Download a PDF of the Full Report

The Social Areas of Cincinnati An Analysis of Social Needs

PATTERNSPATTER FOR FIVE CENSUS DECADESS Fifth Edition - 2013 Michael Maloney Christopher Auffrey

School of Planning University of Cincinnati UnitedUnited WayWay | University of Cincinnati Community Research Collaborative

April 23, 2013

Greater Cincinnati Community We are pleased to present the publication of The Social Areas of Cincinnati: An Analysis of Social Needs, Fifth Edition. The ﬁ rst two editions, 1974 and 1986, were authored by Michael Maloney and published by the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission. The Third Edition, co-authored by Dr. Janet Buelow, was published by the School of Planning of the University of Cincinnati in 1997. The Fourth Edition was co-authored by Dr. Christophe Auffrey, also of the School of planning and was published in 2004. This Fifth Edition updates the previous editions using data from the 2005-2009 American Commu- nity Survey. It shows how Cincinnati, its neighborhoods and its surrounding area have changed since 1970. This edition, for the ﬁ rst time, goes beyond the 1970 7-county SMSA boundaries and includes some data for the 15-county Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area and the 20-Coun- ty region served by the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati. Although much of the report focuses on the City of Cincinnati, regional leaders will want to pay close attention to chapters 10 and 11 and the census tract tables included in these chapters and in the Appendix. The social areas maps (Figures 2, 13, 14 and 15) provide templates for plotting various variables such as crime, poverty, race, education, and unemployment. Local researchers have used this study as a framework in research on health needs, racial integration, and service disparities. Agencies have used the study as a needs assessment tool, in writing grant proposals, and in making decisions regarding target areas and facility locations. County leaders have used the social areas to plan allocation of community investments and antipoverty resources. Advocacy groups and neighborhood leaders have used the study to develop a case for services and public works projects. Neighborhood advocates and planners in Cincinnati should note that our studies use the 48 statistical neighborhoods established by the City Planning Commission, not the 2010 SNA boundaries. The fact that the census tract is our basic unit of analysis helps ameliorate this problem for neighborhoods such as Pendleton and East Westwood. Readers are welcome to contact the authors for presentations, for advice on how to utilize this report in planning, proposal writing, or advocacy. Those who feel that the data in this report are in error or misinterpreted should contact the authors. Any serious errors will be corrected in future printings and in the online version which is available at www.socialareasofcincinnati.org.

Michael Maloney and Christopher Auffrey with Eric Rademacher and John Besl

i Social Areas of Cincinnati

ii Acknowledgments

Project Funding This project was supported by grants from United Way, the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, the Seasongood Good Government Foundation, and the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati. Supporting Organizations The Urban Appalachian Council provided grant administration and moral support. Special Thanks Dr. Eric Rademacher, Community Research Collaborative, Fund Raising; Dr. Robert Ludke, Uni- versity of Cincinnati, School of Health, Health Chapter Author; Dr. Phillip Obermiller, a visiting scholar at the University of Cincinnati School of Planning; and Dr. John Bryant, editorial review. Project Staff Project Staff Michael Maloney Author and Editor Michael Maloney, M. Ed., MRP Principal Investigator Christopher Auffrey, Ph.D School of Planning University of Cincinnati Maps, Statistical Analysis and Cover Design Venkata Krishna Kumar Matturi Project Advisors Eric Rademacher, Ph.D, Director Community Research Collaborative Toby Sallee, Community Research Collaborative John Besl, Children’s Hospital Medical Center Word Processing and Design Jeffrey Dey, MBA Health Chapter Robert Ludke, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus in Family and Community Medicine University of Cincinnati Correspondence All correspondence regarding this report should be given to: Mike Maloney Michael Maloney and Associates 5829 Wyatt Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45213 Tel: 513.531.8799 Fax: 513.531.3899 Email: [email protected]

Web Access This study may be accessed through www.socialareasofcincinnati.org or www.crc.uc.edu.

iii Social Areas of Cincinnati

iv Table of Contents

Execu ve Summary ...... ix

Chapter 1: Early Work in Social Area Analysis ...... 1

Chapter 2: The Social Areas of Cincinna ...... 5

Chapter 3: The Census Tract Map Method ...... 27

Chapter 4: Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinna ...... 29

Chapter 5: Appalachian Cincinna ...... 51

Chapter 6: Educa on in Cincinna ...... 57

Chapter 7: The Elderly and Children ...... 71

Chapter 8: Unemployment and Joblessness ...... 83

Chapter 9: The Neighborhoods 1970 to 2005-2009 Comparisons ...... 91

Chapter 10: Health and Wellness ...... 103

Chapter 11: Cincinna as a Metropolis ...... 109

Chapter 12: Summary of Findings and Policy Recommenda ons ...... 127

Appendix I: References ...... 141

Appendix II: SES Index and Variables for Cincinna City Census Tracts ...... 145

Appendix III: Neighborhood Changes 1970 to 2000-2009 ...... 151

Appendix IV: SES Index and Variables for Metropolitan Census Tracts ...... 159

Appendix V: Deﬁ ni ons of Variables ...... 173

Appendix VI: SES Index and Variables for Cincinna Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 ...... 175

Appendix VII: SES Index and Variables for Cincinna Metropolitan Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 ...... 193

Appendix VIII: Changes in Sta s cal Neighborhood Approxima ons (SNAs) for the 2010 Csnsus ...... 213

v Social Areas of Cincinnati Index of Tables Table Description 1a Deﬁ ni ons of SES Index and Indicators ...... 2 1b Correla on Matrix for SES Variables 2005-2009 ...... 3 2a Cincinna Census Tracts and SES Quar les by Neighborhood ...... 9 2b City of Cincinna Summary Sta s cs for SES Quar les, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 14 2c City of Cincinna Average SES Indicators by Quar le 1970-2005-2009 ...... 17 2d City of Cincinna Summary Sta s cs 1970-2005-2009 ...... 18 2e Neighborhoods that declined 10 points or more between 1970 and 1980 ...... 23 2f-1 Neighborhoods that Experienced the Greatest Decline 1970-2005-2009 ...... 23 2f-2 Neighborhoods that Experienced the Greatest Decline 1980-1990 ...... 23 2g-1 Neighborhoods that Experienced the Greatest Decline 1990-2000 ...... 23 2g-2 Neighborhoods that Declined 10 points or more, 2000-2005-2009 ...... 24 2h Neighborhoods that Experienced the Greatest Decline, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 25 4a Cincinna Neighborhoods: Median Family Income and Families Below Poverty 2005-2009 ...... 34 4b Cincinna Neighborhoods: Women and Poverty, 2005-2009 ...... 36 4c Neighborhood Status, 2005-2009 ...... 38 4d Cincinna Neighborhoods: Race Composi on and Poverty, 2005-2009 ...... 41 4d-2 Changes in SES Scores for Work Class African American Neighborhoods ...... 43 4e Cincinna Neighborhoods: African American Popula on, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 44 4f Hispanic popula on concentra ons 2005-2009 ...... 46 4g Neighborhoods with the largest Hispanic popula on increase, 2000-2005-2009 ...... 47 5a Criteria for classifying neighborhoods as Appalachian ...... 53 5b Cincinna Neighborhoods with Appalachian Census Tracts, 2005-2009* ...... 53 5c Cincinna Appalachian Neighborhood Popula ons, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 54 5d Socioeconomic indicators: Cincinna Appalachian Neighborhoods, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 56 6a Cincinna Neighborhoods: Drop-out Rates, 1980-2005-2009 ...... 59 6b Cincinna Neighborhoods: Educa on Level of Adults, 2005-2009 ...... 61 6c Cincinna Neighborhoods: Changes in Educa on Levels of Adults, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 64 6d-1 Ten Census Tracts with the Highest Rate of Adults, 2000-2005-2009 ...... 66 6d-2 Ten Neighborhoods with Highest Rates of Non-High School Comple on, 2005-2009 ...... 67 6e Trends in High School Graduates and Dropouts, 1970-2005-2009...... 67 7a Trends in the Popula on Over 60 years of Age, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 72 7b Cincinna Neighborhoods: Changes in Senior Popula on, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 74 7c Neighborhoods with Largest Percentage Increase in Popula on 60 Years and Over, 2000-2005-2009 ...... 77 7d Neighborhoods with Highest Number of Persons 60 Years and Over, 2005-2009 ...... 77 7e Cincinna Neighborhoods: Age Composi ons, 2005-2009 ...... 78 7f Neighborhoods with Highest Number of Children Under 5, 2005-2009 ...... 81 8a Cincinna Neighborhoods: Joblessness and Unemployment Rates, 2005-2009 ...... 84 8b Cincinna Neighborhoods: Changes in Joblessness and Unemployment Rates, 1980-2005-2009 ...... 88 9 Cincinna Neighborhoods: Overall SES index Changes, 1970-2005-2009 ...... 92 11a Metropolitan Coun es, Their Census Tracts and SES Indices, 2005-2009 ...... 113 11b Cincinna City and Remainder of Metropolitan Area: Comparison of Average SES Indicators by SES Quar le, 2005-2009 ...... 115 vi Social Areas of Cincinnati

11c City of Cincinna and Remainder of Metropolitan Area Comparison of Average SES Indicators by SES Quar le, 2005-2009 ...... 117 11d City of Cincinna as Percent of Metropolitan Area Totals, 2005-2009 ...... 118 11e Metropolitan Median Family Incomes and Families Below Poverty, 2005-2009 ...... 119 11f Metropolitan Area Distribu on of African American Popula on, 2005-2009 ...... 124 11g Metropolitan Area Adult Educa on Levels, 2005-2009 ...... 124 11h Metropolitan Area Joblessness and Unemployment Rates, 2005-2009 ...... 124 12a Family Structure Indicator in Cincinna , 1970 to 2005-2009 ...... 128

Index of Illustrations Figure Description 1 2005-2009 Cincinna City Neighborhoods ...... 6 2 2005-2009 Cincinna City SES Quar les ...... 7, 90 3 Cincinna City Median Family Income and Areas of Poverty ...... 30 4 2005-2009 Cincinna City Women and Areas of Poverty ...... 31 5 2005-2009 Cincinna City African Americans and Areas of Poverty ...... 32 6 Cincinna City Appalachians and Areas of Poverty ...... 52 7 2005-2009 Cincinna City High School Dropout Rates ...... 58 8 2005-2009 Cincinna City Adult Educa on Levels ...... 63 9 2005-2009 Cincinna City Func onal Literacy Levels ...... 69 10 2005-2009 Cincinna City 60 years old and Areas of Poverty ...... 73 11 2005-2009 Cincinna City Popula on of Children Less than Five Years of Age and Areas of Poverty ...... 80 12 2005-2009 Cincinna City Areas of High Unemployment and Areas of Poverty ...... 86 13 2005-2009 Metropolitan Cincinna 7 Coun es SES Quar les ...... 110 14 2005-2009 Metropolitan Cincinna 15 Coun es SES Quar les ...... 121 15 2005-2009 Metropolitan Cincinna 20 Coun es SES Quar les ...... 123

vii Social Areas of Cincinnati

viii Executive Summary

The Fifth Edition of The Social Areas of Cincinnati shows how Cincinnati, its neighborhoods and surrounding area have changed since 1970. This edition, for the fi rst time, goes beyond the 1970 7-county SMSA boundaries and includes data for the 15-county Metropoli- tan Statistical Area and the 20-County region served by the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati. One of the major purposes of this report is to take the great mass of 2005 – 2009 ACS data and make it more useful in analyzing the needs of the city and region. The fi rst step in making this data useful is the creation of the SES Index- a composite score based on fi ve indicators. The individual indicators used are outlined below.

Family Income Indicator Median family income Education Indicator Percent of population 25 years of age or older with less education than a high school diploma Occupation Indicator Percent of workers in unskilled and semi- skilled occupations Family Structure Indicator Percent of children (under the age of 18) living in married-couple, family households Crowding Indicator Percent of housing units with more than one person per room

Once the SES Index has been compiled, areas are divided into 4 groups: SES I, SES II, SES III, and SES IV. SES I consists of two types of areas: urban centers and rural areas far removed from the metropolitan core. This group represents areas that are typically thought of as problem areas. SES II can be called a “second stage neighborhoods” because it is statistically a step up from the problems encountered in SES I. SES III can be characterized as a series of middle class enclaves which border SES II or SES I areas on their central perimeter. SES IV is the highest category in the ranking and represents areas where most of the families can provide for their housing, social services, and health needs through the use of private resources. Though most households in SES IV can provide for basic needs without assistance, there are some issues that cut across the social areas such as drug abuse, mental health, a rise in poverty, and services for the elderly.

ix Social Areas of Cincinnati This classiﬁ cation system helps members of the community and organizations begin to identify areas in need. The map below provides a glimpse of the SES Index ﬁ ndings for the City of Cincinnati.

Figure 2 2005-2009 Cincinnati City SES Quartiles

Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation

1. Queensgate 23. Madisonville 45. Westwood 60 2. West End 24. Pleasant Ridge 46. Sedamsville - Riverside 111 3. CBD - Riverfront 25. Kennedy Heights 47. Riverside - Sayler Park Elmwood 26 82.01 4. Over-the-Rhine 26. Hartwell 48. Sayler Park Place 110 5. Mt. Adams 27. Carthage 82.02 83 81 6. Mt. Auburn 28. Roselawn 37 61 7. Fairview - Clifton Heights 29. Bond Hill 80 28 36 27 62.01 8. Camp Washington 30. N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 84 62.02 9. University Heights 31. Avondale 25 10. Corryville 32. Clifton 38 57.01 58 11. Walnut Hills 33. Winton Place 59 64 63 24 12. Evanston 34. Northside 75 29 57.02 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 35. S. Cumminsville - Millvale 79 85.01 33 73 St. Bernard 14. E. Walnut Hills 36. Winton Hills 34 108 15. East End 37. College Hill 78 74 55 16. California 38. Mt. Airy Norwood 101 85.02 65 54 17. Mt. Washington 39. Fay Apartments 39 23 18. Mt. Lookout - Columbia Tus. 40. N. Fairmount - English Woods 71 70 30 22 77 32 31 68 56 19. Mt. Lookout 41. S. Fairmount 100.02 52 102.01 69 66 53 20. Linwood 42. Lower Price Hill 35 102.02 88 21. Hyde Park 43. East Price Hill 45 72 38 67 12 40 50 22. Oakley 44. West Price Hill 8 28 51 4086.01 32 39 109 929 30 10 34 36 100.01 89 41 21 48 27 33 35 37 49 19 41 87 42 13 107 267 25 106 92 22 20 18 44 98 14 23 21 48 15 6 19 14 47.01 99.01 16 17 18 11 105 94 93 43 47.02 3.01 4 91 8 9 10 11 99.02 97 95 2 13 20 43 1 1 3.02 125 44 42 7 96 4 3 6 2 46.01 Legend 104 46 103 15 17 Neighborhood boundary 46.02 47 46.03 Census tract boundary SES Quartiles 45 SES I 16 SES II

SES III SES IV 0123450.5 NA* Miles ´ 00 Neighborhood number * Tracts 1,62.02, St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded 00.00 Census tract number from this analysis. See text for more details.

The SES classiﬁ cations of the social areas within Cincinnati have remained relatively constant over the past four decades. For example, the SES IV areas remained nearly the same during the period between 1970 Census and the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. Mt. Adams, East Walnut Hills and other areas have been added to SES IV. SES I has shifted somewhat to the west and northwest across Mill Creek and somewhat to the east along the Reading Road and Montgomery Road corridors. The report provides an in-depth analysis of our City’s neighborhoods with detailed exami- nations of poverty, race, Appalachian communities, gender and the elderly. Much of the analysis presented provides information useful in our region’s Bold Goals initiative aimed at improving the quality of life in Greater Cincinnati in the areas of Education, Income and Health. In addition to a focus on the City of Cincinnati’s neighborhoods, we also present data covering the Greater Cincinnati Region deﬁ ned in three ways, using 7, 15 and 20- county region boundaries. x Chapter 1 Early Work in Social Area Analysis

Establishing the Idea down” the long list of possible variables avail- of Typologies of Urban able from the census to their three indicators is Neighborhoods described by Shevky(5): Common sense and everyday observation tell When the social characteristics of urban popu- us that the residential sections of urbanized lations are studied statistically, it is observed areas such as Cincinnati are divided into sev- that they follow certain broad regularities, and eral diverse communities, ranging from slums that the variations in the social characteris- to high income sections. It is also no secret to tics are graded and measurable. When differ- community leaders and planners that the so- ent attributes of a population are isolated or cial characteristics and needs of these various measured, they are found to vary in relation to communities vary greatly, and that policies other attributes of the same population in an and programs need to be designed accordingly. orderly manner. But, because urban areas are too complex to Social areas analysis as developed by Shevky allow public offi cials to rely completely on com- and Bell was more appropriate for describing mon sense and personal observations, planners Los Angeles in 1949 than Cincinnati in 2010. and other students of the city constantly seek Their approach has been described here mainly empirical tools that will provide a more reli- as an introduction to this type of methodology. able understanding of the changing character A variation of this methodology developed by of large urban areas. the Census Bureau is the actual methodology One such planning tool is Social Areas Analy- used in the present report. sis. It is a method of classifying and describing different communities which has been in use The New Haven Census Use since Shevky and Williams(1) applied it to Los Study Angeles in 1949. Its originators called social In 1967 a dress rehearsal of the 1970 census areas analysis “...a method of analysis of popu- was conducted in New Haven, Connecticut. lation data ... to describe the uniformities and Census data were combined with other infor- broad regularities observed in the characteris- mation sources to develop a health information tics of urban population.”(2) system, which in turn was used to construct social indicators at the census tract and block As various economists, geographers, sociolo- group level. gists, and other social scientists have established, there are various kinds of orderly pat- Components of the information system were: terns underlying the apparent unsystematic a) Census data - 100 percent and 25 percent sam- nature, growth, and changes of urban neigh- ples borhoods.(3) Social area analysis takes data b) Family Health Survey from the decennial census and they are used to classify each residential census tract in the c) Vital Records city, according to a typology which makes pos- d) Hospital obstetrical records sible comparative studies among cities. The purposes of the New Haven work were (1) to demonstrate how small area analysis of re- Census data are used to construct indicators of lated health and socioeconomic characteristics the economic, family, and ethnic characteristics might identify “high risk” populations; (2) to of each neighborhood. An analysis of each tract establish a system whereby related data can according to its indicators is an empirically be readily retrieved and analyzed using com- tested(4) instrument for determining the small puter technology; and (3) to produce informa- social units of the large urban area. “Boiling tion which would point out health issues, social 1 Chapter 1 | Early Work in Social Area Analysis Social Areas of Cincinnati problems and needs upon which planners can problem with using one-dimensional defi ni- act and to clearly display those data in a man- tions is that the emphasis is usually placed on ner which would be convincing to budget direc- either the economic or social, rather than the tors and consumers. interaction of both. An SES delineation based solely on family income would emphasize the To organize the large mass of data and to com- economic while ignoring the social qualities press the social indexes into a smaller number such as family organization and educational of indicators (composite variables) one needed status. It would classify as low SES highly to arrive at a measure of socio-economic sta- educated professionals who have just begun tus (SES). SES was thought of as broader than their careers. Family organization is another also, the traditional use of the construct, and facet of SES. Families typifi ed by the absence approximates an indicator of quality of social of a male breadwinner considerably reduce the life. The large mass of data were then entered potential for acquiring greater income, better into correlation and factor analysis. Of the to- housing, and higher status occupations. We as- tal number of indicators, those which are most sumed that the methodology of the New Ha- related to each other are selected out and com- ven study was valid and applied it to Cincin- bined into constructs. nati. One limitation was the non-availability of The one construct which seemed the most dis- health and social data from the human service cernible was SES. From correlational analysis agencies.(6) and factor analysis, as well as from a theoreti- cal point of view, it was decided that SES is Applying the New Haven Method really a combination of fi ve variables – income, for Cincinnati occupational status, educational status, family On the basis of the New Haven study and simi- organization, and housing. Health variables lar studies in Mecklenburg and Forsythe coun- tended to display two kinds of clustering which ties in North Carolina, a correlation matrix of made them either ineffi cient or too discrete for 20 variables was developed using Cincinnati use in delineating social areas. Many health census tract data from the American Commu- variables have a high correlation with SES, nity Survey 2005-2009 (ACS) (population char- while others were not associated with SES or acteristics and housing characteristics). The 20 each other. variables are presented in Table 2b. The Cor- relation Matrix (Table 1b) shows the degree of An SES delineation made up of a composite, relationship between the fi ve variables which rather than measured along one dimension are defi ned in Table 1a. such as family income or occupational status, is much more useful for planning purposes. The Table 1b is a matrix in which the rows corre- spond to the columns. Row 1 and Column 1 Table 1a Definition of SES Index and Its Indicators

SES Index The Socio-Economic Status Index is a composite scale developed from the comparative ranking scores of ive indicators derived from data from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS)a Family Income Indicator Median family income Education Indicator Percent of population 25 years of age or older with less education than a high school diploma Occupation Indicator Percent of workers in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations Family Structure Indicator Percent of children (under the age of 18) living in married-couple, family households Crowding Indicator Percent of housing units with more than one person per room a Previous editions and their data are based on data from the decennial census. 2 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 1 | Early Work in Social Area Analysis are median family income which are perfectly cation (0.821). Occupation is second at -0.807. correlated as shown by the value 1.000. The This represents an identical pattern with that value -0.592 means that the median family discovered in the ﬁ rst edition of this report income and education have a negative corre- based on the 1970 census. One of the highest lation of 0.592. Remember that the education correlations in the 2005-2009 data is between index is the percentage of the adult population family structure and occupation (0.674). The with less than a high school population. So, as correlation between family income and family income goes up, the education indicator goes structure is almost equally high (0.662). down. The value -0.674 means that income and occupation (percentage of blue collar and service workers) are negatively correlated, and so on. The factor that is most highly correlated in Cincinnati with socio-economic status is edu- Table 1b

Correlation Matrix for SES Variables, 2005-2009

Family Educa on Occupa on Crowding Family SES Index Income Indicator Indicator Indicator Structure Indicator Indicator Family 1.000 -0.592 -0.674 -0.260 0.662 0.794 Income Indicator Education 1.000 0.654 0.330 -0.517 -0.821 Indicator Occupation 1.000 0.346 -0.444 -0.807 Indicator Crowding 1.000 -0.144 -0.471 Indicator Family 1.000 0.781 Structure Indicator

3 Chapter 1 | Early Work in Social Area Analysis Social Areas of Cincinnati

4 Chapter 2 The Social Areas of Cincinnati

The Four Social Areas Described During the 2000s SES I on the East Side shrunk One of the major purposes of this report is to by one Evanston tract. On the West Side it grew take the great mass of 2005 – 2009 ACS data by fi ve tracts including most of East Price Hill, and make it more useful for the purpose of ana- all of Mount Airy, and one tract in West Price lyzing the needs of various sections of the city. Hill. In a dramatic shift, two Over-the-Rhine tracts (Pendleton and Main Street districts) In Chapter 1 we have described the process moved from SES I to SES III. In the West End whereby the census tracts were ranked ac- Tract 3.02 moved to SES II. Of the fi ve SES I cording to a complex index of social class and areas only the one on the West Side expanded. then grouped into four quartiles. Appendix II SES I has shifted little since 1970. The addition gives us the actual census tracts and their in- of fi ve new tracts on the West Side is the most dex numbers. The neighborhoods, their cen- dramatic demographic shift in Cincinnati since sus tracts and overall SES index are shown in this study began in 1970. Table 2b shows the Table 2a. The quartiles or social areas them- statistics for each quartile for the fi ve census selves can be used as units of analysis, along periods. SES I has about 16,000 fewer people with census tracts and neighborhoods. compared to 1970 (It is not the same geograph- Table 2b shows the summary statistics for the ic area.) and more than 4000 fewer families. It four social areas. Table 2c gives the average is 60.4% African American compared to 81% in statistics. Note that the statistics in any given 2000 and 55% in 1970. The percent fi rst gen- column in Table 2c merely give the average eration immigrants rose from 1% in 2000 to 3% for all the tracts in that particular quartile. in 2005-2009 perhaps refl ecting the growth of Table 2d gives city totals. Each table presents the Hispanic population. The percent of immi- 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005-2009 data. grants was also 3% in 1970 though at that time most were European. The percentage of im- SES I: A High Problem Area migrants in the other three quartiles changed little in the 2000s. The poverty rate for house- The Social Area Described SES I is the area commonly thought of as the SES I is 60.4% African American inner city. It is “worse off” on all the social indicators listed in Table 1a (see Appendix II for compared to 81% in 2000 and 55% actual values). It is the white area in Figure 2. in 1970. It includes fi ve contiguous areas: 1. An area long the western riverfront which includes holds in this new; more west side, SES I area Sedamsville-Riverside and Riverside-Sayler Park. is higher than 1970 (37.2% vs. 34%) but down 2. An area which stretches from the western plateau from 2000 (45%). The number of households in up the Mill Creek and through Mount Airy. poverty fell from 11,745 to 10,226. Most of the tracts classifi ed as Appalachian in Chapter 5 3. Much of the Basin Area north of downtown. This are in the West Side SES I cluster. Nearly four includes three census tracts in Over-the-Rhine and (3.8) % of the dwelling units are overcrowded three in the West End. down from 6 percent in 2000. The percentage 4. An area including most of Avondale and Walnut of dwelling units that are single family rose Hills and one of the Evanston tracts. from 15% in 1970 to 39.3% in 2005-2009. This 5. The neighborhood of Winton Hills on the northern is only partially attributable to the geographic edge of the city which includes large public housing shift to the west side where single family units projects. are more common than in the Basin (Down-

5 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 22 54 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 37 66 20 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Cincinnati Neighborhoods 2005-2009 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02, * St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromanalysis. this See more textdetails. for 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 36 17 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 3.02 81 15 3.01 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 39 92 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 85.01 96 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 102.02 99.02 107 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville - Riverside - Sedamsville 46. 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills Avondale 31. 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills Hill College 37. 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary Neighborhood number Legend Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. Adams Mt.5. Auburn Mt.6. Heights - Clifton Fairview 7. Camp8.Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 1 6 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 2005-2009 Cincinnati City SES Quartiles City Cincinnati 2005-2009 43 29 37 66 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02, * St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromanalysis. this See more textdetails. for 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 99.02 102.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville - Riverside - Sedamsville 46. 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills 31. Avondale 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills Hill College 37. 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary SES I SES II SES III SES IV Neighborhood number Legend SES Quartiles Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. Adams Mt.5. Auburn Mt.6. Heights - Clifton Fairview 7. Camp8.Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 2

7 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati town, Over-the-Rhine, West End and Queens- percentage had dropped to 37.2%. In the same gate). Another dramatic change in this social period, the number of households in poverty area is that both the number (51,774) and per- fell from 11,745 to 10,226. The unemployment cent (60.4) African American were down. The rate dropped from 18% to 16%. Welfare con- same is true for SES II. Some of this popula- tinued to decline in importance as an economic tion moved up to SES III support. In 1990, 71% of poor households re- Only 70 and some left the city as ceived public assistance. In 2005-2009, that percent of the part of Cincinnati’s gen- percentage had dropped to 25. As noted above, eral population loss of some, but not all, of these changes may be a adults have 14,000 since 1990. The result of the geographic shift of SES I to the a high school unemployment rate fell west. We say some because the changes be- education. slightly from 18% in gan in the 1990s before the big change in SES 2000 to 16% in 2005- geography. Whether these generally positive 2009. More than 77 percent of the workers are changes in the inner city continue will likely in blue collar or service occupations. Only 70 depend on the pace of recovery of the local and percent of the adults have a high school edu- national economy, local community develop- cation. The median family income is $11,482. ment efforts, and the opportunity structure as The family structure index (% of children un- well as individual and family efforts to over- der 18 living in two parent homes) went from come obstacles. 24.4% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2005-2009. This means that only one child in four now lives in a SES II: Second Stage two parent family in the core inner city. Neighborhoods The Social Area Described In summary, though all four social areas have We call this area “second stage neighborhoods” been relatively the same geographically since because it is statistically a step up from the 1970, the SES I portion of the Basin is shrink- core inner city. These census tracts are the ing and the West Side component has expand- light pink area in Figure 2. The area includes ed. Since 1990 gentrifi cation has changed the large sections in the neighborhoods north of SES designation of the East End from I to IV, downtown (Uptown), sections of the western plateau, several areas on the north side of the In 1970 – 1990 SES I, the core city, and several scattered tracts on the east inner city, was becoming poorer, side. more African American, more In the 2000s, Tract 43 in the East End became welfare dependent, and more SES IV refl ecting rapid gentrifi cation. Two unemployed. Since 1990 there has tracts, 102.01 in Westwood and 99.02 in West been a reversal of these trends. Price Hill changed from SES IV to SES II, refl ecting rapid change in a downward direc- Liberty Hill from II to IV and some tracts in tion. Mount Airy’s Tract 85.01 declined from Over-the-Rhine and West End to SES III and SES II to SES I. Lower Price Hill moved up to IV. The Avondale-Walnut Hills component SES II. Tract 96 in West Price Hill declined to of SES I is still large including seven census SES I. Sedamsville-Riverside declined to SES tracts. However, only one tract in Evanston I. Tract 74 in Northside moved up to SES II. remains in SES I. In Over-the-Rhine, the Pendleton and Main Street tracts moved up to SES II from SES I. In 1970 – 1990 SES I, the core inner city, was The same thing happened to Tracts 2 and 3.01 becoming poorer, more African American, more in the West End. Tract 25 in Fairview moved welfare dependent, and more unemployed. to SES III. In Mount Auburn, Tract 23 moved Since 1990 there has been a reversal of these up to SES II. In University Heights, Tract 30 trends. By 1990, the percent of households in moved up to SES III. Roselawn moved from poverty had peaked at 53%. In 2005-2009 the SES III to SES II. In Madisonville, tract 55 8 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati 11.616.4 1 29.0 2 3.5 31.232.0 5 6 33.034.8 9 10 35.8 11 39.2 12 SAS le) Index Rank 86.01 on and (Quar Index SES Census Tract Table 2a Table Cincinnati Census Tracts Neighborhood, 2005-2009 and SES Quartiles by NeighborhoodNeighborhood Popula Census Tract 3,108 ApartmentsFay 1,923 HillsWinton 4,801 85.02 East Price Hill18,798 11.6Camp Washington 80 (1) 1,421 16.4 92 Park - Sayler Riverside (1) 28 1,577 29 104 Avondale (1) 2513,967 93 HillsWalnut (1)6,437 31.2 35.2 - RiversideSedamsville (1) (1) 94 21.81,774 34 32 103 - English Fairmount N. (1) 19 26.8 (1) 28Woods 953,379 (1) (1) 66S. Fairmount 36.2 72 37.8 213,275 (2) (2) (3)Mt. Airy 23 33 96 67 22.29,965 (1) (1) (1) 35 87 28.4 19 34.8 (1) 68 (1) (1) 44.8 21.6 36 28 83 89 (2) (1) (1) 29 52.6 69 43.6 (2) (1) (2) 37 85.01 25.8 (1) 29.0 3.5 32.4 32.8 7 8 QUARTILE 1 1 QUARTILE - MillvaleS. Cumminsville 77

9 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati 39.5 13 41.0 15 41.8 16 42.2 17 42.3 18 44.1 20 45.0 21 54.5 23 55.4 24 SAS le) Index Rank on and (Quar Index SES Census Tract Table 2a Table Cincinnati Census Tracts Neighborhood, 2005-2009 and SES Quartiles by NeighborhoodNeighborhood Popula Census Tract 7,219Over-the-Rhine4,677Linwood783 9 PlaceWinton 2,549 38Carthage (2)2,445 30.4 47.02 10 41 73 Evanston (1)7,028 (2) 56.4 41 EndWest (3) 11 55.88,113 41.8 61 (2) (3)Roselawn (2) 27.29,704 38 42.2 16 (1) Price HillLower (2) 31.4758 2 37.8 (1) Price HillWest (2) 39 62.0119,570 17 13.8 91 34Corryville (1) (1) 3.013,072 51 23.2 55 97 40 62.02Mt. Auburn (1) (2) 38.6 (3) 5,257 3.02 45 110 --- (2) 55.6 36 32 98 --- (2) (3) 4 37.2 (2) 18 48 60.4 (2) 24.4 99.01 (3) (1) (2) 33 71.8 78.2 96.6 48.6 (3) 22 (2) 8 (4) 99.02 (4) 51.6 46.2 (2) (2) 26.6 41.8 83 23 107 40.2 (1) 14 (2) (4) 14 15 43.2 19 53.4 22 QUARTILE 2 2 QUARTILE Bond Hill 63 64 10 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati 55.6 25 56.5 26 57.3 27 62.3 30 65.6 31 66.4 32 75.0 34 75.7 35 SAS le) Index Rank 41 65 on and (Quar Index SES Census Tract Table 2a Table Cincinnati Census Tracts Neighborhood, 2005-2009 and SES Quartiles by NeighborhoodNeighborhood Popula Census Tract 6,262 HeightsUniversity 8,144 - CliftonFairview 297,832Westwood 2537,261 55.6 30 Northside (3) 8,376 52.6Madisonville (2) 26 8811,519 63.2 60.4 - E. Walnut Evanston (3) (3) 24.6Hills 74 48.6 27 1,814 (1) (2) 55 100 60Hartwell 51.6 44.8 (2)5,416 (2) 42 (3) 75 61 100College Hill 67.2 5616,949 (2) (3) (3) 80.4 64.4 - Paddock Avondale N. 74.8 78 101Hills (4) (3) 65.6 60 (3) 68.4 108 8,746 51.2 74.2 (3) 81CBD - Riverfront (3) 66.4 (3) (2) 793,793 77.2 (3) 102.1 65.6 (4) (3) 6 82.01 102.2 69.4 57.8 (3) 75 82.02 (3) 57 (3) 7 80.4 (3) 109 84 64.8 (4) (3) 71 75.4 (3) (3) 111 58.3 28 61.2 29 66.4 33 QUARTILE 3 3 QUARTILE HeightsKennedy 58

