomé
Ureña de Henríquez Campus School is a
Community School founded in a partnership between The Children’s Aid Society,
Community School District 6, local community-based partners, and the City of New
York. Most students qualify for free school
lunches, and a large number are English Language learners. The school is as a prototype
for community schools across the country.
Working with school staff, an on-site Community School director coordinates the activities and services offered to students. These
services include afterschool, holiday, and
summer programs; medical and preventative
health services; and family and community
engagement and development opportunities
(such as a family resource room, vocational
and educational training, and Advocacy and
leadership opportunities).
The school has offered mental health support to students and families in neighboring
communities after major tragedies such as
9/11, and emergency community support like
water and cooling stations after incidents
such as prolonged blackouts.
nyc.gov/onenyc
Students face a number of challenges in the classroom and at home that
impede their ability to succeed academically. The Community Schools
model identifies student needs and connects students with services to
address these needs. The Community Schools’ “whole child, whole
community” approach recognizes that, by intervening in this way,
schools can help every student achieve his or her full potential.
At Community Schools, students receive high-quality academic
instruction, families access social services, and communities are invited to
share resources and address their common challenges. Community
Schools establish strong partnerships among principals, parents, teachers,
and community-based organizations (CBOs). These partnerships offer a
coordinated approach to increasing learning opportunities, student
wellness, readiness to learn, personalized instruction, community
partnerships, and family engagement. At each Community School, the
services provided—such as extended days, school-wide vision and dental
screening, and mental health services—are tailored to the specific needs of
the community in which the school is located.
As of spring 2015, 128 Community Schools are already under development.
As a result of this unprecedented commitment—and of the network of
Community Schools currently being run by non-profits across the city—
New York City has become a national leader in the Community Schools
movement, an educational movement focused on addressing students’
diverse needs, empowering parents to be active participants in their child’s
education, and engaging entire communities around student success.
Over the next three years, we will implement a number of key systembuilding initiatives to strengthen these schools, including developing a
data framework, engaging parents and communities, building capacity,
and fostering collaboration among City agencies. The City has already
begun investigating how best to expand the existing Community Schools
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
111
127
Vision 2
Integrated Government & Social Services
network beyond our initial cohort of 128 schools, with the aim of ultimately
transforming every school into a Community School. Given the large number of CBOs
across New York City, there is ample opportunity to expand the network of partners.
The first cohort of Community Schools will provide important information on
strong practices and lessons learned. We will draw on this experience when we
release the next competitive RFP for 100 additional City-supported Community
Schools, which will occur in 2017 or 2018.
Initiative 2
Establish Neighborhood Health Hubs that co-locate
clinical health and mental health services with
social services and City agencies to foster improved
coordination
Community health and service offerings are often fragmented, duplicative, and have
persistent service gaps. Too often, despite an array of services provided by many
dedicated organizations, there has not been the kind of impact needed to
significantly improve population health.
Historical Neighborhood
Health Hub
Thus, the DOHMH will launch Neighborhood Health Hubs, which aim to eliminate
health disparities and promote health equity. These health hubs revitalize a 1920s
idea whereby CBOs, providers of medical and mental health services, and other New
York City government agencies co-locate to provide coordinated services to
neighborhood residents. The aim is to foster cross-sector work that addresses the
root causes of health inequities—such as violence, low income, and low educational
attainment—in communities with the greatest burden of disease, while building on
the wealth of existing assets in those neighborhoods.
DOHMH will begin by establishing at least seven Neighborhood Health Hubs in
neighborhoods with high health disparities. The first site is expected to be in East
Harlem. These Neighborhood Health Hubs will be located inside DOHMH District
Health buildings.
Building on this health hub model, additional City agencies are exploring new ways
to co-locate their staffs with one another and with non-profit organizations. Not
every access point to the government needs to be a City office. We will explore ways
to embed staff from agencies in other institutions, including existing non-profits that
already serve as trusted community providers. Staff can provide information and
help residents navigate and enroll in available programs and services, register to
vote, and access other civic services. In conjunction with the multi-service centers,
these access points can reduce the challenges that residents have to get what they
need, when they need it.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
112
128
Vision 2
Integrated Government & Social Services
Initiative 3
Enhance the digital capabilities of NYC 311 to provide
easier connections to government and community
services and information
We will continue to make it easier for residents to find information, enroll in
programs, and provide feedback to the City online. Today, too much information is
presented by individual agencies, which means residents must know the City’s
organizational structure in order to discover relevant opportunities. We will make it
easier for New Yorkers to search for and find relevant services and opportunities.
This enhanced digital platform will provide the same information available at the
physical hub offices, without residents needing to visit an office to access
information. Some of the tools that help residents discover relevant information and
engage online have already been announced, including LinkNYC, which will offer
up to a gigabit of free wireless in 10,000 locations, and Neighborhoods.nyc, which
will provide domain names for community groups to develop a single neighborhood
digital presence for civic engagement, online organizing, and information sharing.
311 is the single most recognizable and easy-to-access customer service tool for all
New Yorkers. The digital capabilities of 311 will continue to be enhanced to provide
easier connections to services and information and to simplify customer
engagement. Customers will be able to create and manage their own accounts and
relationship with the City and collaborate on content. They will also be able to
unlock access to service requests and access data currently not available in the
existing 311 system. Human Resources Administration (HRA) call centers will be
merged with 311 to provide “one-stop shopping” for customers with multiple
questions or needs. The expansion of social media and mobile app offerings will
streamline the customer experience.
We will continue to develop other ways to enhance the digital experience of New
York City residents so they can receive services and information in a more efficient
and simple manner.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
113
129
Integrated Government & Social Services
Vision 2
Initiative 4
IDNYC
On January 12, 2015, the Mayor launched a
major municipal identification (ID) initiative,
IDNYC, to ensure every New Yorker has access
to the opportunities, security, and peace of
mind that comes with having government-issued photo identification. There is a critical
need for this program because approximately
half of New York City residents age 16 and over
do not have a New York State Driver License.
The IDNYC card is helping more New Yorkers,
regardless of immigration status, homeless
status, or gender identity, access public- and
private-sector services, programs, and benefits.
The IDNYC card is broadly accepted across the
city and provides eligibility for City services, entry
to City buildings and schools, recognition by City
agencies such as the NYPD, and opportunity to
open bank accounts at select financial institutions.
The vision for the IDNYC card is to create a
single card for each New Yorker’s wallet. This
card integrates the various forms of identification issued by local government, giving it
dynamic value and expansive functionality.
To supplement the card’s value as a form of
identification, the City has developed a set of
key partnerships with libraries, cultural institutions, and other organizations. Learn more at
www.nyc.gov/idnyc.
Mayor de Blasio at an IDNYC enrollment center
nyc.gov/onenyc
Expand the City’s internal data
integration capacity to help ensure
clients receive the right resources
and service at the right times
The challenges faced by social service clients can cut
across the purview of different City agencies. Many
times, however, different agencies are unaware that
they are working with the same clients. Technologyenabled tools can help agencies better support
individuals and families to achieve better results. For
example, auto-notifications can alert caseworkers from
different agencies that they share common clients
(subject to privacy protections), which can help them
coordinate support. With greater investments in
integrated data systems, the City will also be able to
better track the results of its programs. By examining
the short- and long-term outcomes of interventions
and services, we will be able to, over time, reallocate
resources toward the most effective approaches.
Analytic tools can improve decision-making across a
range of disciplines. In criminal justice, smarter use of
data can not only inform criminal justice processing
and programming decisions, but also be used to share
data to improve residents’ health and safety. These
tools are detailed further in the section below on
Criminal Justice Reform.