11 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati 76.3 36 76.5 37 77.4 38 82.4 39 84.5 40 84.8 41 87.7 42 91.6 43 94.7 44 98.2 45 101.2 46 102.6 47 SAS le) Index Rank 47.01 on and (Quar Index SES Census Tract Table 2a Table Cincinnati Census Tracts Neighborhood, 2005-2009 and SES Quartiles by NeighborhoodNeighborhood Popula Census Tract 13,245 ParkSayler 3,747East End1,728Mt. Washington 105 90.215,669 (4)Pleasant Ridge 85.29,451 65.6 43 46.01 106 (4) HillsEast Walnut (3) 53.63,617 103 87.4 (2) 57.01 46.02Clifton (4) (1) 75.8 44 208,734 51.8 (4) 46.03 California 57.02 (2) 87.81,285 82.8 (4)Mt. Adams (4) 59 42 83.61,937 81.2 75.8 (4) 70 - Columbia Mt. Lookout (4) (4) 95Tusculum 45 80 88.43,133 (4) (4) (4) 12 ParkHyde 91.6 71 97.415,491 (4) (4)Mt. Lookout 94.6 85.64,117 (4) 13 72 (4) 94.8 49 98.2 (4) (4) 48 101.6 (4) 50 101.4 (4) 102.6 100.6 (4) (4) 51 QUARTILE 4 4 QUARTILE Oakley 52 53 54 12 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati moved up to SES III. In Evanston, Tract 38 where there are heavy concentrations of fami- moved up to SES II from SES I. Avondale tracts lies struggling to rise above the poverty they had no change either way in SES designation. once knew. This is an assumption based on Overall, recent changes in SES II reﬂ ect de- our interpretation of recent Cincinnati history. cline on the west and (excepting Roselawn and The data of this report lend credence to the as- Bond Hill) positive change on the East. sumption. SES II is an area where most of the housing is multi-family; many of these homes The area in 2005-2009 was poorer, have been converted from single-family use. (A less African American and the two considerable number, of course, are still owner parent family structure was eroding occupied.) Seven workers in ten are blue col- but at a slower rate than in previous lar or service workers. Over 20 percent of the decades. population above 25 years of age has less than a 12th grade education. With a median family income of only $39,449, Even though almost one in three (29.7 per- most families in SES II struggle to make ends cent) of the households in SES II were below meet. In 1970, 15 percent of the households the poverty level in 2005-2009 (compared to had incomes below the poverty level. This rose 24 percent in 1990), community services are to 18 percent in 1980, 24 percent in 1990, 24 usually not as well developed in SES II areas percent in 2000 and to 29.7% in 2005-2009. In as they are in SES I. Comprehensive commu- 1970, SES II was 41 percent African Ameri- nity service centers are needed, but are not can. In 2005-2009 this percentage was 54%, present in such areas as Carthage, Madison- down from 80% in 2000. In 1970 38 percent ville, Northside, Sedamsville, or Avondale. of Cincinnati’s African Americans lived in SES Such citywide services as the Department of II. This fell to 36 percent in 1980, 29% in 2000 Jobs and Family Services are trying to become and in 2005-2009 fell further to 27%. The num- more comprehensive in order to treat the ber of families decreased from 27,117 in 1970 whole range of individual and family prob- to 14,181 in 2005-2009. The family structure lems. They remain centralized and bureau- indicator was 73.5 in 1970 and fell to 32.5 in cratic. Individuals from SES II and further 2005-2009. The area in 2005-2009 was poorer, outlying areas may be physically and psy- less African American and the two parent fam- chologically removed from contact with social ily structure was eroding but at a slower rate services except in cases of extreme necessity. than in previous decades. There may be a need for service centers within these neighborhoods(5). Social Indicator Changes It should be noted that thinking is shifting in Although there is great variation in income and some circles from a service provision model to education from home to home, the overall tex- an asset building model of community develop- ture of SES II is that of a working class neigh- ment. Xavier University and United Way have borhood. While the 2005-2009 poverty rate in funded the Community Building Institute to Over-the-Rhine was 61.7%, in Linwood it was promote the new model. Therefore recommen- only 9.4%. The unemployment rate in the sec- dations about providing more services should ond quartile varied from 7 in Winton Place to be reconsidered in that light. Asset based com- 37 in Lower Price Hill. munity redevelopment involves an emphasis Although social workers and educators regard on organizing neighborhood residents to utilize it as a high problem area, the neighborhoods their personal, associational, and institutional in SES II have their strengths. Many of the assets to rebuild the economic and social fab- census tracts, for example, have, in 2005-2009, ric. Community development efforts such as less than seventeen percent of their population Price Hill Will and Place Matters Initiative of in poverty and an overcrowding indicator of United Way are responding to neighborhood less than four percent. They are neighborhoods decline in SES II areas. 13 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 2b City of Cincinnati Summary Statistics for SES Quartiles, 1970 to 2005-2009 Quar le I Quar le II Quar le III Quar le IV Total Population 1970 86,549 116,935 95,902 155,481 1980 71,824 89,799 111,612 116,682 1990 78,141 98,954 94,269 92,132 2000 64,284 81,339 96,066 96,059 2005-2009 70,425 71,175 116,112 82,154 Total Families 1970 18,712 27,117 22,982 41,132 1980 6,229 20,434 26,420 29,235 1990 17,895 23,250 20,720 21,506 2000 14,336 17,811 21,550 21,307 2005-2009 14,451 14,181 22,608 17,243 Total Housing Units 1970 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 35,688 43,736 43,347 46,244 2000 32,472 39,711 46,549 50,292 2005-2009 36,599 39,316 58,146 43,973 Percent Single Family 1970 15% 28% 40% 46% Units 1980 19% 31% 41% 47% 1990 22% 37% 41% 42% 2000 16% 38% 45% 42% 2005-2009 39.3% 39.8% 44.2% 51.6% Total African American 1970 47,602 47,943 15,440 13,993 Popula on 1980 42,376 46,695 21,206 19,252 1990 59,632 42,212 25,040 11,037 2000 51,774 40,601 36,720 12,896 2005-2009 42,545 38,459 49,467 8,701 Percent African Ameri- 1970 55% 41% 16% 9% can Popula on 1980 59% 52% 19% 16% 1990 76% 43% 27% 12% 2000 81% 80% 38% 13% 2005-2009 60.4% 54.0% 42.6% 10.6% Percent White or Other 1970 40% 53% 84% 74% 1980 39% 48% 79% 82% 1990 24% 57% 73% 88% 2000 20% 80% 62% 87% 2005-2009 39.6% 46.0% 57.4% 89.4% Percent First Genera- 1970 3% 6% 9% 15% on Immigrants 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 1% 2% 4% 4% 2000 1% 3% 5% 4% 2005-2009 3.0% 2.8% 5.1% 4.5% 14 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 2b City of Cincinnati Summary Statistics for SES Quartiles, 1970 to 2005-2009 Quar le I Quar le II Quar le III Quar le IV Total Households Below 1970 6,423 4,063 1,790 1,696 Poverty 1980 7,176 3,761 2,213 1,454 1990 16,072 9,423 5,868 3,637 2000 11,745 8,387 6,109 4,198 2005-2009 10,226 8,392 9,959 4,852 Percent of Households 1970 34% 15% 8% 4% Below Poverty 1980 44% 18% 8% 5% 1990 53% 24% 14% 8% 2000 45% 24% 14% 9% 2005-2009 37.2% 29.7% 20.5% 12.4% Total Households on 1970 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 Public Assistance 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 11,382 6,053 2,847 1,807 2000 3,794 1,941 1,193 761 2005-2009 2,590 1,235 1,495 602 Public Assistance/Pov- 1970 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 erty Ra o 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 71% 64% 49% 50% 2000 32% 23% 20% 18% 2005-2009 25% 15% 15% 12% Total Popula on 60 1970 13,346 20,686 15,930 31,075 Years or Older 1980 10,432 15,186 19,200 27,212 1990 11,082 16,829 18,743 18,674 2000 8,043 10,508 16,997 17,323 2005-2009 9,543 10,477 18,052 15,741 Percent 60 Years or 1970 15% 18% 17% 20% Older 1980 15% 17% 17% 23% 1990 14% 17% 20% 20% 2000 13% 13% 18% 18% 2005-2009 14% 15% 16% 19% Total Popula on Under 1970 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 16 Years 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 26,367 24,664 16,511 15,446 2000 20,889 19,343 19,134 15,516 2005-2009 20,034 14,910 19,109 13,111 Percent Popula on 1970 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 Under 16 Years 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1

15 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 2b City of Cincinnati Summary Statistics for SES Quartiles, 1970 to 2005-2009 Quar le I Quar le II Quar le III Quar le IV 1990 34% 25% 18% 17% 2000 33% 24% 20% 16% 2005-2009 28% 21% 16% 16% Total Unemployed 1970 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 4,091 4,299 2,592 1,745 2000 4,090 3,130 3,033 1,772 2005-2009 4,781 4,049 5,999 2,247 Unemployment Rate 1970 9% 6% 4% 3% 1980 ------1 ------1 ------1 ------1 1990 20% 9% 5% 3% 2000 18% 8% 6% 3% 2005-2009 16% 12% 10% 5%

1Data not available

16 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 2c City of Cincinnati Average SES Indicators by Quartile, 1970-2005-2009 SES Indicator / Index Quar le I Quar le II Quar le III Quar le IV Family Income Indicator 1970 $5,147 $7,444 $8,944 $11,482 1980 $8,110 $13,231 $18,641 $22,946 1990 $11,398 $22,568 $30,913 $44,779 2000 $17,487 $30,190 $41,848 $73,723 2005-2009 $28,259 $39,448 $48,937 $93,417 Family Structure Indicator 1970 71.4% 73.5% 80.3% 83.1% 1980 38.5% 59.0% 76.3% 79.7% 1990 27.3% 50.5% 69.4% 82.0% 2000 17.0% 34.7% 50.3% 75.4% 2005-2009 22.9% 32.5% 48.9% 69.0% Occupa on Indicator 1970 47.5% 38.1% 29.2% 18.6% 1980 72.0% 56.3% 43.9% 30.5% 1990 86.9% 79.8% 71.8% 57.3% 2000 83.6% 74.3% 65.2% 48.9% 2005-2009 77.3% 72.2% 66.8% 46.4% Educa on Indicator 1970 82.0% 68.4% 54.1% 37.6% 1980 70.6% 53.5% 38.3% 24.3% 1990 52.9% 38.5% 24.7% 14.6% 2000 45.4% 30.3% 19.0% 11.4% 2005-2009 31.1% 22.4% 16.1% 6.8% Crowding Indicator 1970 19.4% 11.8% 8.7% 3.3% 1980 11.7% 6.2% 3.5% 1.5% 1990 9.7% 4.1% 2.1% 0.9% 2000 6.2% 4.3% 2.2% 0.8% 2005-2009 3.8% 1.9% 1.7% 0.3% SES Index 1970 24.1 48.9 74.2 90.0 1980 17.2 42.0 68.9 93.3 1990 22.8 50.6 77.0 100.7 2000 21.5 44.5 69.8 96.6 2005-2009 31.1 45.7 62.4 86.8

17 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati 9.2% 0.5% -24.8% City Totals Change Percent 27.6% 33.9% 37.9%12.8% 42.8% 16.0% 41.0% 20.7%17.9% 22.5% 18.2% 19.1% 12.1% 20.1% 18.0% 12.9% 25.0% 12.7% -4.3% 29.4% 15.8% 48.5% -12.3% 6.7% 10.5% -5.8% 57.1% -29.6% 24.5% -11.6% 13,978 14,588 17,23581,007 13,227 73,531 13,772 65,417 41,900 4.4% 53,813 18.1% -23.3% -9.2% -11.0% 4.1% -35.9% -1.5% 28.4% -33.6% 109,383 91,315 83,399125,070 72,833 130,490 138,110 68,483 143,070 -16.5% 139,401 -8.7% 4.3% -12.7% 5.8% -6.0% -37.4% 2.5% -2.6% 11.5% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2009 1970-2009 Number of Families African Percent American of Total Population Number of African American Individiuals of Percent Below Families Poverty Families Total Below Poverty of Percent 60+ Persons of Age Years Number Total 60+ of Persons of Age Years Total PopulationTotal 452,524 385,457 364,040 338,669 340,210 -14.8% -5.6% - Table 2d Table 1970-2009 Statistics, City of Cincinnati Summary

18 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati As was noted in the First Edition study(3), in the Central Business District once had low- SES II is characterized by low education lev- income elderly pensioners as well as luxury els, high rates of poverty, single parent homes, apartment dwellers. unemployment and inadequate family income. SES III can be characterized as a series of The 2005-2009 ACS data show school dropout middle class enclaves which border SES II or rates range from zero in Mt. Airy, Winton Place SES I areas on their central perimeter. About and Corryville to 64% in Lower Price Hill. A 44 percent of the residences are single family community survey or review of crime statistics and many census tracts have large open space would probably show wide-scale delinquent or areas. pre-delinquent behavior on the part of thousands of 16-25 year olds out of school and un- The 2005-2009 population is 57.4 percent white employed in this area. Neighborhood stabiliza- or other and 42.6 percent African American. tion requires that schools, religious institutions About fi ve percent of the population is fi rst or and social agencies in the communities, backed second generation foreign born (ethnicity indi- by neighborhood organizations and area-wide cator). Median family income is $48,937 and resources, mobilize effective youth and family 66.8 percent of the workers were in blue collar support services. This approach fi ts the asset building philosophy. SES II is characterized by low education levels, high rates of SES III: Where Front Yards poverty, single parent homes, Begin unemployment and inadequate The Social Area Described family income. The third quartile areas of Cincinnati, (shown in medium red on Figure 2) are comprised of College Hill, North Avondale, Kennedy or service jobs. On the other side of the coin, Heights, University Heights, parts of Mt. 9,959 SES III households are below the pov- Auburn, Corryville, Sayler Park, Northside, erty line and 16 percent of the population over Hartwell, Fairview, Westwood, West Price 25 years of age has less than a 12th grade edu- Hill, Oakley, Madisonville, Evanston, Walnut cation. Hills, the CBD and three newly added tracts in Over-the-Rhine and the West End. If the city SES III is not a fortifi ed middle-class sanctu- can be looked at as a geographic area in which ary. In 1970, 14 of the 23 census tracts in this successive waves of foreign or rural-to-urban area were at least 90 percent white and eight migrants settle, develop ethnic communities were at least 99 percent white. By 2000, the and move on, then SES III could be called stage area had become much more integrated and in- three. cluded integrated neighborhoods such as Cor- ryville, East Price Hill, and Madisonville. Sev- Intuitively this makes some sense. The writer en neighborhoods that have at least one tract knows of one Irish family in which one gen- in SES III also have tracts in SES II and Ev- eration was born in the East End, the next in anston, Westwood, and Walnut Hills also have Mount Adams and the third in West Price Hill. one SES I tract. SES III is generally not sep- Some of the current generation live in Landen. arated from the lower SES areas by physical Yet it would be an oversimplifi cation to clas- barriers such as expressways, parks or steep sify all of SES III thusly. Such an explanation hillsides. might say a lot about the Germans and Irish in, for example, Price Hill and Northside, but An examination of the base map (Figure 2) it does not apply to University Heights-which shows the accuracy of this analysis. Evanston, houses successive generations of students and Walnut Hills, and Avondale, for example, are faculty of the University of Cincinnati; or to contiguous to higher income areas. As to the tract 19 in Walnut Hills, which has become a feasibility of upgrading various neighborhoods, community of childless professionals. Tract 7 the Urban Development Department has pub- 19 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati lished an analysis entitled “From Urban Re- population fell from 15 (Table 2b) percent in newal to Community Development” which 1970 to 4.5 percent in 2005-2009. The percent provides an analysis of the requirements to im- of households below the poverty level rose to prove housing conditions in several neighbor- 12.4 percent. Almost two thousand households hoods. The City of Cincinnati has developed a were on public assistance in 1990. This fell to housing strategy that 602 in 2005-2009. Its elderly population fell would promote both to 19 percent, but was a higher proportion of SES III can be integration and neigh- elderly than any area except SES III. Its youth characterized borhood stability. population (under 16) was 16 percent, which as a series of is lower than the other social areas. Its unem- The future of SES III middle class ployment rate was 5 percent compared to 3 is intimately tied to enclaves percent in 1970. Median family income was a Cincinnati’s success hefty $93,417, eight times that of 1970. SES I, or failure in providing by comparison, saw its median family income social services, good schools, and physical de- increased by less than six times to $28,259 in velopment programs for the contiguous low-in- the same time period. As clearly as any sta- come areas. Residents of SES III are generally tistic can, this illustrates the growing gap be- aware of this connection and of their need to tween the haves and have-nots in Cincinnati. act positively to solve the problems that affect their own and nearby neighborhoods. In 1970 the median family income ratio between SES I and SES IV was 2.23. In 2005-2009 SES IV: The Upper Quartile it was 3.31. This “inequality index” for Cincin- The Social Area Described nati did not quite double in four decades. At The fourth quartile (indicated by darkest red in the metropolitan area level the gap was even Figure 2) includes the neighborhoods of Mount wider. The median income in SES I is well be- Lookout, Hyde Park, Pleasant Ridge, Mount low the poverty level. In SES IV the poverty Adams, California, Mount Washington, Mount rate for families ranges from 2.5 percent in Lookout-Columbia Tusculum, Clifton, East Hyde Park to 5.5 percent in East Walnut Hills. Walnut Hills and tracts in CBD, Sayler Park, The overall SES IV poverty rate was 12.4 per- Oakley, Westwood, West End, West Price Hill, cent (of households). The Family Structure In- Mount Auburn and East End. The new SES dicator declined from 83.1 percent in 1970 to IV areas are in Sayler Park, Hartwell, the Lib- 69 percent in 2005-2009. As with all the social erty Hill section of Mount Auburn, the River- areas, the Occupation Indicator increased dra- side Drive part of the East End, and Tract 14 matically until 1990 then dropped somewhat of the West End. Tract 111 in College Hill and (Table 2c). The Education Indicator decreased 102.01 in West Price Hill moved down to SES in all four social areas as well. By 2005-2009, III. Just as SES I has moved somewhat to the only 6.8 percent of SES IV’s population over west, SES IV is expanding on the east and in age 25 had less than a 12th grade education, the area north of Central Parkway. In several down from 37.6 percent in 1970. Overcrowding instances, these areas are contiguous to SES I has been reduced to a mere 1.7 percent. or SES II areas. Just as often, they are “buff- ered” from lower SES areas by parks, hillsides, Presumably most of the families in SES IV cemeteries, or other open space areas. can provide for their housing, social services, and health needs through the use of private Trends in SES IV since 1970 include the fact resources. Community issues in these areas that today’s SES IV has 73,327 fewer people. center around preserving the existing charac- It is the only social area to continuously lose ter of their neighborhoods and improving the population. Today’s SES IV is slightly more quality of public education. The issue of the integrated than the counterpart area in 1970. quality of public schools (more than any other The percentage of single family dwellings has issue) brings SES IV people into dialogue with risen from 46 to 51.6 percent. Its immigrant other neighborhoods. There are other problems 20 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati which also cut across class lines. Drug abuse 2. High Density Private Housing and and mental health also pose problems which Section 8 Units call for public intervention, as do law enforce- Over-the-Rhine, Mount Auburn, and Lower ment and the provision of utilities, parks, pub- Price Hill, for example, have areas of high den- lic transportation, and services for the elderly. sity, low-income housing which is privately It should also be noted that the poverty rate owned. The existence of large rent supplement grew by one third in SES IV in the past de- rehabilitation projects in these neighborhoods cade. should, however, receive special analysis. Also, in interpreting the data for a particular tract Patterns of Concentration and or neighborhood, it is important to note the ex- Dispersal istence of high rises and large apartment com- It has been noted that most of the buildings in plexes. SES I are multi-family although overcrowding has greatly declined. It is possible to be more 3. Overcrowded Housing in a specifi c and describe three different patterns of Dispersed Setting high density multi-family neighborhoods. Columbia-East End and Riverside Sedamsville provide a different pattern of a low-income 1. Public Housing population dispersed in narrow “string town” In 1970 Cincinnati had 7,184 rental public fashion along the river. This pattern poses spe- housing units occupied by some 20,000 individ- cial problems of transportation and communi- uals. Of these units, 5,821 were located in SES cation which have been a perennial headache I. By defi nition, occupants of public housing for planners and organizers in the East End. are low or moderate-income families or elder- Note: Since this was written for the fi rst edi- ly or disabled individuals. The concentration tion in 1974, part of the East End has gone upscale and overcrowding is no longer a major As clearly as any statistic can, issue in most neighborhoods. this illustrates the growing gap The preceding discussion illustrates that for between the haves and have-nots any specifi c planning purpose, knowing the in Cincinnati. SES typology is only a starting place toward neighborhood need defi nition. New strategies of public housing units in the West End and must be developed to link these neighborhoods, along the hillsides west of Mill Creek poses spread east and west along the Ohio River, special problems for community residents and with the rest of the city. for those responsible for the planning and de- The Target Area Concept for livery of services in these areas. Social Welfare Programs One limitation of using overcrowding as a hous- One possible use of this report is in helping ing indicator is that it does not point to public develop “target neighborhood” defi nitions for housing as a “housing problems”. Since public various social programs. SES I is considered a housing regulations do not permit “overcrowd- critical area for many programs on the basis ing,” neighborhoods with large public housing of data presented in this report. However, this projects are not always the most overcrowded report needs to be supplemented with specifi c even though sections of the tract may be very data from the area of intervention proposed. overcrowded. The fi ve most overcrowded cen- For example, health, mental health and crime sus tracts are in North Fairmount, Lower Price and delinquency rates could be mapped out on Hill, South Cumminsville, Winton Hills, and a census tract basis. Since so many social indi- Madisonville. cators are highly correlated with social class, chances are that the highest rates would occur in SES I. However, it is possible that for some intervention programs census tract map-

21 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati ping would indicate at least partial inclusion of Refi ning and Updating Target some of the other SES areas, especially SES II, Areas which tend to be neglected. Certainly the data In the fi rst edition of this report, the author indicate that programs aimed at the problem of called for expanding the target area for the family stability or “broken homes” should not programs of the Community Action Commis- be concentrated in any one area of the city. sion based on the report’s fi ndings. In the sec- Problems of the Target Area ond edition, attention was called to the needs Approach of Linwood, Walnut Hills, Evanston, Madison- ville, Northside and Westwood because of de- A. “Poor Services” clining indicators in those areas. Appendix II One of the standard criticisms of the practice is especially useful for noting these trends by of creating special programs for people most in census tract and by neighborhood. Tables 2e, need is that such programs for the poor also 2f, and 2g show the Cincinnati neighborhoods turn out to be “poor services” and constantly which experienced the greatest decline in the suffer from lack of community support, fund- different decades. ing and accountability. The other side of the dilemma is that when resources are scarce it The third edition (1996) pointed out the dramat- seems only fi tting to expend them where the ic decline which Bond Hill, Avondale, Mt. Airy, need is greatest. The authors believe that the Kennedy Heights, and Westwood had experi- answer to this dilemma lies in providing cer- enced since 1970. Between 1980 and 1990 the tain essential services universally even if it greatest declines were in Fay Apartments and means eliminating some of the present array Roselawn. Various agencies and citizen groups of subsidies which, in fact, now favor the upper have used previous editions to justify the loca- classes. But until there is a restructuring of tion of community centers and other programs. national social policy it is important to be able These include a senior center in Hyde Park to determine the areas of greatest need at the and a recreation center in East Price Hill. Per- local level, and that is what this report does. B. The Dispersed Poor In 2005-2009, there were 4,736 Because some antipoverty strategies have families with incomes below the used the “target area” approach, to that degree formal poverty level living in the the poor who live in more affl uent neighbor- higher income areas (SES III and hoods are left to their own resources or to seek IV). out private charitable organizations or city or county wide bureaucracies. In the absence of haps the most dramatic use of the Third Edi- special outreach programs, the poor may never tion was by the civic leaders who successfully become aware that they are eligible for such advocated for the establishment of a federally services. funded Empowerment Zone in Cincinnati. The In 2005-2009, there were 4,736 families with Fourth Edition noted dramatic decline in Mt. incomes below the formal poverty level living Airy and the Fifth Edition points to the decline in the higher income areas (SES III and IV). in Riverside-Sayler Park. Hospitals, universi- Table 2b show that 62.6 percent of the poor live ty programs, schools, and social agencies have outside SES I. Use of the target area approach used this report data extensively in proposals should not blind us to the needs of those who seeking funding for a great variety of health, live outside the high-risk areas. The assump- education, and human service programs. tion that it is worse to be poor in all of the social disorder of a “hard core” neighborhood is true, but there can be real human need any- where in the city.

22 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 2e Table 2f-2 Neighborhoods That Declined 10 SES Neighborhoods That Experienced the Points or More, 1970-1980 Greatest SES Decline, 1980-1990 Neighborhood Decline Neighborhood Decline Bond Hill -28.8 Fay Apartments -20.4 CBD – Riverfront -23.8 Roselawn -15.1 Kennedy Heights -20.6 Mt. Airy -13.0 Avondale -20.4 East Price Hill -5.8 North Avondale – Paddock Hills -19.4 South Fairmount -5.6 College Hill -18.7 Westwood -4.8 South Cumminsville – Millvale -16.2 Mt. Washington -3.7 Mt. Airy -13.7 North Fairmount-English Woods -3.6 Hartwell -13.4 Sedamsville-Riverside -3.2 Winton Hills -13.4 Bond Hill -3.1 Evanston -13.1 Lower Price Hill -3.0 Over-the-Rhine -12.4 University Heights -3.0 Northside -12.0 Table 2g-1 Carthage -10.9 Neighborhoods That Experienced the Walnut Hills -10.8 Greatest SES Decline, 1990-2000 Madisonville -10.3 Neighborhood Decline Sayler Park -27.3 Mt. Airy -17.7 Fairview – Cli on -17.5 CBD – Riverfront -14.8 North Avondale-Paddock Hills -12.2 Table 2f-1 Westwood -12.0 Neighborhoods That Experienced the University Heights -12.0 Greatest SES Decline, 1970-1990 Hartwell -11.9 Neighborhood Decline College Hill -11.8 Bond Hill -31.9 Corryville -11.4 Mt. Airy -26.7 Cli on -11.3 Avondale -21.5 Roselawn -10.4 Kennedy Heights -21.0 Winton Place -10.0 East Price Hill -15.0 Between 1990 and 2000 eleven neighborhoods S. Cumminsville – Millvale -14.2 experienced SES decline of ten points or more Westwood -14.0 (Table 2g). Six of these neighborhoods also College Hill -13.2 show up in Table 2h as having experienced the Mt. Washington -12.4 greatest long term decline. These are Mt. Airy, Fay Apartments -12.3 North Avondale-Paddock Hills, Westwood, Roselawn -11.4 Hartwell, University Heights, and College Hill. North Avondale – Paddock Hills -10.2 At the top of the list for long term decline are Mt. Airy (44.4 points), Bond Hill (39.9), West- Winton Hills -10.2 wood (26), and College Hill (25). Close behind are North Avondale-Paddock Hills (22.4), Rose-

23 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati lawn (21.8), Avondale (21.8), and East Price these neighborhoods will be explained in more Hill (18.8). In the Fourth Edition, we reported detail in Chapter 9. that Bond Hill, Avondale, Kennedy Heights, Table 2g-2 Neighborhoods That Declined 10 SES Six of these neighborhoods also Points or More, 2000 to 2005-2009 show up in Table 2h as having Neighborhood Decline experienced the greatest long term Riverside - Sayler Park -38.4 decline. West Price Hill -22.2 Kennedy Heights -21.4 Roselawn -20.2 Mt. Washington, Fay Apartments, Northside, Mt. Airy -15.7 Roselawn, Winton Hills, East Price Hill and Mt. Adams -15.2 Pleasant Ridge could be taken off the critical list in that none of these neighborhoods, which California -14.8 had experienced long term decline, declined Hartwell -11.6 more than 10 points in the 1990-2000 period. Mt. Washington -11.5 Mt. Airy, Westwood, North Avondale-Paddock Winton Place -10.8 Hills, University Heights, and College Hill re- Carthage -10.8 mained on the critical list as having experi- East Walnut Hills -10.8 enced both long and recent decline. These are Westwood -10.0 all second or third ring Cincinnati neighborhoods. Presumably inner city neighborhoods Note that the neighborhoods which experienced such as Over-the-Rhine, West End, and Lower rapid decline on the SES index are distributed Price Hill, already near the bottom of the SES through all four social areas. The tables in this scale, have nowhere to go but up. Many did section are based on neighborhood level data. experience gains on the SES Index during the Appendix III can be used to look at SES chang- decade. The results of community development es at the tract level. Block group data is also efforts show up in dramatic gains in the East available on CD ROM for those who want to End. carry small area analysis even further. Between 2000 and 2005-2009 Mt. Airy, West- Neighborhood leaders and planners of services wood, and Hartwell reappeared on the list of should study these downward trends and, after neighborhoods which declined more than ten determining whether they are artiﬁ cial func- points (Table 2g-2). tions of boundary changes, plan appropriate Kennedy Heights The results of service improvements or community renewal and Roselawn community efforts. which had been From the data presented thus far, the authors on this list prior development conclude: to 1990-2000, re- efforts show up in appeared with big dramatic gains in 1. SES I should remain a high priority area for losses. West Price the East End. health and social service planning and for com- Hill appeared for munity development efforts. This area still in- the ﬁ rst time. Surprisingly, Mt. Adams, Cal- cludes the old core of Walnut Hills and Avondale ifornia, East Walnut Hills, Hartwell and Mt. on the east, the Basin Area north of the CBD, Washington were added to this list in 2005- Winton Terrace, and a large and expanding area 2009. Though their overall scores remain very on the west side. Mount Airy and Riverside- high. Carthage lost 10.8 points. The SES de- Sayler Park are now “inner city” along with the cline for Westwood was 10 points, down from entire front of the western plateau. 12 points in the previous decade. The losses in 2. Demographic shifts and socioeconomic change

24 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati can affect almost any area of the city. Examples cept SES I where it fell from 45 to 37.2 percent. of this include recent declines in Mount Airy The core inner city since 1990 has continued and, to a smaller degree, Mount Washington. to be less African American and somewhat less 3. The high-SES core from Mount Washington to poor. the CBD is moving toward consolidation into 7. The welfare-poverty ratio has continued to de- one solid SES IV area. Liberty Hill (Mount cline since welfare reform was enacted in 1998. Auburn tract) has joined this area as have non- Now only 25 percent of households in poverty contiguous areas in Over-the-Rhine and the West receive public assistance in SES I and even few- End. er in the other social areas. 8. The decline in the Family Structure Indicator has The high-SES core from Mount slowed. In SES I it has even reversed slightly Washington to the CBD is moving (perhaps only due to a geographic shift). This toward consolidation into one solid is a remarkable shift in the city’s demographic SES IV area. Liberty Hill (Mount history. From 1970 to 2000 it declined in SES I Auburn tract) has joined this area from 71.4 to 17 and in SES IV from 83.1 to 75.4. as have non-contiguous areas in In 2005-2009 it was 22.9 in SES I and 69.0 in Over-the-Rhine and the West End. SES IV (Table 2c). The 1990s saw huge declines in all four social areas. The Family Structure In- dicator is ‘the percentage of children under 18 4. Poverty is much less concentrated in SES I and living in two parent families.’ II than it was in 1970. 5. Racial isolation is less severe now than it was in 2000. SES III is now 42.6 African American and SES I and II have lower percentages African American than previously. This is a big reversal of previous trends. 6. The poverty rate went up in all social areas ex-

Table 2h Neighborhoods that Experienced the Greatest Decline 1970 to 2005-2009 Neighborhood 1970 2005-2009 Value Diﬀ erence Value Mt. Airy 99.3 39.2 -60.1 Bond Hill 87.2 39.5 -47.7 Roselawn 86.1 44.1 -42.0 Kennedy Heights 93.4 55.6 -37.8 Westwood 94.3 58.3 -36.0 College Hill 100.7 66.4 -34.3 N. Avondale – Paddock Hills 106.4 75.0 -31.4 East Price Hill 56.8 29.0 -27.8 West Price Hill 79.4 53.4 -26.0 Mt. Washington 107.6 82.4 -25.2 Hartwell 89.2 66.4 -22.8 Avondale 52.8 32.4 -20.4 University Heights 76.0 56.5 -19.5 Riverside – Sayler Park 49.0 32.0 -17.0 S. Cumminsville – Millvale 27.4 11.6 -15.8

25 Chapter 2 | The Social Areas of Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

26 Chapter 3 The Census Tract Map Method

Another approach to small area analysis is quartiles. Figure 1 is a blank “do it yourself” simply to take available indicators and plot the map. The reader can do his or her own census indicators by quartiles on census tract maps. tract map of, for example, unemployment, by In one San Francisco study fi ve independent using Table 8a. Simply rank the 119 tracts (us- map studies were made by various analysts, ing the standard procedure for handling ties) and an indicator was judged “useful” if it was according to the unemployment rate (from the found on at least four of the fi ve studies to de- highest rate to the lowest rate). Then divide lineate “high risk areas.” The assumptions in- by four and color the map four different colors. volved were not elaborate and were based on The quartile with the highest rates is the ‘high- “expert opinion”, rather than extensive empiri- est risk” area for manpower planning. cal analysis(1). In the following chapter, the last four US cen- To further test this method, the data were suses and the 2005-2009 ACS data will be used subjected to a factor analysis. This is a math- to analyze trends in Cincinnati as they affect ematical treatment of correlation coeffi cients various elements of the population, especially which results in grouping the indicators into a African Americans and Appalachians. The em- number of factors and constructs. Each factor phasis is on these groups because they are large accounts for a certain percentage of the variance between the indicators and is composed The reader can do his or her own of all the indicators, with varying weights as- census tract map of, for example, signed to each indicator. The authors assumed unemployment, by using Table 8a. that the factor with high loadings for the largest number of social indexes represent a factor of “high risk”. The “high risk” factor in the San components of the population and, in many re- Francisco study accounted for 43.5 percent of spects, the future of the city and metropolitan the total variance, and no other factor account- area are tied to their welfare. Reference is also ed for more than 13 percent. made to Hispanics, women, poverty, the elderly and children. The results of the two methods were found to be mutually supporting in judging the “useful- Neighborhood Classifi cations ness” of social indexes. Of the 29 indicators In the second edition of this study (1986) one (health and social) nine were determined to be of the unique features was a classifi cation of adequate in delineating the city, six social in- neighborhoods as African American, white, or dexes (income, education, development, over- Appalachian. In the current edition references crowding, family status, and unwed parenting are made to these three categories with some- and three health indicators (prenatal care, pre- what different criteria. The median number of maturity and tuberculosis incidence). the particular indicator is used. The neighbor- This modifi cation of the Shevky-Bell methodol- hoods are classifi ed if the indicator is more than ogy and its application to problems of planning this median number. For example, in Figure 5 social services supported the earlier work. Its neighborhoods are considered African Ameri- major limitation was its dependence on avail- can if the percent African American population able published reports of the 1960 census(2). is above the tract median of 46 percent. In the following sections on education, jobless- Classifi cation of an Appalachian neighborhood ness, the elderly, and poverty and deprivation, used different criteria. A neighborhood is clas- we have applied the census tract map method sifi ed as Appalachian if it meets the criteria in the strict sense of dividing the indicators into established in the 1986 edition as recently up- 27 Chapter 3 | The Census Tract Map Method Social Areas of Cincinnati dated by Christopher Auffrey. The criteria used includes poverty indicators, racial composition, adult education levels, school dropout rates, teen jobless rates, occupation, family size, and the expert opinions of social agency staff and community residents in the affected areas. Table 5c (in Chapter 5) is a list of census tracts and neighborhoods. Nine neighborhoods were classifi ed as Appalachian in 1986. There are now parts of ten neighborhoods on this list. Even though the criteria used to defi ne Appalachian enclaves are essentially negative and circular there is a broad consensus that they do accurately identify Appalachian population concentrations. One reason these criteria work is that most white collar and professional Appalachians do not cluster together in defi nable neighborhoods. Another is that low formal education levels, teen joblessness, etc., are still a reality of life in urban Ap- palachian blue collar areas.