To advance these and other solutions, the City aims to
enhance its data platforms to be able to personalize and
improve its social services work. By integrating data
about the City’s people, places, and program activities,
the City can conduct more powerful analyses and do a
better job of sharing information among agencies about
both community needs and specific individuals and
families. This enhanced analytic capability will help us
connect residents with the right services when they
need them. It will also help us track the relative impact
of the City’s funding streams and programmatic models
so we can make more evidence-informed decisions
about what works. Our initial scoping work for this
“intelligent service platform” will begin this year.
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
114
130
Vision 2
Integrated Government & Social Services
Brooklyn Public Library Central Library Branch
NYC Library Systems
New York City’s three library systems, comprising 210 branches across all five boroughs, offer
free quality services to students, families, job-seekers, seniors, and anyone in need of information or assistance as centers of learning and civic engagement. In addition to their important
traditional services—circulating millions of books and supporting research by students and
scholars alike—the libraries are expanding their roles and working in increasingly close
partnership with the City to support the changing needs of our neighborhoods and residents.
The library systems are assisting new immigrants by providing English Speakers of Other
Languages (ESOL) classes, citizenship education, and support for immigrant small business
owners and entrepreneurs in coordination with the Department of Small Business Services.
The libraries are critical partners for the Department of Education in supporting students
and families through early education services, after school programming, and homework
support. Libraries are also helping us close the digital divide by offering Internet access
in their buildings and lending Wi-Fi hotspots and other mobile devices for families to use
at home. Libraries help strengthen our communities by offering cultural and recreational
neighborhoods, and serving as resident service centers in times of emergency.
The library systems are also critical partners on major citywide initiatives including
IDNYC, Pre-K for All, and OneNYC. Together, we are ensuring that all people have access
to the many resources and opportunities our City has to offer.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
115
131
Vision 2
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
Goal: New Yorkers of all ages will live, work,
learn, and play in neighborhoods that promote an
active and healthy lifestyle
INDICATORS + TARGETS
Increase the average
number of servings of fruits
and vegetables that adult
New Yorkers eat per day by
25 percent, from 2.4 to
3 servings, by 2035
Increase the percentage
of adult New Yorkers who
meet physical-activity
recommendations from
67 percent to 80 percent
by 2035
Increase the percentage of
New York City public high
school students who report
meeting recommended
levels of aerobic physical
activity from 19 percent to
30 percent by 2035
Decrease asthma emergency
department visits by
children by 25 percent,
299 per 10,000 to 224 per
10,000, by 2035
Overview
The access New Yorkers have to nutritious food and beverages, opportunities for
physical activity, and quality housing play a large role in determining their physical
and mental wellbeing and their ability to fulfill their potential. Many New York City
neighborhoods have considerable room for improvement in promoting good health
and wellbeing, with large disparities in opportunities for healthy living and health
outcomes between high-poverty and low-poverty neighborhoods. We will
implement several initiatives to ensure all New Yorkers live in neighborhoods and
housing that promote healthy lives.
Initiative 1
Improve food access, affordability, and quality, and
encourage a sustainable, resilient food system
Quality food is fundamental to a healthy life. However, the City’s current food
system does not allow for equitable access to nutritious food. There are broken links
between food production, sales to distributors and wholesale buyers, and delivery to
consumers that result in inequitable distribution of and access to healthy food.
Moreover, approximately 1.4 million New Yorkers, or one in six, report they are food
insecure, a result of unemployment, poverty, and other household characteristics.
Food insecure families may worry that food will run out before they have enough
money to buy more, eat less than they should, or be unable to afford to eat balanced
meals. The availability, quality, and affordability of food affect the quality of New
Yorkers’ diets. Cardiovascular disease, which is often connected to poor diet, is the
leading cause of death for men and women in New York City.
Increased fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with a decreased risk of
chronic diseases such as hypertension, heart disease, and stroke. Not all New
Yorkers consume the same amount. The 2013 Community Health Survey reported
the lowest levels of consumption were among black and Hispanic New Yorkers,
those with low education levels, and those living in high-poverty neighborhoods.
Our goal is to increase the average number of servings of fruits and vegetables adult
New Yorkers eat every day by 25 percent, from 2.4 to 3 mean servings, in the next
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
116
132
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
Vision 2
Adults eating five or more daily servings of
fruits or vegetables by neighborhood
Percent, 2011-2013
Quartiles
4%-7%
twenty years. The City will undertake a variety of
initiatives aimed at promoting access to nutritious,
quality food for all New Yorkers, especially those
most in need.
Supporting Initiatives
8%-10%
A. Increase the share of regional food in the New
York City food system through investments in the
regional food distribution system
11%-13%
14%-21%
no population
Our region produces high-quality, nutritious foods,
including fruits and vegetables, legumes, meat, and
dairy. Farmers in the region are interested in selling
more products in the New York City market, but face
distribution and other barriers. By investing in the
regional food distribution system, we can increase the
availability of local food for the city’s consumers
across the income scale, while also enlarging the
market for local and regional farmers in the city.
DOHMH, Community Healthy Survey
Increasing the amount of food from the region has
broader benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from shipping food from far away, make
our food system more resilient to climate change and other potential disasters,
and create jobs locally and across the region.
To increase access to good quality food produced in the region, the City will work
with the State on the Regional Food Hubs Task Force, which was launched in
March 2015. We will act on its recommendations to increase the amount of
regionally-produced food coming into the city through investments in the food
system. Furthermore, upstate farmland that feeds the city and protects our water
supply is disappearing. We will work with the State to conserve the region’s
agricultural land for farming.
“Make it appealing for
supermarkets to open in
high-population areas so
people can have access to
nutritious foods at
reasonable prices.”
—Phyllis G., Manhattan
nyc.gov/onenyc
B. Expand and improve quality of New York City school food
The City’s public school system has 1.1 million students, about 75 percent of
whom qualify for free lunch. Providing over 160 million meals a year, the NYC
Department of Education (DOE) runs the largest school food-service program in
the United States. This program has enormous reach and buying power such that
its potential to transform the eating habits, nutrition, and food security of young
New Yorkers is monumental.
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
117
133
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
Vision 2
“Start with our children.
We need to educate
students about how to
foster good mental,
physical, and
environmental health”.
—Kate G., Manhattan
To ensure no public school student goes hungry, and that all are ready to learn, we
will work to increase participation in school meal programs.
We must also improve the lunchroom experience and environment for students.
To promote participation in meal programs, and healthy choices, we will begin by
renovating 45 middle and high school cafeterias over five years with new
furniture, paint, and improvements to serving lines.
To improve the quality of food served, the City will continue to increase
procurement of sustainable, healthy, and local food and supplies. We will promote
food and environmental education by increasing student engagement with
gardens—both by working to increase the number of school gardens and
facilitating school partnerships with existing gardens. By investing in the quality
of our school food, we will continue to provide nutritious meals to families and
children that need them, and help build healthy eating habits in New Yorkers at a
young age, promoting a lifetime of healthy eating.
C. Ensure all communities have access to fresh food retail options, with a
special focus on traditionally underserved neighborhoods
New Yorkers see significant disparities in their neighborhood food options. A
survey of the food stores in the Crotona-Tremont neighborhood of the Bronx in
2012 found that for every supermarket in the neighborhood, there were four fast
food restaurants and ten bodegas. We have an opportunity to work with the
private sector to improve the food marketplace and access to healthy food for
those in need.
To improve the availability of healthy food in retail settings, we will expand on the
City’s work to attract new supermarkets to underserved neighborhoods and
encourage renovations and upgrades of existing small or independent grocery stores.
We will also work with the private and non-profit sectors to explore innovations
and business growth in food retail, including health- and community-focused
grocery stores, restaurants, and corner stores. Improving the nutritional quality and
affordability of the food available citywide will encourage better health outcomes
for all and will have positive effects on job creation and economic development.