28 Chapter 4 Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati

The concepts of race and ethnicity as used in the family incomes below the overall city median, decennial census present some complex issues. but do not have high percentages of families be- For example, separate questions are asked about low poverty. Two tracts (26 and 32) have high whether a respondent is African American and percentages of college students. The other three whether a respondent is Hispanic. This means are blue collar Appalachian (61) and African one can be enumerated as both African Ameri- American (41 and 63) sections. Table 4a reveals can and Hispanic. Moreover, the 2000 census the numbers behind the map in fi gure 3. for the fi rst time offered respondents the option of listing more than one race. This means, for Women and Poverty instance, one could be multiracial (e.g., white Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between and black) as well as Hispanic. poverty and female headed households in Cin- cinnati census tracts. Note that the relation- For the purposes of this report, we have defi ned ship between poverty and female-headed house- as African American all non-Hispanic respon- holds is not consistent. Several predominantly dents to the 2005-2009 American Community Appalachian areas and the three tracts in the Survey who listed themselves as being of one University of Cincinnati area have high poverty race, black. We have done this to maintain rates but not high percentages of female headed comparability with the previous editions of the households. Other Social Areas Report, and to avoid confounding areas, some heav- Looking at all 48 ethnicity with race. This is not just a pragmatic ily African Ameri- neighborhoods, in decision, however. The social science literature can, have high per- 39 neighborhoods indicates that within American society, multi- centages of female the majority of racial people tend to adapt to the general white headed households population to the extent they are able, while but not high rates of these families with Spanish-speaking blacks do not readily assimi- poverty. Excluding incomes below late into the resident African American popula- the atypical area poverty are female tion. around the Univer- headed. Poverty in Cincinnati sity, Figure 4 makes clear that even within the African American and In 2005-2009, the median percent of Cincinnati Appalachian communities there are a variety of families in each census tract with incomes be- neighborhood patterns. Clearly, poverty and low poverty level was 20.1 percent. The median female headed households are not synonymous. income for Cincin- Furthermore, there are several low income nati families was heavily white Appalachian areas in which tradi- $51,670 (city tracts In 2005-2009, the tional family structure is fairly intact. Table 4b mean). Figure 3 median percent of provides the numbers and percentage of female shows tracts that Cincinnati families headed households in poverty. Looking at all 48 have poverty rates in each census neighborhoods, in 39 neighborhoods the major- higher than the tract with incomes ity of these families with incomes below poverty tract average of 23 below poverty are female headed. percent (gray areas) level was 20.1 and incomes below percent. the median incomes (striped areas). Most of these income indicators overlap. How- ever, there are fi ve areas on the map that are striped but not shaded. These fi ve tracts have 29 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 46.02 17 Miles 55 23 108 58 22 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 51 16 57.01 18 15 47.01 24 57.02 44 52 59 50 21 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 42 14 39 41 12 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,St. * Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded from this analysis. See text for more details. 68 67 35 19 012345 31 13 34 21 11 5 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 3 30 17 36 4 9 25 73 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 32 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 14 74 75 34 1 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 87 84 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Median Family Incomes and Areas of Poverty of Areas and Incomes Family Median City Cincinnati 2005-2009 40 42 77 35 93 41 37 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 95 96 85.01 43 46 83 94 88 103 98 100.02 44 97 100.01 101 45 102.02 99.02 99.01 7 109 10 47 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville Riverside - 47. Riverside - SaylerPark 48. SaylerPark 105 23. Madisonville 24. Pleasant Ridge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage 28. Roselawn 29. Bond Hill 30.Avondale N. - Paddock Hills 31. Avondale 32. Clifton 33. Winton Place 34. Northside 35. S. CumminsvilleMillvale - 36. Winton Hills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. Apartments Fay 39. 40. N. Fairmount English - Woods 41. S. Fairmount Hill Price Lower 42. 43. EastPrice Hill 44. West Price Hill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Censusboundary tract < $51,670 $51,670(city>= tracts mean) < 23% (city 23% tracts mean)>= Neighborhood number Legend incomeMedian family 00 Percent below poverty Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. - Riverfront CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. Adams Mt. 5. Auburn Mt.6. Fairview7. - Clifton Heights Washington Camp 8. Heights University 9. 10. Corryville Walnut11. Hills 12. Evanston 13. Evanston E. - Walnut Hills 14. E. WalnutHills 15. EastEnd 16. California Washington Mt. 17. 18. Mt. Lookout- Columbia Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. Hyde Park 22. Oakley 00.00 Censusnumber tract 00.00 3 Figure 30 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 37 66 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been details. more for text See analysis. this from excluded 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 7 23 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 73 25 Elmwood Place 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Women and Areas of Poverty and Women City Cincinnati 2005-2009 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 99.02 102.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville- Riverside Park Sayler - Riverside 47. 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills 31. Avondale 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill Hill Price East 43. 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary boundary tract Census < 40% mean) tracts (city 40% >= < 23% mean) tracts (city 23% >= Neighborhood number Legend Female head of household 00 Percent below poverty Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati 1. Queensgate West2. End Riverfront - CBD 3. 4. Over-the-Rhine 5. Mt. Adams 6. Mt. Auburn Fairview7. - CliftonHeights 8. Camp Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville 11. Walnut Hills 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 4

31 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromthisanalysis. See textmore fordetails. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 2005-2009 Cincinnati City African Americans Americans and Areas of African City Poverty Cincinnati 2005-2009 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 99.02 102.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville- Riverside Park Sayler - Riverside 47. 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills Avondale 31. 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills Hill College 37. 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary < 46% 46%tracts>= (city mean) < 23% 23%tracts>= (city mean) Neighborhood number Legend Percent African American 00 Percent below poverty Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati 1. Queensgate West2. End Riverfront - CBD 3. 4. Over-the-Rhine 5. Mt. Adams 6. Mt. Auburn Fairview7. - CliftonHeights 8. Camp Washington 9. University Heights Corryville 10. 11. Walnut Hills 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills End East 15. 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 5

32 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati The largest concentrations of female headed an SES IV neighborhood, not only reversed its households below poverty are: pattern of decline, it also stabilized in terms of racial change (Table 4e). 1. East Price Hill 884 2. Avondale 864 This picture changed somewhat with the 2000 3. Westwood 836 census. Avondale, Kennedy Heights, and Madi- sonville continued to improve on the SES scale 4. West End 759 (Table 9). Mt. Auburn and Evanston experi- 5. Winton Hills 740 enced a fractional decline that is not statistically 6. West Price Hill 577 signifi cant. Bond Hill, College Hill, and North 7. College Hill 555 Avondale-Paddock Hills experienced decline of 8. South Cumminsville-Millvale 395 8, 12 and 12 points respectively. A review of the 9. Over-the-Rhine 371 tract level components of change in Appendix II 10. Mt. Airy 356 revealed no obvious Declines in family 11. Fay Apartments 313 pattern. Declines structure and in family structure Notably Over-the-Rhine is no longer high on this housing conditions and housing condi- list. It is also notable that much of this poverty tions seemed to be concentration is now on the West Side. seemed to be major components major components Poverty and Race of change but of change but there Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between there was great was great variety from tract to tract. poverty and race. The two types of shading variety from tract show that while the heart of Cincinnati’s Afri- to tract. Between 2000 and can American core area is also an area of high 2005-2009 there poverty, there are numerous tracts in which was virtually no there are more than the median number of Afri- change in SES score for Avondale and Evanston. can Americans but poverty rates are not above Mt. Auburn gained by 8.5 points (Table 9). Col- average. Excluding the University area (Tracts lege Hill declined for the second decade in a row 26, 27, 29, and 30 and Tract 4) poor white areas (by 9.3 points) North Avondale-Paddock Hills by are shown in the gray unstriped areas. These 9 points and Roselawn by 20 points. Kennedy tracts are heavily Appalachian. Heights’ SES score fell by 21.4, the third steep- African American Middle Class est decline among the 48 neighborhoods. The Neighborhoods biggest decline in Kennedy Heights was caused by the failure of median family income to grow After viewing the 1990 census we were able to signifi cantly compared to other neighborhoods. write that, It appears that the gains made in the 1980-90 One of the more dramatic and hopeful fi ndings decade for some of these neighborhoods have not of this report is that the neighborhoods which been sustained. Outmigration and the national have become home to the vast majority of Cin- and local economy are possible factors. cinnati’s African American middle class have reversed a long trend of declining social indicators and are either stable or improving (Table 4c and Table 9). Avondale, College Hill, Evanston, Kennedy Heights, Bond Hill, and Madisonville are beginning to stabilize after two decades of decline.” Walnut Hills and Mt. Auburn have not only reversed their pattern of decline but, as of 1990, were improving. North Avondale-Paddock Hills,

33 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 4a Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Median Family Incomes and Families Below Poverty, 2005- 2009 Neighborhood Median Family Incomea Percent of Families Below Total Families Below Poverty Level Poverty Level 1st Quartile S. Cumminsville - Millvale $15,465 56.9% 421 Fay Apartments $9,808 71.5% 371 East Price Hill $32,508 31.4% 1,201 Winton Hills $10,167 66.4% 753 Camp Washington $30,465 16.7% 35 Riverside - Sayler Park $32,250 26.9% 95 Avondale $25,854 37.5% 985 Walnut Hills $28,091 34.5% 390 Sedamsville - Riverside $25,727 38.9% 167 N. Fairmount - English Woods $32,353 27.7% 187 S. Fairmount $31,538 38.3% 249 Mt. Airy $34,949 21.3% 458 2nd Quartile Bond Hill $32,447 17.8% 281 Over-the-Rhine $10,522 61.7% 539 Linwood $44,063 9.4% 16 Winton Place $44,345 28.7% 163 Carthage $39,669 24.7% 144 Evanston $30,764 21.2% 344 West End $16,606 48.8% 839 Roselawn $41,765 23.2% 348 Lower Price Hill $20,568 48.4% 75 West Price Hill $47,347 15.7% 679 Corryville $28,400 34.8% 119 Mt. Auburn $43,438 23.7% 177 3rd Quartile Kennedy Heights $49,656 11.1% 157 University Heights $44,655 23.8% 212 Fairview - Clifton $31,187 23.9% 196 Westwood $47,048 16.1% 1,305 Northside $51,018 13.5% 228 Madisonville $54,054 11.9% 323 Evanston - E. Walnut Hills $42,083 28.7% 87 Hartwell $54,844 14.6% 158 College Hill $56,540 17.3% 704 N. Avondale - Paddock Hills $59,268 10.2% 131 CBD - Riverfront $56,613 0.0% 0

34 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati

Table 4a Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Median Family Incomes and Families Below Poverty, 2005- 2009 Neighborhood Median Family Incomea Percent of Families Below Total Families Below Poverty Level Poverty Level 4th Quartile Oakley $81,911 8.4% 173 Sayler Park $68,879 7.2% 53 East End $54,211 14.7% 51 Mt. Washington $66,195 10.2% 387 Pleasant Ridge $62,791 12.8% 301 East Walnut Hills $79,167 5.5% 38 Clifton $90,369 8.1% 137 California $156,098 0.0% 0 Mt. Adams $108,475 0.0% 0 Mt. Lookout - Columbia Tusculum $118,275 1.1% 8 Hyde Park $122,401 2.5% 75 Mt. Lookout $168,966 1.2% 12 a Median family income calculated from 16 income ranges and families per income range

35 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 4b Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Women and Poverty, 2005-2009

Within Total Families Within Families Below Poverty Level

Neighborhood Percent of Female Headed Female Headed Female Total Number Families Families as Families Below Headed Female Below Percent of Total Poverty Level Families Headed Poverty Level Families Families Below Poverty Level 1st Quartile S. Cumminsville - Millvale 56.9% 83.4% 53.4% 93.8% 395 Fay Apartments 71.5% 82.7% 60.3% 84.4% 313 East Price Hill 31.4% 44.2% 23.1% 73.6% 884

Winton Hills 66.4% 80.3% 65.3% 98.3% 740 Camp Washington 16.7% 36.2% 5.2% 31.4% 11

Riverside - Sayler Park 26.9% 39.9% 22.7% 84.2% 80

Avondale 37.5% 64.2% 32.9% 87.7% 864

Walnut Hills 34.5% 62.7% 26.3% 76.2% 297

Sedamsville - Riverside 38.9% 49.4% 24.5% 62.9% 105

N. Fairmount - English Woods 27.7% 45.1% 21.4% 77.5% 145 S. Fairmount 38.3% 47.7% 22.0% 57.4% 143 Mt. Airy 21.3% 45.5% 16.5% 77.7% 356 2nd Quartile

Bond Hill 17.8% 49.1% 14.1% 79.4% 223

Over-the-Rhine 61.7% 55.6% 42.5% 68.8% 371

Linwood 9.4% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0

Winton Place 28.7% 55.2% 22.4% 77.9% 127

Carthage 24.7% 43.6% 22.0% 88.9% 128 Evanston 21.2% 48.6% 18.6% 87.8% 302

West End 48.8% 69.5% 44.2% 90.5% 759 Roselawn 23.2% 43.3% 16.6% 71.8% 250

Lower Price Hill 48.4% 19.4% 13.5% 28.0% 21

West Price Hill 15.7% 31.2% 13.4% 85.0% 577

Corryville 34.8% 40.6% 30.1% 86.6% 103 Mt. Auburn 23.7% 38.7% 21.3% 89.8% 159

36 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati

Table 4b Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Women and Poverty, 2005-2009

Within Total Families Within Families Below Poverty Level

Kennedy Heights 11.1% 37.3% 8.7% 78.3% 123 University Heights 23.8% 21.0% 14.4% 60.4% 128 Fairview - Clifton 23.9% 41.2% 15.5% 64.8% 127 Westwood 16.1% 34.9% 10.3% 64.1% 836 Northside 13.5% 30.7% 6.1% 45.2% 103

Madisonville 11.9% 30.0% 7.9% 66.3% 214 Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 28.7% 25.4% 12.5% 43.7% 38 Hartwell 14.6% 29.4% 10.1% 69.0% 109 College Hill 17.3% 35.0% 13.7% 78.8% 555

N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 10.2% 38.3% 9.4% 91.6% 120

CBD - Riverfront 0.0% 21.0% 0.0% ---a 0

4th Quartile

Oakley 8.4% 17.2% 5.7% 67.6% 117 Sayler Park 7.2% 11.3% 3.8% 52.8% 28 East End 14.7% 45.7% 14.7% 100.0% 51 Mt. Washington 10.2% 21.1% 6.6% 65.1% 252 Pleasant Ridge 12.8% 28.0% 9.6% 75.4% 227

East Walnut Hills 5.5% 20.3% 3.2% 57.9% 22 Clifton 8.1% 17.0% 7.4% 92.0% 126 California 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% ---a 0 Mt. Adams 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% ---a 0 Mt. Lookout - Columbia 1.1% 7.9% 1.1% 100.0% 8 Tusculum Hyde Park 2.5% 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0

Mt. Lookout 1.2% 12.7% 1.2% 100.0% 12

a Neighborhood has no families below poverty level. Therefore, percent is an undeined number.

37 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 4c Neighborhood Status, 2005-2009 Neighborhood Status SES Quar le Predominant Ethnic Long Term Trend Current Condi on Composi on Avondale 1 African American After dramatic decline Beginning to in 1970s; SES index is stabilize stable. Bond Hill 2 African American After dramatic Beginning to decline, decline is stabilize (slower slowing decline) California 2 White Continued Stable improvement until 2000 Camp Washington 1 Appalachian Continued Improving Improvement since 1980 Carthage 2 Appalachian (13.2% After two decades of Declining Hispanic) improvement, trend has reversed C.B.D. – Riverfront 4 White Tract 6 declined in Mixed 1990-2000 Clifton 4 White Little change in 40 Stable years College Hill 3 White Decline in past two Declining decades and in 1970s Corryville 2 Integrated Continued pattern of Improving (Relatively large improvement except Asian population 1980s (7.9%) East End 4 White (Tract 44 Continued pattern of Improving predominantly improvement since dramatically Appalachian) 1970 East Price Hill 1 White Census Continued pattern of Declining Tracts 92, 93, 94, decline since 1970 95 predominantly Appalachian ; Relatively large Hispanic Population (7.4%) East Walnut Hills 4 White Continued pattern of Stable improvement until 2000 Evanston 2 African American Has almost reversed Stable pattern of decline Evanston-E.Walnut Hills 3 White * Signiicant Improving improvement 1980- 2000 Fairview-Clifton Heights 2 White Dramatic Declining improvement until 1990 38 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati

Table 4c Neighborhood Status, 2005-2009 Neighborhood Status SES Quar le Predominant Ethnic Long Term Trend Current Condi on Composi on Fay Apartments 1 African American Improved 1970-1980 Stable Hartwell 3 White Stable until 2000s Declining Hyde Park 4 White Stable since 1970 Stable Kennedy Heights 3 African American Had declined since Declining 1970. Improved in 1990s. Linwood 1 White No data for 1970, Improving improved 1980-1990 and 2000-2009 Lower Price Hill 2 Appalachian Declined 1970-1990 Improving Madisonville 3 African American Slight decline, 1970- Declining 1980, improvement 1980-2000, declined 2005-2009. Mt. Adams 4 White Improved Stable dramatically 1970- 2000 Mt. Airy 1 African American Dramatic decline Declining Mt. Auburn 2 African American Improved since 1980 Improving Mt. Lookout 4 White Continued Stable improvement, 1970- 1990 Mt. Lookout/Columbia 4 White Continuous pattern Improving Tusculum of improvement until 2000 Mt. Washington 4 White Dramatic decline Declining in tract 46.01, until 1990 N. Avondale-Paddock Hills 4 White* Improved 1980-1990, Declining declined since. N. Fairmount-English Woods 1 African American Declined 1970-1990, Improving (relatively large improved since Asian population (5.3%) Northside 3 White, diverse Improving since 2000 Improving Oakley 4 White Stable 1970-1980, Improving improving since Over-the-Rhine 2 African American Improved 1980-1990, Improving fell in 2000, improved 2000 to 2005-2009 Pleasant Ridge 4 White Little change since Stable 1970

39 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 4c Neighborhood Status, 2005-2009 Neighborhood Status SES Quar le Predominant Ethnic Long Term Trend Current Condi on Composi on Queensgate - Has ceased to exist as a residential neighborhood Riverside-Sayler Park 1 Appalachian Improved 1970-1980, Declining declined 1980- present Roselawn 2 African American Improved 1970-1980, Declining declined 1980- present S. Cumminsville-Millvale 1 African American Declined 1970-1980 Stable (at the bottom) Sayler Park 4 White Improved in 1980s Stable and 00s Sedamsville-Riverside 1 Predominantly Improved 1970-1980, Stable Appalachian declined 1980-2000 South Fairmount 1 White*, Tract 87 Declined 1970-2000 Improving Appalachian University Heights 3 White Improved 1970-1980, Declining declined 1980-2009 Walnut Hills 1 African American Has reversed pattern Improving of decline West End 2 African American Has stopped pattern Improving of decline West Price Hill 3 White Slight decline until Declining 2000, declining since. Westwood 3 White*, Tract 98 Continued pattern of Declining Appalachian decline Winton Hills 1 African American Has reversed pattern Improving of decline Winton Place 2 African American Continued pattern of Declining improvement until 1990, declining since. * Over 40% African American

40 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati

Table 4d Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ Race Composition and Poverty, 2005-2009 All Families African American Families White Families Neighborhood Percent of Percent of Total Families Percent of Total Families Families Families Below Below Poverty Families Below Below Poverty Below Poverty Poverty Level Level Poverty Level Level Level 1st Quartile S. Cumminsville - Millvale 56.9% 54.6% 340 56.1% 37 Fay Apartments 71.5% 70.2% 328 0.0% 0 East Price Hill 31.4% 43.9% 584 24.7% 586 Winton Hills 66.4% 70.4% 678 23.0% 26 Camp Washington 16.7% 0.0% 0 20.0% 35 Riverside - Sayler Park 26.9% 55.1% 75 9.2% 20 Avondale 37.5% 36.4% 891 30.6% 34 Walnut Hills 34.5% 37.9% 351 23.6% 39 Sedamsville - Riverside 38.9% 58.9% 73 30.8% 94 N. Fairmount - English 27.7% 37.1% 161 0.0% 0 Woods S. Fairmount 38.3% 29.0% 99 53.2% 150 Mt. Airy 21.3% 31.7% 369 7.5% 70 2nd Quartile Bond Hill 17.8% 18.5% 269 13.8% 12 Over-the-Rhine 61.7% 72.2% 518 15.8% 21 Linwood 9.4% ---a 0 9.4% 16 Winton Place 28.7% 35.0% 108 15.4% 32 Carthage 24.7% 32.3% 61 21.1% 83 Evanston 21.2% 24.8% 335 0.0% 0 West End 48.8% 57.8% 839 0.0% 0 Roselawn 23.2% 24.3% 300 18.7% 48 Lower Price Hill 48.4% 0.0% 0 56.4% 75 West Price Hill 15.7% 38.2% 259 12.0% 420 Corryville 34.8% 41.7% 73 16.3% 13 Mt. Auburn 23.7% 35.0% 159 6.3% 18

41 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 4d Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ Race Composition and Poverty, 2005-2009 All Families African American Families White Families Neighborhood Percent of Percent of Total Families Percent of Total Families Families Families Below Below Poverty Families Below Below Poverty Below Poverty Poverty Level Level Poverty Level Level Level 3rd Quartile Kennedy Heights 11.1% 14.1% 141 0.0% 0 University Heights 23.8% 49.1% 86 15.0% 74 Fairview - Clifton 23.9% 34.9% 89 11.4% 57 Westwood 16.1% 23.9% 814 9.2% 388 Northside 13.5% 20.3% 119 9.8% 105 Madisonville 11.9% 22.0% 323 0.0% 0 Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 28.7% 34.9% 61 20.3% 26 Hartwell 14.6% 25.3% 95 9.2% 63 College Hill 17.3% 25.9% 608 6.1% 96 N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 10.2% 12.6% 100 7.0% 31 CBD - Riverfront 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4th Quartile Oakley 8.4% 38.3% 51 6.5% 122 Sayler Park 7.2% ---a 0 7.3% 53 East End 14.7% 40.0% 30 7.7% 21 Mt. Washington 10.2% 30.5% 64 9.1% 323 Pleasant Ridge 12.8% 29.7% 254 2.5% 34 East Walnut Hills 5.5% 6.4% 12 5.2% 26 Clifton 8.1% 24.1% 79 1.0% 12 California 0.0% ---a 0 0.0% 0 Mt. Adams 0.0% ---a 0 0.0% 0 Mt. Lookout - Columbia 1.1% 0.0% 0 1.1% 8 Tusculum Hyde Park 2.5% 0.0% 0 2.6% 75 Mt. Lookout 1.2% ---a 0 1.2% 12

a Neighborhood has no African American families. Therefore, percent is an undeined number.

42 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Working Class African American be found by comparing Appendix II from this Neighborhoods edition and the fourth edition. Table 4d-2 As Over-the-Rhine, the West End, and Cor- Changes in SES Scores for ryville become more cosmopolitan those neigh- Working Class African American borhoods are losing some of their working class Neighborhoods and ethnic fl avor. Some of this is the result Neighborhood 2000 to of intentional community development ef- 2005-2009 forts and some is related to the incipient re- Change in newed demand for urban life style especially SES Score on the part of the young. As this happens, as Over-the-Rhine 24.6 noted above, the “inner city” continues to shift North Fairmount – English Woods 19.4 to the west and out of the Basin Area. Wal- West End 14.7 nut Hills (except for Tract 19) and Avondale are not affected by these trends in any obvi- Winton Hills 11.6 ous way and remain a largely low income, low Mt. Auburn 8.5 SES, enclave. During the past twenty years Avondale 1.4 the African American working class area has Fay Apartments 1.4 Walnut Hills 1.3 Walnut Hills (except for Tract 19) Evanston -1.4 and Avondale are not affected by South Cumminsville-Millvale -3.8 these trends in any obvious way Mt. Airy -15.7 and remain a largely low income, Among working class African American neigh- low SES, enclave. borhoods Evanston and South Cumminsville- Millvale experienced marginal decline (Table 4d-2). The decline in Mt. Airy was more sub- expanded to include tracts 100.01 and 100.02 stantial at 15.7. West End, Over-the-Rhine, in Westwood, tract 89 in South Fairmount and North Fairmount-English Woods, and Winton three of the four Mt. Airy tracts (Figure 5). Mt. Hills had gains of more than 10 points on the Airy has declined more than any neighborhood SES scale. Avondale and Fay Apartments each (60 points) since 1970, followed closely by Bond gained 1.4 points. What are the components Hill (47) and Roselawn (42). See Table 9. of change? Appendix II allows us to look at Cincinnati census tracts and see values in the Working Class White Areas fi ve SES variables over time. If we compare Among the working class white Appalachian these values to those in the Fourth Edition we areas Camp Washington, South Fairmount, can see which variables caused the change. In the East End, and Lower Price Hill saw im- Fay Apartments we fi nd that gains in educa- provements in the 2000 to 2005-2009 period. tion and occupation offset decline in income to East Price Hill continued a pattern of decline. slightly improve the SES index. Carthage, which had experienced positive In Walnut Hills income was a factor in the pos- change in the 1990s experienced a small de- itive change except in tract 37 where income cline in SES in the 2000s. Northside, which actually declined. In the West End’s tract 2 has affl uent as well as working class areas, saw income nearly doubled in the past decade. But an increase in its SES score (Table 9). Sedams- its rank on other variables fell so that its rank ville-Riverside declined insignifi cantly in the among Cincinnati’s neighborhoods remained past three decades after some improvement in at 19. The West End’s improvement in overall the 1970’s. During the 2000s, Riverside-Say- score is partly due to the dramatic changes in ler Park was at the top of the list of declining Tract 4. Again, the details of this change can neighborhoods with a 38.4 drop in SES score (Table 2g2). 43 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati b b b -100% --- b 867% 445% 31556% 304% 20% 8607% b b 1% 2% -2% --- 543% 49% 242% --- -100% --- b b b 0.7 4.5 6.7 22.9 --- 91.2 92.4 94.6 92.3 --- Percent African American African Percent Change Percent a a 44.3 60.9 71.9 84.8 65.7 37% 18% 18% -22% 48% Table 4e Table 1970-2009 African American Population, Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ 1st QuartileMillvale- Cumminsville S. ApartmentsFay East Price Hill HillsWinton 97.7Camp Washington Park - Sayler Riverside 92.2Avondale HillsWalnut --- 94.5 - RiversideSedamsville - English Fairmount N. 0.4 10.1 7.1 88.8Woods 75.2 S. Fairmount 4.4 10.5Mt. Airy 90.0 6.2 88.8 --- 2nd Quartile Bond Hill 91.2 21.4 81.9 8.1 -6% 12.4 87.8Over-the-RhineLinwood 26.6 21.7 92.3 18.0 90.4 84.8 PlaceWinton 2%Carthage 17.9 2.6 34.6 91.7 29.2 88.1 82.7 -6% 1000% 91.9 83.9 -13% 0.2 4% 4.8 18% 41.4 26.2 1% 84% 100% 104% 87.2 10.2 77.2 19.0 -1% 62.5 168% -8% 69.6 1.0 0.0 45% 24% 43.9 10% 33.0 1% 71.8 -3% 59% 0.1 11.7 87.4 -33% 63% 0.3 43.8 -3% 49.7 8543% 77.2 -1% -2% 93.3 312% 25.7 77% 0.0 54.1 85% 0.0 -5% 74.8 10% 0% 46.6 92.7 5000% 296% 0.6 0.4 51% -8% 166% -5% 224% 59.4 131% 5.8 15% 1070% -6% 26% 0.0 -4% 33% 13% 120% 31.7 1812% 7% 23% --- 7% -100% 26950% 81% -3% -1% --- 27% 81% 254% 5840% Neighborhood 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2009 1970-2009 Evanston EndWest Roselawn Price HillLower Price HillWest CorryvilleMt. Auburn Quartile3rd HeightsKennedy 94.7 97.1 0.1 92.3 6.8 0.2 94.8 0.0 23.4 90.9 55.2 0.4 73.9 93.3 58.1 88.5 1.8 56.4 52.1 86.1 72.6 75.5 2.1 52.8 81.4 7.3 50.4 80.6 73.9 4.3 76.2 65.7 -3% 49.7 8.7 73.1 -2% 76.8 17.6 244% -100% -2% 34.8 52.5 -2% 100% 141% 70.8 -3% --- -6% 425% -2% 30% -8% -6% -8% 105% -3% -6% 2% 24% 1% -14% 309% -1% 866% -17% 8717% -1% 1% -30% -28% -8% -37% -29% 22% 44 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati b b b --- -95% b b -4% 79% --- -100% --- b b --- 53% 25% -5% --- b b 2.7 2.6 4.7 --- a 4.0 6.1 7.6 7.2 --- Percent African American African Percent Change Percent a --- 5.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 -98% 400% -100% --- 74.1 67.737.6 47.7 53.0 61.3 55.4 48.0 51.8 -9% 44.4 -30% 41% 28% -22% 5% -35% -6% -14% 18% ned number. ned fi Statistics not available. Percent change is an unde Table 4e Table 1970-2009 African American Population, Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ Pleasant Ridge HillsEast Walnut CliftonCaliforniaMt. Adams - Columbia Mt. Lookout Tusculum Park 32.1Hyde 4.4Mt. Lookout a 32.9 15.9b 8.7 0.0 36.0 24.1 4.2 29.5 39.9 12.3 0.0 4.1 2.8 28.8 33.2 12.9 1.6 2.8 261% 3.7 15.2 2% 0.0 52% 1.6 18.0 3.1 9% 0.0 65% 41% 0.5 2.7 -18% -17% ---b -2% 5% -3% 1.2 655% -32% --- -10% 18% 32% -42% 18% -16% -68% 107% -12% -88% -56% -58% Neighborhood HeightsUniversity - CliftonFairview Westwood 1970NorthsideMadisonville - E. Walnut Evanston 9.2Hills 1980Hartwell 6.3College Hill 12.7 1990 - Paddock Avondale N. 10.0Hills 1.2 12.9 2000CBD - Riverfront 49.3 4.04th Quartile 10.8 2005-2009 18.2Oakley 4.5 1970-1980 56.9 1980-1990 12.4 19.7 ParkSayler 1990-2000 19.6East End 2000-2009 17.6 1970-2009 11.2 8.2 59.2Mt. Washington 20.6 15.2 13.6 38% 25.8 33.0 33.9 37.5 10.7 59% 18.8 43.4 2% 55.8 40.9 15.9 32.3 8% 275% 36.8 1.3 41% 37.6 210% 0.6 18.1 15% 0.0 291% 15.3 83% 39.9 66% 8% 54.2 1.9 28.8 2.6 4% -23% --- 47% 12.6 37.9 113% 203% 82% 30% 141% -44% 1.8 6.6 68% 38% 8.5 21% -14% 3519% 49% 69% 0.8 9.2 10.8 96% 707% -8% 13% 14% 10.0 1.1 24.6 8% 44% 59% 333% 46% -18% 384% 251% -5% 154% -33% -5% 179% 40% 27% -54% 128% 8% 33% 1562% 61% -16%

45 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 4f Hispanic Population Concentrations, 1990-2009a Persons of Hispanic Origin Increase 2000 to 2005-2009 Neighborhood 1990 2000 2005-2009 Number Percent East Price Hill 113 240 1,393 1,153 480% Westwood 227 336 1,013 677 201% West Price Hill 104 195 718 523 268% Mt. Washington 65 141 418 277 196% Mt. Airy 48 176 415 239 136% Roselawn 59 48 346 298 621% Carthage 19 41 322 281 685% Hartwell 65 81 230 149 184% N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 141 85 213 128 151% Hyde Park 111 199 205 6 3% Oakley 84 223 152 -71 -32% Pleasant Ridge 68 121 150 29 24% Evanston 39 49 148 99 202% Sayler Park 13 25 144 119 476% Clifton 133 193 139 -54 -28% S. Fairmount 34 75 117 42 56% Walnut Hills 24 71 117 46 65% Winton Place 17 53 117 64 121% College Hill 73 120 79 -41 -34% University Heights 145 141 72 -69 -49% Fairview-Clifton 126 137 60 -77 -56% Over-the-Rhine 61 172 46 -126 -73% Avondale 75 113 39 -74 -65% Lower Price Hill 6 142 21 -121 -85% West End 36 119 18 -101 -85% a Neighborhoods with Hispanic populations less than 100 (in either the 2000 Census or 2005-2009 ACS) do not appear in Table 4f.

46 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati using the 2010 census for Cincinnati census During the 2000s, Riverside-Sayler tracts is available from the authors. Park was at the top of the list of declining neighborhoods with a 38.4 Agencies concerned about newcomer Hispanics drop in SES score (Table 2g2). who may need services would want to include the West Side neighborhoods as well as the Vine Over the 40-year period, East Price Hill de- Street corridor. The growing Hispanic commu- clined from a rank of 19 to a rank of 3.5 among nity is very complex in terms of socioeconomic Cincinnati neighborhoods (Table 9). It declined status, and ability to use the English language. 9 points in the 2000s. South Fairmount has New immigrants may be subject to exploita- changed radically in racial composition and is tion because of language and immigration sta- now 49.7 percent African American. It has de- tus issues. In low-income communities such clined 6.7 SES points since 1970 but actually as Over-the-Rhine and Lower Price Hill, there gained 6.4 points in the 2000s (Table 9). Tract has been some intergroup tension, discrimina- 87 is still primarily Appalachian. Tract 98 in tion, and crime involving African Americans, West Price Hill is now considered to be primar- Appalachians, and Hispanics. Various agen- ily Appalachian. It did not decline in SES dur- cies have responded by providing interpreters ing the 2000s. The map of Appalachian neigh- and other services to newcomers. borhoods otherwise changed little in the 2000s Table 4g (Figure 6). Neighborhoods with Hispanic Hispanic Concentrations Population Increases, 2005-2009 The number of Hispanics increased from 2,386 Neighborhood Persons of Percent in 1990 to 4,230 in 2000 and 9,186 in the 2010 Hispanic Increase census. Hispanics are dispersed throughout Origin 2000 to the 48 neighborhoods and do not constitute a 2005-2009 large percentage in any one neighborhood. The Carthage 322 685% largest concentrations are shown in Table 4f. Roselawn 346 621% Because of the limitations of the American Com- East Price Hill 1,393 480% munity Survey Sayler Park 144 476% data when deal- West Price Hill 718 268% ing with small About 3,500 Evanston 148 202% populations, this Hispanics live in East Westwood 1,013 201% data is primar- Price Hill, Westwood, ily illustrative West Price Hill, and Mt. Washington 418 196% of the Hispanic Mt. Airy. Hartwell 230 184% pattern of settle- N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 213 151% ment. There is Mt. Airy 415 136% a preference for location on the West Side in Winton Place 117 121% Cincinnati. About 3,500 Hispanics live in East Walnut Hills 117 65% Price Hill, Westwood, West Price Hill, and Mt. Airy. There is a smaller concentration along S. Fairmount 117 56% the upper Vine Street corridor which includes Pleasant Ridge 150 24% Carthage and Hartwell. It is worth noting Hyde Park 213 3% that the numbers of Hispanics increased sig- What Causes Decline niﬁ cantly in some areas while declining in oth- What do the thirteen neighborhoods which ers such as the West End, Over-the-Rhine and experienced the greatest decline have in com- Lower Price Hill. We compared the numbers mon? They are all, except Winton Place and in Table 4f to the 2000 census and found that Carthage, present or former (Mt. Airy) high there were serious variations. Hispanic data status areas, SES III or IV. Eight of the thir-

47 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati teen had an increase in the percentage of Afri- Hills, Roselawn (1 of 2 tracts), Mt. Airy (1 of 2 can Americans during the decade. Three ex- tracts), and Evanston-East Walnut Hills (Fig- perienced a decrease on this variable and two ure 5). saw no change (Table 4e). Rapid racial change In African American neighborhoods, poverty can be a factor in decline because new residents rates were highest in Fay Apartments (71.5 sometimes are younger families with lower percent), Winton Hills (66.4 percent), Over- income and education and a different family the-Rhine (61.7 percent), South Cumminsville- structure than the people who had lived in Millvale (56.9 percent), West End (48.8 per- the neighborhood before. This is true regard- cent), and Avondale (37.5 percent). less of the race of the newcomers. In Kennedy Heights the higher status people leaving may These rates were higher than in 2000 except have been part of the African American upper in North Fairmount-English Woods where middle class. Shifts in the national and local the rate fell signifi cantly and in the West End economy such as the last two recessions are where it was unchanged. another factor. In the current economy, even The white neighborhoods with the highest pov- wealthy areas such as Mt. Adams have experi- erty rates were Lower Price Hill (48.4 percent), enced decline in median family income. Sedamsville-Riverside (38.9 percent), part of In the previous sub sections we have used the South Fairmount (38.3 percent), East Price 1970-2000 US censuses and the 2005-2009 Hill (31.4 percent), Riverside-Sayler Park (26.9 American Community Survey to analyze trends percent), and Carthage (24.7 percent). in Cincinnati as they affect various subgroups The neighborhoods near the University of Cin- of the population including African Americans cinnati, University Heights, Fairview-Clifton and Appalachians. We focus in on these two Heights and Corryville, had poverty rates of 23 groups because they are large components of percent or higher (Figure 5, Table 4d). the population, and, in many respects, the future of the city and metropolitan area are tied The neighborhoods with the highest numbers to their welfare. We also provide some data of poor African American families in 2005-2009 on the emerging Hispanic population. Immi- were Avondale (891), West End (839), West- gration from all sources is not a major factor wood (814), Winton Hills (678), College Hill in Cincinnati’s overall demographic picture. (608), and East Price Hill (584). As we reported During the period of this study (1970 to 2005- in the Fourth Edition poverty 2009) the percentage declined in three of the Poverty rates were four SES quartiles and remained the same in is increasingly higher than in 2000 the other (Table 2b). concentrated west of the I-75 except in North The Distribution of Poverty corridor. How- Fairmount-English Table 4d shows the percentage of families be- ever, a look at Woods where the low poverty for each neighborhood. It also re- Figure 5 con- rate fell signifi cantly veals the percent and number that are white fi rms a large and in the West or African American. Table 4e just reveals the concentration End where it was percentage of the neighborhood that was Afri- of poverty in unchanged. can American from 1970-2005-2009. The lower the Basin and SES predominantly African American census in the Walnut- tracts are as follows: Avondale (all 5 tracts), Hills-Avondale-Evanston-University of Cin- Mt. Auburn (2 of 3 tracts), South Cummins- cinnati area. On this map, the areas that are ville-Millvale, Fay Apartments, Corryville (1 of shaded but not cross-hatched are the primary 2 tracts), Over-the-Rhine (4 of 5 tracts), North concentration of white poverty. It should be Fairmount-English Woods, Evanston (2 of 3 noted that there are signifi cant numbers of tracts), Walnut Hills (3 of 5 tracts), West End poor white families in predominantly African (4 of 7 tracts), Westwood (1 of 6 tracts), Winton 48 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati American neighborhoods and that the converse diversity has become a handicap in retaining of that is also true. In 2005-2009 there were at least one corporate headquarters. The great 3,355 white families in poverty in Cincinnati. majority of our Hispanics are “language isolat- Over 2000 of these families were concentrated ed” (speak only one language) according to the in East Price Hill (586), West Price Hill (420), 2010 census (not ACS). Westwood (388), Mt. Washington (323), South The case can be made that we are an integrat- Fairmount (150), Northside (105), and Oakley ed or segregated city depending on how you (122). slice the data. Socioeconomically, we can still Summary see a lot of segregation though we can see some In 2005-2009 there were 13,772 families below encouraging signs especially in the part of the the poverty level in Cincinnati. Seventy-six per- city between the hills. Most of the poor still cent were African American. This represents a live in SES I and II (Table 2b). Fourteen of change from 1990 when there were 16,945 poor the majority African American neighborhoods families, 71% of whom were African American. are in the two lowest SES quartiles. Seven are In 1990 there were 5,052 poor white families. in SES I, 7 in SES II, and 3 in SES III, none In 2005-2009 there were 3,355, down from in SES IV. Table 4e shows that in 1970 there 3,367 in 2000. The Hispanic population con- were 24 neighborhoods with African American tinued to grow at a high rate and is beginning percentages of less than 10. In 2000 there were to be a visible population in several neighbor- 12 and in 2005-2009 there were only 9. hoods. The percent foreign born has been at 3 percent or below since 1970 but the Hispanic proportion of that number has grown. When we began this study in 1970 there were nine neighborhoods with African American majorities. By 2005-2009 there were 17. Eight of these were more than 75 percent African American. The comparable numbers for 2000 were 16 and 10. During the past decade, 21 neighborhoods actually declined in percent Af- rican American, most notably Corryville, Mt. Auburn, and Evanston-East Walnut hills (Ta- ble 4e). So we have neighborhoods changing racial composition in both directions. The biggest declines are in neighborhoods experiencing gentrifi cation. The biggest increases are in neighborhoods experiencing rapid change such as Price Hill, Westwood and Mt. Airy. The data in Table 2b show that SES I and II, the two lowest SES quartiles, are substantially less African American now than in 2000. This is also true of SES IV. SES III had a growing percentage of African Americans but the rate of this growth has declined. It is safe to say that Cincinnati is less segregated now than it was a decade ago. We are not a cosmopolitan city. Ninety-seven percent of our population was born in the United States. Our population is overwhelmingly people of European, Afri- can, and Appalachian origin. Lack of language 49 Chapter 4 | Poverty, Race and Gender in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

50 Chapter 5 Appalachian Cincinnati

Introduction in South Fairmount and Lower Price Hill are The term Appalachian is not synonymous with still mainly Appalachian but the lower half of poverty. The vast majority of Appalachians in Northside did not meet the criteria as it has in the metropolitan area are not poor, not on wel- the past. The largest concentration of Appala- fare, and are not high school dropouts. Most chians in Cincinnati includes East Price Hill, own their homes and have relatively stable one tract in West Price Hill, Lower Price Hill, families. They are a predominantly blue collar group. About 10 percent hold managerial The largest concentration of and professional jobs. In socioeconomic status Appalachians in Cincinnati white Appalachians, as a group, hold a posi- includes East Price Hill, one tract tion between non-Appalachian whites and Af- in West Price Hill, Lower Price rican Americans. In inner city Cincinnati (and Hill, Sedamsville-Riverside and probably Covington and Newport), however, Appalachians in some respects hold a socio- Riverside-Sayler Park. economic position closer to African Americans than to non-Appalachian whites. African Sedamsville-Riverside and Riverside-Sayler American Appalachians tend to blend into the Park. People of Appalachian heritage, at vari- larger African American community and so are ous stages of assimilation or non-assimilation, not identiﬁ able in the type of analysis offered now live in every section of Cincinnati and here. Other studies show them to be about its environs and are estimated to comprise as 16 percent of the Appalachian population in much as 40% of the total regional population. Cincinnati(1). All of the Appalachian areas are in SES I and Figure 6 shows the relationship of Appala- II. There are no high SES areas that would chians to poverty. Most of the tracts considered parallel Kennedy Heights and North Avondale, Appalachian are also high poverty areas. In which are high SES African-American areas. addition to the areas mentioned in Cincinnati As far as we know, higher status Appalachians there are many Appalachian sections beyond do not concentrate in ethnic enclaves. White the city limits – in Norwood, Covington, and Appalachians do not face discrimination unless Newport for example. Clermont County is an they have a Appalachian county. South Lebanon, Western noticeable As far as we know, Hamilton County and Dearborn County also accent or higher status have Appalachian concentrations for example, class identi- Appalachians do not in Harrison and West Harrison. ﬁ ers such as concentrate in ethnic living in a enclaves. In previous editions of this report, Figure 6 low income showed Appalachian enclaves on both the area, poor west and east sides. The current data (Figure clothing, or the wrong kind of car. Schooling is 6) shows Appalachians concentrated mainly still a big problem for inner city Appalachians. on the west side and heavily African Ameri- Some of the highest dropout rates and low- can (Figure 5) tracts increasing on the west est adult education levels are in Appalachian side. The Appalachian population in the East neighborhoods. See Chapter 6, Figures 7, 8, End, Oakley, and Linwood has probably de- and 9. See also the section on poverty in white clined as these neighborhoods become more working class communities in Chapter 4. upscale. Linwood is no longer on the list of Appalachian neighborhoods. Along the Mill Creek, Carthage, Camp Washington, one tract 51 Chapter 5 | Appalachian Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded from this analysis. See text for more details. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Appalachians and Areas of Poverty and Appalachians City Cincinnati 2005-2009 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 99.02 102.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville- Riverside 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills Avondale 31. Clifton 32. 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill Hill Price West 44. 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary Appalachian < 23% mean) tracts (city 23% >= Neighborhood number Legend Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. West2. End Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. 5. Mt.Adams 6. Mt.Auburn Heights - Clifton Fairview 7. Camp8.Washington Heights University 9. Corryville 10. Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 Percent below poverty 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 6

52 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 5 | Appalachian Cincinnati Defi ning Appalachian Maloney/Heller list deleted Oakley and added One of the concerns in describing Appalachian East Price Hill. For the present edition, Chris- neighborhoods in Cincinnati is the problem of topher Auffrey deleted the occupational index identifying them. In the 1960s most Cincin- from the criteria and derived a list of neigh- natians probably thought that Appalachians borhoods which met at least four of the six re- lived in Over-The-Rhine and knew little be- maining criteria. They are Camp Washington, yond that. Over the years the list expanded Carthage, East End (part), East Price Hill, to include Lower Price Hill, Northside, Camp Lower Price Hill, Riverside-Sayler Park, West Washington, East End and several other city Price Hill (part), Sedamsville-Riverside, CBD- neighborhoods. (By 1980, Over-the-Rhine was Riverfront (part) and South Fairmount (part). primarily African American.) All together ten neighborhoods are considered Appalachian (Table 5b). The authors acknowl- In The Social Areas of Cincinnati, Second Edi- edge the circular reasoning involved in using tion (1986) a set of criteria was defi ned and a these negative criteria to defi ne Appalachian formal list of Appalachian neighborhoods was neighborhoods. We can say minimally that developed. These criteria have been revised Cincinnati’s Appalachian leaders concur that for this edition and are displayed in Table 5a these are Cincinnati neighborhoods with high and include the percent below poverty, percent percentages of people of Appalachian origin. of African American population, high school dropouts, joblessness rate, occupational status Table 5b and family size. Cincinnati Neighborhoods with Appalachian Census Tracts, 2005- Table 5a 2009a Criteria for Classifying Neighborhood Appalachian Census Tracts Neighborhoods as Appalachian CBD-Riverfront 7 1. Greater than 23% of the families are below the poverty level Camp Washington 28 2. Less than 41.0% of families are African American East End 44 3. Less than 80% of the persons 25 years or older are Carthage 61 high school graduates East Price Hill 92 93 94 95 96 4. More than 7% of the persons 16-19 years old who West Price Hill 98 are not in school are not high school graduates Lower Price Hill 91 5. More than 62% of the persons 16-19 years old are Sedamsville-Riverside 103 jobless (includes those unemployed and those not in Riverside – Sayler Park 104 the civilian labor force) South Fairmount 87 6. More than 3 persons per average family a Met at least four of the six criteria for classifying census If a community met six of the seven criteria, it tracts as Appalachian (see Table 5a). was considered to have a majority of Appala- Tracts with populations of African Americans chian population. If at least four criteria were greater than 41.0% are not considered Appala- met, the neighborhood was identifi ed as hav- chian. ing a signifi cant Appalachian population, but not as long as the African American population Overall Trends, 1970, 2000, and was more than 41.0 (the city wide) percent- 2005-2009 age. Population Loss Tables 5c and 5d present neighborhood indica- Starting with a list of neighborhoods created tors from 1970, 2000 and 2005-2009. This com- from this criteria, in 1996 Fred Hoeweler up- parison allows us to make conclusions regard- dated the list using the same criteria and ap- ing Cincinnati’s Appalachian neighborhood plied them using block group data from the changes during this period. Before looking at 1990 census. The Hoeweler version of the 1986 socioeconomic indicators, we will look at the

53 Chapter 5 | Appalachian Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati population of these areas. The fi rst conclusion Poverty is that all neighborhoods except Riverside-Say- During the 1980s poverty increased dramati- ler Park and CBD-Riverfront lost population. cally in Ohio’s metropolitan centers. In Ham- This is not surprising. During the same pe- ilton County the increase was 18 percent. In riod the City of Cincinnati lost 112,314 people. inner city neighborhoods the increase was even The most severe losses in percentage terms higher than in the county as a whole. Dein- were in Lower Price Hill, the East End, South dustrialization, migration of jobs to suburbia, Fairmount, Camp Washington, and Sedams- and the shift to lower paying service jobs are ville-Riverside. These lost about half of their all believed to be factors in the increase of pov- respective populations. East Price Hill has re- erty. Poverty rates doubled in several Cincin- versed its pattern of population loss. nati Appalachian neighborhoods, increased in all of them, and tripled in East Price Hill. In Socioeconomic Status South Fairmount the poverty rate went from Between 1970 and 2005-2009, four of the ten 11.5 percent in 1970 to 28.1 percent in 2000. Appalachian neighborhoods had overall gains Poverty in Camp Washington also increased in socioeconomic status (Tables 5d and 9). In considerably from 1970 to 2000. Between the most recent period, 2005-2009, a total of 2000 and 2005-2009, the poverty rate (Table four neighborhoods had gains. Sedamsville- 5d) doubled in Carthage and Sedamsville-riv- Riverside had a decline in SES. The biggest erside, increased in East End, East Price Hill, gains were in the East End and Lower Price South Fairmount and Riverside-Sayler Park. Hill. (As noted above, we have low confi dence It declined in Camp Washington, West Price in ACS data for small neighborhoods such as Hill and Lower Price Hill. Lower Price Hill.) The other six neighborhoods experienced a decline in SES index between Components of Change 2000 and 2005-2009. The biggest losses were Analysis of the components of change in Ap- in Riverside-Sayler Park (38.4) and West Price palachian neighborhoods makes clear that a Hill (22.2). decline in family status indicator is signifi cant. This seems to be related to poverty status. The neighborhoods which experienced the greatest increases in poverty tended also to be the ones with the greatest declines in family status. The unemployment rate (Table 8a) does not Table 5c Cincinnati Appalachian Census Tract Populations, 1970-2009 Neighborhood Census Tract(s) Popula on Popula on Popula on Change Change 1970 2000 2005-2009 1970-2009 2000-2009 East End 44 3,751 1,262 1,728 -53.9% 36.9% CBD-Riverfront 7 2,290 2,639 3,253 42.1% 23.3% West Price Hill 98 3,982 2,492 2,797 -29.8% 12.2% East Price Hill 92, 93, 94, 95 20,665 17,991 18,798 -9.0% 4.5% Riverside–Sayler Park 104 1,435 1,530 1,577 9.9% 3.1% Carthage 61 3,291 2,412 2,445 -25.7% 1.4% South Fairmount 87 2,531 1,071 1,085 -57.1% 1.3% Camp Washington 28 3,117 1,611 1,422 -54.4% -11.7% Sedamsville-Riverside 103 3,922 2,144 1,774 -54.8% -17.3% Lower Price Hill 91 3,187 1,182 758 -76.2% -35.9% Note: Fairview Clifton Heights, University Heights and tract 96 in East Price Hill no longer meet the criteria 54 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 5 | Appalachian Cincinnati as clearly seem related to a decline in family status or SES. Unemployment is over 15 percent in four Appalachian neighborhoods. It is 9 percent or more in the three others. School

Analysis of the components of change in Appalachian neighborhoods makes clear that a decline in family status indicator is signiﬁ cant. dropout rates have declined in most of these neighborhoods but have remained at over 20 percent in CBD, Camp Washington, East Price Hill, West Price Hill, Lower Price Hill, and Se- damsville-Riverside (Table 5d). Summary Poverty, low education levels, and unemployment still are big factors in Cincinnati’s Appa- lachian communities. Related to this there are big changes in family structure. For example, in 1990, 82 percent of the children in the East End lived in two parent homes. By 2005-2009, this had fallen to 34.2 percent. Camp Wash- ington and Lower Price Hill have school dropout rates of over 60 percent. In neighborhoods like East Price Hill and West Price Hill there are thousands of adults with less than a high school education.

55 Chapter 5 | Appalachian Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati % % 2009 14% 20% Rates % 63% 61% 22% 14% 22% 1970 2000 2005- % 48% 40% 0% 4% 50% 34% 49% 37% 46% 58% 64% 2009 Family StatusFamily High School Dropout 7%4% 9% 27% 9% 37% 16% 28% 21% 22% 26% 8% 1970 2000 2005- 2009 Level 1970 2000 2005- 2009 1970 2000 2005- 2009 1970 2000 2005- CBD-RiverfrontCamp WashingtonEast EndCarthage 80.0East Price Hill 16.2 Price HillWest 81.0 27.8 Price HillLower 75.7 31.2Sedamsville-Riverside 37.8% 18.3 18.1% - SaylerparkRiverside 56.8 50.7South Fairmount 25.1 46.4 36.0% 79.4 6.8% 16.7% 38.0 21.0 53.0 49.0 0.0% 35.4 70.4% 75.6 77.4 31.5% 44.0% 19.2 29.0 70.4 75.0% 42.2 21.6% 54.2% 33.0 55.4 100.0% 10.4% 45.0 42.5 9% 32.0 4% 12.0% 17.3% 7.4% 8.6% 14.7% 23.0% 14% 32.9% 29.4 23.9% 6% 75.3% 17.0% 12.1% 6.2% 1 15.5% 32.1% 38.9% 79.9% 31.4% 56.0% 43.1% 3% 83.6% 35.8 48.4% 82.7% 9.4% 34.2% 18.2% 57.7% 66.7% 24 27.0% 32.8% 71.3% 84.8% 9% 11.5% 57.6% 39.2% 82.6% 33.3% 44.7% 5% 47.5% 37.6% 44.0% 7% 28.1% 5% 17.4% 7% 33.3% 7% 2% 5% 74.4% 4% 16% 39.2% 8% 36% 2% 17% 35.7% 13% 32% 9% 3% 41% 0 4% 1% 0 12 Table 5d Table Neighborhoods, 1970-2009 Cincinnati Appalachian Socioeconomic Indicators: Neighborhood Index SES Unemployment Below Poverty Families 56 Chapter 6 Education In Cincinnati

This chapter on education in Cincinnati is di- percent). Half of these were also on the top 10 vided into three sections; school dropouts, adult (12 because of ties) in 2000 but CBD, Hartwell, education, and functional illiteracy. A fourth Winton Hills, Roselawn and East Price Hill are section on education in the metropolitan area new. South Cumminsville-Millvale, Over-the- closes the chapter. Rhine, West End, Fay Apartments, Walnut Hills, and Evanston are no longer on the list. School Dropouts Research is needed to uncover why these shifts Figure 7 presents the neighborhood dropout in the map of school dropouts have occurred. rates. These rates refl ect 16-19 year olds that Some are associated with demographic shifts reported in the American Community Survey and related changes in SES, but only three of (ACS) they were not in school and had not the high dropout neighborhoods were on the graduated. list of high SES losses in Table 2-g2. Others A comparison of 2005-2009 ACS data (Table may be due to factors such as opening or clos- 6a) and 1980 data shows the 16 - 19 year old ing schools or education reform. dropout rates increased in 10 neighborhoods. The neighborhoods with the largest numbers Two of these were in SES I, four in SES II, four as opposed to percentages of dropouts were in SES III, and none in SES IV. In terms of East Price Hill (296), Westwood (180), Rose- lawn (178), and Avondale (119). The neighborhoods with the largest numbers as opposed to percentages of dropouts were East Price Hill (296), Westwood (180), Roselawn (178), and Avondale (119). race and ethnicity, the dropout rate increased in fi ve white neighborhoods and in four African American neighborhoods. The white neighborhoods are those which are now or were once on the list of Appalachian neighborhoods and some have growing Hispanic populations. In Table 6a, seventeen neighborhoods show up as having a dropout rate of zero. In 2000, there were only fi ve such neighborhoods. Because of its sample size, the American Community Survey cannot calculate a rate if the number of dropouts falls below about 20. In 2005-2009, the ten neighborhoods with the highest dropout rates (Table 6b) are Lower Price Hill (64 percent), CBD (61 percent), Camp Washington (49 percent), Linwood (46 percent), Hartwell (30 percent), North Fairmount– English Woods (26 percent), Winton Hills (24 percent), Roselawn (23 percent), Sedamsville- Riverside (22 percent), and East Price Hill (22

57 Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromanalysis.this more See textdetails. for 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 2005-2009 Cincinnati City High School Dropout School High Rates Dropout City Cincinnati 2005-2009 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 102.02 99.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville- Riverside 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills Avondale 31. 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside 35. S. CumminsvilleMillvale - 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary 0 - 16% 32% 17 - 48% 33 - 64% 49 - Neighborhood number Legend High school dropout Rates Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine 4. Adams Mt.5. Auburn Mt.6. Heights - Clifton Fairview 7. Camp8.Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills End East 15. California 16. 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 7

58 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati

Table 6a Cincinnati Neighborhoods' Drop-Out Rates, 1980 to 2005-2009 Neighborhood High School Drop-Out Rate 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 1st Quartile S. Cumminsville-Millvale 12% 62 25% 72 23.9% 70 21.4% 43 Fay Apartments 20% 36 16% 29 30.2% 73 14.7% 17 East Price Hill 32% 493 14% 176 25.7% 323 22.4% 296 Winton Hills 20% 140 26% 127 47.2% 159 23.8% 98 Camp Washington 50% 59 53% 75 34.3% 58 48.8% 40 Riverside - Sayler Park 43% 27 16% 11 26.3% 15 8.5% 14 Avondale 19% 281 14% 146 34.1% 308 13.7% 119 Walnut Hills 24% 165 14% 52 13.7% 47 10.8% 38 Sedamsville-Riverside 50% 125 25% 42 28.4% 19 21.5% 14 N. Fairmount-English Woods 37% 174 14% 54 18.2% 50 25.6% 60 S. Fairmount 47% 144 37% 83 18.9% 45 9.8% 30 Mt. Airy 10% 51 7% 26 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2nd Quartile Bond Hill 13% 97 53% 75 11.0% 69 14.6% 77 Over-the-Rhine 45% 319 31% 148 31.4% 154 11.6% 22 Linwood 37% 41 16% 48 19.1% 13 46.2% 24 Winton Place 18% 32 14% 8 11.7% 21 0.0% 0 Carthage 40% 59 28% 27 40.8% 40 0.0% 0 Evanston 11% 94 45% 74 16.4% 87 8.6% 36 West End 18% 172 28% 207 25.4% 125 4.8% 12 Roselawn 13% 33 4% 8 23.7% 75 23.5% 178 Lower Price Hill 58% 93 45% 47 57.9% 33 64.0% 16 West Price Hill 14% 195 9% 78 12.6% 112 5.2% 55 Corryville 23% 54 49% 42 23.1% 68 0.0% 0 Mt. Auburn 21% 179 31% 68 19.6% 107 4.2% 17 3rd Quartile Kennedy Heights 11% 57 5% 17 13.0% 37 16.1% 98 University Heights 1% 26 0% 5 1.1% 21 2.2% 45 Fairview - Clifton 18% 83 8% 42 14.1% 85 1.2% 9 Westwood 15% 246 19% 251 16.5% 281 14.7% 180 Northside 33% 293 26% 172 24.0% 101 12.5% 44 Madisonville 16% 133 37% 92 14.0% 91 3.9% 26 Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 6% 9 14% 16 8.3% 6 0.0% 0 Hartwell 11% 24 9% 12 0.0% 0 30.1% 56 College Hill 12% 135 12% 100 8.2% 75 10.0% 74 N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 2.0% 20 1% 8 1.9% 20 0.0% 0 CBD - Riverfront 6.0% 6 52% 97 49.4% 38 61.4% 78

59 Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 6a Cincinnati Neighborhoods' Drop-Out Rates, 1980 to 2005-2009 Neighborhood High School Drop-Out Rate 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 4th Quartile Oakley 20% 131 13% 51 20.7% 61 9.5% 21 Sayler Park 22% 63 22% 37 25.6% 46 0.0% 0 East End 36% 9 49% 67 11.1% 11 0.0% 0 Mt. Washington 20% 121 14% 60 9.6% 48 0.0% 0 Pleasant Ridge 18% 82 12% 56 2.4% 9 0.0% 0 East Walnut Hills 14% 11 28% 31 13.8% 16 0.0% 0 Clifton 16% 79 5% 18 15.1% 32 0.0% 0 California 27% 13 50% 6 28.2% 11 0.0% 0 Mt. Adams 0% 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Mt. Lookout - Columbia 15% 23 8% 13 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Tusculum Hyde Park 4% 30 3% 14 1.7% 6 0.0% 0 Mt. Lookout 9% 14 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

60 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati

Table 6b Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Education Level of Adults, 2005-2009 Neighborhood High School Drop-Out Less Than High School Func onal Illiteracy Rate Rate Diploma Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 1st Quartile S. Cumminsville - Millvale 21% 43 42% 527 14% 176 Fay Apartments 15% 17 33% 241 2% 12 East Price Hill 22% 296 35% 3871 9% 1018 Winton Hills 24% 98 32% 643 8% 163 Camp Washington 49% 40 44% 433 12% 115 Riverside - Sayler Park 8% 14 23% 218 7% 65 Avondale 14% 119 27% 2104 6% 490 Walnut Hills 11% 38 30% 1301 7% 315 Sedamsville - Riverside 22% 14 50% 625 7% 91 N. Fairmount - English Woods 26% 60 39% 668 8% 128 S. Fairmount 10% 30 27% 518 9% 177 Mt. Airy 0% 0 22% 1367 8% 468 2nd Quartile Bond Hill 15% 77 21% 1103 6% 306 Over-the-Rhine 12% 22 29% 810 2% 59 Linwood 46% 24 57% 318 7% 38 Winton Place 0% 0 21% 314 6% 91 Carthage 0% 0 23% 364 8% 120 Evanston 9% 36 18% 822 3% 161 West End 5% 12 29% 1525 4% 228 Roselawn 23% 178 24% 1711 7% 514 Lower Price Hill 64% 16 48% 214 11% 51 West Price Hill 5% 55 19% 2280 4% 431 Corryville 0% 0 9% 129 3% 37 Mt. Auburn 4% 17 22% 725 5% 178 3rd Quartile Kennedy Heights 16% 98 15% 659 2% 70 University Heights 2% 45 14% 528 2% 86 Fairview - Clifton 1% 9 13% 443 6% 204 Westwood 15% 180 18% 4719 4% 1167 Northside 13% 44 15% 931 6% 391 Madisonville 4% 26 16% 1322 3% 253 Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 0% 0 14% 187 7% 93 Hartwell 30% 56 17% 661 8% 326 College Hill 10% 74 13% 1540 3% 320 N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 0% 0 14% 511 5% 176 CBD - Riverfront 61% 78 23% 716 4% 142

61 Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 6b Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Education Level of Adults, 2005-2009 4th Quartile Oakley 10% 21 7% 728 2% 160 Sayler Park 0% 0 12% 296 7% 174 East End 0% 0 20% 227 8% 92 Mt. Washington 0% 0 12% 1290 4% 399 Pleasant Ridge 0% 0 7% 503 1% 90 East Walnut Hills 0% 0 12% 345 3% 100 Clifton 0% 0 7% 435 2% 102 California 0% 0 4% 30 0% 0 Mt. Adams 0% 0 2% 30 1% 17 Mt. Lookout-Columbia Tusculum 0% 0 5% 113 0% 0 Hyde Park 0% 0 1% 88 0% 27 Mt. Lookout 0% 0 0% 11 0% 0 The following is from the Fourth Edition. It is The debate rages about how to fi x the dropout somewhat outdated but describes some impor- problem in urban high schools. The future of tant history: cities may depend on its resolution. Educators often blame poverty or lack of parental involve- The dropout rate for Cincinnati Public Schools ment. Alternately, there are the disparities in (CPS) rose during the 1990s. In January 1996, state and local funding which allow the richest the district's dropout rate was reported as a districts to spend more than $13,500 per pupil record 54.2 percent (citation 2). In May 2003 while the poorest spend $3,500. Critics of the graduation rates had fallen to a low of 13% at schools blame school bureaucracy, teachers, one senior high school and the overall gradu- unions, or the fact that schools are too large and ation rate was 60 percent (up from 47 percent impersonal to respond to the needs of today's in 1999, the year the census was taken). Even students. Still others see the deterioration of these dismal statistics do not reveal how bad the situation can be in some neighborhoods. The 2004 report cited a 73 percent loss of CPS Low-income Appalachian and African students grades 9-12 in the Oyler attendance American areas show up in the two area (internal memo, author's fi les). quartiles with darker shading (high If the city wide dropout rate now approaches rates of non-completion). 40-50 percent, we believe that rates in some areas must be approaching 100 percent. Even in urban public schools as another manifestation 1990, an analysis of block group data(3) showed of the growing bifurcation of society between that there were 9 block groups with 100 per- an inner city abandoned by the affl uent, cor- cent dropout rates. Seven were Appalachian porations, and even churches and a suburbia areas (Over-The-Rhine tract 10, Linwood, that continues to expand and waste resources Carthage, and East End) or Appalachian pock- duplicating infrastructure which already ex- ets in white areas (Westwood). Four addition- ists in the core city. al block groups in Linwood, Camp Washington, and Northside had dropout rates of more than Adult Education 70 percent. There were 32 block groups with Figure 8 shows concentrations of adults (over dropout rates higher than 50 percent. These age 25) who have less than a high school edu- were about equally divided between Appala- cation. This map, when compared to Figure 2, chian and African American areas. illustrates a high degree of correlation between education and socioeconomic status. Low-in- 62 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 37 66 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded from this analysis. See text for more details. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Adult Education Levels Education Adult City Cincinnati 2005-2009 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 7 23 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 73 25 Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 102.02 99.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville- Riverside 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills Avondale 31. 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside 35. S. CumminsvilleMillvale - 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary 0 - 14% 28% 15 - 42% 29 - 57% 43 - Neighborhood number Legend Adults <12th grade education Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati 1. Queensgate West2. End Riverfront - CBD 3. 4. Over-the-Rhine 5. Mt. Adams 6. Mt. Auburn 7. Fairview - CliftonHeights 8. Camp Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 8

63 Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati % % 0% 5% 9.8% 14.3% 25.7% 27.7% -44.9% -16.5% Change 2005-2009 % -20.8% .8% -39.2% 1.4% -41.6% % 2.9%% 6.8% 12.5% -4.2% 7.3% -25.7% 0% 11.1% 14.0% -19.0% Rateonal Illiteracy Percent Func 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1980 to Change 1970 to 1970 to 2005-2009 2009 76.0% 70.0% 58.0% 49.8% 39.4% -36.6% 43.0% 20.0% 9.0% 7.5% -35.5%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- Table 6c Table to 2005-2009 in Education LevelsCincinnati Neighborhoods: Changes of Adults, 1970 Neighborhood Less than High School DiplomaS. Cumminsville-Millvale ApartmentsFay 83.0%East Price Hill 72.0% HillsWinton Camp Washington 59.0% Park - Sayler Riverside 50.0% 49.4%Avondale 41.0% Percent 69.0% 41.8% HillsWalnut 72.0% 85.0% 53.0% 56.0% - RiversideSedamsville 72.0% 47.0% -41.2% 72.0% 44.3% - English Fairmount N. 50.0% 44.0% 38.0% 33.0%Woods 53.0% 81.0% 33.2% 35.1% 44.0%S. Fairmount 68.0% 21.3% 18. 59.7% -16.8%Mt. Airy 35.0% 36.1% 65.0% 72.0% 22.7% 56.0% 44.4%2nd Quartile 55.0% 62.0% 16.0% 31.7% -34.0%Bond Hill -49.3% 46.4% -40.6% 46.0% 43.0% 30.0% -40.3%Over-the-Rhine 6.0% 11.0% 49.9% 51.0%Linwood 35.4% 84.0% 42.4% 14.0% 17.0% 3.7% 11.0 -31.1% 68.0% PlaceWinton 22.0% 26.6% 30.2% 9.2%Carthage 9.0% 33.0% 25.6% 33.0% 51.0% 1.7% -38.4% -41.8%Evanston 88.0% 27.0% 22.0 6.2% 9.2 11 42.2% EndWest 41.0% - 29.0% 79.0% 33.0% 20.0% 43.0%Roselawn 27.3% 19.0% 8.0% 15.0% 53.0% 66.0% Price HillLower 17.4% 31.0% -56.7% 32.0% 12.7% Price HillWest 45.1% 9.6% -9. 22.0% 26.8%Corryville 37.0% 76.0% 39.0% 28.8% 7.3% 70.0%Mt. Auburn 69.0% -11.0% 59.0% 6.2% 21.4% 22.0% 24.3% -59.2% 83.0% 54.0% 85.0% 22.0% 57.0% - 48.0% -19.6% 14.3% -22.8% 75.0% 32.0% 77.0% 21.3% 47.0% 42.0% 53.0% 48.0% 32.0% 35.6% 20.0% 5.0% 58.0% 40.0% -44.7% 70.0% 9.3% 19.0% 36.6% 56.9% 22.8% 25.0% 10.0% 4.5% 45.1% 61.0% 26.0% 62.0% 31.0% - 17.8% 8.8% 69.0% 21.7% -53.2% 43.0% 56.9% 5.2% 29.0% 13.0% 47.8% 21.2% 50.0% -51.2% 7.5% 23.7% 37.0% 2.1% 41.0% 33.0% -54.0% 18.8% -37.2% 5.0% 36.0% 5.9% 28.0% -14.5% 20.0% 26.0% 24.4% -8.3% 41.0% 53.0% -34.2% 28.0% 14.0% -14.1 6.2% 19.6% 8.5% 29.0% 20.0% 9.2% 27.0% 20.0% 22.2% 9.3% -1 25.0% 6.8% -51.8% 9.1% 8.0% 7.5% -46.8% 9.0% 3.5% 22.0% 1 -34.2% 27.0% -29.5% 6.5% 4.9% 4.3% -24.5% 14.0% 11.0% -36.7% 7.1% 3.5% 5.3% 3.5% -21.9% 2.6% 5.5% -19.4 -21. 1st Quartile 64 Table 6c Cincinnati Neighborhoods: Changes in Education Levels of Adults, 1970 to 2005-2009 Neighborhood Less than High School Diploma Percent Func onal Illiteracy Rate Percent Change Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- 1970 to 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1980 to 2009 2005-2009 2005-2009 3rd Quartile Kennedy Heights 39.0% 29.0% 23.0% 15.2% 15.4% -23.6% 10.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.6% -8.4% University Heights 49.0% 26.0% 17.0% 17.5% 13.9% -35.1% 15.0% 8.0% 5.9% 2.3% -12.7% Fairview-Clifton 72.0% 41.0% 22.0% 16.0% 12.8% -59.2% 25.0% 10.0% 3.3% 5.9% -19.1% Westwood 49.0% 37.0% 24.0% 18.9% 18.0% -31.0% 16.0% 8.0% 4.3% 4.4% -11.6% Northside 68.0% 54.0% 40.0% 25.6% 15.2% -52.8% 32.0% 13.0% 7.4% 6.4% -25.6% Madisonville 57.0% 51.0% 34.0% 20.2% 16.3% -40.7% 24.0% 10.0% 5.6% 3.1% -20.9% Evanston-E. Walnut Hills 60.0% 47.0% 34.0% 23.8% 13.8% -46.2% 26.0% 9.0% 4.9% 6.8% -19.2% Hartwell 58.0% 38.0% 31.0% 19.0% 17.0% -41.0% 22.0% 12.0% 5.9% 8.4% -13.6% College Hill 39.0% 31.0% 20.0% 17.4% 12.8% -26.2% 4.0% 6.0% 3.9% 2.7% -1.3% N. Avondale-Paddock Hills 31.0% 21.0% 15.0% 14.5% 14.0% -17.0% 8.0% 3.0% 2.6% 4.8% -3.2% CBD-Riverfront 53.0% 33.0% 23.0% 25.1% 22.7% -30.3% 19.0% 7.0% 9.3% 4.5% -14.5% 4th Quartile Oakley 58.0% 41.0% 23.0% 16.3% 6.8% -51.2% 21.0% 8.0% 4.8% 1.5% -19.5% Sayler Park 56.0% 41.0% 27.0% 19.7% 11.5% -44.5% 17.0% 7.0% 3.8% 6.8% -10.2% East End 85.0% 72.0% 65.0% 43.9% 19.8% -65.2% 45.0% 22.0% 12.6% 8.0% -37.0% Mt. Washington 33.0% 26.0% 17.0% 11.3% 11.6% -21.4% 10.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.6% -6.4% Pleasant Ridge 37.0% 27.0% 21.0% 14.5% 7.2% -29.8% 11.0% 8.0% 4.9% 1.3% -9.7% East Walnut Hills 42.0% 26.0% 21.0% 14.5% 11.6% -30.4% 14.0% 7.0% 3.3% 3.4% -10.6% Clifton 30.0% 16.0% 9.0% 9.1% 7.4% -22.6% 9.0% 4.0% 2.2% 1.7% -7.3% California 83.0% 44.0% 36.0% 12.9% 3.7% -79.3% 21.0% 10.0% 3.0% 0.0% -21.0% Mt. Adams 55.0% 19.0% 7.0% 5.6% 1.8% -53.2% 6.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% -5.0% Mt. Lookout - Columbia 15.0% 5.6% 4.7% 4.7% 12.0% 4.0% 1.2% 0.0% -12.0% Tusculum Hyde Park 28.0% 15.0% 7.0% 4.1% 0.8% -27.2% 7.0% 2.0% 1.2% 0.2% -6.8% Mt. Lookout 24.0% 9.0% 4.0% 1.8% 0.4% -23.6% 5.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% -5.0% Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 6d-1 Ten Census Tracts With the Highest Rate of Adults Without a High School Diploma, 2000-2009 Rank Predominant Ethnic Census Neighborhood Number Percent in Percent in Composi on Tract of Adults 2000 2009 Without HS Diploma 1 White Appalachian 47.02 Linwood 318 48.0% 56.9% 2 White Appalachian 103 Sedamsville-Riverside 625 46.4% 49.9% 3 White Appalachian 91 Lower Price Hill 214 62.0% 47.8% 4 White Appalachian 87 South Fairmount 348 46.7% 47.5% 5 African American 16 Over-the-Rhine 404 48.6% 45.8% 6 White Appalachian 28 Camp Washington 433 59.7% 44.4% 7 White 92 East Price Hill 1,361 34.6% 42.1% 8 African American 77 S. Cumminsville - Mill- 527 49.4% 41.8% vale 9 African American 36 Walnut Hills 332 53.1% 41.1% 10 African American 35 Walnut Hills 184 52.9% 39.7% come Appalachian and African American areas the highest rates in 1970 were Over-the-Rhine show up in the two quartiles with darker shad- (88%), East End (85%) and South Cummins- ing (high rates of non-completion). ville-Millvale (83%). Of the ten neighborhoods with the highest rate From 1990 to 2000 every neighborhood but of non-high school completion, (Table 6c) four Camp Washington saw improvement in adult were predominantly white Appalachian and education levels. From 2000 through 2005- ﬁ ve were predominantly African American. 2009, adult education levels continued to im- Eight of these neighborhoods showed improve- prove but seven neighborhoods saw an increase ment in the rate of high school completion in the percentage of adults without a high since 2000 but Linwood’s and Sedamsville- school education (education index). These were Riverside’s rates of non-completion went up Riverside-Sayler Park (to 22.7), Sedamsville- in 2005-2009. The neighborhoods with high Riverside (to 49.9), Mt. Airy (to 22.0), Linwood dropout rates should be a key target area for (to 56.9), Roselawn (to 23.7), Kennedy Heights expanded adult education programs. Beyond (to 15.4) and Mt. Washington (to 11.6). The that, all of the areas in red or dark pink on Fig- overall perspective, however, is that the edu- ure 8 are areas of very high need where from cation levels of Cincinnatians have improved 29 to 57 percent of the adult population lack a greatly since 1970. high school education. Census and ACS Survey data may be giving us Table 6b shows the percent of adults without a too benign a picture however. As we enter the high school diploma by the neighborhood and second decade of this century, the Schott Foun- SES quartile. Within SES I noncompletion dation for Public Education’s 2010 Yes We Can rates range between 22 percent for Mt. Airy to study reports a 33 percent graduation rate for 50 percent for Sedamsville-Riverside. In SES black males and a 54 percent graduation rate II the range is from 9 percent for Corryville to for white males for Cincinnati. The data is for 57 percent for Linwood. In SES III the range is the 2007-8 school year. from 13 percent in Fairview-Clifton Heights to 23 percent in CBD-Riverfront. Progress can be measured by comparing rates for the neighborhoods for 1970 and 2000 in Table 6c. Some of