In addition, we will support and expand initiatives to provide fresh food options
to underserved neighborhoods. For example, we will support and expand fresh
food box programs that bring an affordable basket of fresh fruits and vegetables
to community settings such as childcare centers. This means ensuring the
non-profit providers of these programs have the resources they need to be
viable and expand; and that we help community settings get a program like this
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
118
134
Vision 2
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
to their area. We will work with community
organizations to bring new community-based
farmers markets to underserved neighborhoods.
These initiatives will be complemented by an
annual distribution of in Health Bucks—vouchers
that can be used to purchase fresh fruits and
vegetables—to provide additional buying power
for local and fresh foods among low-income
consumers.
D. Support community gardens and urban farms
in select neighborhoods in the city
New Yorker enjoying locally-grown fresh produce
Building Healthy Communities
Building Healthy Communities is a place-based initiative that
recognizes a community’s health is not limited to access to medical care. Physical health, mental health, and quality of life are
critical elements for improving social wellbeing. Vibrant public
open spaces are a crucial feature of livable urban neighborhoods. Parks, pedestrian plazas, community gardens, and recreation centers are essential community resources where people
come together to play, learn, grow food, exercise, and relax.
Yet many of our most densely populated and highest poverty
neighborhoods have historically been neglected in public
investment in the preservation, rehabilitation, and activation of
open spaces and playgrounds. Many of these same communities
continue to report high rates of crime and equally high rates of
obesity and diabetes.
Over the next three years, Building Healthy Communities aims
to address these inequities and improve community health
outcomes in our neediest neighborhoods by increasing access
to physical activity and nutritious and affordable food, and promoting public safety in 55 of the city’s neighborhoods that were
targeted by the Department of Parks and Recreation in its Community Parks Initiative. Leveraging the capital investment of the
Community Parks Initiative, Building Healthy Communities will
activate the neighborhood parks and surrounding open spaces,
including streets, sidewalks, schools, and community gardens
offering physical activity programs, cooking classes, nutrition
education, and farmers’ markets. This initiative supports our
efforts across Vision 2 and Vision 3.
nyc.gov/onenyc
Urban agriculture plays a small but critical role in
communities underserved by quality, affordable,
fresh food. Urban farming provides opportunities
for residents to engage in growing local produce,
educates children about nutrition, and offers
training in food preparation, gardening, and
retailing skills. By offering young people jobs in
the youth markets and providing formal
horticulture training for community members,
urban agriculture also provides opportunities for
workforce development.
To encourage the growth of the urban farming
sector, the City will support community gardens
in neighborhoods with necessary infrastructure.
We will also support these gardens with
assistance in selling produce at farm stands and
teaching nutrition and cooking. We will work to
support school gardens, and educate students
about nutrition, gardening, and science.
We will also support larger-scale urban farming
ventures, and establish food-producing gardens at
NYCHA sites through it’s Gardening and
Greening program. We will study additional
emerging urban agriculture opportunities, such
as vertical farming projects, to activate
underutilized light industrial space and offer
related community programing.
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
119
135
Vision 2
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
Initiative 2
Create environments that encourage New Yorkers to be
physically active regardless of age
Physical activity is beneficial for overall health and wellness, leading to lower risk of
developing chronic diseases, greater cardiorespiratory fitness, stronger muscles, better
bone strength, and higher self-esteem. Still, 33 percent of all adults and 43 percent of
older adults in New York City fail to meet physical activity recommendations, putting
them at higher risk for heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and falls.
Residents living in poor or predominantly minority neighborhoods are less likely
to have clean, safe, and attractive places to be physically active. Consequently,
physical activity levels are often correlated with income, race, and neighborhood.
In New York City, 37 percent of residents in very high-poverty neighborhoods fail
to meet physical activity recommendations compared to 29 percent in low-poverty
neighborhoods.
A strong body of evidence demonstrates how one’s physical environment
influences physical activity. For example, residents in neighborhoods with
Level of physical activity by age
Inactive
Percent, 2013
Insufficiently active
Sufficiently active
80
75
72
70
64
60
57
50
38
40
33
30
27
24
20
10
0
1
25-44 years
18-24 years
5
3
1
45-64 years
64 and over
DOHMH community health survey
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
120
136
Vision 2
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
recreational facilities are more likely to use them and be more active; and making
stairs accessible and attractive is associated with increased stair use. By increasing
access to physical activity space in and around schools, to commercial and
community recreational facilities, and to accessible stairs, the City will increase
opportunities for physical activity for all New Yorkers. And we will work to reduce
inequities in access to environments that support physical activity by focusing
these efforts on low-income neighborhoods.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Increase opportunities for physical activity in and around schools
As children spend about half of their waking hours in school, schools are uniquely
positioned to play a role in improving physical activity levels of students.
To encourage active play at school, the City will explore enhancing existing
school yards by painting colorful ground markings including games, tracks, and
other creative designs. Painted ground markings have been shown to be a lowcost but effective way to increase physical activity.
Open, accessible, and attractive
stairs promote stair use. The NYC
Health Department’s Riverside
Health Center received a LEED
innovation credit entitled “Design
for Health through Increased
Physical Activity” for including
active design features such as the
enhanced stairs, a physical exercise room and bicycle racks, and
shower facilities for staff
B. Increase design elements that promote physical activity in buildings
New Yorkers, on average, spend over 90 percent of their time indoors. As the City
constructs and renovates buildings, we will take advantage of the opportunities to
apply Design Guidelines for Healthy Living building elements such as secure
bicycle storage, accessible stairs, indoor and outdoor recreation space for building
users, and building exteriors that contribute to making the streetscape welcoming
for pedestrians. The City will expand the scope of Department of Design and
Construction (DDC) projects to incorporate Design Guidelines for Healthy Living
strategies such as stair improvements, bicycle storage, and fitness rooms.
Further, we aim to improve stair use by supporting legislation that, consistent
with the recommendation of the Green Codes Task Force, requires new buildings
and certain major renovations to include at least one stairway that is easily
accessible and open for use.
We will continue to explore incentives for residential building owners receiving
City financing for new construction and substantial rehabilitation to promote
physical activity through Design Guidelines for Healthy Living. We also support
passing the Department of City Planning Zoning for Quality and Affordability text
amendment, introduced in February 2015, which would remove obsolete
provisions and modernize other zoning provisions to foster diverse and livable
neighborhoods. The text amendment, for example, would allow ground floors to
accommodate more active uses and add interest to the streetscape.
Riverside Health Center’s
renovation and exapansion
promotes health
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
121
137
Vision 2
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
C. Provide opportunities for physical activity in the community for residents
of all abilities
People are more likely to exercise and be active when they have quality, affordable,
and accessible recreational facilities. The City is working to ensure such facilities
are available to all New Yorkers. New York City will build off the success of existing
adult exercise equipment in the City by co-locating universally accessible ageappropriate adult exercise equipment in or near playgrounds, where feasible.
Beyond this, the City will encourage the creation of community recreation centers and
commercial gyms by exploring the elimination of special permit requirements for gyms
in certain districts and by conducting outreach to gym and recreation center operators.
Furthermore, Parks Without Borders will pursue new and better ways to connect
neighborhoods to the city’s parks and make our streets, sidewalks, and other
pedestrian plazas more inviting public spaces (detailed further in Vision 3).
Finally, to ensure New York City active and healthy design initiatives meet the
needs and priorities of the communities we serve, we will conduct community
engagement as part of Department of City Planning (DCP) comprehensive
neighborhood studies, with the goal of creating neighborhoods with access to key
facilities and services and a more vibrant street life.
By integrating opportunities for physical activity into the environments where we live,
work, study, and play, we will make staying active and healthy easier for all New Yorkers.
Initiative 3
Address health hazards in homes
The home environment is critical to the health and wellbeing of people of all ages. When
homes are poorly maintained or not designed to promote safety and health, occupants can
be exposed to a variety of health hazards, such as asthma triggers and fall hazards.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Reduce asthma triggers in the home
Asthma affects nearly one million New Yorkers and is the most common chronic
respiratory disease in children. More than one in three children with asthma living
in high poverty neighborhoods are exposed to potential asthma triggers in the home.
Home-based asthma triggers include tobacco smoke, pest infestations, moisture, and
mold, as well as some building materials and products. Housing disrepair, such as
water leaks, cracks, and holes, create housing conditions conducive to pest
infestation and mold growth. Living in pest-free environments is correlated with
children having the ability to fulfill their potential; for children with asthma, specific
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
122
138
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
Vision 2
Housing asthma triggers by income
372.8
35
P E R C E N TA G E
34.7
400
350
35.6
30
300
25
250
20
15
10
200
16.6
107.2
12.1
23.6
176.6
22.2
12.4
150
11.8
100
11.4
9.5
5
6.8
6.9
5.8
50
3.2
3.0
0
0
Low Poverty
Medium Poverty
High Poverty
NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY
Homes with cockroaches (%)
Homes with mice or rats in
building (%)
Homes with 3 or more
maintenance deficiencies (%)
Adults reporting mold in the
home (%)
Adults reporting second-hand
smoke in the home (%)
Asthma emergency department
visits among children 5-17 years
(rate per 10,000)
Data obtained from NYC Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, Environment and Health
Data Portal, March 23, 2015
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/
environmental/tracking.shtml
*Neighborhoods are ranked according to the
percent of people whose annual income falls
below twice the federal poverty level. Rankings
are then divided into 3 approximately equal
groupings of low, medium and high poverty.
Then the median value of the selected indicator
is displayed for each poverty grouping. The
median is the exact mid-point of the individual
environment or health indicator values for each
neighborhood within a grouping.
nyc.gov/onenyc
housing interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing allergens,
resulting in fewer symptom days, missed school days, and emergency room visits.
Secondhand smoke is also a powerful asthma trigger, with exposure occurring when
there is a smoker in the household or smoke travels from one apartment to another.
New York City will fund a roof replacement program in NYCHA developments
which will address the root causes of mold. The City will also implement a joint
HPD-DOHMH enforcement initiative focused on housing with egregious pest
infestation. Efforts will target neighborhoods at highest risk for asthma, with
building owners required to implement safe pest-control measures using integrated
pest management (IPM).
Additionally, we will explore creating strong incentives for building owners receiving
City financing for new construction or substantial rehabilitation to use IPM, a
comprehensive and prevention-based approach to pest control, smoke-free policies,
safer building materials/products, and moisture/mold control. Each year, the City
receives applications from affordable housing owners and developers for the
financing of new construction or the financing of substantial and moderate
rehabilitation of existing housing, impacting an estimated 16,000 housing units per
year. These “financing moments” provide important opportunities to promote the use
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
123
139
R AT E ( P E R 1 0 , 0 0 0 R E S I D E N T S )
40
Vision 2
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
of healthy building practices that reduce asthma triggers in the home. By integrating
simple, often low-​​cost healthy housing measures into building design and
construction, renovation, and ongoing operations and maintenance, our buildings will
be healthier places to live. B. Decrease secondhand smoke exposure in the home
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). Non-smokers exposed
to secondhand smoke in the home have higher risks of asthma attacks, heart disease,
lung cancer, and chronic respiratory disease. Children and the elderly are particularly
affected by SHS exposure in the home because they are more vulnerable to its health
effects, and because they typically spend more time at home. Secondhand smoke
complaints are common, with 40 percent of adult New Yorkers reporting smelling
cigarette smoke in their home that comes from another home or apartment or from
the outside. We are already making strides to dramatically reduce SHS. An
overwhelming majority of non-smokers (81 percent) and most smokers (53 percent)
in New York City do not allow smoking in their homes. And 69 percent of New York
City adults support smoke-free housing. To address secondhand smoke, a primary
driver of unhealthy indoor air quality, the City will work to pass legislation requiring
multi-unit housing to have a smoking policy and to disclose it to residents and
prospective residents. To complement this, we will explore opportunities for the
adoption of other smoke-free housing policies in New York City.
Together, these strategies will work to reduce asthma triggers in the home, which will
decrease the percentage of homes with housing conditions associated with asthma.
C. Reduce housing-related fall hazards for older adults
Falls are the leading cause of injury-related hospitalizations and deaths among
older adults in New York City, causing an average of 17,000 hospitalizations and
nearly 300 deaths each year. Fall-related hospitalization charges total more than
$750 million. There are currently more than one million older adults (age 65 or
older) in the city, and the older adult population is expected to grow by 41 percent
to 1.41 million by 2040, which could dramatically increase the burden of falls and
their associated costs.
Most falls among older adults occur at home. Finding and fixing fall hazards in
the home is effective in lowering both the risk of falls and the rate of falls among
older adults. By 2030, all City contracts for providing home-based services for
older adults will require an assessment for fall hazards, as per the DOHMH
recommendation. In addition, for new construction, the City will promote the
adoption of universal design elements such as grab bars, hand rails, slip-resistant
floors, and lighting that reduces the risks of falls. Similarly, for existing buildings,
the City will provide incentives for in-place retrofits for these measures aimed at
promoting safe home environments and preventing falls among older adults.
By reducing housing-related fall hazards for older adults, we will reduce the
number of falls in the home, keeping our aging population healthy and safe.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
124
140
Healthy Neighborhoods, Active Living
Vision 2
Age
Friendly
NYC
Enhancing Our City’s
Livability for Older
New Yorkers
Age Friendly NYC
Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor
Christine C. Quinn
City Council Speaker
Soon, older adults in New York City will outnumber school-aged children. To prepare for this
demographic shift, the Office of the Mayor, the New York City Council, and the New York
Academy of Medicine have partnered to create Age Friendly NYC. Age Friendly NYC is dedicated to ensuring our older population is healthy, active, and engaged. Initiatives that support
the efforts of Age Friendly NYC include:
Increased mobility through accessible transportation: As further detailed in Vision 1,
the City aims to expand use of yellow and green taxis—including the growing number of
wheelchair accessible yellows and greens—to provide faster and more convenient paratransit
services to New Yorkers with disabilities. Additionally, DOT is planning to install attractive
and durable benches around the city, particularly in areas with high concentrations of seniors, to make streets more comfortable for transit riders and pedestrians.
Convenient healthy and nutritious food: The City will explore improved meal- and
grocery-delivery programs that will improve access to seniors and people with disabilities whose limited mobility and fixed incomes make it challenging to purchase
nutritious food.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
125
141
Vision 2
Healthcare Access
Goal: All New Yorkers will have access to the
physical and mental healthcare services that
they need
INDICATORS + TARGETS
Increase the percentage
of adult New Yorkers who
feel they have received the
medical care they needed in
the past 12 months
Increase the percentage of
adult New Yorkers with
serious psychological
distress who have received
counseling or taken a prescription medication for a
mental health problem
Overview
In 2013, nearly one million New York City residents felt they did not receive the
medical care they needed in the past year, with residents of the poorest
neighborhoods reporting they were receiving the least care. Residents of these
low-income neighborhoods also bear a greater burden of specific diseases, such as
heart disease, diabetes, and infant deaths, when compared to other neighborhoods.
For example, more than a third of residents of very high-poverty neighborhoods
have been diagnosed with high blood pressure; by contrast, less than a quarter of
residents of low-poverty neighborhoods were diagnosed with high blood pressure.
Mental health and substance abuse issues affect many New Yorkers. Fifteen percent
of all New Yorkers report having been diagnosed with depression. However, the
highest prevalence is in high-poverty neighborhoods. In the poorest New York City
neighborhoods, seven percent of residents experience serious psychological distress
(SPD), compared to three percent in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
To reduce disparities in health outcomes, the City will work to develop a healthcare
delivery system that emphasizes an integrated and patient-centered approach to
care that is delivered in convenient and accessible locations.