66 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati

Table 6d-2 lowest rate of functional illiteracy. Those in- Ten Neighborhoods with Highest Rates terested in targeting adult education can either of Non-High School Completion, 2005- use census tract or block group data to manage 2009a data distribution in the metro area or use the Rank Neighborhood Percent in SES I area in Figure 13 as an approximation. 2005-2009 SMSA in this chapter refers to the metropoli- 1 Linwood 56.9% tan area as deﬁ ned in 1970 – the Ohio counties 2 Sedamsville-Riverside 49.9% of Hamilton, Warren and Clermont, the Ken- tucky counties of Kenton, Campbell and Boone 3 Lower Price Hill 47.8% and Dearborn County in Indiana. 4 Camp Washington 44.4% 5 S. Cumminsville-Millvale 41.8% 6 N. Fairmount-English Woods 39.4% 7 East Price Hill 35.0% 8 Fay Apartments 33.2% 9 Winton Hills 31.7% 10 Walnut Hills 30.2% a Queensgate has a high school non-completion rate of 31.1% Functional illiteracy deﬁ ned as persons with an eighth grade education or less, is also high-

Table 6e shows that adult education levels are improving in both the central city and in the SMSA, though somewhat more rapidly in the latter. est in Campbell County. Kenton County has the second highest rate. Hamilton County with 19,328 persons in this category has the second Table 6e Trends in High School Graduates and Dropouts, 1970 to 2005-2009 Area Percent High School Graduates Dropout Rates (25 Years and Older) (16 to 19 Years Old) 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 Cincinnati 50.9% 57.9% 80.7% 77.0% 82.4% 18.0% 13.8% 16.3% 8.6% SMSA 48.4% 63.3% 84.2% 83.0% 87.3% 13.1% 10.3% 9.7% 5.4%

67 Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati Functional Illiteracy ity of dropouts in the seven county region lived in Tables 6b and 6c as well as Figure 9 show the Hamilton County. distribution of functional illiteracy. Since the The same can be said regarding the distribution of census bureau provides no precise defi nition of persons over 25 without a high school diploma. The functional illiteracy an eighth grade education highest rate of non-completion was in Campbell level is commonly used as a surrogate variable. County and the second highest was in Clermont There are of course many persons with eighth County. As with dropouts the highest absolute num- grade education who can read newspapers, bers of persons without a diploma reside in Hamilton fi ll out job applications and read directions on County. medicine bottles. These are the skills lacked Functional illiteracy defi ned as persons with an by the functionally illiterate. (Unfortunately eighth grade education or less, is also highest in there are also some persons with more than Campbell County. Kenton County has the second one year of high school who lack these skills). highest rate. Hamilton County with 19,328 persons The functional illiteracy distribution is similar in this category has the second lowest rate of func- to that of dropouts and adult education. Hence tional illiteracy. Those interested in targeting adult the eighth grade cutoff is reasonably useful. education can either use census tract or block group data to manage data distribution in the metro area or From 2000 through 2005-2009, use the SES I area in Figure 13 as an approximation. adult education levels continued to SMSA in this chapter refers to the metropolitan area improve but seven neighborhoods as defi ned in 1970 – the Ohio counties of Hamilton, saw an increase in the percentage Warren and Clermont, the Kentucky counties of of adults without a high school Kenton, Campbell and Boone and Dearborn County education (education index). in Indiana. Table 6e shows that adult education levels are Note the highest rates are in South Cummins- improving in both the central city and in the ville-Millvale, Lower Price Hill, Camp Wash- SMSA, though somewhat more rapidly in the ington, and East Price Hill. latter. Table 11g shows the trend of 16-19 year Education as a Metropolitan old dropouts and those who are 25 without a high school diploma. Kenton County with 575 Concern dropouts had both the highest number of drop- One of the major reasons that education is a outs outside Hamilton County and the highest concern for the entire Cincinnati region is that rate of all the counties. Clearly the dropout regional prosperity is ultimately dependent problem is not confi ned to the city of Cincin- upon the education and the skills of the labor nati. In 2005-2009 as in other decades the ma- force. Another reason is the presumed rela- jority of dropouts in the seven county region tionship between education and the mainte- lived in Hamilton County. nance of quality of our democratic institutions and related personal quality of life. The same can be said regarding the distribution of persons over 25 without a high school Table 6e shows that adult education levels are diploma. The highest rate of non-completion improving in both the central city and in the SMSA, was in Campbell County and the second high- though somewhat more rapidly in the latter. Table est was in Clermont County. As with dropouts 11g shows the trend of 16-19 year old dropouts and the highest absolute numbers of persons with- those who are 25 without a high school diploma. out a diploma reside in Hamilton County. Kenton County with 575 dropouts had both the highest number of dropouts outside Hamilton County and the highest rate of all the counties. Clearly the dropout problem is not confi ned to the city of Cincin- nati. In 2005-2009 as in other decades the major-

68 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 37 66 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded from this analysis. See text for more details. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Functional Illiteracy Levels Functional Illiteracy City Cincinnati 2005-2009 7 23 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 73 25 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 102.02 99.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville - Riverside Sedamsville 46. 47. Riverside - Sayler Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage 28. Roselawn 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills 31. Avondale 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary 0 - 4% 5 - 8% 9 - 12% 16% 13 - Neighborhood number Legend Functionally illiterate Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. Adams Mt.5. Auburn Mt.6. Heights - Clifton Fairview 7. Camp8.Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 9

69 Chapter 6 | Education in Cincinnati Social Areas of Cincinnati

70 Chapter 7 The Elderly and Children

The elderly can be looked at as a distinct sub- decade the percent elderly increased in all four group of our population that has needs which quartiles reversing the 1980-2000 trend. So often cut across lines of race and social class. Cincinnati may be aging once again if the ACS Most elderly people in an industrial society face data are reliable with this age group. The fol- the problem of how to spend their time in a con- lowing section on poverty supports the idea structive, fulfi lling way. When poverty and its that the percentage elderly in poor neighbor- accompanying hoods might be increasing. lack of personal and neighbor- So Cincinnati may Poverty and the Elderly in 2005- hood resources be aging once again 2009 compound this if the ACS data are What we predicted for this decade did not hap- crisis, life can reliable with this age pen, at least according to the 2005-2009 ACS become diffi cult group. data. A look at Figure 10 shows more corre- indeed. In this spondence in the geographic distribution of chapter we will poverty and the elderly. There are many more consider the aged population as a specifi c tar- areas of overlap between high concentrations get group which should be taken into account of elderly and poverty than we saw on the 2000 in the planning of services. Further research is map. Table 7a shows that the number of elder- needed to identify the subgroups of this popula- ly declined in SES IV, stayed about the same in tion whose needs are the most critical(1). The SES II and rose in SES I and III. main purpose here is to detail the geographic Table 7b shows trends by neighborhood. In distribution of the population over 60 years of SES I the biggest changes were increases in age. the percent elderly in Camp Washington (11) Almost one Cincinnatian in eight is over 60. North Fairmount-English Woods (3) and Riv- During the 70s, the elderly population de- erside-Sayler Park (3). Five SES I neighbor- clined at a dramatically slower rate (9 percent) hoods had declines of 1 to 3 percent. In SES than the overall population (15 percent). This II, Carthage and Evanston saw signifi cant trend toward an aging Cincinnati population reversed during the 1980s and the numbers for There are many more areas of 1970 through 2005-2009 show the city popu- overlap between high concentrations lation declining by 24.8% and elderly popula- of elderly and poverty than we saw tion declining by 33.4 percent (Table 2d). The on the 2000 map. Table 7a shows percentage of the population that is elderly de- that the number of elderly declined clined from 16.7 to 13.1 in SES I and II, the two in SES IV, stayed about the same in lower SES quartiles, between 1970 and 2005- SES II and rose in SES I and III. 2009. In SES I only 14 percent of the population was over 60 in 2005-2009 compared to 19% in SES III (Table 2b). Almost sixty-three (62.8) increases. Lower Price Hill, Roselawn, West percent of the elderly lived in SES III and IV Price Hill, and Corryville saw a signifi cant neg- in 2005-2009. Table 7a presents the percent- ative shift on this variable. Most of the SES III age of seniors of the total population of each and IV neighborhoods saw changes of less than quartile. Comparing 1970’s and 2000’s per- 2 percent. Evanston-East Walnut Hills, Sayler centages show that the most notable change is Park, East End, Oakley and East Walnut Hills the increase in elderly percentage in SES III, became more elderly by 4 percent or more. the upper middle quartile. In the most recent Figure 7c shows these fi gures not as percent-

71 Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Social Areas of Cincinnati age points but the percentage of change. High to 15.8 in 2005-2009 (Table 2d). gainers were California, Camp Washington, The trend toward an increasingly greater pro- Sayler Park, Oakley, Mt. Adams, Carthage, Mt. portion of our population being elderly will Lookout, East End, and East Walnut Hills. continue at least in a metropolitan context. Table 7b shows trends by neighborhood. In Community services must be innovative and SES I seven of the 12 neighborhoods had a comprehensive to meet the challenges of our lower percent elderly in 2005-2009. The larg- aging population. The city as a whole needs est concentrations are in Avondale, East Price to develop a greater sensitivity to the rights, Hill, Walnut Hills, and Mt. Airy. In SES II needs, and resources of our older people in or- eight of 12 neighborhoods had lower percent elder to keep them as full members of our social derly. The largest concentrations were in West networks. They have much to contribute and Price Hill, Roselawn, Evanston, Bond Hill, and should not be perceived merely as one more West End. In SES III six neighborhoods lost in “needy group”. Community leaders can use the percent elderly in 2005-2009. Two of Cincin- data in this chapter to plot the evolving pat- nati’s largest concentrations are in this area: terns of the elderly population and their needs. Westwood (6,025) and College Hill (3,616). This The elderly are now heavily concentrated in the may indicate the presence of nursing homes in two upper SES areas perhaps leaving a dearth these neighborhoods but it also reﬂ ects overall of mentors in the inner city. population size. The Children In SES IV the The percent elderly overall percent In the past two decades, the number of children rose from 12.7 elderly has de- under 16 has declined from 82,988 in 1970 to clined but Oak- percent in 2000 to 67,164 (see Fourth Edition). Cincinnati’s chil- ley, Hyde Park, 15.8 in 2005-2009 dren (under 5) are perhaps less concentrated and Mt. Wash- (Table 2d). in poverty areas (Figure 11) than in 1990. 31.9 ington still have percent live in SES I. The largest concentra- large numbers of elderly. Oakley and Clifton tions of children and youth (under 18) in SES I had 20 percent or more elderly in 2005-2009. are in East Price Hill (6,031), Avondale (4,271), Mt. Airy (3,020), and Walnut Hills (1,477) (Ta- Is Cincinnati aging? Table 2d shows a decline ble 7e). in both number and percent elderly between 1970 and 2005-2009. But in the 2005-2009 pe- Most of the neighborhoods in SES I have per- riod the trend was reversed to show that the centages of children and youth of 25 percent or short-term trend is towards an aging city. The more. Several are in the 30-40 percent range. percent elderly rose from 12.7 percent in 2000 Several SES II neighborhoods have very high

Table 7a Trends in the Population Over 60 Years of Age, 1970-2009 Social Area Number of Persons 60 Years of Age and Older Percent of Total Over 60 Popula on Quar le

1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- 2009 2009 1st Quartile 13,346 10,432 11,082 8,043 9,543 16% 14% 17% 15% 18% 2nd Quartile 20,686 15,186 16,829 10,508 10,477 26% 21% 26% 20% 19% 3rd Quartile 15,930 19,200 18,743 16,997 18,052 20% 27% 29% 32% 34% 4th Quartile 31,075 27,212 18,674 17,323 15,741 38% 38% 29% 33% 29% Total 81,037 72,030 65,328 52,871 53,813 100% 100% 101%a 100% 100% a Error due to rounding 72 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 57.01 16 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromanalysis.this more See text fordetails. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 2005-2009 Cincinnati City 60 Years Old and Areas of of Poverty Areas Old and 60 Years City Cincinnati 2005-2009 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 102.02 99.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville - Riverside - Sedamsville 46. Park Sayler - Riverside 47. 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage 28. Roselawn 29. BondHill 30.Avondale N. Paddock - Hills Avondale 31. 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside 35. S. CumminsvilleMillvale - 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary boundary tract Census < 15% 15%tracts>= (city mean) < 23% 23%tracts>= (city mean) Neighborhood number Legend Personsoldand 60 years over Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. Adams Mt.5. Auburn Mt.6. Heights Clifton - Fairview 7. Camp8.Washington Heights University 9. 10. Corryville 11. Walnut Hills 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 Percent below poverty 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 10

73 Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Social Areas of Cincinnati on 60 Years and Older on 60 Years + 60 Years Number of Persons Change Percent 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2009 1970-2009 2005-2009 Table 7b Table to 2005-2009 1970 in Senior Population, Cincinnati Neighborhoods' Changes Neighborhood1st Quartile - MillvaleS. Cumminsville ApartmentsFay East Price Hill HillsWinton of Popula Percent 12% 13%Camp Washington 12% Park - Sayler Riverside 11%Avondale HillsWalnut 8% 8% - RiversideSedamsville 5% 17% 15% Woods - English Fairmount N. 15% 15% 6% 15% 15% 14%S. Fairmount 8% 19% 6% 9% 11% 14% 13% 11%Mt. Airy 11% 13% 8% 14% 6%2nd Quartile 10% 16% 11% -2% 8%Bond Hill 9% 20% 14% 8% 17% 24% 19% 21%Over-the-Rhine 22% 23% -12%Linwood -39% 22% -14% 11% 21% 11% -2% 19% 19% PlaceWinton 20% 1% 21%Carthage -36% -7% 19% 15% 64% 19%Evanston 16% 32% 18% 13% 18% 12% EndWest -8% 12% -32% -20% -49% 12% 20% -17%Roselawn -1% 27% -43% 13% -2% 19% 22% 25% Price HillLower 12% 14% -41% 17% 11% 242 Price HillWest 45% 20% 2% -19% 18% 7% 14% -1% -11% 22%Corryville 3% 15% --- 15% -9% 57% 3% Mt. Auburn 17% 14% -34% -10% -8% 7% 21% 22% -4% 9% 21% 8% -17% -8% 23% 12% -32% 14% 33% 2,115 -8% 2% 21% 22% 21% 12% 1% 145 17% 42% -19% 24% 23% 225 -21% -20% 13% -5% 25% 9% 13% 19% 276 21% 44% 20% 10% 34% -7% 16% 9% 22% 29% 359 25% 519 8% -25% 15% -42% 22% -5% 22% 23% 16% 5% ---- 348 17% -5% 15% 1,151 12% 14% 11% 2,296 10% 3% 14% -34% 17% 14% 9% 53% 12% 13% -43% 10% 24% -7% 10% 11% -11% -37% 15% 9% 39% -17% 12% 14% 392 -44% -37% 6% 11% -9% -16% -56% 23% -25% -16% -5% -23% -19% -18% -2% -22% 22% 1,475 -22% 43% 400 1,480 -23% -23% -37% -27% 6% ---- 3% -7% 18% -28% 8% 7% 221 -21% 59% 105 -31% -15% -19% 607 -27% -29% 1,585 -40% -48% 1,240 -17% 1,694 77 2,299 -65% -4% 187 582 74 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children -- 409 le 4 le Total le 3 Quar le 2 Quar on 60 Years and Older on 60 Years + 60 Years Number of Persons Change Percent 14% 15% 16% 19% 16% 9,543 10,477 18,052 15,741 53,813 le 1 Quar 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2009 1970-2009 2005-2009 Percentage of Population 60 of Population Percentage and Over Years Table 7b Table to 2005-2009 1970 in Senior Population, Cincinnati Neighborhoods' Changes Neighborhood Quartile 3rd HeightsKennedy HeightsUniversity - CliftonFairview Westwood of Popula Percent NorthsideMadisonville 16% Hills - E. Walnut Evanston 10% 17% 21%Hartwell 8% 19% 24%College Hill 15% 6% Hills - Paddock Avondale N. 19% 9% 7% 21% 22%CBD - Riverfront 6% 21% 22% 23%4th Quartile 18% 20% 15% 19% 21% 5%Oakley 19% 14% 20% 16% 3% 5% 17% ParkSayler 15% 18% 24% 13% 16% 17% -12%East End 16% 26% 16% -21%Mt. Washington 20% 22% 13% 35% 27% 16% 12%Pleasant Ridge 16% -24% 39% 24% 23% 10% Hills 23%East Walnut -40% 19% 23% 12% 16%Clifton -5% -5% 5% 11% 3% California 21% -27% -9% 21% 4% 11%Mt. Adams 15% -13% 22% -30% -19% 16% -10% 15%TusculumColumbia - Mt.Lookout 5% 24% 37% 22% 13% -22% 37% -3% 23% 13% ParkHyde 36% --- 24% 15% 12% 22% 22% 20% 15% -43% -24% 17% 23% 16% 19%Mt. Lookout 23% 16% -3% 11% 19% -71% -16% 9% 1,375 24% 14%City Total 6% 13% 15% 4% -51% 19% 23% 24% 444 and Over 60 Years Number of Persons 28% 20% 9% -6% 425 19% -23% 20% 13% 16% 9% 16% -19% 1% 30% -5% 7% 19% 17% -19% 431 13% 9% 42% -19% 18% 15% 12% 6,025 14% -19% 16% 14% -14% 15% -1% 1,344 -3% ---- -19% -9% 23% 4% 18% 1,794 -5% 17% 24% 4% 1,055 16% -70% 18% 21% 15% -19% 3% -37% 15% 29% 17% 18% 8% 20% 12% -14% 9% -15% 400 1,143 -3% -21% Quar 3,616 8% 17% 22% -9% 14% 48% 13% 45% 17% -7% 14% -31% -7% 34% 27% 3% 2% -1% 11% -7% 31% 32% -30% 19% 46% -8% 3,179 707 -11% 3,117 23% -- -3% 38% 1,556 69% 334 14% -19% 1,083 44% -19% -7% 0% 16% 35% 38% 1,590 -25% 199 348 -21% 2,677 542

75 Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Social Areas of Cincinnati numbers of children and youth (population er SES areas have more access to private day under 18 years of age). These are West End care, recreation, and health services, but we (2,214), West Price Hill (5,756), Bond Hill have provided data for all the neighborhoods. (1,652), Evanston (1,821), Roselawn (1,363), If one wanted to target efforts based on high numbers of very young children there are six The elderly are now heavily neighborhoods which, in 2005-2009, had over concentrated in the two upper SES 1,000 children in the 0-5 age range. The high- areas perhaps leaving a dearth of est number was in Westwood. Are there spe- mentors in the inner city. cial needs in Westwood? The neighborhood description in Chapter 10 shows Westwood to be a highly complex neighborhood which in some and Over-the-Rhine (1,386). Neighborhoods census tracts has experienced an inﬂ ux of white with high percentages or numbers of children Appalachians and African-Americans. A look and youth in SES I and II are likely to have at the Appendix III reveals that much of the de- high crime rates and have a special need for cline in social indicators has occurred in tracts youth services and programs such as day care 88 and 100.02 (in East Westwood). Neighbor- and after school programs. In SES III, West- hood leaders and planners should look further wood (8,416), College Hill (3,641), Madison- at what residents of these two tracts might be ville (2,382), Northside (1,625), and Kennedy willing to help develop for their children and Heights (1,559) have large numbers of children youth. Here we have used Westwood, a com- and youth and thus special needs for similar plex multi-SES neighborhood, as an illustra- services. In SES IV six of the 12 neighborhoods tion of how to use the various components of have more than 1,000 children and youth. this report to assess community needs. Figure 7f focuses on children under ﬁ ve years of age. There are 15 neighborhoods with less than 200 young children and 6 with over 1,000. Community leaders in neighborhoods The latter are all large neighborhoods with 3 with large number of children and or more census tracts. youths should ask themselves In terms of sheer numbers the SES I neighbor- whether their neighborhoods are hoods with the highest youth populations are responsive or hostile to the needs of East Price Hill, Avondale, and Mt. Airy. In the various demographic groups. SES II West Price Hill, West End, Bond Hill and Evanston have the highest percentage of youths (5 to 17) population. Winton Place, and Community leaders in neighborhoods with Mt. Auburn are close behind. large number of children and youths should ask themselves whether their neighborhoods In 2005-2009 there were 39,622 persons aged are responsive or hostile to the needs of the 17 and under in SES I and II, compared to various demographic groups. Are there play- 36,132 in the two higher SES quartiles (Table grounds, daycare centers and other facilities 7e). The fact that the youth population is so for children? Are there schools where children high in the lower SES quartiles suggests a need feel safe, welcome, respected and challenged to for high levels of investment in health centers, learn? Are there safe places for latchkey kids schools, and recreation facilities in inner city after school? areas.

Table 7f and Figure 11 can be used to help plan target areas for day care needs, youth recreation, and crime prevention initiatives. In this chapter, we have focused attention on SES I and SES II because children and youth in high- 76 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children

Figure 7c Neighborhoods With Largest Percentage Increase In Population 60 Years and Over, 2000-2009a

California

Camp Washington

Sayler Park

Oakley

Mt. Adams

Carthage

Mt. Lookout

East End

East Walnut Hills

Fay Apartments

Mt. Washington

Hyde Park

Evanston - E. Walnut Hills

Mt. Airy

Clifton

Pleasant Ridge

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% a Neighborhoods with percentage increases of 10% or less excluded from graph

Figure 7d Neighborhoods With Highest Numbers of Persons 60 Years and Over, 2005-2009a

Westwood College Hill Oakley Mt. Washington Hyde Park West Price Hill Avondale East Price Hill Madisonville Roselawn Clifton Evanston Pleasant Ridge Bond Hill Mt. Airy Kennedy Heights Northside West End Walnut Hills Hartwell East Walnut Hills N. Avondale - Paddock Hills

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 a Neighborhoods with populations of less than 1,000 of persons 60 years or older excluded from graph

77 Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Social Areas of Cincinnati Children Adults

2%7% 226% 1149% 13%5% 371 17%9% 155 173 17% 181 288 265 14%4% 31% 1,1068% 66% 24% 62%2% 268 255 1,0507% 360 59%9% 942 801 19% 19 973 57%7% 171 53% 22% 3,8098% 231 19% 1,384 55% 23%3% 14% 1,016 470 19% 1,797 1,0267% 18% 676 20% 276 1,794 225 320 57% 20% 19% 1,151 1802% 11% 62% 495 19% 563% 499 12% 4,087 11% 348 1,351 359 61% 2,891 53 1,538 65% 17% 132 392 1,043 45% 21% 52% 479 1,662 8% 57% 9% 1,480 11% 130 1,108 68% 3,622 13% 400 4,659 9% 258 65% 587 25% 6,647 23% 105 15% 221 84% 1,585 607 75% 17% 495 1,240 1,694 2,574 3,956 10% 11% 6% 77 582 187 11% 1,98211% 22% 1,570 4,049 19% 57% 2,701 10,652 53% 11% 2,115 7,400 16% 2,296 11% 2,061 19% 3,695 59% 11,515 12% 2,299 24%24% 73419% 456 21% 912 24% 668 27% 461 1,285 47% 45%10% 1,464 43% 990 861 2,085 8% 20% 8% 11% 242 2,030 145 519 55% 5,470 15% 1,475 Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18-59 Years >= 60 years Table 7e Table Compositions, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Neighborhoods Age - Millvale S. Cumminsville Apartments Fay East Price Hill Hills Winton Camp Washington Park - Sayler Riverside Avondale Hills Walnut - Riverside Sedamsville Woods - English Fairmount N. S. Fairmount Mt. Airy 2nd Quartile Bond Hill Over-the-Rhine Linwood Place Winton Carthage Evanston End West Roselawn Price Hill Lower Price Hill West Corryville Mt. Auburn Neighborhood1st Quartile Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 78 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Children Adults

6%3%5% 3658% 2634% 414 19% 2,8425% 6%4% 356 1,194 4%5% 15% 5706% 15% 77 4764% 5,574 273 53% 16% 334 1,0741% 1,269 16% 85% 350 13% 3,328 61% 1,8124% 15% 85% 45 65% 6,961 22,820 293 8% 22% 2,567 555 64% 683 6,6598% 2% 5,407 1,375 6% 16% 56% 5% 7,343 705 1,225 57% 61% 5%4% 5% 6,025 5% 16% 586 444 77 1,0139% 16% 9,692 12% 3,317 76% 155 425 1,344 6742% 410 13% 1,794 24% 86%6% 1,952 113 21% 6,636 21% 6%5% 67% 14% 46 1,2639% 431 3,616 1,143 3,271 190 23% 60% 12% 811 8,837 206 1,243 375 7% 64% 1,055 10% 11% 9,375 300 12% 24% 60% 63% 20% 6,046 400 141 314 20% 3,179 1,865 52% 2,173 5,491 16% 3,117 831 72% 71% 65% 1,556 673 30% 18% 58% 1,402 2,220 10,138 1,083 1,590 15% 2,369 18% 13% 17% 199 2,677 348 13% 409 542 11% 396 12% 456 58% 2,188 19% 707 13% 223 11% 189 57% 982 19% 334 Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18-59 Years >= 60 years Table 7e Table Compositions, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Neighborhoods Age Heights Kennedy Heights University - Clifton Fairview Westwood Northside Madisonville Hills Walnut Evanston-E. Hartwell College Hill Hills Avondale-Paddock N. CBD-Riverfront 4th Quartile Oakley Park Sayler East End Mt. Washington Pleasant Ridge Hills East Walnut Clifton California Mt. Adams - Columbia Tusculum Mt. Lookout Park Hyde Mt. Lookout Neighborhood Quartile 3rd Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

79 Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Social Areas of Cincinnati

46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 16 57.01 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 Less Than 5 years of Age and Areas of Areas Poverty Age Less Thanand 5 years of 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromthisanalysis. See textmore fordetails. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 25 73 Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 2 27 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 102.02 99.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Population2005-2009 of Children 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville- Riverside 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30. N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 31. Avondale 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary < 7% >= 7% (city tracts mean) < 23% 23%tracts>= (city mean) Neighborhood number Legend % Children less than 5 years old 00 Percent below poverty Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati 1. Queensgate West2. End Riverfront - CBD 3. 4. Over-the-Rhine 5. Mt. Adams 6. Mt. Auburn Fairview7. - CliftonHeights 8. Camp Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 11

80 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children

Figure 7f Neighborhoods With Greatest Number of Children Under 5, 2005-2009a

Westwood

West Price Hill

East Price Hill

Avondale

Mt. Washington

College Hill

Mt. Airy

Winton Hills

Hyde Park

S. Cumminsville - Millvale (77)

West End (2, 3.01, 3.02, 4, 8, 14, 15)

Pleasant Ridge (57.01, 57.02, 59)

Madisonville (55, 56, 108)

Oakley (52, 53, 54)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 a Neighborhoods with populations less than 500 children (under 5 years of age) excluded from graph

81 Chapter 7 | The Elderly and Children Social Areas of Cincinnati

82 Chapter 8 Unemployment And Joblessness

The data in this report allow us to track the impact of In 2005-2009, the pattern of unemployment and pov- economic changes and trends such as welfare reform erty (Figure 12) is very similar to that of the 2004 edi- (1998), the 1980s surge in poverty, the 1990s boom tion of this study. The tract mean for unemployment years, the recession of 2000 and the beginnings of the 2008 Great Recession. Table 8a shows the 2005-2009 The tract mean for unemployment in situation and Table 8b shows the 40 year picture. We 2000 was 9 percent. In 2005-2009 also show how the distribution of high unemployment it was 12 percent, higher than the and joblessness have changed over time. national average. Defi nitions The Census Bureau considers a person “employed” if in 2000 was 9 percent. In 2005-2009 it was 12 per- he or she had a job or worked even part time at a fam- cent, higher than the national average. One difference ily farm or business during the week the census was between the two decades is that the current Figure 12 taken. A person is considered “unemployed” if he or shows more areas of high unemployment outside the she (a civilian 16 years or older) did not have a job but high poverty tracts. These include Kennedy Heights had looked for a job within the past four weeks and and Roselawn, and three census tracts on the west. Re- was available for work. A frequent criticism of this cent changes in Over-the-Rhine, the West End and the defi nition of “unemployment” is that it may exclude CBD are also refl ected in Figure 12. Three tracts there the discouraged worker, the person who has simply no longer have above average poverty and several are quit actively looking for work due to past failures or no longer in the high unemployment area. current labor market conditions. The employed and the unemployed together comprise the “civilian la- Table 8a shows joblessness and unemployment for bor force.” The unemployment rate is expressed as a Cincinnati neighborhoods in 2005-2009. In SES I percent of the civilian labor force. Those classifi ed rates range from 8 percent in Riverside-Sayler Park to as “not in the civilian labor force” include inmates of 34 percent in Fay Apartments. In SES II rates range institutions, students, others under 65, and others over from 6 percent in Corryville to 37 percent in Lower 65. Presumably it is in the category “others under 65 Price Hill. In SES III University Heights, Kennedy not in the civilian labor force” where we would fi nd Heights, Madisonville, and College Hill had rates in discouraged workers. A combination of those unem- the 10 to 16 percent range. In the 48 neighborhoods, ployed and those “under 65 not in the civilian labor highest numbers of unemployed were in Westwood force” are classifi ed as jobless in Table 8a. And fi nally, (1,791), West Price Hill (902), East Price Hill (1,416), “underemployed” or “sub employed” are terms used and College Hill (896) and Avondale (827). See Table to designate those persons who may be working but 8a. who do not earn enough to support themselves and/or their families. Neighborhood Data for Cincinnati In 1970, less than half of Cincinnati’s 48 neighborhoods had equal to or less than the citywide unemployment rate of 4.7 percent. In 2000 there was about the same number below the citywide average of 9.0 percent unemployed. In 2000 there were six communities with unemployment rates double the city average compared to eleven in 1990, seven in 1980 and fi ve in 1970. African American and Appalachian neighborhoods made up all those with higher unemployment.