Mental and physical healthcare access
Medical care
Percentage of NYC residents that received the care that they need
by neighborhood poverty, 2013
Mental health counseling or treatment
100
93%
89%
80
60
62%
87%
59%
87%
55%
47%
40
Medical care is percentage of adult
New Yorkers that feel they received
the medical care that they have
needed in the past 12 months
Mental health is percentage of adult
New Yorkers with serious
psychological distress that have
taken a prescription medication for
a mental health problem
nyc.gov/onenyc
20
Lowest poverty
(wealthiest)
Medium poverty
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
126
High poverty
Very high poverty
(poorest)
142
Vision 2
Health Care Access
Initiative 1
Ensure all New York City neighborhoods have access to
high-quality essential healthcare services
Over the past decade, far too many New York City communities have lost critical
healthcare services due to the closure of hospitals essential to their wellbeing.
Changes in the science of healthcare delivery and healthcare reimbursement are
realities we have to face. But New York City cannot allow neighborhoods to lack
critical medical services. And we certainly cannot allow the closure of major
hospital facilities that would leave communities without essential healthcare.
De Blasio protests the
layoffs of 500 LICH nurses
and healthcare workers
For these reasons, Mayor de Blasio called for the creation of several new models in
healthcare, including the Brooklyn Health Authority, to ensure that no community is
left without essential care services. The Authority’s role was envisioned as ensuring
adequate funding, leading integrated planning, and promoting the new types of
coordinated healthcare service delivery models that protect families and workers
given the shifting healthcare landscape.
There have been major developments since the Mayor’s initial proposal for the
Authority several years ago. Thanks to the support of the federal government,
Governor Cuomo, and Mayor de Blasio, the $8 billion Medicaid waiver was
approved by the Obama Administration in April 2014. $6.4 billion of this waiver is
explicitly designed to help hospitals across the state restructure their care delivery
models to reflect the most current science and reimbursement structures. New York
City’s hospitals now have the opportunity and resources to make planned, orderly
reforms rather than resorting to the sudden closures that marked the previous
decade, while improving the quality and experience of care across the city.
The implementation of these changes has already significantly altered the healthcare
landscape in New York. New hospital networks called Performing Provider Systems
(PPSs) have developed across the city and pair some of the city’s most financially
stressed institutions with those that are more stable. If used properly by the networks,
Medicaid waiver funds can prevent major hospital closures and ensure that every
community in New York City has access to essential healthcare.
The City must remain vigilant however to ensure these one-time funds are used
appropriately and effectively. The City remains steadfast in its commitment that
every community has access to the care it needs. We will fight for critical
healthcare services across the City and not accept the closure of any more
hospitals in Brooklyn or any other communities which would be left without the
medical care we need. This commitment includes investments made by the ​
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) (see Initiative 2) and the
City’s own initiative to create more than 16 community-based primary care centers
in under-served areas (see Initiative 3). These actions, as well as direct
engagement with the major private health systems in New York City and
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
127
143
Vision 2
Health Care Access
NYC Health and Hospitals
Corporation (HHC) coverage
Acute Care Hospital
Community Health Center
Diagnostic Treatment Center
Long Term Care/Nursing Home
Mobile Medical Unit
School Based clinic
HHC
continued review and development of new structural mechanisms, such as the
local Brooklyn Health Authority or other options, will ensure that our city has a
strong healthcare delivery system.
Initiative 2
Transform NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation into a
system anchored by community-based preventive care
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), the nation’s largest public
healthcare system, serves 1.4 million people every year, approximately one out of six
New Yorkers. HHC’s role as the city’s largest safety net provider is critical to
ensuring all New Yorkers have access to healthcare regardless of their ability or pay
or documentation status. Close to half a million of HHC’s patients are uninsured
and/or undocumented.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
128
144
Vision 2
Health Care Access
In addition to its role in providing care for vulnerable New Yorkers, HHC is well
positioned to lead transformation of the healthcare delivery system in the City because
it offers a comprehensive array of healthcare services. Through its seven regional
healthcare networks, HHC operates 11 acute care hospitals, four long-term care
facilities, six diagnostic and treatment centers, a certified home health program, and
more than 60 community-based health clinics throughout the five boroughs. In
addition, MetroPlus, HHC’s wholly-owned health insurance company, takes care of
more than 469,000 New Yorkers annually. HHC also provides emergency and
inpatient services to New York City’s inmate population at City correctional facilities,
and HHC conducts mental health evaluations.
Given the recent shifts in the City’s healthcare landscape, HHC, like the other large
hospital systems, is transforming from a healthcare system focused on delivering
inpatient services to those who are already sick to a model of care that keeps people
healthy throughout their entire lives. This transformation requires HHC to invest in
new models of care coupled with a new infrastructure.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Create health access points embedded in communities rather than hospital
campuses
In 2015, HHC is rolling out a primary care expansion aimed at providing care to
100,000 additional patients in under-served neighborhoods across the five boroughs
though a combination of expanded service offerings at existing and new HHC
Gotham Health community clinic locations, including a newly constructed clinic on
Staten Island. In addition, as one of only two PPSs that serve all five boroughs, HHC’s
Medicaid waiver projects that increase community-based primary care and
behavioral healthcare will have a significant impact throughout the city. Finally, when
patients seek primary care in hospital emergency rooms, HHC is connecting patients
without primary care providers to settings ensuring continuity of care.
B. Ensure critical hospital services are fully functioning in the face of increased
demand, weather disasters, and aging infrastructure
The Elmhurst emergency room, where patient volume is expected to increase by 20
percent given hospital closings in the catchment area, is in design phase for its
planned renovation and expansion. Significant infrastructure projects underway at
Coney Island, Bellevue, Metropolitan and Coler Goldwater hospitals are designed
to ensure these facilities can continue operating during future weather disasters
(see Vision 4 for more detail). Finally, ongoing infrastructure upgrades at HHC
facilities are essential to meet new regulatory requirements and safety initiatives.
C. Adequately provide healthcare services to New York City’s growing senior
population
A key part of transforming HHC’s system is tailoring care to the needs of different
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
129
145
Vision 2
Health Care Access
populations to ensure their care is the most appropriate and effective. In
particular, recognizing New York City’s growing senior population, HHC is
including age-appropriate designs in its infrastructure projects. This translates
into exam rooms, diagnostic treatment areas and bathrooms meeting wheelchair
and walker space requirements, and soundproofing of rooms to improve
communication between patient and provider for patients with hearing
impairments. HHC also plans to transform the Seaview Campus on Staten Island,
which currently offers services for seniors, it into a vibrant healthcare destination
site which will meet the ongoing needs of the surrounding community.
By strengthening HHC’s infrastructure and adapting to the changes in the
healthcare environment, HHC will continue to be a leader improving the health
of all New Yorkers.
Initiative 3
Expand access to primary care by establishing health
clinics in high-need communities
Healthcare is an essential component of creating and maintaining healthy
communities, and primary care is a key part of this equation. High-quality primary
care provides a “medical home” for individuals and ensures they get the right care,
in the right setting, by the most appropriate practitioner, and in a manner consistent
with their desires and values. A close partnership between providers and patients
helps patients navigate an increasingly complex healthcare system and strive toward
better health outcomes.
In New York City, there are 26 neighborhoods federally designated as primary-care
shortage areas. Even this measure undercounts the real need, as neighborhoods
must apply for this federal designation.