83 Chapter 8 | Unemployment and Joblessness Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 8a Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ Joblessness and Unemployment Rates, 2005-2009 Jobless Persons Unemployed Persons Neighborhood Percent Number Percent Number 1st Quartile S. Cumminsville - Millvale 57% 919 27% 266

Fay Apartments 71% 713 34% 181 East Price Hill 44% 5,268 17% 1,416 Winton Hills 61% 1,439 28% 391 Camp Washington 65% 656 14% 57 Riverside - Sayler Park 27% 291 8% 68 Avondale 44% 3,734 15% 827 Walnut Hills 47% 1,965 16% 440 Sedamsville - Riverside 62% 673 27% 157 N. Fairmount - English Woods 48% 966 20% 271 S. Fairmount 45% 944 16% 223 Mt. Airy 34% 2,159 10% 484 2nd Quartile Bond Hill 40% 1,906 19% 699 Over-the-Rhine 38% 1,198 12% 267 Linwood 44% 237 9% 30 Winton Place 36% 666 7% 88 Carthage 43% 564 9% 73 Evanston 46% 2,020 21% 713 West End 44% 2,271 12% 419 Roselawn 67% 4,869 12% 363 Lower Price Hill 66% 338 37% 109 West Price Hill 32% 4,103 9% 902 Corryville 39% 1,080 6% 100 Mt. Auburn 42% 1,823 10% 286

84 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 8 | Unemployment and Joblessness

Table 8a Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ Joblessness and Unemployment Rates, 2005-2009 Jobless Persons Unemployed Persons Neighborhood Percent Number Percent Number 3rd Quartile Kennedy Heights 37% 1,501 14% 432 University Heights 43% 3,142 16% 786 Fairview - Clifton 38% 2,612 8% 371 Westwood 32% 7,958 9% 1,791 Northside 30% 1,806 8% 387 Madisonville 28% 2,266 11% 763 Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 34% 394 8% 65 Hartwell 26% 915 5% 131 College Hill 30% 3,260 10% 896 N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 56% 3,904 9% 321 CBD - Riverfront 51% 1,735 3% 56 4th Quartile Oakley 15% 1,381 4% 351 Sayler Park 37% 913 7% 136 East End 28% 313 5% 42 Mt. Washington 26% 2,655 5% 469 Pleasant Ridge 24% 1,665 7% 401 East Walnut Hills 34% 838 7% 145 Clifton 24% 1,532 8% 433 California 30% 261 5% 31 Mt. Adams 19% 288 1% 7 Mt. Lookout - Columbia 17% 419 1% 15 Tusculum Hyde Park 18% 1,976 2% 195 Mt. Lookout 20% 507 1% 22

85 Chapter 8 | Unemployment and Joblessness Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 57.01 16 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 43 29 37 66 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02,* St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded from this analysis. See text for more details. 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 3 4 9 25 73 Elmwood Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 2005-2009 Cincinnati City Areas of High Unemployment and Areas of Poverty Areas Unemployment and Areas of High City Cincinnati 2005-2009 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 99.02 102.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville - Riverside - Sedamsville 46. 47. RiversideSayler - Park 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30. N. Avondale - Paddock Hills 31. Avondale 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill 44. West PriceHill 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary < 12% 12%>= tracts (city mean) < 23% 23%>= tracts (city mean) Neighborhood number Legend Unemployment rates Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati Queensgate1. End West 2. Riverfront - CBD 3. Over-the-Rhine4. 5. Mt.Adams 6. Mt.Auburn 7. Fairview - CliftonHeights Camp8.Washington Heights University 9. 10. Corryville Hills Walnut 11. 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 Percent below poverty 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 12

86 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 8 | Unemployment and Joblessness Table 8b shows the thirty year trends for job- In Chapter 12, we will discuss alternatives to lessness and unemployment. The most dra- high unemployment and joblessness. matic increases in percent unemployment were in Fay Apartments (311%), Sedamsville-River- The working climate of Cincinnati side (111%), Bond Hill (165%), Mt. Airy (149%), is worse than the statistics and Roselawn (209%). In the 2005-2009 period portray. Many of the jobs that are the percent increase was more than 50 percent available now are minimum wage in three SES I neighborhoods, 4 in SES II, 5 in positions with little or no hope of SES III, and 6 in SES IV. Between 1990 and advancement. 2000 unemployment rates went down in more than half of the 48 neighborhoods. In 2005-2009 only 13 saw their rates decline. The 1990s was Table 2b shows how the unemployment rate a period of relatively healthy national econo- varied in the four social areas over the forty my. The fi gures for the 2000s refl ect the mixed year period of this study. Between 1970 and effects of welfare reform, which might explain 2005-2009 unemployment went from 9 per- the drop in rates for some neighborhoods, and cent to 16 percent in SES I, doubled in SES II the counter effects of the 2000 and 2008 reces- and III and almost doubled in SES IV. Unem- sions. The big decreases in Over-the-Rhine ployment and joblessness continue to haunt and West End are in keeping with their rising us and are not just a problem in the inner SES index levels (Chapter 4). Some declines city. (Avondale, for example) could be a refl ection of “the discouraged worker” syndrome which causes people to quit looking for a job. As in

The ﬁ gures for the 2000s reﬂ ect the mixed effects of welfare reform, which might explain the drop in rates for some neighborhoods, and the counter effects of the 2000 and 2008 recessions. previous decades unemployment patterns in Cincinnati neighborhoods are affected by the national economy as well as local community development efforts and migration trends. The working climate of Cincinnati is worse than the statistics portray. Many of the jobs that are available now are minimum wage service positions with little or no hope of advancement. Many of the working poor are underemployed and are living below the poverty level. The implications of this trend toward more low paying service positions is that the economic situation becomes more and more critical and destabilizes families; hence poverty becomes more profound. Competition for jobs will become even keener. A growing number of jobless (discouraged workers) can be expected.

87 Chapter 8 | Unemployment and Joblessness Social Areas of Cincinnati % 1% 4% -59% 1980- 2009 8% 45% 2000- 2009 5% 190% 111% -32% 34% 73% 1990- 2000 1980- 1990 2009 1980 1990 2000 2005- 1980- 2009 2000- 2009 1990- 2000 1980- 1990 2009 58% 61% 60% 48% 6% -3% -20% -17% 20% 19% 25% 20% -3% 30% -19% 2% Joblessness Rate Change Percent Rate Unemployment Change Percent Neighborhood 1980 1990 2000 2005- 1st Quartile Table 8b Table to 2005-2009 Rates, 1980 in Joblessness and Unemployment Changes Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ S. Cumminsville-Millvale ApartmentsFay 57% 64%East Price Hill 58% HillsWinton 57%Camp Washington 13% 34% ParkRiverside-Sayler -10% 61%Avondale 54% 35% -2% 71% 34% HillsWalnut 67% 32% 34% 51% 30% 79% 0%Sedamsville-Riverside 64% 32% 44% -12% 16% - English Fairmount N. 65% 27% 29% -2% 61% 32%Woods -24% 48% 20% 56% -6% 109% 46%S. Fairmount 0% 26% 61% 27% 28% 8% 42% 7% 43%Mt. Airy 28% 62% 90% 44% 1% 23% ---- 44% -16%2nd Quartile 47% 26% 44% 29% -5% -16% -9% -3% 44%Bond Hill 47% -38% 34% 9% 18% 118% 5% 171%Over-the-Rhine 9% 6% 3% 15% 8% 37% 27% 28% 7%Linwood 14% 45% 6% ---- 9% 13% 13% 0% 19% 49% PlaceWinton 14% 31 17% 17% 17% -6% 45% 26% -18%Carthage 8% 7% 25% -15% 19% 22% 9% 66%Evanston -9% 32% 26% 6% 10% 27% 10% 66% 27% 0% EndWest 79% 15% 9% 28% 16% 34% 59% 2% 97% 29% 33% -3 -26% 17% 14%Roselawn 38% -23 48% -8% 34% 85% -4 24% 13% 13% 52% 42% Price HillLower 31% 40% 0% 23% 42% 2% 15% 16% 27% 25% Price HillWest 34% -11% ------12% 9% 36% 10% 33% 8% -34% 44% 32%Corryville 17% 30% 16% -21% 30% -4% -20% 45% 62% -42%Mt. Auburn 33% 14% 4% 19% 41% 12% -14% -19% 20% 58% 28% 57% 43% 38% 16% 64% 34% 59% 28% 4% 24% -3% 46% 1% 0% ---- 57% -9% 50% 28% 83% 24% -16% 50% 4% 23% 24% 44% -9% -12% 66% 11% 7% 15% 12% 30% 24% 10% 10% 7% 12% 10% 31% 18% -13% -6% 67% 3% 32% -11% 44% 10% -1% 81% -13% -15% 20% 7% 47% -2% 32% 8% 36% -23% ---- 6% 36% -52% 35% 33% 6% 19% -2% -24% 9% 41% 29% 9% 2% 137% 39% 21% 7% 122% 44% 15% 37% 149% 42% -17% 15% 7% 18% -33% 24% -23% 19% 40% 12% -58% 16% 176% -5% 21% 6% ---- 21% -43% 165% 13% 14% 18% 5% 13% 16% 12% 20% 4% -41% 21% 9% 2% -11% 37% 13% 4% -18% -20% -4% 5% -10% -11% -16% 8% 4% 8% -42% 3% 20% 8% 48% 12% -23% -42% 13% 69% 9% 12% 133% -1% 7% 11% -23% 43% 9 23% 10% 6% -9% 70% -37% 167% 44% 47% -9% 88% 209% -41% -13% -17% -50% -30% 88 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 8 | Unemployment and Joblessness % % 6% 5% 1980- 2009 2000- 2009 2% -22% -24% 1990- 2000 1980- 1990 2009 1980 1990 2000 2005- 1980- 2009 2000- 2009 1990- 2000 1980- 1990 2009

25% 29% 37% 56% 14% 28% 52% 124% 6% 8% 5% 9% 40% -35%34% 76% 25% 16% 60% 17% -28% -34% 8% -49% 8% 3% 3% 1% -68% 14% -77% -92% Joblessness Rate Change Percent Rate Unemployment Change Percent Neighborhood 1980 1990 2000 2005- Table 8b Table to 2005-2009 Rates, 1980 in Joblessness and Unemployment Changes Cincinnati Neighborhoods’ 3rd Quartile Kennedy HeightsKennedy 29% 26% 27% 37% -12% 4% 41% 29% 10% 7% 6% 14% -33% -17% 144% 37 University HeightsUniversity Fairview-CliftonWestwood 51%Northside 43%Madisonville 42% 36% Hills Walnut Evanston-E. 43% 31% -16% 30%Hartwell 40% 38% 33%College Hill 0% -15% 32% 0% - Paddock Avondale N. 23% 34% 37% 1% 36% -1%Hills 26% -19% 32% 33% -16% 26% 28% 32%CBD-Riverfront 28% 0% 30% 7% 28%4th Quartile ---- 7% -13% 29% 3%Oakley -7% 6% 26% -12% 15% 7% 23% -17% 11% 25% -16% ParkSayler 24% 20% 29% 5% 5% 10% 16% -1%East End 26% 0% 30% -19% -19% 7% 31% -23% ---- 8% -9%Mt. Washington -2% 61% -14% 10% 13% 9% 70%Pleasant Ridge 4% 8% 51% 12% 10% 28% 46% 9% HillsEast Walnut -30% 8% 5% 12 -11% 6% ---- 4% -20% 49% 31%Clifton 7% 25% 5% 11% 26% 6% 23% 95% 2 18% 15%California 9% 20% 8% 21% -24% -16% 17% 50% 9% 4%Mt. Adams 20% -42% 6% 37% 14% 26% 0% 50% 15% 56% 0% -16% 26% Mt. Lookout-Columbia 23% 5% 93% 21% ---- 32% -29% 7% -22% -25% 24% 22%Tusculum -14 -8% 28% -9% 9% -5% 5% 18% 6% 34% 24% 90% 85% ParkHyde -1% -14% -5% -13% -28% 167% 10% 6% -7% -35% 20%Mt. Lookout ---- -42% 39% 28% 16% 26% 40% 13% -13% 6% -16% 8% 22% 28% -15% 7% 12% 11% 3% -44% 41% 3% -17% 23% 22% 11% 73% 4% 16% 12% 3% -33% 4% 24% 10% 30% 30% 167% 12% 66% -15% -29% 3% 19% 3% 3% -80% ---- 6% 22% -11% -23% 7% -6 2% 28% 7% 17% 4% 4% 38% 6% 4% -3% 20% 17% -53% 5% -56% 8% 16% -24% 5% -22% 81% 4% 18% 5% -22% -25% 152% 20% 10% -24% -32% -40% -6% 61% 55% 3% -30% 7% -33% -9% 41% 8% -45% -21% 1% -29% 5% -70% 3% 7% 47% 2% 26% -23% 4% 5% 4% 0% 41% -30% -28% 5% -20% 65% 3% 110% 2% -19% 3% 23% 3% 16% -77% 8% 1% 1% 152% -12% 2% -84% -52% -20% 416% 1% 2% 151% -78% 1% -82% 76% 2% -46% -51% -9% 2% -22% -62% 20% -39%

89 ´ 46.03 46.01 56 17 46.02 23 Miles 55 108 58 47.02 25 20 48 53 45 19 54 22 51 57.01 16 18 47.01 15 24 57.02 44 52 59 21 50 49 110 Norwood 63 40 62.01 13 60 26 28 12 42 14 39 41 38 62.02 64 30 61 65 2005-2009 Cincinnati City SES Quartiles City Cincinnati 2005-2009 43 29 66 37 20 27 36 0.5 * Tracts 1,62.02, * St. Bernard, Norwood and Elmwood Place have been excluded fromanalysis. this See more textdetails. for 68 67 35 19 012345 13 34 21 11 5 31 12 St. Bernard 80 69 32 22 10 33 18 6 11 6 23 7 70 10 30 17 36 4 3 9 73 25 Elmwood Place 16 4 2 8 7 26 71 33 29 72 81 3.02 3.01 15 27 2 9 111 32 14 74 75 1 34 28 1 8 78 79 82.01 82.02 91 84 42 87 77 35 37 93 41 92 39 86.01 85.02 89 38 40 95 96 85.01 83 94 88 46 43 103 98 100.02 97 100.01 101 44 7 99.02 102.02 10 99.01 109 47 45 102.01 104 45. Westwood 46. Sedamsville - Riverside - Sedamsville 46. Park Sayler - Riverside 47. 48. Sayler Park 105 23. Madisonville 24. PleasantRidge 25. Kennedy Heights 26. Hartwell 27. Carthage Roselawn 28. 29. BondHill 30. N. Avondale - Paddock Hills Avondale 31. 32. Clifton 33. WintonPlace 34. Northside Millvale - Cumminsville S. 35. 36. WintonHills 37. College Hill 38.Airy Mt. 39. FayApartments 40. N. Fairmount- English Woods 41. S. Fairmount 42. LowerPrice Hill 43. East Price Hill Hill Price West 44. 48 106 NA* Neighborhood boundary Census tract boundary SES I SES II SES III SES IV Neighborhood number Legend SES Quartiles Cincinnati Neighborhood Approximation Neighborhood Cincinnati 1. Queensgate West2. End Riverfront - CBD 3. 4. Over-the-Rhine 5. Mt. Adams 6. Mt. Auburn 7. Fairview - CliftonHeights 8. Camp Washington University9. Heights 10. Corryville 11. Walnut Hills 12. Evanston 13. Evanston - E. Walnut Hills 14. E. Walnut Hills 15. East End 16. California 17. Mt. Washington 18. Mt. LookoutColumbia - Tus. 19. Mt. Lookout 20. Linwood 21. HydePark 22. Oakley 00 00.00 Census 00.00 tract number Figure 2

90 Chapter 9 The Neighborhoods: 1970 to 2005-2009 Comparisons

Previous sections of this report have been con- median of medians rather than the mean of cerned with establishing the broad pattern of medians for the tracts. For single tract neigh- the distribution of social indicators in the city. borhoods, the values in Appendix II are closer The authors feel that the concept of socioeco- to the ACS estimates and are used in this chap- nomic status, especially when it is supple- ter for single tract neighborhoods. mented with the other kinds of data available, is a valuable social indicator for needs assess- 1 Queensgate ment purposes. The map of the four social ar- During the 1980s, Queensgate ceased to be a eas (Figure 2) shows the broad pattern of the residential neighborhood. In 2010 the Census city’s socioeconomic structure. Bureau merged Tract 1 with Tract 91 (Lower Price Hill). In the fi rst edition of this study (1974) care was taken to point out the limitations of “ecological 2 The West End. SES II analysis” - the utilization of statistics aggregat- In 1970, the West End ranked 8th (from the ed at the census tract, neighborhood, or social bottom) on the SES Index. In 1980 it fell to 5th. area level. It was pointed out that this type Since then its score has gradually improved. It of analysis is subject to the “ecological fallacy”, currently ranks 19th and is fi rmly in SES II the attribution of statistical averages to all the overall. Three tracts are still in SES I; two are diverse individuals in a given geographic unit. in SES II. Tract 14 is in SES IV and Tract 4 In the 1970 Neighborhood Descriptions, there- is in SES III. Amid this new diversity poverty fore, the reader was informed about the relative and unemployment persist in the neighbor- diversity or homogeneity of each neighborhood. hood’s midsection (Figure 2). There are 2,271 This exercise will not be repeated here. The jobless persons and the 2005-2009 unemploy- reader is hereby referred to the fi rst edition for ment rate was 12 percent. that discussion. The focus of the following nar- Tract 2 has the second lowest SES score among rative will be to outline changes in the neigh- Cincinnati Tracts. Thirty four percent of its borhoods that have occurred since 1970, and adults have less than a high school education. especially the 2000 to 2005-2009 period. Both Only 2.6 percent of its children under 18 are Appendix II and III, as well as Table 9 have in two parent homes. Tracts 3.01, 3.02, and been used for the neighborhood descriptions. 15 are also among the city’s ten poorest census Small changes in 1970 to 1980 SES index and tracts. SES rank for a tract or neighborhood may be ac- 3 CBD Riverfront. SES III cidental. These accidental changes are caused In 2005-2009 numbers refl ect new upscale by the fact that tracts and neighborhoods were housing in Tract 6 and some lower income added and deleted. Example: Linwood was a housing in Tract 7. Tract 6 became SES IV new tract and neighborhood in 1980. Its in- and Tract 7 fell to SES III, reversing their pre- sertion on the list of tracts and neighborhoods vious positions in the quartile chart. The good caused all tracts and neighborhoods with a news is that the CBD is again developing as higher SES index to have a slightly higher SES a residential community and it is at the very index. Gains or losses of less than six points top of SES III. The area ranked 28 among the should not be regarded as signifi cant. neighborhoods in 1970, fell to 24 in 1980, rose The reader may note that for neighborhoods to 41 in 1990 and now holds the rank of 35. consisting of a single census tract, there is a This means there are 12 neighborhoods with small divergence between the values in Table higher SES scores (Table 9). The population is 4a and Appendix II. In Table 4a we use the now 3,793 up from 3,149 in 2000.

91 Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons Social Areas of Cincinnati a .5 27.8 26.0 1970 - 2009 4 -37.8 8.4 -17.0 3.8 -15.8 -5.5 15.1 -2.4 7.9 2000 - 2009 1990 - 2000 6 1.2 19.4 13.3 9.8 -2.6 6.0 --- 1980 – 1990 a 1970 - 1980 2009 27.8 37.6 35.0 41.0 --- a 34.7 33.4 47.5 46.9 55.4 -1.3 14.1 -0.6 8.5 20.7 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- Mt. Auburn 2009 SES RankSES Neighborhood Index SES Index in SES Change 19 5 13 4 12 14 15 Over-the-Rhine Linwood 21.6 9.2 --- 18.8 15.6 40.2 -12.4 9.6 -3.2 24.6 18.6 13 2 128 2 25 Apartments Fay 31 6 Park - Sayler Riverside 26.3 34.4 49.0 71.6 14 69.8 15 70.4 16.4 32.0 22.6 8.1 -20.4 -1.8 0.6 1 -3 1.4 -9.9 a a a a 5 14 12 13 9 - Riverside Sedamsville 25.1 39.0 35.8 35.4 33.0 13.9 -3.2 -0.4 91 7 3 7 8 5 74 3.5 Hills Winton 4 5 Camp Washington 3 2.5 10 Woods - English Fairmount N. 16.2 32.4 21.5 17.2 19.0 17.8 26.4 22.2 14.2 27.2 17.4 15.4 31.2 29.0 34.8 -13.4 1 -3.7 3.2 -3. 9.2 -4.8 11.6 0.8 -3.4 4.0 15.0 8 53 6 6 8 4 19 End West 6 21 Price Hill Lower 27.8 21.0 18.3 18.6 19.8 15.6 28.5 19.2 43.2 45.0 -9.5 -2.4 1.5 -3 8.7 3.6 14.7 25.8 15.4 24.0 7 2 1 2.5 1 - Millvale S. Cumminsville 27.4 11.2 13.2 15.4 11.6 -16.2 2 2.2 - 1710 11 11 8 14 10 11 7 Avondale 8 Hills Walnut 52.8 34.6 32.4 23.8 31.3 37.9 31.0 31.5 32.4 32.8 -20.4 -10.8 -1.1 14.1 -0.3 -6.4 1.4 1.3 -20.4 -1.8 19 20 15 14 3.5 East Price Hill 56.8 47.6 41.8 38.0 29.0 -9.2 -5.8 -3.8 -9.0 - 1338 1632 38 11 25 29 9 20 23 11 19 S. Fairmount 12 Mt. Airy 13 Bond Hill 42.5 40.2 99.3 34.6 87.1 85.6 29.4 58.3 72.6 35.8 55.2 54.9 47.2 -2.3 39.2 39.5 -5.6 -13.7 -28.8 -5.2 -13 -3.1 6.4 -17.7 -15.7 -6.7 -8 -60.1 -7.7 -47.6 2612 3436 26 28 31.5 37 25 31.5 24 26 28 Heights University 27 - Clifton Fairview 28 Westwood 76.0 42.2 78.7 59.1 75.7 80.3 63.7 94.3 62.8 56.5 85.1 57.3 80.3 2.7 16.9 68.3 21.2 -3 58.3 -17.5 -12 -9.2 -7.2 -4.8 -19 -12 -10.0 -36.0 1411 21 12 21 17 16 18 23 Corryville 24 43.3 50.6 55.3 43.9 54.5 7.3 4.7 -11.4 10.6 11.2 1516 2218 15 24 17 18 2130 16 22 41 16 Place Winton 1527 17 27 Carthage 33 18 Evanston 26 34 20 Roselawn 32 22 Price Hill West 48.1 53.2 50.7 62.6 53.4 39.8 52.6 40.3 47.8 41.8 86.1 45.1 79.4 53.0 89.8 5.1 43.7 78.5 42.2 74.7 77.0 42.3 9.4 -10.9 64.3 -13.1 75.6 -10 44.1 -10.8 8 53.4 4.8 -6.3 3.7 5.2 -1.4 -0.9 -10.8 -15.1 -1.4 -1.5 -10.4 -8.5 -11.1 -20.2 -1.4 -42.0 -22.2 ------34.5 30 26 34 25 Heights Kennedy 93.4 72.8 72.4 77.0 55.6 -20.6 -0.4 4.6 -21. 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- Table 9 Table to 2005-2009 Cincinnati Neighborhoods, Overall SES Index 1970 Changes, 92 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons a a 8 6 --- 1.4 34.3 25.2 1970 - 2009 a 3 -4.3 --- 2000 - 2009 a --- 1990 - 2000 a 2 -12.2 -9.0 -31.4 --- 13.1 9.4 -3.2 ---a 11.2 2.2 -6.4 --- 1980 – 1990 a a a --- 1970 - 1980 a --- 2009 a --- a --- a 46.3 59.4 68.8 65.6 --- 91.2 102.4 104.6 98.2 --- a a --- 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- Queensgate 25.8 --- Tusculum a --- 2009 a --- a --- SES RankSES Neighborhood Index SES Index in SES Change a 39 42 37 34 Hills - Paddock Avondale N. 106.4 87.0 96.2 84.0 75.0 -19.4 9. 18 22 29 31 Hills - E. Walnut Evanston --- 42 45 43 45 - Columbia Mt. Lookout Data not available a a 6 --- 2 10 9 17 38 East End 18.3 28.5 29.2 46.4 77.4 10.2 0.7 17.2 31.0 59.1 3339 32 36 39 36 35 32.5 33 Hartwell 32.5 College Hill 100.7 89.2 82.0 75.8 87.5 89.9 75.7 78.0 66.4 66.4 -18.7 -13.4 14.1 5.5 -11.9 -11.8 -11.6 -9.3 -22. - 42 4029 47 46 46 47 46 47 46 Park Hyde 47 Mt. Lookout 102.3 106.9 85.5 111.9 101.7 110.1 118.2 112.2 101.2 102.6 4.6 16.2 16.5 5 -1.8 -6 -8.9 -9.6 -1.1 17.1 2824 2425 29 41 27 35 3643 33 3937 45 35 CBD - Riverfront 2731 40 36 40 Oakley 35 37 39 Park Sayler 41 38 38 39 Mt. Washington 42 40 Pleasant Ridge 80.0 41 Hills East Walnut 56.2 95.8 74.7 81.0 73.7 107.6 71.1 75.7 72.3 98.9 95.1 80.5 86.2 -23.8 82.1 95.2 89.3 78.9 53.2 39.6 85.6 93.9 89.9 -14.8 87.8 76.5 76.3 82.4 -5. 84.7 95.6 -3.6 -1.4 -8.7 84.5 84.8 9.4 -3.7 9.8 -5.8 -7.3 -27.3 -1.3 3.5 23.3 0.6 -11.5 8.9 -9.3 - 1.8 -5.2 7.8 2.6 -0.2 -10.8 -10. - 2221 31 44 30 43 43 45 43 California 44 Mt. Adams 62.2 60.1 75.2 98.4 78.8 100.5 106.4 109.9 91.6 94.7 38.3 13 2.1 3.6 27.6 9.4 -14.8 -15.2 29.4 34.6 2023 19 23 19 23 20 30 29 Northside 30 Madisonville 58.9 64.0 46.9 53.7 52.8 60.1 48.8 69.9 61.2 62.3 -10.3 -12 6.4 5.9 9.8 -4 -7.6 12.4 -1.7 2.3 a ------41, 34.5 43 44 40 42 Clifton 93.4 93.3 102.1 90.8 87.7 -0.1 8.8 -11.3 -3.1 -5.7 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005- Table 9 Table to 2005-2009 Cincinnati Neighborhoods, Overall SES Index 1970 Changes, ---

93 Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons Social Areas of Cincinnati 4 Over-The-Rhine. SES II working class and student district. Many of its Across Central Parkway from the CBD, Over- homes have excellent city views. It is clearly the-Rhine changed dramatically. The area be- becoming more upscale over time. tween Vine Street and Reading Road (Tracts 8 Camp Washington. SES I 10 and 11) and below Liberty are now SES In 1970 Camp Washington had the lowest SES III. As late as 2000 Over-the-Rhine ranked of any Cincinnati neighborhood. By then, it 4th from the bottom on the SES Index. It now had ceased to be Italian and German and had ranks 14th. The other three tracts (Table 2a) become primarily Appalachian. In 2005-2009 still look very much like inner city neighbor- it has the fi fth lowest SES Index. The pover- hoods with high poverty rates and Education ty rate at 16.7 percent is low for an inner city Indicators. In Tract 9 the Education Indicator neighborhood. Fifty four percent of children is 37.7 and the Family Structure Indicator is so under 18 live in two parent families. This is a low it registers as zero (Appendix II). stable working class neighborhood with some 5 Mount Adams. SES IV racial and ethnic diversity. It is located in the In 1970 Mt. Adams was a working class neigh- industrial valley along the Mill Creek. Be- borhood in SES II. By 1980 the area had been cause of its location between the creek and the completely transformed. New housing was expressway access to other areas is restricted added and older housing upgraded to produce somewhat but Spring Grove Avenue is a major a neighborhood that includes many artists traffi c artery through the industrial valley. and professionals and few children. In 2000 9 University Heights. SES III we wrote that Mt. Adams’ SES score had risen University Heights had little change in SES in more than any neighborhood. In the 2005-2009 the 70s and 80s and declined during the 90s. period there was a noticeable decline in the SES A drop in the family status indicator account- Index, perhaps the result of two recessions and ed for much of that decline. Tract 29 declined their effect on income. Mt. Adams ranks 44th from SES III in 2000 to SES II in 2005-2009. (3rd from the top) on the SES Index. Tract 30 which includes Fraternity Row along 6 Mount Auburn. SES II Clifton Avenue remains SES III. The racial With data from the 1990 census we were able composition is stable. The percent African to report that Mt. Auburn had reversed its pat- American was 18.2 percent in 2000 and 19.6 in tern of decline which had held since 1970. This 2005-2009. As in previous decades, overcrowd- trend continued in the 2005-2009 period. The ing and a low family status index (in Tract 29) Liberty Hill area (Tract 18) rose to SES IV and help lower the overall SES Index. Tract 23 rose from SES I to SES II. The poverty 10 Corryville. SES II rate fell from 26 percent to 24 percent and the Corryville historically has been a working class percent female headed families fell from 50 to to middle class neighborhood adjacent to UC 21.3 percent. After remaining steady at about and the medical centers. In 1970 it was 55 per- 73 for 30 years the percent African American cent African American. By 2005-2009 this had fell to 52.5. Mt. Auburn is at the top of SES II dropped to 34.8 percent. Tract 32 abuts the and should be in SES III by 2020. hospital area along Martin Luther King Av- 7 Fairview-Clifton Heights. enue and has some new market rate housing. SES III College students do not usually have high in- At the time of the 1970 Census all three tracts comes and this affects SES levels in the whole in this neighborhood were in SES II. They all of Uptown. On the other hand, the steady de- gained in SES score in the 1970-1990 period mand for housing for university and medical and then Tracts 25 and 26 declined some in the people is a stabilizing factor. With 119 families 1990s. Currently Tract 26 is SES II and Tracts below the poverty line Corryville has a poverty 25 and 27 are SES III. Fairview is a close-in rate of 34.8 percent. The SES Index was 43.3 high density neighborhood which has been a in 1970 and is at 54.5 in 2005-2009. 94 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons 11 Walnut Hills. SES I 13 Evanston - East Walnut The SES Index for Walnut Hills was 34.6 in Hills. SES III 1970. After rising to 37.9 in 1990 it has been This statistical neighborhood fi rst appeared in static at around 32 since. Progress in one tract the second edition of this report (1986). Its sin- is offset by decline in another. The poverty rate gle census tract had by 2000 risen by 22 SES in 2005-2009 was 34.5, the eighth highest in points and was in SES III. Its percent African the city. The Education Index continued to im- American declined from 74 percent in 1970 to prove and was down to 30.2. The dropout rate 48 percent in 2005-2009. Its SES Index is now was only 11 percent compared to 23 percent in 65.6. Its unemployment rate is 8%, about av- Roselawn and 14 percent in Avondale. Tract erage for SES III. Median family income is a 19 improved in SES Index in the 80s, declined modest $41,042 compared to $49,625 in Ken- in the 90s and recovered some in the past de- nedy Heights and $81,911 in Oakley. This cade to 72.0. This tract is now near the top of neighborhood is in a transition zone with SES SES III. The other tracts have not seen similar I areas on two sides and SES IV on the other rises in SES (Appendix II). The SES score for two sides. Tract 35 has fallen to 19 compared to 30.4 in the Over-the-Rhine’s poorest tract (9). Walnut 14 East Walnut Hills. SES IV Hills (except for Tract 19) and Avondale seem East Walnut Hills SES score fell by 10.8 points to be enduring pockets of poverty on Cincin- in the 2000 to 2005-2009 period. Overall, the nati’s near east side. Community development neighborhood has been stable since 1970. Only efforts need to include education and access to six neighborhoods rank above it on the SES jobs with good pay and benefi ts. There are al- Index. Its unemployment rate of 7 percent is most 1,500 children and youth in this neighbor- higher than in most other SES IV areas. Me- hood so child development and youth opportu- dian family income rose 2000 to 2005-2009 and nities are also crucial. A look at Table 9 shows its census tracts still rank 100 and 102 among that a turnaround for Walnut Hills is needed. the tracts on this variable. Its neighborhood rank has declined from 14 in 15 East End. SES IV 1990 to 8 in 2005-2009. In 2005-2009 the trend toward improvement 12 Evanston. SES II continued and the East End is now overall in In 2000 we wrote that Evanston seemed stuck. SES IV. Tract 43 now is at 103 on the SES This still seems to be true. The SES Index is Index. In Median Family Income ($223,333) it stable at around 43. Tracts 38 and 40 are in is only outranked by Tract 14 in the West End SES II and III respectively. Tract 39 dropped ($250,001). Tract 44 is still in SES II. Its Edu- to SES I in 2000 and remained there in 2005- cation Indicator is 27 and its Family Structure 2009. Its SES score of 34 is near to that of Indicator is 33.7. It ranks 55 in SES among the Tract 17 in Over-the-Rhine. Evanston is 81 city’s 115 tracts. Part of the East End remains percent African American compared to 89 per- a working class neighborhood. After falling to cent in 2000. The poverty rate is 21 percent. 8.5 in 1990 the percent African American in The dropout rate is 9 percent and 822 adults the East End rose to 10.8 percent in 2000 and lack a high school education. That is one out to 24.6 in 2005-2009. A look at Figure 2 illus- of fi ve, but the number is down from 1,777 in trates the trend for the entire eastern river- 2000. The unemployment rate for Evanston is front to become SES IV. (The East End’s Tract one of the city’s highest at 21 percent. The pro- 44 remains SES II as does Tract 47.02 which is gram recommendations are similar to those for Linwood.) Much of Tract 44 is industrial/com- Walnut Hills. Area planning needs to include mercial or in the fl ood plain. The new school Walnut Hills and Avondale. Evanston shares there had to be built on stilts. some of their community development needs.

95 Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons Social Areas of Cincinnati 16 California. SES IV 19 Mt. Lookout. SES IV California, on the southeastern rim of the city Since the boundary changes that created Lin- below Mt. Washington and along the Ohio wood and Mt. Lookout - Columbia Tusculum as River moved from SES II in 1970 to the mid- separate statistical neighborhoods, Mt. Look- dle of SES III in 1980. It held this position in out (tract 48) has been at the top of the heap 1990 and moved up to SES IV in 2000. Only among Cincinnati neighborhoods. Its SES Mt. Adams, Mt. Lookout-Columbia Tusculum, score of 102.6 is marginally higher than the Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout have a higher SES Hyde Park census tracts. Its median family Index. Median family income is $150,658 and income at $166,087 is exceeded only by East 96 percent of the children live in two parent End’s Tract 43 and West End’s Tract 14. homes. The percent elderly is 15 percent. It was 16 percent in 1970. The unemployment 20 Linwood. SES II rate is 5 percent. Linwood is a working class heavily Appala- chian neighborhood at the foot of Mt. Lookout 17 Mt. Washington. SES IV and adjacent to the East End and Columbia- In 1970 Mt. Washington ranked 43rd among Tusculum. Its social indicators are improving the neighborhoods. By 2005-2009 its rank had and in the past decade it moved from the top declined to 39. The neighborhood was 100 per- of SES I to the lower part of SES II. Its pov- cent white or other in 1970 and the percent Af- erty rate fell from 20 to 9.4 percent. Its median rican American stands now at 4.7. Although family income of $42,031 is one of the highest it has absorbed some of the displaced Appala- in SES II. The dropout rate is 46 percent and chians from the East End its unemployment the Education Indicator is 56.9. The percent rate is only 5 percent. The Family Structure elderly is 13 percent, down from 22 percent in Indicator ranges from 39.5 in Tract 46.01 to 1990. 82.3 in 46.03. The poverty rate is 10.2. The percent elderly has increased to 20 percent. 21 Hyde Park. SES IV There are 3,117 people over 60 in this neigh- Hyde Park’s social indicators changed little borhood. Median family income is in the range from 1970 to 2005-2009. It is second only to of $59,115 in Tract 46.03 to $73,144 in Tract Mt. Lookout in its overall SES index. In 1980, 46.02. the percent of the population over 60 had reached 24 percent. By 2000, this fi gure had 18 Mt. Lookout - Columbia declined to 17 percent where it remains. Hyde Tusculum. SES IV Park was surpassed by Mt. Lookout for the This area remained stable in the past 40 years fi rst time in 1990 in the overall SES index and with very small changes in its social indica- by 2005-2009 Mt. Lookout also had a higher tors. Adjacent to the East End and Linwood median family income. Tract 49 ranks 111 out as well as to Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout, it of 115 on the Income Indicator. has some diversity. In 2005-2009, the pover- 22 Oakley. SES IV ty rate was 1.1 percent. There were 409 per- Oakley has changed dramatically in classifi ca- sons over age 60 (The percent elderly has been tion since 1970. In 1970 its three census tracts stable at 13 percent since 2000). There were were in SES II and III. In 2000 they were in no reported school dropouts according to the III and IV. Now they are in II (Tract 54) and 2005-2009 data. The median family income, IV (52, 53). All three tracts declined on the at $113,333, is the seventh highest among city SES Index in the 2005-2009 period. Tract 54 tracts. The percent African American is 7.2. actually has a lower SES Index now than it did Only 5 percent of the population has less than in 1970. The other two tracts improved steadi- a high school education. The unemployment ly until 2000. The indicator which lowers its rate 2005-2009 was only 1 percent. SES Index is the Family Structure Indicator (24.7). Oakley has a high percent of elderly (24 percent), an unemployment rate of 4 percent 96 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons and a poverty rate of only 8.4 percent. It is pre- turned around in the past decade and now all dominantly white (90 percent) as are its neigh- three tracts are in SES IV once again and the bors to the west and south but shares some el- decline has stopped. ements of Norwood’s and Madisonville’s blue collar fl avor at least in Tract 54. The area ad- 25 Kennedy Heights. SES III jacent to Hyde Park has new upscale housing Kennedy Heights, like Pleasant Ridge, has developments. maintained a quality residential atmosphere despite demographic changes. It is known as 23 Madisonville. SES III one of Cincinnati’s stable integrated neighbor- Madisonville, like Oakley, encompasses two hoods. Its stability is now in question. Its one social areas (Figure 2). Like College Hill, Oak- census tract, 58, declined rapidly in the 1970s ley, Bond Hill, and other middle class/working but by 2000 had reached an SES score of 77. class neighborhoods, it has needed to cope with This declined to 55.6 in 2005-2009. Kennedy massive racial or demographic changes. In Heights has fallen from SES IV to the bottom 1990, Madisonville was almost 60 percent Af- of SES III in the past decade. Its rank among rican American. By 2000, this percentage had the neighborhoods fell from 34.5 to 25. The un- fallen to 33 percent. In 2005-2009 it was back employment rate is now 14 percent. Median up to 55.80. Its overall SES index declined family income is $49,625 and the poverty rate from 64.0 in 1970 to 53.7 in 1980. This went up is 11.1 percent. The Family Structure Indica- to 60.1 in 1990 and to 69.9 in 2000 then fell to tor is low at 38.3. 62.3 in 2005-2009 for an overall decline of 1.7 points in the period of this study. Its median 26 Hartwell. SES III family income ranges from $35,530 in Tract 55 Although Hartwell’s SES Index has changed to $63,561 in Tract 56. Its unemployment rate from 89.2 in 1970 to 66.4 in 2005-2009 its is 11 percent. Madisonville has achieved the rank among the neighborhoods changed little status of a stable integrated neighborhood but (from 33 to 32.5). During the 1990s the Family is still struggling. We believe it will improve Structure Indicator declined from 71 to 58.5 as as the national economy improves. In terms the neighborhood experienced racial and other of income, Madisonville is at a median family demographic change. It has a small but grow- income of $54,054, in the middle of the third ing Hispanic population. Hartwell is a neigh- quartile neighborhoods. Its poverty rate was borhood of over 5,000 people and remains in below average at 11.9 percent. Neighborhood the upper half of SES III. Its unemployment organizations have worked hard to reverse rate is only 5 percent. It is 28.8 percent Afri- Madisonville’s decline. They have made prog- can American. ress but had a setback in the 2000s. 27 Carthage. SES II 24 Pleasant Ridge. SES IV Carthage in 2000 was a relatively stable blue Pleasant Ridge and Kennedy Heights are collar neighborhood near the top of SES II (Fig- primarily residential neighborhoods on the ure 4a). It failed to hold this position in the northeast fringe of Cincinnati. They are only current ACS data. Its SES Index in 1970 was arbitrarily separated by city boundaries from 50.7. It declined to 39.8 in 1980, rose to 47.8 suburbs such as Golf Manor and Amberley Vil- in 1990, rose to 53 in 2000 then fell to 42.2 in lage. Pleasant Ridge has experienced signifi - 2005-2009. Its unemployment rate is 9 per- cant population loss and some racial change. cent, about the regional and national average. The neighborhood was 39.9 percent African The African American percentage increased American in 2000. This fell to 33.2 percent in from 5.8 in 2000 to 31.7 in 2005-2009. The pov- 2005-2009. The poverty rate now is 12.8 per- erty rate went up from 6 to 24.7 percent during cent, less than the city average. In 1970, all the decade. The Family Structure Indicator three tracts were in SES IV. By 1980, only two fell from 58.7 to 45.6. The Education Indica- remained in SES IV. The SES Index declined tor is now 22.8 percent and the median family by ten points between 1970 and 2000. Things income is $39,798. Carthage has more people 97 Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons Social Areas of Cincinnati over 60 (25 percent) than it did in 2000 and has near the bottom of SES IV to near the top of seen an increase of 685 percent in its Hispanic SES III. Unemployment (9 percent) and job- population (322 in 2005-2009). lessness (3,904 people) are a concern. The median family income of $59,500 though the third 28 Roselawn. SES II highest in SES III is $30,000 below that of, Roselawn began serious decline in the 1980s e.g., Clifton. The Family Structure Indicator of and this has continued. Its SES score in 1970 52.2 also lowers North Avondale’s SES score. was 86.1 and rose to 89.8 in 1980. It has de- It should be noted that a high proportion of col- clined at least 10 points in each decade since lege (Xavier) students could be signifi cantly af- and now stands at 44.1 which puts it in SES II. fecting the income data for this area. This is In 1990 Roselawn had the highest percentage also true of the area around the University of of elderly in Cincinnati at 29. Now its popu- Cincinnati. By 2000 North Avondale had sta- lation over 60 is only 17 percent. There is a bilized regarding racial change at about a 50- large number of children under 5 (320) and the 50 ratio of African Americans to white. poverty rate is 23.2 percent. It has a Hispanic population of 346, Cincinnati’s sixth largest. 31 Avondale. SES I The African American population increased Avondale has lost 20 points on the SES Index from 6.8 percent (Table 4e) in 1970 to 65.7 since 1970 but its score rose by 1.4 points from percent in 2005-2009. Roselawn has a great 2000 to 2005-2009. In Table 4c we rated it as housing stock and a diverse and creative popu- stable, but it has fallen from 17 to 7 in rank lation. We expect it will begin to stabilize as (Table 9) since 1970. In 2005-2009, the poverty the economy improves. rate rose to 37.5 percent affecting 985 families. Joblessness is 44 percent and the unemploy- 29 Bond Hill. SES II ment rate is 15 percent. All fi ve tracts main- The 2005-2009 numbers do not confi rm our tained their 2000 SES quartile positions. Tract prediction in 2004 that Bond Hill, which had 34 has an income of $7,243 which is lower than declined rapidly, would stabilize. The decline that of any Over-the-Rhine tract. The Fam- has continued. The 2000 SES Index of 47.2 ily Structure Indicator is low in all fi ve tracts. fell to 35.9 in 2005-2009. The percent African These data make clear that Avondale’s prob- American remained virtually the same at 92.7 lems are deep and not getting better. Avon- percent. Unemployment rose to 19 percent. dale is part of a larger Cincinnati area which The poverty rate fell to 17.8 percent. The Fam- includes Evanston and Walnut Hills. These ily Structure Indicator was low at 25 percent. neighborhoods have experienced many strains Like Roselawn, Avondale, East Price Hill and due to population shifts and disinvestment. Westwood and other neighborhoods which have The investments made in economic develop- experienced rapid change, Bond Hill needs con- ment, the Empowerment Zone and Community tinued efforts to support newcomers and long Action have not created a big statistical differ- term residents in their community building/ ence but the tiny gain in the SES Index is en- stabilization efforts. There are 268 children couraging. It is important to the entire region under 5 and 1,384 in the 5-17 age group. The that community development efforts in these percent elderly has remained stable at around close-in Cincinnati neighborhoods succeed. 21 percent. 32 Clifton. SES IV 30 North Avondale - Paddock For many years, Clifton has been an island of Hills. SES III affl uence in the Uptown section. The neigh- In 1990, North Avondale held relatively the borhood rank is 42. The SES Index started off same rank in SES that it held in 1970. In 2000 at 93.4 in 1970, rose to 102.1 in 1990 and has it fell below its 1970 rank as it had in 1980 declined to 87.7 in 2005-2009. The 11 point de- (Table 9). During the past decade (2005-2009) cline in the 1990s corresponded with declines North Avondale experienced another nine point in some other Uptown neighborhoods. Chang- drop in its SES Index (Table 2a) and went from es in the university-medical complex may have 98 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons been a factor. The decline of 3.1 points from which require residents to be low income. At 2000 to 2005-2009 was not signifi cant. There $15,732 median family income in Tract 77 is is a huge income gap between the three tracts the 11th lowest in Cincinnati. The neighbor- (Appendix II). The same is true in the Family hood is 90 percent African American. Almost Structure Indicator which ranges from 58.4 in one third of the housing units are public hous- Tract 70 to 83.6 in Tract 71. The unemploy- ing. ment rate at 8 percent is the highest in SES IV. It involves 433 individuals. 36 Winton Hills. SES I Winton Hills has an even higher percent of 33 Winton Place. SES II public housing (61.3) than South Cummins- Winton Place improved its SES score from 1970 ville-Millvale. It ranked 9th among the neigh- to 1990 and has declined since. It ranks just borhoods in 1970 and now is tied for third from above Bond Hill, Linwood and Over-the-Rhine the bottom. Its SES Index is now 29. The di- among SES II neighborhoods. Its unemploy- sastrous period for Winton Hills was the 1970s ment rate is 7 percent, its Education Indicator when the SES Index fell from 32.4 to 19, the 21.3, and its Family Structure Indicator only population increased from 7,273 to 7,711 and 22.1. The median family income in 2005-2009 the percent African American increased from was $42,173 close to the median for Cincinnati 75.2 to 88.8. The tract boundary also changed census tracts. slightly. The most important component of change was the Family Structure Indicator. 34 Northside SES III During the 1980s no further decrease in SES Northside has had a bumpy ride in its renewal occurred. The index rose in 2005-2009 to 29, efforts with its SES Index falling to 46.9 in 1980 taking Winton Hills a bit further away from and climbing to 61.2 in 2005-2009. Three of its the lowest score of 11.6. four census tracts moved up one quartile and Northside is now in SES III. Unemployment is Because it is a public housing area, Winton 8 percent, poverty at 13.5 percent and the per- Hills is poor by defi nition. The poverty rate is cent African American at 32.3 (down from 37.5 the city’s second highest at 66.4 percent (down percent in 2000). Northside’s renewal comes from 68 percent in 1990). Median family in- at a time when Mt. Airy and Winton place, its come in 2005-2009 was $10,135. The poverty neighbors, are experiencing decline. Tract 74, rate among female headed families is 65.3 per- still in SES II, has some problems. Median cent. In Winton Hills 80.3 percent of the house- Family Income in this tract is $32,882 and the holds are female headed. The percent African Family Structure Indicator is only 4.9 percent, American has declined to 82.7. The Education one of the city’s lowest. Northside seems to be Indicator declined from near 50 in 1980 to 31.7 well on its way to becoming a stable integrated and the dropout rate is 25.8, down from 42.7 neighborhood. The positive change we predict- percent in 2000. The population has declined ed in the Fourth Edition is now occurring. almost half to 4,801 since 1980. 35 South Cumminsville- 37 College Hill. SES III Millvale SES I Only fi ve neighborhoods have lost more points This neighborhood ranked 7th from the bottom in the SES Index than College Hill since 1970 among Cincinnati neighborhoods on SES in (Table 9). In 2005-2009, the percent African 1970. Since 1980 it has ranked at or near the American rose to 54.2 after declining slightly bottom of the scale (Table 9). Its SES Index in the 1990s. College Hill is a large and diverse is now 11.6, the city’s lowest. Unemployment neighborhood of over 16,000 people. In Tract stands at 27 percent, poverty at 56.9 percent 82.01 median family income is $57,357 and the and the Education Indicator is 41.8. Only 8.3 Family Structure Indicator is 46.5, compared percent of children under 18 are in two parent to $63,542 and 67.7 in Tract 111. The Educa- homes. Some of South Cumminsville-Millvale tion Indicator is low in all fi ve census tracts operates under public housing regulations meaning most of the population has at least a 99 Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons Social Areas of Cincinnati high school education (Appendix II). College have affected the social indicators. The pov- Hill has many assets and is still near the top of erty rate is now 71.5 percent and 82.7 percent SES III. It holds promise of becoming a stable of the families are female headed. The poverty integrated community. Its recent decline may rate is the city’s highest and the percent female be related to two successive recessions. headed families is second only to that of South Cumminsville-Millvale. 38 Mt. Airy. SES I Mt. Airy declined more than any Cincinnati 40 North Fairmount-English neighborhood since 1970, losing 60.1 points Woods. SES I on the SES Index. There were two major fac- Tract boundary changes in 1980 affected this tors in Mt. Airy’s slide in SES index from 99.3 neighborhood’s SES Index. By 2000, the newly in 1970 to 72.6 in 1990. First in 1990 a new defi ned area (Tract 86.01) experienced further census tract was added which had a different decline in SES Index and then ranked with Fay demographic base. Secondly in the 1980’s the Apartments and South Cumminsville-Millvale original tract 83 itself declined on all compo- at the bottom of the SES scale, ranking sec- nents of the SES index except income. Change ond. Things improved in the 2000s and now in the Family Structure Indicator was a major this neighborhood has moved to a rank of 10 factor. Almost half (45.5%) of Mt. Airy families and is near the top of SES I. What changed? are now female headed. During the 1990’s the The poverty rate dropped from 51 to 27.7; the African American population increased to 43.8 percent female headed families fell from 66 to percent. From 1970 to 2000, Mt. Airy lost 44 45.1, median family income rose from $13,966 points on the SES scale. The change within to $31,176, more than doubling. The Educa- predominantly white Tract 83 was more grad- tion Indicator fell from 50 (% adults without ual than in the more integrated tract 85.01. high school diplomas) to 39.4. The unemploy- Tract 85.01 went from 8.8 percent African ment rate dropped from 25 to 20 percent. The American in 1980 to 34.8 in 2000. It fell from gains in income, education, and unemployment SES III to SES II. Mt. Airy ranked near the were large enough to offset the negative impact top of SES II in 2000. In 2005-2009 it lost an- of a change in the Family Structure Indicator. other 16 points on the SES Index and fell to In fact, the usual correlation between female the top of SES I. At 54.1 percent, Mt. Airy is headed and poverty does not hold for this neigh- now a neighborhood with an African American borhood nor for Bond Hill. The poverty rate of majority. The changes in Mt. Airy are part of female headed households is only 21.4 percent a general westward movement of Cincinnati’s compared to 27.7 for the total population. An- inner city population. This parallels the de- other dramatic change in the past decade was cline of East Price Hill and Westwood and on a drop in percent African American from 84.8 the east side, that of Bond Hill. Change in Mt. to 65.7. The underlying cause of the change Airy may have been accelerated by the closing was the closing of the English Woods public of the English Woods public housing project in housing project displacing primarily poor Afri- the 1980s. can American families. The population shrank 39 Fay Apartments. SES I from 4,565 in 2000 to 3,379 in 2005-2009. The SES index for this neighborhood has fl uc- 41 South Fairmount. SES I tuated with decisions regarding ownership and South Fairmount lies in a hollow which con- who would live there. The SES index rose from nects the Mill Creek industrial valley to Price 1970 - 1980 and by 1990 had declined to the Hill and Westwood. A working class neighbor- city’s second lowest. In 2000 Fay Apartments’ hood, once partly Italian, then Appalachian SES Index at 15 was the city’s lowest. Change and now partly African American was ranked factors included all fi ve SES variables. Fay 13 (from the bottom) among the neighborhoods Apartments had fallen from the bottom of SES in 1970. It ranked 16 in 1980, 11 in 1990, 9 in II to the bottom of SES I, a full quartile, since 2000 and rose to 11 in 2005-2009. Tract 87 at 1980. Changes in ownership and tenancy may 100 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons the bottom of the hill is SES I and Tract 89 is Fay Apartments (Table 9). The population is SES II. Unemployment for South Fairmount still high at 18,798. The African American is 16 percent, poverty at 38.3. The Education population was .4 percent in 1970 and was Indicator is 47.5 and 14.6, respectively, for the 34.6 percent in 2005-2009. The Hispanic pop- two tracts. Of the two tracts, 87 has the higher ulation increased from 240 in 2000 to 1,393 in median family income but has lower SES be- 2005-2009 and constitutes Cincinnati’s largest cause of the Overcrowding Indicator of 9.9. In concentration of this minority group. Most of 1970, South Fairmount was predominantly the white population is still Appalachian. The white and Appalachian. That is still true of changes in East Price Hill compare to those Tract 87 but the neighborhood is now 49.7 per- in Mt. Airy and Bond Hill and are part of the cent African American. general movement of Cincinnati’s low income population to the west. The dropout rate (Ta- 42 Lower Price Hill. SES II ble 6a) fell slightly to 22 percent but there are The SES index was 21 in 1970, fell to 18.6 in 3,871 adults without a high school education 1980 and declined further to 15.6 in 1990. In and over 1,000 estimated to be functionally il- 2000, the SES Index rose for the fi rst time in literate. Strong community development ef- three decades. Its rank among the neighbor- forts there are faced with great challenges as hoods went from 3 (from the bottom) in 1970 poverty declines in the core city and expands in to 6 in 2000 - its SES indicators not being sig- “second ring” communities. The poverty rate is nifi cantly higher than South Cumminsville- now 31.4 and this involves 1,201 families and Millvale, Over-the-Rhine, Fay Apartments, many more if the 200% of poverty level is ap- Winton Hills and North Fairmount, the other plied. The Family Structure Indicator ranges neighborhoods at the bottom. In 2000, the pov- from 16.2 in Tract 96 to 48.2 in Tract 92. Me- erty rate was 56 percent (down from 65 per- dian family income ranges from $22,788 to cent in 1990), the third highest in the city. The $38,607. Only 7 neighborhoods have declined percent of female headed households increased more since the 1970 census. from 47 to 49. 44 West Price Hill. SES II Improvements occurred in the 2000s and Low- Since 2000 the SES Index fell to 53.4 and the er Price Hill rose to a neighborhood SES rank neighborhood rank fell by 10 to 22. Tract 98 of 21 putting it in the upper half of SES II. The fell to SES I and the neighborhood as a whole unemployment rate rose to 37. The Education is near the top of SES II. Now West Price Hill Indicator fell to 47.8 and the Family Structure has tracts in all four social areas just as West- Indicator fell to 41.9. The population fell to 758 wood does. West Price Hill’s decline is part of and the Census Bureau combined Tract 91 with the same broad patterns as those described in Tract 1 (Queensgate). The school dropout rate the sections on Mt. Airy, Bond Hill, Roselawn, is still the city’s highest at 64 percent but that and East Price Hill. This neighborhood now only accounts for 16 young people according to has 2,280 adults without a high school educa- the American Community Survey. Because of tion and 431 who may be functionally illiter- the small population of the neighborhood and ate. There are 2,299 people over 60 but they the small sample size we acknowledge that the are only 12 percent of the population. The confi dence levels of this data is not acceptable dropout rate is low at 5.2 percent. There are and it should not be the sole basis for any deci- over 5,000 children under 18. Unemployment sion making. is at the national average of 9 percent. This 43 East Price Hill. SES I neighborhood needs strong civic activities and East Price Hill ranked 19th among the neigh- effective education and social services to sup- borhoods in 1970. It has declined precipitously port newcomer families and ease the strains of in SES and the index is now 29. The neigh- neighborhood change. Part but not all of the borhood’s rank has slipped to being tied for 3 change is racial. The percent African Ameri- behind only South Cumminsville-Millvale and can was 0.2 in 1970 and 17.6 in 2005-2009.

101 Chapter 9 | Neighborhoods: 1970 - 2005-2009 Comparisons Social Areas of Cincinnati There are now 718 Hispanics, the city’s third cator fell to 37.1. Median family income is now largest concentration. Tract 98 is heavily Ap- $26,250 down from $36,500. The population of palachian. 1,714 is down from 2,144 in 2000. The Educa- tion Indicator is 49.9, meaning almost half the 45 Westwood. SES III adult population lacks a high school education. Westwood’s SES index fell 36 points in the last One in fi ve residents is over 60 and one in 5 are three decades. In 1970, all fi ve tracts were in under 18. Changes in this neighborhood are SES IV. By 2000, one was in SES I, one was in part of the shift of poverty to the west side. SES II, two in SES III, and three still in SES IV. 1980 census tract boundary changes included 47 Riverside-Sayler Park. SES part of old Northwest Fairmount in Westwood. I In the older Westwood, tract 109 experienced a In the past decade, the trends noted in the 10 point drop in the 1990s and in the area that Fourth Edition for Riverside-Sayler Park ac- was once tract 100, now 88, 102.01, and 102.02, celerated beyond belief. The neighborhood also experienced signifi cant decline (Appendix dropped in rank from 31 to 6. Its neighbor, III). The authors attribute part of the change East Price Hill, dropped from 14 to 3rd (from to an infl ux of both white Appalachians and Af- the bottom). It is unusual for a neighborhood rican Americans. Westwood’s poverty rate is to change so dramatically in one decade. There 16.1 percent and because the neighborhood is is some racial change. The percent African so large this gives it the third highest concen- American rose from 18.0 to 29.2. The Family tration of poor families in the city. There are Structure Indicator fell to 15.8, median family also nearly 814 African American families be- income to $33,625, and the Education Indica- low the poverty level and the third highest con- tor rose to 22.7, still not very high compared centration of poor whites in the city (Table 4d). to other SES I neighborhoods. The unemploy- Westwood has become a very diverse neighbor- ment rate, at 8 percent, is less than the city hood. average. East Westwood has formed its own neighbor- Recent rises in the poverty rate and school hood association. The tracts in that section are dropout rate also give some cause for concern. still SES III and IV and, along with two tracts As elderly residents age and die or move out in West Price Hill, still have much of the social they are probably being replaced by younger composition of the 1970s West Side. West Sid- families with different needs. Forty percent of ers complain that they have borne an undue the families are female headed and these and share of the cost of population shifts in Cincin- other working families need supports such as nati. We have no judgment on this but note day care. that Walnut Hills, Avondale, and Mt. Auburn, for example, saw similar changes starting two 48 Sayler Park. SES IV decades earlier. Sayler Park has been relatively stable during the four decades reviewed in this study. In 46 Sedamsville-Riverside. SES 2005-2009 Sayler Park improved in neighbor- I hood rank from 27 to 37 and it is now in SES Sedamsville was relatively stable from 1970- IV. The dropout problem noted in the Fourth 2000. It ranked 5th in 1970, improved to 14 in Edition disappeared. The Education Indicator 1980 held the rank of 12 in 1990, 13 in 2000, stands at 11.5. The Family Structure Indica- then dropped to 9th in 2005-2009 losing its SES tor is 56.6. The change in racial composition II rank. It shared this fate with its neighbor went from .8 percent African American to 1.1 to the east, Riverside-Sayler Park. Its percent percent. African American changed from .7 in 1980 to 22.9 in 2005-2009. Unemployment rose to 27 percent. The poverty rate rose from 17 percent in 2000 to 38.9 and the Family Structure Indi- 102 Chapter 10 Health and Well-Being

When it comes to what gives rise person’s genetic endowment, biological makeup, and life course choices and behaviors, but to the good life and a global sense also by the conditions under which the person of well-being, place matters. lives.2 A neighborhood is typically thought of 1 as a specifi c geographic area, commonly identi- (Markus, Plaut, & Lackan) fi ed by a proxy indicator such as census tract or other spatial or bureaucratic measure, with Our region recently embarked on a path to- distinguishing characteristics related to its wards improving the quality of life for all physical and social environments. A neighbor- through the Bold Goals initiative (www.uwgc. hood’s physical environment refers not only to org). Along with the leadership of United Way its natural setting, but also to its human-made of Greater Cincinnati, more than 225 organi- built surroundings in terms of housing qual- zations have endorsed this truly regional ef- ity, land use and zoning, street designs and fort. The fi rst nine chapters of this report illu- transportation systems, businesses and shop- minate the rationale behind the need for Bold ping opportunities, educational and health Goals to be established for our region in the ar- care services, recreational and green spaces, eas of Education and Income. These chapters make clear the challenges our neighborhoods A neighborhood’s environmental face as their citizens struggle to meet educa- conditions can promote health or tion pathway benchmarks and struggle to ob- put health in jeopardy. tain the skills needed to compete for higher wage jobs. Bold Goals were also set in a third area - Health. While not always readily rec- and other features of urban design and public ognized, Education, Income and Health are spaces. In addition, there are the exposures closely related. Health cuts across Education associated with those surroundings in terms and Income – essentially extending through- of air and water quality, cleanliness, light out the entire lifespan. Good health helps to and noise, proximity to hazardous substances, ensure children are prepared for kindergar- and other environmental conditions. The so- ten and that they succeed during their school cial environment consists of the social context years. Later, health can play a key role in suc- within which people live, which includes social cess in post-high school education – regardless values and norms, cohesiveness or connected- of whether one pursues additional non-degree ness among neighbors and the resulting social workforce training or a post-secondary degree. capital, nature and types of diversity, degree Finally, poor health can provide a variety of of mutual trust, civic vitality and political em- barriers to keeping families from being fi nan- powerment, levels of safety and violence, and cially stable. This chapter discusses the rel- various features of the social organization of evance of health at the neighborhood level, and places. These physical and social environments discusses the broad array of factors that can do not exist independently, but are infl uenced lead to challenges for our neighborhoods and by one another. For example, characteristics their residents in the area of health. of the built environment such as the quality of public spaces can affect the nature of social in- Neighborhoods have emerged as a potentially teractions within the neighborhood, which in relevant concept for understanding the health turn has consequences for the ability of neigh- and well-being of individuals. Whether people bors to advocate for improved public spaces.3 are healthy or not is determined not only by the Underlying and contributing to the nature of 103 Chapter 10 | Health and Well-Being Social Areas of Cincinnati these physical and social environments and psychological well-being and mental health con- subsequently to neighborhood differentiation ditions such as depression.6-7 The array of val- is the level of inequalities in social and eco- ues and norms of a society infl uence health be- nomic resources across neighborhoods as well haviors and their associated health outcomes.7 as residential segregation. Defi ned as the geo- Social or community support can add resourc- graphic separation of persons into residential es to an individual’s repertoire of strategies areas based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconom- to cope with change and foster health or the ic position, residential segregation leads to the lack of such support can lead to unhealthy be- inequitable distribution of social and econom- haviors, early onset of disease, and premature ic resources, which in turn can contribute to mortality. If present, social stability, recogni- further residential segregation.3 The result is tion of diversity, safety, good working relation- a concentration of persons with given racial/ ships, and cohesive communities can provide a ethnic characteristics, such as African Ameri- supportive society that reduces or avoids many can, white, Hispanic, or Appalachian, or given potential risks to good health, particularly de- levels of socioeconomic status, such as poor pression and other mental health problems, or wealthy, or a combination of the two, such violence-related trauma and homicides, and as poor whites or wealthy whites, in certain disease incidence and mortality, particularly neighborhoods. Consequently, persons with cardiovascular disease.7 more resources and power are able to locate in Studies examining the relationship between and advocate for neighborhoods with better en- neighborhood census characteristics, such as vironmental attributes.4 This has led to char- those examined in this report, and health out- acterizing neighborhoods according to race/ comes have concluded that living in a poor, ethnicity or socioeconomic disadvantage or deprived, or socioeconomically disadvantaged deprivation based on measures such as those neighborhood is generally associated with poor used in this report.5 health outcomes including greater mortality, A neighborhood’s environmental conditions can poorer self-reported health, adverse mental promote health or put health in jeopardy. The health outcomes, greater prevalence of chronic social and economic features of neighborhoods disease risk factors, greater incidence of diseas- have been linked to mortality, perceived health es such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, status, disability, birth outcomes, chronic dis- and adverse child health outcomes.3 These re- ease, health behaviors, mental health, injuries, sults hold even after taking into consideration violence, and a number of other disease risk the individual characteristics of the neighbor- factors and health outcomes.6 Contaminants in hood residents, such as race/ethnicity and so- the air, water, food, and soil and proximity to cioeconomic status. One only needs to look at facilities that produce or store hazardous sub- the data from the Cincinnati Health Dispari- ties Report,8 the Greater Cincinnati Northern Living in a poor, deprived, or Kentucky Community Health Status Survey,9 socioeconomically disadvantaged and the Cincinnati Health Department Neigh- neighborhood is generally borhood Mortality Data Report10 to attest to associated with poor health. the applicability of these fi ndings to the City of Cincinnati. The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati’s stances can cause a variety of adverse health Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Com- effects, including cancer, birth defects, respi- munity Health Status Survey (GCNKCHSS) ratory illness, and gastrointestinal ailments.6-7 provides more specifi c examples of the relation- The built environment can infl uence lifestyle ship between neighborhood and census char- choices and positively or negatively impact not acteristics, and health. The GCNKCHSS has only physical health outcomes such as obesity, studied health in our neighborhoods, counties diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, but also and region since 1997. This rich set of data 104 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 10 | Health and Well-Being provides one of the most comprehensive over- of health. For example, while the percent of time views of the health of a community in our residents living in Price Hill, the City and re- nation. gion who report high blood pressure are similar, more residents of Avondale report having As a regional dataset, the number of interviews been told they have high blood pressure. And, in any one neighborhood is limited. However, while the percent of residents living in Avon- in 2010 The Health Foundation conducted a dale, the City and region who report heart number of interviews that allows us to draw trouble or angina are similar, more residents conclusions about the City of Cincinnati as a of Price Hill report having been told they have whole, and about two City of Cincinnati neigh- heart trouble. borhoods: Avondale, a SES I neighborhood, and Price Hill, SES I and II. As chapter nine While these few selected data points show suggests, these neighborhoods experience there is variation in the health of Greater struggles in the Bold Goal areas of Education Cincinnati residents depending on whether and Income. The same is true in the area of they live in the region, the City or in a specifi c Health. neighborhood, there is a lack of scientifi c consensus about what it is about neighborhoods One regional Bold Goal for Health is that by that affects health. One argument is that the 2020, at least 70 percent of our community will physical and social environments of neighbor- report having excellent or very good health. hoods, individually and interactively, create an Across our region, about half of residents say environmental “riskscape” which affects health they currently experience excellent or very good across the life course through a dynamic inter- health. That fi gure is lower (44% of residents) in the City of Cincinnati as a whole. Even fewer residents of Price Hill (41%) or Avondale (31%) Neighborhoods vary in terms of a report excellent or very good health than is the number of characteristics which can case in the region or the City. Health challeng- contribute to the health and well- es for Avondale and Price Hill residents, and being of their residents. residents of other areas of the City, may also frequently result in reduced quality of life. Ex- play between stress and behavior moderated by tended or chronic health problems lead to chal- one’s genetic makeup and biological responses.3 lenges with education and employment. While acute stress can be benefi cial and moti- A second regional Bold Goal for Health is that vational, it can also lead to unhealthy coping by 2020 at least 95 percent of the communi- behaviors such as overeating, smoking, heavy ty will report having a usual place to go for alcohol consumption, and excessive caffeine medical care (this is sometimes referred to as dependence, particularly when these behaviors a “medical home”). Across our region, about are coupled with environmental factors. For 84 percent of residents currently have a usual example, consumption of high-fat foods may be place to go for medical care. However, fewer more readily consumed if fast food restaurants residents of Avondale (80%), the City of Cincin- are easily accessible in the neighborhood.4 How- nati as a whole (79%) or Price Hill (77%) report ever, long-term exposure to psychosocial stres- they have a usual source of care. The lack of a sors in the environmental riskscape, such as usual source of care can be due to a variety of persistent poverty, material deprivation, envi- factors, including accessibility and cost. Good ronmental hazards, lack of services, social dis- health and a usual source of care can be re- organization, and other detrimental environ- lated: those who have a usual source of care mental conditions, may lead to chronic stress, are more likely to seek appropriate and timely which can weaken the body’s defense system.11 healthcare when they need it. When faced with stressful situations, a person’s body reacts biologically to that situation The dataset from 2010 also shows that neigh- through its stress-response systems. This abil- borhoods can have more unique characteristics

105 Chapter 10 | Health and Well-Being Social Areas of Cincinnati ity to respond to stress, known as allostasis, health strongly infl uence the person’s well- can become compromised when a person is ex- being as well as contribution to society, the posed to stressful situations over prolonged pe- question is what can be done to improve the riods of time during the entire life course. The conditions under which the person lives. As cumulative physiological degradation of the Richard Couto stated in a forward to a book stress-response systems over time, referred to on the health and well-being of Appalachians14, as allostatic load, can lead to “wear and tear” simply blaming individuals for having poor on major organ systems, thus, increasing one’s health due to some inherent shortcomings susceptibility to disease and premature mor- or crediting them for good health is inappro- tality. Higher allostatic loads have been linked priate. The context of people’s lives is an im- to socioeconomic status as well as a number of portant determinant of their health and the physical and mental health conditions in both riskscape posed by that context puts some at adults and children, including hypertension, greater risk for illness and premature mortal- obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cog- ity than others. Justice requires the removal nitive and physical impairment, autoimmune of the inequalities that contribute adversely and infl ammatory disorders, posttraumatic to the health and well-being of people. While stress disorder, and mortality.12 In particular, policies such as redistributing resources or re- children living under adverse conditions, such ducing residential segregation to minimize the as poverty, poor housing and neighborhood inequalities in social and material resources conditions, or homes with unresponsive or across neighborhoods or specifi cally target- harsh parenting, may be even more susceptible ing certain neighborhood-level features such to the effects of cumulative-risk exposure and as increasing the availability of healthy foods2 allostatic load, putting them at greater risk for sound appealing and would make substantial premature morbidity and mortality.13 contributions to resolving the health disparities that exist across neighborhoods, often the However, it is not appropriate to commit the political will to implement such broad-based ecological fallacy of assuming that all persons policies is lacking. Other approaches which living in, for example, a low socioeconomic look beyond the individual without complete- neighborhood have or will have poor health. ly removing the individual from the solution Positive health outcomes may result even in must be considered. Not every neighborhood the presence of detrimental environmental is identical. Neighborhoods vary in terms of a exposures when other strengths or resilien- number of characteristics which can contribute cies are present in the riskscape or when the to the health and well-being of their residents neighborhood conditions are modifi ed by in- and, thus, interventions to change the risk- dividual-level characteristics and behaviors. scape must be locally-based. For example, some individuals may have genetic endowments and biological makeups that Community-based participatory research is make them more vulnerable to adverse neigh- one effective means that neighborhoods can borhood conditions, while others may have the adopt to build on their local assets to address personal and fi nancial resources that allow local health disparities. According to this ap- them to overcome defi ciencies or hazards in proach, communities identify their health is- their neighborhoods.3 Also, some persons may sues of concern and then systematically collect have adopted healthy lifestyle behaviors, such local data to better understand those issues as physical activity, healthy diets, proper sleep so that practical intervention and prevention patterns, and relaxation techniques, or estab- strategies can be developed and implemented.15 lished social support networks to counteract When done right, community-based participa- the effects of environmental psychosocial stres- tory research methods, such as those conduct- sors. ed and on-going in Lower Price Hill15 and other Cincinnati neighborhoods,16 can facilitate local Given that a person’s health and many of the neighborhood involvement in building the ca- underlying place-based determinants of that 106 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 10 | Health and Well-Being pacity to improve the health and well-being of its residents. Although more work is required to fully understand the health disparities that exist across the neighborhoods in Cincinnati, the results of this report suggest where such disparities might exist. Research in other communities has clearly documented that neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status have the greatest likelihood of poor health. Cincinnati is probably not an exception. Therefore, closer examination of the riskscape of those neighborhoods this report has identifi ed as low socioeconomic neighborhoods is required. As stated by Kawachi and Berkman, “a critical key to meeting the health needs of individuals, their families, and their communities lies in improving the conditions they face in their neighborhoods, and an essential key to improving those conditions lies in learning how” (p. 346).17