To address inequalities in access to primary care the City will help create at least 16
health clinics by the end of 2017 in neighborhoods identified by the Community
Healthcare Association of New York State as being in need of additional primarycare services. Some of these clinics will be based in New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) Neighborhood Health Hubs (detailed
further in goal on Integrated Government & Social Services), collaborating with
other local organizations to improve health in their communities. Additionally, New
York City HHC’s Gotham health network and other federally qualified health
centers will expand to new locations to address the need for primary care.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
130
146
Vision 2
Health Care Access
Initiative 4
Unmet need for
mental health
treatment in
New York City
23 percent of NYC adults
experiencing serious
psychological distress
reported not getting the
medical treatment that
they needed in the past year
41 percent of New Yorkers
with serious mental illness
reported not getting the medical treatment they needed
56 percent of New Yorkers
with SPD reported not
getting any outpatient mental health treatment at all
Expand access points for mental health and substance
abuse care, including integrating primary care and
behavioral health services
Mental health concerns are widespread in New York City. Fifteen percent of New
Yorkers reported having been diagnosed with depression, and 12 percent of the city’s
adult population reported receiving some form of counseling or taking prescription
medication for a mental health problem in the past year. In 2013, five percent of the
New York City adult population experienced serious psychological distress (SPD),
which is characterized by a range of symptoms commonly present in individuals
with mental illness but are not specific to any particular disorder. Mental health
issues are not distributed evenly across the City. New Yorkers with serious mental
illness are overwhelmingly of low- and moderate-income, with 39 percent living
below the federal poverty line. Mental health concerns are also much more
prevalent among those with physical health issues.
There is significant unmet need for mental health treatment in the city. Twentythree percent of New York City adults experiencing SPD reported they did not get
all the mental health treatment they needed in the past year, as did 41 percent of
New Yorkers with serious mental illness. Barriers to receiving necessary mental
health treatment include language difficulties, stigma, difficulty with navigating the
mental health system, and cost. Immigrant populations may be more likely to
experience stigma around mental, emotional, and behavioral (MEB) health and may
be less familiar with their communities’ health resources. Additionally, the
behavioral healthcare system is fragmented and poorly integrated with the primary
care system.
NYC HHC intends to improve the overall health of New Yorkers with mental health
and substance-abuse diagnoses by scaling two best practice approaches: first,
co-located and integrated substance-abuse and mental health specialty services, and
second, integrated behavioral healthcare in primary care through the integrated
Collaborative Care model—a collaborative team of a primary-care providers, care
management staff (e.g., nurses), and psychiatric consultants. Each of the models
requires providers to build deep relationships with community-based organizations,
social-services agencies, and government agencies able to identify patients in need,
engage them, and assist in supporting their treatment.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
131
147
Vision 2
Health Care Access
Initiative 5
Work with New York State in enabling and supporting
the transformation of the healthcare delivery system
The aforementioned initiatives are cornerstones of our vision of all New Yorkers
living fully realized lives. But New York City can’t do it alone. As the primary
regulatory entity, the State plays a critical role in shaping who can deliver
healthcare, how and where those services are provided, and how services are paid
for within New York City. The City stands ready to partner with the State to
implement changes to the healthcare system that will ensure high-quality,
coordinated care for all New Yorkers.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Integrate patient data across healthcare systems
Since 2009, thousands of healthcare providers have adopted and are using
electronic health records. However, few are connected to systems that enable
sharing of medical and behavioral health information between care settings or
with supportive services organizations. According to the New York eHealth
Collaborative (NYeC), only two percent of clinical practice sites are connected in
New York City and 14 percent across New York State. Furthermore, based on
DOHMH’s health information connectivity data, only about five percent of 7,000
primary-care providers listed in its database are connected to a healthinformation exchange.
The lack of information-sharing is associated with duplicative testing, delays in
care, and incomplete information—all issues that have resulted in poorer health
outcomes and higher costs to the City and State. A recent study found that up to
32 percent of patient records reviewed had duplicative testing documented. This
fragmentation of healthcare and supportive services affects New Yorkers across
all five boroughs and is especially problematic for people with low health literacy,
limited English-language proficiency, limited mobility, mental or behavioral
health conditions, previous incarceration, or other factors that can make
accessing care more difficult.
A call-to-action is needed to accelerate federal and state programs to integrate
patient information of New Yorkers across healthcare delivery and supportive
systems, as well as across jurisdictional lines. The City stands ready to partner
with the State to implement changes to the healthcare system so all New Yorkers
can receive high-quality, coordinated care.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
132
148
Vision 2
Health Care Access
We have already made strides in this direction. In 2006, the New York State
Department of Health (NYSDOH), in cooperation with healthcare leaders in New
York State, established a public-private partnership to develop and operate the
Statewide Health Information Network of New York (SHIN-NY). SHIN-NY
facilitates the exchange of patient information across health settings anywhere in
the state. Additional effort is still needed to scale up the information exchange
process to as many provider types as possible and incorporate data from related
health and social support services (e.g., social work, community health, school
health).
B. Transform the Medicaid reimbursement methodology
To change the way healthcare works, we need to change the way we pay for
it. Currently, we pay less for preventive care that keeps people healthy and more
for healthcare services when people get sick. In particular, payments for
preventive care, including primary care, and other services delivered in outpatient
settings need to incentivize greater provision of these services. In addition,
services and supports that help keep people healthy, such as telemedicine,
effective health information technology, and care coordination should be paid
appropriately. The City will work with New York State in altering what and how
Medicaid pays for these services.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
133
149
Vision 2
Criminal Justice Reform
Goal: Among large U.S. cities, New York will
continue to be the safest, and will have the lowest
rate of incarceration, with a criminal justice system
that leads the nation in fairness and efficiency
INDICATORS + TARGETS
Decrease the crime rate
Decrease the average daily
population (ADP) in jail
Decrease the percentage of
domestic violence victims
turned away from shelters
Overview
Twenty years ago, no one thought we could control crime. In 1993, there were 1,946
murders and 99,207 burglaries in New York City. In 2013, both of those numbers had
dropped by more than 80 percent. The city ended 2014 with the lowest murder rate
in the city’s history.
Plummeting crime has also meant a shrinking jail population. At the end of 2014, for
the first time in thirty years, Rikers Island had fewer than 10,000 inmates, less than
half of its high-water mark of 21,688 in 1991.
This extraordinary progress is proof we can have both more safety and less
incarceration. And it is one of many things that set New York City apart: while
incarceration climbed seven percent elsewhere in the country between 1996 and 2012,
the city saved billions by reducing crime and unnecessary incarceration.
In the next twenty years, New York City will continue to be a national leader in public
safety. This will mean continuing to strengthen the things we are already doing—such as
data-driven policing—but it will also mean investing in people and neighborhoods. We
will provide opportunities for individuals to lead productive lives. Cohesive, engaged
neighborhoods are the crime prevention tools of the 21st century. In the next twenty
years, New York City will pursue evidence-driven strategies and sophisticated
technologies to both prevent crime well before it begins and ensure its criminal justice
system is increasingly safe, fair, and effective. And we want to make sure that, of those
populations affected by crime—particularly victims of domestic violence—we can
provide the support they need when they most need it.
Initiative 1
Reduce crime and unnecessary incarceration
The key to safely reducing the jail population while keeping communities safe is to
reduce crime well before it begins, which leads to both less crime and fewer people
behind bars. To reduce crime and unnecessary incarceration, the City will
implement a set of interlocking strategies to help ensure we are reducing crime in
the most targeted way and using jails and programming wisely and effectively.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
134
150
Criminal Justice Reform
Vision 2
Supporting Initiatives
A. Use advanced technology and integrated data
to accurately and effectively reduce crime
The cornerstone of the City’s crime reduction
efforts is ensuring officers are able, in real time, to
assess the risks and needs of individuals they
encounter on the street, so they can effectively and
accurately exercise discretion. This initiative will
require both sophisticated mobile technology to
access data as well as quality, reliable data.
Red Hook Community Justice
Center in Brooklyn
Major felony crime
Incidents, 1999–2014
200,000
46% Decline
150,000
187,181
172,646
156,559
147,669
143,268
136,491
130,093
123,136
119,052
110,828
105,702
105,496
110,099
110,023
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
PMMR 2015
202,106
0
2000
50,000
1999
100,000
This technology will also allow the police to
become better informed when they exercise their
discretion so that, consistent with public safety,
officers know when to make an arrest or issue
summonses. And finally, technology will give them
better access to information about programming,
so they can more effectively match individuals to
services.
Average daily jail population
of inmates in city jails
Number of inmates, 1999–2014
16,000
35% Decline
14,000
12,000
10,000
To enhance the quality of data available to first
responders, the City is building an integrated data
platform, described in the Integrated Government
& Social Services goal, that will help facilitate the
cross-agency coordination of programs and
services to accurately match individuals to the
right intervention. The goal is for this integrated
8,000
17,562
15,530
13,934
14,544
13,751
13,576
13,497
13,987
13,850
13,362
13,049
12,790
12,287
11,827
11,408
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
2000
2,000
1999
6,000
4,000
The City is already working to put in the hands of
every police officer and in every police car a tablet,
phablet, or smartphone that can serve as a primary
information source. Access to real-time
information will allow them, while they are out on
the beat, to both identify frequent offenders and
deliver instantaneous information about crimes
and other critical missions. For example, the City
has already invested in ShotSpotter technology, a
gunshot detection tool that triangulates the
location of a gunshot to within 25 meters of where
the shot was fired. Making this information
immediately available on mobile devices will allow
officers to deploy to a specific location instead of a
general area, saving resources and increasing the
chances that shooters will be caught.
PMMR 2015
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
135
151
Vision 2
Criminal Justice Reform
platform to connect City agencies, District Attorneys, defenders, courts, and
providers to ensure all agencies that touch the population involved with the
criminal justice system have data and analytics to drive wise decision-making, to
reduce both crime and unnecessary incarceration.
B. Reduce crime through changes to criminal justice facilities that will
promote concepts of fairness and confidence in the law
We will conduct an infrastructure survey of probation, police, and court facilities to
ensure signage and physical design inform individuals of what to expect from the
criminal justice process, provide the ability to voice concerns, and promote better
interaction among the players in the justice system. For example, we will introduce
waiting rooms that can separate victims from their alleged attackers, visiting rooms
that can permit defendants and lawyers to consult meaningfully, and clear access
that would permit corrections officers to escort inmates to court in a timely fashion.
C. Enable crime prevention through environmental design
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is an approach to
deterring criminal behavior by altering the physical design of neighborhoods.
Evidence-driven tactics range from the strategic use of parks and public spaces to
designing apartment buildings to maximize the number of residents who can
easily monitor their streets. To promote public safety in high-crime
neighborhoods, New York City will implement CPTED surveys to develop plans
for low- and no-cost changes to buildings, parks, and other features of the built
environment that could reduce crime.
D. Reduce incarceration by examining risk, needs, programming,
and system flow
An effective criminal justice system should have the ability to assess
the level of risk at key system points. We will implement citywide
risk-assessment instruments at arraignment and implement riskclassification and needs assessments within incarcerative settings.
We will provide effective programming during incarceration and
appropriate services in the community. Physical space in detention
and placement/jails for juveniles and adults will accommodate
cost-effective programming to reduce re-offending. We will ensure
supportive housing for “frequent flyers,” those who repeatedly
cycle through the criminal justice system.
We will also design incarceration and justice system spaces to affect
behavior and resolve system bottlenecks.
Officer on a T3 transporter
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
136
152
Vision 2
Criminal Justice Reform
Initiative 2
Build sustained neighborhood engagement to employ
fairness as a crime reduction tool
Smart reforms have made New York City the safest big city in the country. However,
crime and violence disproportionately affect the city’s poorest neighborhoods,
where confidence in government is low.
People are more likely to obey the law when they believe those who are enforcing it
have the legitimate authority to do so. The public confers legitimacy on those in
positions of authority who treat them with dignity and respect, give them a voice
(even if that voice does not carry the day), make decisions that are neutral and fair,
and convey their motives as trustworthy. The social cohesion of neighborhoods is
associated with lower crime rates. To translate these well-founded theories into
actionable steps that will reduce crime, the City will implement the following
initiatives.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Create neighborhood CompStats with residents and City agencies in highdistress neighborhoods
CompStat, short for COMPlaint STATistics, are the initials given to New York
Police Department’s (NYPD) data-driven management tool and are now
internationally known as a label for an accountability mechanism. In the
neighborhoods in which distress is clustered, the City will create a regular
CompStat to identify and solve problems with neighborhood residents. These
CompStats will be supported by data and measured through key metrics. This
data support will include the building of neighborhood-justice mapping centers
that will engage residents and promote cohesion through joint action.
B. Implement a regular citywide method of surveying resident engagement
The City will create a survey system to gauge residents’ feelings about their
communities. It will be operated online, where ease of use and other incentives
will encourage residents to respond to periodic questions about neighborhood
satisfaction and cohesion. This information will enable the City to track changes
in attitudes and raise resident confidence in government responsiveness.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
137
153
Vision 2
Criminal Justice Reform
Initiative 3
Use criminal justice data-driven strategies to improve
decision making and reduce crime and unnecessary
incarceration
Leveraging the citywide integrated data platform, the City will build tools to ensure
agencies that touch the population affected by criminal justice, inside and outside of
Mayoral control, have data and analytics to drive wise decision making to reduce
both crime and unnecessary incarceration. A range of analytic and data strategies
designed to assess decision making at critical points throughout the spectrum of
criminal-justice processes will support this goal.
Supporting Initiatives
A. Introduce strategic tools for health and neighborhood safety
Strong communities, with robust networks of programs and services, lay the
groundwork for enduring safety. We will work to make neighborhoods safe
through a set of strategies designed to support crime prevention and reduce
conditions in some of the city’s most distressed neighborhoods.
To prevent crime, the City will also build a set of strategic tools designed to
support people with behavioral health needs in chronic care treatment. These
tools will help prevent an individual’s contact with the criminal justice system.
B. Build crime-and-incarceration reduction strategic tools
Once an individual is in the justice system, the City will build analytic tools to
ensure fair and appropriate decision making throughout the deploy system. This
will include strategies to reduce case processing times, improved matching of
candidates to diversion programs, alternatives to detention and incarceration
programs, pre-arraignment and pre-trial screening, and reduced warrants through,
among other things, reminder systems for summons appearances.
Initiative 4
Ensure all victims of domestic violence have access to a
shelter and necessary services
Domestic violence accounts for a significant percentage of the crime that occurs in
New York City. In 2014, 40 percent of all felony assaults and 36 percent of all rapes
were related to domestic violence. That same year, domestic violence accounted
for 19 percent of murders. In total, the NYPD responded to 282,648 domestic
violence incidents.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
138
154
Vision 2
Criminal Justice Reform
In addition to reducing crime and lowering incarceration, we also aim to provide
services to victims of crime, so they can recover and re-participate fully in the city.
While the City provides many services for victims of domestic violence, too many
domestic violence victims still lack access to the services they need when they need
them. The moment of exit from an abusive relationship is one of the most dangerous
times for victims. In 2014, over 4,100 adults and children who needed emergency
domestic violence shelter were not linked to one, with only 35 percent of single
adults linked to a shelter in comparison with 52 percent overall.
The City must address the need for additional shelter space for any member of a
vulnerable population subject to the threat of domestic violence: single adults,
members of the LGBTQ community, sex-trafficking victims, and others.
Accommodations including longer-term shelter beds must be made for victims with
children. Placement in domestic violence shelters is limited to 180 days, and
therefore, in the implementation of the City’s housing plan, the City will implement
a sustainable plan for domestic violence victims to transition from shelters to
permanent housing.
In key neighborhoods where domestic violence occurs more frequently, the City will
build upon the community-based Family Justice Center model and expand into new
neighborhoods. These centers will be able to provide comprehensive multi-agency
services for domestic-violence victims, close to their homes.
Crime related to domestic violence
Murder
Number of incidents
Felonious assult
100
10,000
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
85
75
68
71
56
5,000
50
4,777
5,870
6,781
7,420
8,335
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
0
0
PMMR 2015
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
139
155
Vision 2
Vision Zero
Goal: New Yorkers will continue to embrace
Vision Zero and accept no traffic fatalities on
New York City streets
INDICATORS + TARGETS
Reduce the number of
traffic fatalities to zero
Reduce the number of
serious injuries due to
traffic collisions to zero
Overview
Traffic fatalities in the city have fallen significantly—from 701 in 1990 to 381 in 2000, to
an all-time low of 249 in 2011—and New York is internationally recognized as a leading
innovator in safe street design. However, approximately 4,000 New Yorkers are still
seriously injured and more than 250 killed in traffic crashes each year. Vulnerable
populations are the most affected—being struck by a vehicle is the leading cause of
injury-related death for children under 14, and the second-leading cause for seniors,
who comprise 12 percent of the population but 33 percent of pedestrian fatalities.
In January 2014, the Mayor launched Vision Zero, a bold commitment to improving
street safety in every neighborhood.
Vision Zero contains a robust portfolio of initiatives to make our streets safer,
including expanded enforcement against dangerous moving violations such as
speeding and failing to yield to pedestrians; new street designs and configurations to
improve safety; broad public outreach and education; and a sweeping legislative
agenda to deter dangerous driving. These projects include fifty street-improvement
projects to reengineer intersections and corridors, speed cameras to reduce
speeding in school zones, and upgrades to City fleet vehicles to monitor speeding
and other dangerous driving behaviors. Together, these comprehensive initiatives
are giving New York City control over the safety of our streets.
Vision Zero is already having an impact. 2014 was the safest year in New York’s
history for pedestrians and one of the safest years for all New Yorkers since record
keeping began in 1910. In 2013, 182 pedestrians lost their lives in traffic crashes,
while in 2014, only 138 pedestrians were fatally injured. Despite this significant
progress, the City recognizes there is more work to be done—and we are committed
to a new set of initiatives to continue this work.
Pedestrian traffic fatalities, 1984-2014
305
246
155
138
1984
1994
2004
2014
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
140
156
Vision 2
Vision Zero
Vision Zero pedestrian safety
priority map, 2009-2013
Priority Areas
Priority Intersections
Priority Corridors
Highways
Major Streets
Department of Transportation
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
141
157
Vision 2
Vision Zero
Initiative 1
Continue implementation of the Vision Zero Action Plan
Pedestrian
traffic fatalities
2009-2013
Queens Boulevard
55 pedestrians killed or
seriously injured
4th Avenue
60 pedestrians killed or
seriously injured
Atlantic Avenue
64 pedestrians killed or
seriously injured
Grand Concourse
70 pedestrians killed or
seriously injured
The City will continue to execute and build on the portfolio of initiatives developed
in the 2014 Action Plan, focusing on pedestrian safety, bicycle access, truck safety,
and improvements to priority areas citywide.
Bike lanes are a fundamental aspect of the Vision Zero strategy to increase safety.
Well-designed bike facilities protect bicyclists, reduce excessive speeding, organize
traffic flow, and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. And when bicycling feels
safer, people are more likely to choose it as a transportation option. Therefore, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) will work closely with communities around
the city to expand a bicycle network that improves safety for all road users,
including installing at least five miles of protected bicycle lanes annually. This
supports our efforts to develop a multi-modal transportation system, further laid out
in Vision 3.
Turning trucks pose a significant safety risk to pedestrians in crosswalks, so the City
will launch a pilot program to test the effectiveness of truck side guards. Side guards
are protective additions to vehicles that reduce the likelihood that pedestrians and
cyclists will suffer severe injuries when struck by a turning truck. Department of
Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) will install truck side guards in more than
200 units within the City fleet—the largest side-guard program in the nation. If the
initial rollout is a success, every new City truck will be designed to include them.
Initiative 2
Use Borough Pedestrian Safety Action Plans to guide
future engineering projects and enforcement priorities
Vision Zero effort on
Eastern Parkway
nyc.gov/onenyc
In an effort to drive down traffic fatalities, DOT and NYPD developed a set of five
plans, each of which analyzes the unique conditions of one New York City borough
and recommends actions to address the borough’s specific challenges to pedestrian
safety. Each Borough Plan was shaped by a comprehensive community outreach
process that included 28 workshops and 10,000 comments to the Vision Zero input
map. Community input was combined with cutting-edge crash-data analysis and
used to identify the predominant traffic safety issues at priority corridors,
intersections, and areas of the city—the most crash-prone locations. This broad,
participatory, data-driven process ensures an equitable approach to prioritizing
safety projects. Each year through 2017, DOT will complete fifty Vision Zero safety
projects at the priority corridors, intersections, and areas identified in the Borough
Plans. These improvements will simplify complex intersections, discourage
excessive vehicle speeds, add bicycle lanes, make pedestrians and cyclists more
visible, increase accessibility, and shorten pedestrian crossing distances.
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
142
158
Vision 2
Vision Zero
To give pedestrians a “head start” while walking across the street and reduce
conflicts with turning vehicles, DOT will expand exclusive pedestrian crossing time
on all Priority Corridors by the end of 2017. Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) are a
signal-timing treatment that provides pedestrian-only walk time before vehicles,
including turning vehicles, receive the green light. They are a proven method of
reducing pedestrian-vehicle incidents at high-pedestrian crash locations.
Initiative 3
Residents at Queens Blvd. safety
workshop in January 2015
Queens Boulevard
Redesign
Transform dangerous arterial roads into Vision Zero
Great Streets
Many of the corridors with the highest rates of fatal and severe-injury pedestrian
crashes per mile are wide roads that divide our neighborhoods and communities but
have the potential to serve as connectors—including Queens Boulevard, 4th Avenue in
Brooklyn, Atlantic Avenue in East New York, and the Grand Concourse in the Bronx.
The Vision Zero Great Streets
funding includes $100 million
for improving segments of
Queens Boulevard, a 7.2 mile,
complex, multi-roadway
corridor that cuts across more
than half the borough. The
long crossing distances, high
traffic speeds, and highway-like
urban design have contributed to historically high crash
rates. In January 2015, the
DOT, NYPD, and one hundred
residents, merchants, and other
stakeholders participated in
the first Queens Boulevard
design workshop to identify
safety solutions. The direction
from the community was clear:
calmed service roads, improved crossings, the addition
of a protected bike lane, and
beautification. DOT intends
to design and implement
fast-track design solutions this
year, and simultaneously begin
planning for the long-term
capital-funded changes needed
to permanently remake Queens
Boulevard’s image.
The Vision Zero Great Streets program will rethink and redesign these major
corridors in order to prevent serious crashes, enhance mobility, increase
accessibility, and bolster neighborhood vitality. This comprehensive overhaul
provides opportunities for improving safety such as shortening of pedestrian
crossing distances through curb extensions and widened medians, physically
separated bike lanes, and the addition of amenities such as benches and landscaping.
nyc.gov/onenyc
One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City
Great Streets capital projects will be fast-tracked in order to allow a permanent
build-out of street improvements initially made with temporary materials. Capital
construction projects are complex and develop over multiple years because of the
extensive coordination and collaboration between DOT, DDC, and a host of other
City agencies, utility companies, and the community. Each of these corridors
presents special challenges because of high pedestrian volumes, heavy car, bus, and
truck traffic, and the presence of subways underneath the road or elevated
structures overhead. Under Vision Zero Great Streets, painted medians and
temporary bollards will be built out in permanent materials faster, and New Yorkers
will begin to see construction of expanded pedestrian space, beautified medians
with trees, and physically separated bike paths on major streets by 2017.
143
159