107 Chapter 10 | Health and Well-Being Social Areas of Cincinnati

108 Chapter 11 Cincinnati as a Metropolis

This chapter is divided into three major sec- SES I tions. The fi rst covers the Standard Metropoli- SES I in a 7-county context appears as a set of tan Statistical Area (SMSA) as it was defi ned low income enclaves shown in white in Figure in 1970 when the First Edition of this study 13. One is on Cincinnati’s west side which ex- was designed. This section provides compara- tends north along the I-75 corridor and through tive data over a forty year period for the same several tracts near the Hamilton Avenue cor- counties (Figure 13). ridor. Another set of neighborhoods extends The second section provides a map and data along the Reading Road and I-71 corridors analysis for the current 15 county Consolidated starting in Over-the-Rhine and Cincinnati’s Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) which West End. In Northern Kentucky, there is a includes the Hamilton-Middletown metropoli- T-formation along the Ohio and Licking rivers tan area and additional counties in all three and three isolated tracts in Boone County and states which constitute the Primary Metro- one in western Kenton County. There are oth- politan Statistical Area (PMSA) (See Figure 14 er scattered rural tracts in western Hamilton and Table Appendix VI). County, western Dearborn County and in Cler- mont County. In Warren County, one tract has The third section provides data for the 20- a prison population and there are three tracts county service area for the Health Founda- in the Franklin tion of Greater Cincinnati. It includes Adams, area. During Over the period of Highland, and Clinton Counties in Ohio, and the 2005-2009 this study, rural SES Switzerland, Ohio and Ripley Counties in Indi- period, the I tracts have been ana (see Figure 15 and Table Appendix VII). poverty rate disappearing as The maps in this chapter (Figures 13-15) and nearly doubled in SES I in the urban sprawl brought the tables, Appendices VI and VII and data more affl uent people analysis allow the reader and various agen- seven county to rural areas. cies to view the social geography of our region area. It grew across the various jurisdictional lines. little or fell in the other so- Section I: The Seven County cial areas. Over the period of this study, rural Area SES I tracts have been disappearing as urban In 1970, the SMSA consisted of Hamilton, War- sprawl brought more affl uent people to rural ren and Clermont Counties in Ohio, Campbell, areas. Rural poverty still exists but the rural Kenton and Boone in Kentucky, and Dearborn poor are often not the majority population in County, Indiana. Figure 13 shows the four so- the various census tracts. A comparison of Fig- cial areas. For a description of how the social ure 13 for 2000 (see Fourth Edition at www. areas are derived, see Chapter 1. To summa- socialareasofcincinnati.org) and 2005-2009 rize: All of the census tracts in the 7-county shows an expansion of SES I in the north cen- area are ranked on each of the fi ve variables tral part of Hamilton County, the northwest described in Table 1a and in Appendix V. Their of Warren County, several parts of Clermont ranks are then averaged to derive the SES In- County and on the eastern border of Boone dex. The tracts are then arranged by SES rank County. In terms of race and ethnicity, SES I and divided by four to derive the quartile divi- includes large concentrations of African Amer- sions. The four quartiles are the four “social icans, Appalachians, and, more recently, His- areas” of Figure 13. panics. Clermont County is Appalachian and most of the poor in Franklin Township (War-

109 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati ´ Miles 20

Warren

Clermont

Clermont Clermont

Campbell

0 5 10 Warren Hamilton

Kenton Campbell 2005-2009 Metropolitan Cincinnati 7 Counties SES Quartiles 7 Counties SES Cincinnati Metropolitan 2005-2009

Hamilton Kenton Kenton

Hamilton

Boone

Hamilton Dearborn

Boone SES I SES II SES III SES IV Censusboundary tract Neighborhood boundary 13 Figure SES Quartiles Legend 110 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis ren County) are Appalachian. SES IV Chapter Two describes how each of the four A look at Figure 13 shows that the bulk of the social areas can be used to target appropriate geography of SES IV falls along three axes. services. SES I should receive top priority for One runs from southern Boone County on up certain health, education, community develop- through western Hamilton County. Another ment and social service programs. runs along both sides of the western Clermont County border through the eastern half of SES II Warren County (excluding LCI and Franklin In Figure 13, SES II is the light pink area. In Township). The third axis goes through Cincin- Hamilton County it includes large sections nati’s affl uent east side and the communities of Cincinnati and its immediate environs. It of Amberley, Glendale and Wyoming. Table also includes much of the western third of the 11b shows the population and social indicator county and four tracts on the far west side. It values of SES IV in the City of Cincinnati and includes the southern half of Dearborn County, the remainder of the SMSA (7 counties). See, about half the area of Boone County, scattered for example, percent African American. In the sections of Kenton County, and sections along City of Cincinnati, the percentages of the four the Ohio and Licking rivers in northern Camp- quartiles are 61, 35, 29 and 6 compared to 13, bell County. In Clermont there are seven cen- 14, 3, and 2 for the remainder of the metro- sus tracts in SES II, mostly in the north and politan area. All four social areas in the city northeast. There are two SES II clusters in have higher percentages of African Americans. Warren County, north and south of Lebanon A look at total African American population and in Franklin Township. Although much shows that of the nearly 14,500 African Ameri- of the geographic area is rural (because of the cans who live in SES IV in the region, two sheer size of rural tracts) much of the popula- thirds live outside the City of Cincinnati. tion in SES II is urban. Needs in SES II areas A comparison of Figure 13 with Figure II in the include family support, day care, adult educa- Second Edition of this study shows how affl u- tion, anti-crime efforts and other neighborhood ence has spread to areas in Dearborn, Warren, stabilization programs such as various kinds of Clermont and Boone Counties which were SES housing assistance. Many families can benefi t III or lower in 1980. Several tracts in west- from programs that help the unemployed and ern Hamilton County are also of higher status underemployed. than they were in 1980. SES III The Changing Shape of the There are SES III tracts in all seven counties. SES III includes nearly half of Warren Metropolitan Social Areas and Dearborn Counties and more than half of When we fi rst created the seven-county social Kenton and Campbell counties. There are two areas map in 1990 (Third Edition of this study), SES III tracts in Boone County and 12 in Cler- most of SES IV mont County. Of the fi ve SES variables, SES was in Ham- The most dramatic III in the remainder of the 7-county area is bet- ilton County expansion of SES ter off than the City of Cincinnati on income and much of IV is in Boone and ($71,619), Family Structure Indicator (75.3), the rural area Warren Counties was SES II or and overcrowding (.9), but worse off on the Oc- (Figure 13). cupation (65.9) and Education (10.9) Indicators III. In 2000- (Table 11c). Needs in SES III and SES IV ar- 2005 SES I areas include programs for seniors and outreach eas in Hamilton County have expanded to the to the dispersed poor. north and west and SES IV includes tracts in all seven counties. The most dramatic expansion of SES IV is in Boone and Warren Coun- ties (Figure 13).

111 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati SES Areas by County primarily because of its education and occu- Table 11a provides the SES Index for the met- pation indicator ranks, as ranks on the other ro census tracts by county. An average SES variables are considerably higher. Index is also provided for each county. Individ- The State of the Region ual tract indexes (Appendix IV) show the great Does Cincinnati retain its ‘integration poten- gap between inner city and most suburban ar- tial’ as claimed in previous editions of this eas. The lowest SES Index in Boone County is study? As was the case in 1980, the core cit- tract 701 with an index of 91. The SES index ies of the metropolis - Cincinnati, Covington, for tract 501 in Newport (Campbell County), by Newport, Dayton, and Bellevue were primar- comparison is only 24.6 which is similar to the ily in SES I and II. Although these lower SES low SES tracts in Cincinnati. The Campbell areas expanded somewhat during the decade, County range is between tract 501 which has especially on Cincinnati’s west side, there were an index of 24.6 and tract 523.02 with an index some hopeful signs too. First, there remain of 322.2. In Clermont County the range in SES some high SES (III and IV) areas in the central Index is from 85.4 (tract 402.04) to 334.2 (tract city (Figure 13) and these areas are not isolat- 403). In Dearborn County tract 803 has an in- ed from but are adjacent to, lower SES areas. dex of 102.6 and tract 801.02 an index of 291.4. Second, much of the high SES area remains Dearborn County has only one tract in SES I. within Hamilton County and much of the high Boone County now has three. Campbell Coun- SES part of Kenton and Campbell Counties is ty, which includes Newport, has fi ve. Ken- ton County, including Covington, has twelve. Warren County has 3 tracts, and Hamilton, As was the case in 1980, the core 64 in SES I (seven fewer than in 2000). Table cities of the metropolis - Cincinnati, 11e shows income and poverty statistics for all Covington, Newport, Dayton, and seven counties. In 1990, Hamilton County had Bellevue were primarily in SES I and the third highest overall income in spite of hav- II. ing the highest poverty rate. In 2005-2009 it had the lowest. Warren County had the high- adjacent to the inner city. Third, the news re- est median family income and lowest poverty garding racial change is not entirely negative. rate in 2000. In 2005-2009, Dearborn County Within the city of Cincinnati, some neighbor- had the lowest poverty rate. hoods have been able to increase the degree of SES by Tract in the SMSA racial integration, for example, Corryville and Appendix IV lists all the census tracts in the Evanston - East Walnut Hills. Others, like Mt. old seven county SMSA. Appendix IV can be Auburn have been able to stem white fl ight be- used to look at the individual components of fore they became one race communities. Several SES. If the reader wishes to know, for ex- communities such as Northside have remained ample, the census tracts with the worst over- remarkably diverse. In 1970, Cincinnati was crowding a glance at the overcrowding column 27.6 percent African American. In 2005-2009, will reveal that Tract 94 in Hamilton County is it was 41.0 percent African American. In 1970, the most overcrowded, Tract 21 has the second 77 percent of Cincinnati’s African Americans worst crowding, etc. lived in SES I and II. In 2005-2009, that fi g- ure was down to 58.2 percent. There is clearly The right hand column for overcrowding gives a need for more progress in racial integration. the rank. The left hand column gives the score It now needs to be noted that developments in expressed as a percentage of households hav- Over-the-Rhine and the West End make the ing more than one person per room. See vari- “inner city” even less contiguous now than in able descriptions in Chapter 1 and Appendix V. 1990. The pattern of SES I in Figure 13 shows After looking at all fi ve SES ranks and scores an area along the Licking River, an area along for a given tract one can, see for example, that the Mill Creek and an area along the Reading Tract 77 gets its low SES rank (at the bottom) 112 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis

Table 11a Metropolitan Counties, Their Census Tracts and SES Indices, 2005-2009 State County Quar le Number of Percenta Average (Total Popula on) Census Tracts SES Index Indiana Dearborn 1 1 11% 184.5 (49,608) 2 3 33% 3 4 44% 4 1 11% Kentucky Boone 1 3 19% 212.7 (112,514) 2 3 19% 3 2 13% 4 8 50%

Campbell 1 5 19% 195.3 (87,509) 2 4 15% 3 12 46% 4 5 19%

Kenton 1 12 29% 180.6 (156,399) 2 9 22% 3 13 32% 4 7 17% Ohio Clermont 1 8 24% 189.2 (193,337) 2 7 21% 3 13 39% 4 5 15%

Hamilton 1 64 28% 180.9 (851,867) 2 63 28% 3 45 20% 4 56 25%

Warren 1 3 10% 231.7 (203,129) 2 7 23% 3 7 23% 4 14 45%

a The percent of census tracts in each county, per quartile

113 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati Road corridor. to Neil R. Pierce the need for regional cooperation is to resolve three issues (1) the social and A look at the welfare/poverty ratio (Table 11b) economic chasms between the advantaged and says that Cincinnati’s poor are less likely to disadvantaged (2) unchecked urban sprawl and be on public assistance than their suburban (3) the lack of coherence in metropolitan gover- or rural counterparts except in SES I. A look nance (Rusk, op. cit, p. 6-7). Regional coopera- at total households below poverty shows that tion should include the capacity to develop long more than 35,000 households in the remainder range plans in such areas as jobs, education, of the metropolitan area are below the poverty housing and transportation. level. These are the “dispersed poor” discussed in Chapter 2.

High status areas in the suburbs remain segregated by class as well as by race. SES IV in the remainder of the metropolitan area (Table 11b) is 98 percent white or other.

Whether we look at the core cities or the broader region, socioeconomic integration is far from the norm. High status areas in the suburbs remain segregated by class as well as by race. SES IV in the remainder of the metropolitan area (Table 11b) is 98 percent white or other – up one percent from 1990. SES IV in the metropolitan area has an 8.7 percent poverty rate compared to 15.0 percent in Cincinnati’s SES IV. Inequality between the central city and its suburbs is relatively new and not to be taken for granted. According to data assembled by David Rusk, an urban analyst, “in 1950 Cincinnati household incomes were equal to household incomes in the region(1). By 1990, Cincinnati household income was 76 percent of the average regional household income. Mean- while the regional poverty rate rose slightly from 10.6 percent to 11.4 percent from 1970 to 1990. By contrast, Cincinnati’s poverty rate doubled from 12 percent to 24 percent in the ten year span between 1980 and 1990(2).” In 2005-2009, the poverty rate for Cincinnati was 20.1 compared to 8.3 for the 7-county region (Table 11d) and 40.5 percent of the region’s poor families lived in Cincinnati. Rusk and other urban experts believe that unless the growing inequality between central cities and suburbs is halted through regional cooperation in planning and public policy, Cincinnati will join the ranks of declining regions. According 114 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis

Table 11b City of Cincinnati and Remainder of Metropolitan Areaa Demographic Descrip on SES I SES II SES III SES IV Total Population City of Cincinnati 151,186 85,023 48,375 55,282 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 169,477 267,019 409,009 464,828 Total Families City of Cincinnati 30,504 15,688 10,876 11,415 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 41,869 67,248 108,215 126,505 Total Housing Units City of Cincinnati 79,249 43,012 26,431 29,342 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 74,897 113,074 167,436 176,372 Percent Single Family Units City of Cincinnati 39.5% 43.2% 49.8% 52.5% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 68.1% 74.3% 79.4% 85.9% Total African American Population City of Cincinnati 91,598 29,975 14,036 3,563 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 22,368 38,350 13,628 10,923 Percent African American

City of Cincinnati 61% 35% 29% 6% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 13% 14% 3% 2% Percent White or Other City of Cincinnati 39% 65% 71% 94% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 87% 86% 97% 98% Percent First Generation Immigrants City of Cincinnati 3.3% 5.0% 4.4% 4.1% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 3.3% 2.4% 2.7% 4.8% Total Households Below Poverty City of Cincinnati 18,508 8,424 3,577 2,920 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 11,990 10,978 10,680 5,936 Total Households on Public Assistance City of Cincinnati 3,931 1,054 489 448 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 2,241 2,112 1,889 1,345 Percent of Households on Public Assistance City of Cincinnati 6.7% 2.9% 2.2% 1.7% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 3.4% 2.0% 1.2% 0.8% Public Assistance / Poverty Ratio City of Cincinnati 21.2% 12.5% 13.7% 15.3% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 18.7% 19.2% 17.7% 22.7%

115 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 11b City of Cincinnati and Remainder of Metropolitan Areaa Demographic Descrip on SES I SES II SES III SES IV Total Population 60 Years or Older City of Cincinnati 22,269 12,667 8,000 10,877 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 27,303 46,146 68,907 77,398 Percent 60 Years or Older City of Cincinnati 14.7% 14.9% 16.5% 19.7% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 16.1% 17.3% 16.8% 16.7% Total Population Under 16 Years City of Cincinnati 37,248 13,017 8,170 8,729 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 39,306 55,690 89,988 111,775 Percent Population Under 16 Years City of Cincinnati 24.6% 15.3% 16.9% 15.8% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 23.2% 20.9% 22.0% 24.0% Total Unemployed City of Cincinnati 9,497 4,239 2,313 1,027 Remainder of Metropolitan Area 7,741 10,244 11,843 11,476 Unemployment Rate City of Cincinnati 14.3% 9.4% 8.3% 3.1% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 9.4% 7.1% 5.3% 4.6% a Metropolitan area for this study includes seven counties: Dearborn (Indiana), Boone (Kentucky), Campbell (Kentucky), Kenton (Kentucky), Clermont (Ohio), Hamilton (Ohio), and Warren (Ohio).

Cincinnati Metro and City 2000 (Table 11b). SES I and II areas outside Comparisons the City of Cincinnati are becoming more in- Tables 11b, 11c, and 11d can be used to make tegrated but SES III has gone from 9 percent comparisons between the city of Cincinnati and African American to 3 percent. The concen- the remainder of the metro area as a whole. tration of poverty in the city is not as extreme We can see, for example, that the percentage as is the concentration of African Americans. of single family homes in the metro area as a While 62 percent of the seven county area’s Af- whole is much higher than that for the city. In rican American population lives in Cincinnati SES IV (city area) the percent of single family only 40.5 percent of poor families live in the homes is 52.5 percent, while a much higher rate city (Table 11d). Both of these percentages are (85.9%) is found in SES IV in the metropolitan down signiﬁ cantly from 2000 indicating less area. Table 11b also shows that the degree of concentration of poverty and race. Households racial segregation is even more extreme in the on public assistance are becoming more concen- metropolis than in the core city. For example, trated in Cincinnati. In 2000 less than half of in the city SES IV is 6% African American. In these households lived in Cincinnati. In 2005- the remainder of the metropolitan area, Afri- 2009, many more than half lived in the city can Americans are only 2 percent of the pop- (Table 11b). Table 11f shows that the percent ulation in SES IV, the same percentage as in African American in each of the seven counties 116 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis

Table 11c City of Cincinnati and Remainder of Metropolitan Areaa Comparison of Average SES Indicators by SES Quartiles, 2005-2009 Indicator Descrip on SES I SES II SES III SES IV Family Income Indicator (Median Family Income) City of Cincinnati $30,211 $42,973 $61,544 $119,455 Remainder of Metropolitan Area $41,522 $58,369 $71,619 $98,987 Family Structure Indicator (% of Children in Two Parent Homes) City of Cincinnati 24.1% 39.1% 63.0% 78.9% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 47.7% 62.0% 75.3% 85.0% Occupation Indicator (% Unskilled and Semi-skilled Workers) City of Cincinnati 76.5% 62.5% 54.3% 42.7% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 78.2% 72.1% 65.9% 52.6% Education Indicator (% Age 25+ With Less Than a High School Diploma) City of Cincinnati 29.6% 16.4% 9.9% 4.6% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 24.0% 15.9% 10.9% 5.5% Crowding Indicator (% Housing With More Than One Person Per Room) City of Cincinnati 3.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.2% Remainder of Metropolitan Area 3.0% 1.1% 0.9% 0.4% a Metropolitan area for this study includes seven counties: Dearborn (Indiana), Boone (Ken- tucky), Campbell (Kentucky), Kenton (Kentucky), Clermont (Ohio), Hamilton (Ohio), and War- ren (Ohio). remain virtually unchanged from 2000 and has percentages. The highest percentages of youth changed little since 2000. Although the per- (under 16) show up in SES I (Table 11b) for centages have changed little, the raw numbers the city but not for the metro area. Unemploy- of African Americans increased somewhat in ment rates are highest in SES I and II in the Hamilton, Kenton and Warren Counties from city. In the two upper SES quartiles there is 2000 to 2005-2009. less difference in the unemployment rates between the city and the metro area but in SES While 62 percent of the seven county IV, the gap favors the city. In all four quartiles area’s African American population there is an income gap between the city and lives in Cincinnati only 40.5 percent metropolitan area. A similar pattern is evi- of poor families live in the city (Table dent when city and metro are compared on the 11d). Both of these percentages Family Structure Indicator (Table 11c). The are down signiﬁ cantly from 2000 gap on this indicator is extreme especially in indicating less concentration of SES I. In the metropolitan area’s SES IV met- poverty and race. Households on ro 85 percent of children under 18 live in two parent homes. The Occupation Indicator does public assistance are becoming more not discriminate as clearly between the vari- concentrated in Cincinnati. ous social areas and between metro and city. The Education Indicator shows a gap between the various quartiles but not so much between A look at the distribution of the elderly popula- the city and metro. In SES I city 29.6 percent tion in the Table 11b shows that SES III and of adults (over 25) have less than high school SES IV in the city are the areas with highest education. In SES I metro the Education Indi- 117 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 11d City of Cincinnati as Percent of Metropolitan Area Totals, 2005-2009 Cincinna Metropolitan Area City as Percent (includes Cincinna ) of Metro Area Total Population 339,866 1,650,199 20.6% Number of Families 68,483 412,320 16.6% Percent African Amer- 40.9% 13.6% --- ican Number of African 139,172 224,441 62.0% American Persons Percent of Families 20.1% 8.3% --- Below Poverty Total Families Below 13,772 34,028 40.5% Poverty Percent 60 Years and 15.8% 16.6% --- Older Total Number of Per- 53,813 273,933 19.6% sons 60 Years and Old- er In Appendix VI SES II tracts are the ones with III and IV. an SES Index between 145.2 and 235. Oc- cupation, Overcrowding, and Education In- SES III Upper Middle Quartile dicators are generally lower (a good thing) in SES III is, conceptually, the third ring of the SES II than in SES I. Family Structure and metropolis. The reader can see elements of Family Income are generally higher (a good this in (dark pink) in Figure 14. There is also thing). The rural-urban difference in family what might be called a ﬁ fth ring beyond the structure noted above seems apparent in look- SES IV (red) areas. These tracts are scat- ing at Table Appendix VI. Some of the rural tered through Dearborn, Franklin, Warren tracts have over 80 percent of children under and Clermont Counties. The SES III tracts in 18 living in two-parent homes. Eighteen per- Butler County are the third ring of the Ham- cent is more typical of an inner city tract. Ru- ilton and Middletown urban areas. The SES ral tracts do not always come off well on the Index ranges from 234.4 to 319.2. The median Education Indicator. In tract 9502 in Bracken family income range is from $9,205 in Tract 11 County, for example, 33.9 percent of the adults in Hamilton County to $105,536 in Tract 242 have less than a high school education. The in Hamilton County. Surprisingly the former pattern, however, is that if a tract has an Edu- tract has a Family Structure Indicator of only 0 cation Indicator higher than 23 it is an urban meaning none of the children live in two parent tract. Income in SES II ranges from $12,089 families. On the high end, Tract 259 and Tract in Tract 3.02 (Hamilton) to $91,845 in Tract 7 in Hamilton County have a Family Structure 7.02 in Butler County. A median family in- Indicator of 100 meaning all the children un- come of about $45,000 is more typical. One of der 18 live in two parent homes. See Chapter the clearest patterns in the 15-county region II for further concepts regarding the four social is that the southern counties in Kentucky and areas. Brown County in Ohio are entirely SES I and II. The Indiana counties are almost entirely SES II and III. SES II is a very small area in Warren County which is otherwise mostly SES

118 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis cator is 24. Overcrowding rates in the city are region. There is not a wide range among the somewhat higher than those in the metro area counties on any of the three education variables as a whole. when percentages are used. The raw numbers do show a great difference. Hamilton County, Table 11d shows that in 2005-2009 20.6 perfor example had 74,702 individuals with less cent of the Metropolitan area population lived than a high school education compared to 4,039 in Cincinnati, 16.6 percent of the families, 62 in less populous Dearborn County. percent of African American population, 40.5 percent of poor families and 19.6 percent of Table 11h looks at joblessness and unemploy- persons over 60 years of age. ment. Not surprisingly Hamilton County had the highest 2005-2009 unemployment rate Table 11e looks at poverty and female headed (7.3). Clermont County was next at 6.8 per- households. Most of the families below pov- cent. Joblessness is also most severe in Hamil- erty live in Hamilton County. Kenton County ton County (37.7) with Clermont County (36.1) comes in second. The more rural Dearborn and in second place. By far the greatest numbers Boone Counties have relatively few families in (as compared to percentages) of jobless and un- this category. Campbell and Kenton Counties employed live in Hamilton County. Note: In have poverty rates close to that of Hamilton all the above examples the ﬁ gures for the met- County (10.4). ro area do not include the data from the City of None of the counties except Cincinnati. Hamilton and Kenton had a 2005- 2009 African American population that exceeded 4 percent.

Table 11f examines the distribution of the Afri- can American population in the seven counties. None of the counties except Hamilton and Ken- ton had a 2005-2009 African American population that exceeded 4 percent. Most of the seven counties had an African American population of 2 percent or less. Table 11g shows the education statistics for the

Table 11e Metropolitan Family Incomes and Families Below Poverty, 2005-2009 State County Median Family Percent of Percent of Total Families Income Families Below Households Below Poverty Poverty Headed by Females and Below Poverty Indiana Dearborn $65,621 4.2% 2.3% 570 Kentucky Boone $75,260 5.0% 3.0% 1,502 Campbell $68,713 7.5% 4.5% 1,666 Kenton $65,283 8.7% 5.9% 3,615 Ohio Clermont $67,340 6.8% 4.1% 3,535 Hamilton $65,081 10.4% 7.4% 20,553 Warren $81,216 4.7% 2.8% 2,587

119 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati Section II: The Fifteen County tors and ranks of each tract on the fi ve SES Area variables. Of the ten tracts with the lowest Figure 14 shows the fi fteen county Consoli- SES scores, fi ve are in Hamilton County, two dated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). in Butler County, two in Campbell County, Because more and more planning and service and one in Kenton County. delivery efforts use this as a target area we SES I and SES II should be major target ar- have included it in the Fifth Edition for the eas for community investments in job creation, fi rst time. We have not assembled compara- education, health and social services. Appen- tive data for previous censuses so part of the dix VI can be used for very specifi c targeting. value of this section is to provide baseline data For example, the tract with the highest Educa- for future comparisons. tion Indicator is 7.01 in Butler County. In that SES I The Lower SES Quartile tract, 58.6 percent of the population 25 years of age or older has less than a high school educa- The census tracts in white in Figure 14 rep- tion. Three Boone County tracts have Educa- resent the bottom quartile on the SES index. tion Indicators of at least 25 percent. Butler The index is calculated by averaging the ranks County has a similar cluster and two tracts of each of the 439 tracts on the fi ve variables as with an Education Indicator of over 35. The described in Chapter 2 and Appendix V. These reader can see from these examples how to cre- tracts are heavily concentrated in the middle ate a regional map for targeting adult educa- third of Hamilton County. Only two are in In- tion programs and workforce development pro- diana. These are in Lawrenceburg and Rising grams. Sun. In Kentucky, there are clusters of urban tracts along the Licking and Ohio Rivers, four As one might expect, the Family Structure In- tracts in the Florence-Erlanger urban area, all dicator is high in some of the rural counties. In of Gallatin County, half of Grant and Pendleton some of the rural tracts in SES I, over 70 per- counties and one of the three tracts in Bracken cent of the children under 18 live in two parent County. Back in Ohio, Clermont County has homes. Scores are not this high in Cincinnati four tracts in SES I and Brown County has two even in the wealthier neighborhoods. There both along the Ohio River near Higgensport and is some variation, however. In Tract 9501 in east of Ripley. Warren County has three tracts Bracken County (an SES I tract) the Family Structure Indicator (FSI) is only 43.2. In the SES I and SES II should be major three Pendleton County tracts, the FSI aver- target areas for community ages only 62. But even this rate is higher than investments in job creation, for SES III in the city and these tracts in Pend- education, health and social leton County are SES I and II. services. SES II Lower Middle Quartile In Chapter 2, we described SES II (light pink in Franklin and one in the tract which includes in Figure 14) tracts as “second stage” neigh- two prisons. In Butler County, all SES I tracts borhoods because in the central city they sur- are in the urban centers of Fairfi eld, Hamilton, rounded SES I tracts and were considered a Trenton, Middletown, and Oxford. step up from the core inner city. In Figure 14 we can see that this model still applies some- SES I consists of two types of areas: urban cen- what for the urban core which includes Cincin- ters with a declining industrial base and ru- nati, Covington and Newport. This model even ral areas far removed from the metropolitan applies in a somewhat irregular way to the core. Rural counties have experienced changes Hamilton and Middletown areas. We have no in the agricultural economy and some have such theory to describe the large SES II areas lost manufacturing jobs as well. Appendix VI in the outer ring, more rural, counties. shows the SES Index and rank and the indica-

120 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis ´ Miles

Brown Brown

Clermont Brown 0 5 10 20

Bracken

Warren

Clermont

Clermont Bracken Pendleton

Clermont Clermont

Warren Hamilt Campbell Butler

2005-2009 Metropolitan Cincinnati 15 Counties 15 Counties Quartiles SES Cincinnati Metropolitan 2005-2009 Campbell

l dleton Pen Campbel Kenton Pendleton

Grant

Kenton Kenton Butler Kenton

Hamilton

Butler

Hamilton Grant

Boone Boone

Gallatin

Butler Hamilton Dearborn Franklin

Boone Ohio

Dearborn

Franklin

Ohio Dearborn SES I SES II SES III Census tract boundary tract Census Neighborhood boundary SES IV 14 Figure SES Quartiles Legend

121 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati SES IV “Fourth Stage” Neighborhoods In the conceptual schema outlined in Chapter 2, the upper quartile of census tracts on the SES index are the fourth stage of urban settle- ment. This schema makes some sense as we look at Figure 14. There are some exceptions. In Cincinnati there are a few SES IV areas in the urban core. These include Clifton, Mt. Ad- ams, parts of the East End and the West End. On this regional scale even the Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, East Walnut Hills cluster is relatively close in. In Northern Kentucky there are also close in SES IV tracts and the four stages are not so obvious as on the Ohio side. Some of the shape of SES IV in the region seems to be related to patterns of development in the I-75 and I-71 corridors. Others are part of what might be called a “return to the city” movement in some American cities. The SES Index ranges from 319.6 in Tract 102.03 in Butler County to 471.3 in Tract 43 in Cincinnati’s East End. Median family income ranges from $60,071 in Tract 106 in Butler County to $250,001 in Tract 14 in Cincinna-

The Education Indicator is very low (good) in this social area. In most tracts it is less than 10. ti’s West End. The Family Structure Indica- tor ranges from 34.1 in Tract 53 in Hamilton County to 100 in Tracts 526, 107, and 106 also in Hamilton County. Overcrowding is very rare in SES IV. The Occupation Indicator varies from 25 to 74. The Education Indicator is very low (good) in this social area. In most tracts it is less than 10. In Tract 43 in Hamilton Coun- ty it is 16. There is some dispersed poverty in SES III and IV. County level poverty statistics are available at www.factsmatter.info. See Ap- pendix V for deﬁ nitions of all variables.

122 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis ´ Miles

Adams

Adams Highland

Adams

Brown

Highland Clinton

Clinto Highland

Clinton Brown

Brown Warren

Clermont Brown 0 5 10 20

Bracken 2005-2009 Metropolitan Cincinnati 20 Counties 20 Counties Quartiles SES Cincinnati Metropolitan 2005-2009

Clermon Bracken

Warren

Clermont Warren Pendleton ermont

Clermont Cl

Warren Hamilton Campbell

utler B Campbell

ell Kenton

Butler Campb Pendleton Pendleton Hamilton

Grant

Kenton

Kenton t Kenton

ilton Gran

Butler

Ham

Boone Boone

Gallatin

Butler Hamilton Dearborn

Franklin Boone d

Ohio

Gallatin Switzerlan

arborn

Switzerland

rn earborn

bo Ohio Dear D

Franklin Ripley

Ripley

Ripley SES I SES II SES III Census tract boundary tract Census SES IV Neighborhood boundary 15 Figure Legend SES Quartiles 123 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati

Table 11f Metropolitan Area Distribution of African American Population, 2005-2009 State County Total Popula on African American Popula on Range Within Number Number Pct., 2000 Pct., 2009 Each Census Tract Indiana Dearborn 49,608 257 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% - 4.2% Kentucky Boone 112,514 2,816 1.7% 2.5% 0.0% - 6.3% Campbell 87,509 1,766 1.6% 2.0% 0.0% - 19.0% Kenton 156,399 7,033 3.8% 4.5% 0.0% - 38.9% Ohio Clermont 193,377 2,446 0.9% 1.3% 0.0% - 4.7% Hamilton 851,867 206,189 23.4% 24.2% 0.0% - 100.0% Warren 203,129 6,373 2.7% 3.1% 0.0% - 57.3%

Table 11g Metropolitan Area Adult Education Levels, 2005-2009 State County High School Drop-outs Those Without High School Func onal Illiteracy Diploma Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Indiana Dearborn 2.7% 73 12.2% 4,039 3.5% 1,161 Kentucky Boone 6.5% 357 9.7% 7,069 3.4% 2,475 Campbell 2.3% 119 13.8% 8,027 4.7% 2,739 Kenton 7.1% 575 13.0% 13,470 4.2% 4,403 Ohio Clermont 4.9% 489 13.7% 17,398 3.8% 4,784 Hamilton 5.6% 2,829 13.2% 74,702 3.4% 19,328 Warren 5.4% 556 10.2% 13,593 2.9% 3,813

Table 11h Metropolitan Area Joblessness and Unemployment Rates, 2005-2009 State County Jobless Persons Unemployment Persons Percent Number Percent Number Indiana Dearborn 30.6% 8,244 6.7% 1,815 Kentucky Boone 26.9% 16,868 5.3% 3,339 Campbell 33.2% 15,639 5.9% 2,776 Kenton 32.2% 27,374 6.0% 5,072 Ohio Clermont 36.1% 36,444 6.8% 6,845 Hamilton 37.7% 166,844 7.3% 32,380 Warren 34.7% 36,981 5.8% 6,153

124 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Section III: Metropolitan II tracts in the rural fringe can have incomes Cincinnati 20 Counties SES as low as $22,784 and as high as $56,000. Oc- Quartiles cupation and Family Structure Indicators are high, the Overcrowding Indicator is low and Figure 15 shows the four social areas in the 20 the Education Indicator greatly varied. The county Cincinnati region. The ﬁ ve variables Education Indicator varies from 11 to 33.9 in that make up the SES Index (See Chapter 2) the outer ring tracts. are shown in Appendix VII. This is the target area for the Health Foundation of Greater Indiana Patterns Cincinnati and Figure 15 can be used as a base One might expect all the Indiana counties to be map to display the health variables available like the rural edge counties in Ohio and Ken- at www.healthfoundation.org. Appendix VII tucky, mostly SES I and SES II. A look at Fig- demonstrates all the same features as those ure 15 shows that only Switzerland County ﬁ ts described in Section II above for the 15 county this pattern. Ripley County is SES II but has metropolitan area so that narrative will not one SES III tract east of Batesville. Franklin be repeated here. The larger urbanized areas County has three of the four social areas includ- Cincinnati-Covington-Newport, Hamilton, and ing an SES IV tract which is the most “outlying” Middletown show up as having an SES I core SES IV area in the region. Dearborn County is (white) with radiating pink (SES II), dark pink the only outlying county to have all four social (SES III) and red (SES IV) areas. There is a areas. Aurora is partly SES II; Lawrenceburg somewhat similar pattern in Clinton County partly SES I. Together they provide an urban except that the core city, Wilmington, is SES core with the full array of SES tracts. Ohio II. County is the only county to consist of only The Outer Ring Counties SES I and SES III tracts. Switzerland County is the only entirely SES II county and Gallatin The outer ring of rural counties has its own County, Kentucky, across the river, is the only pattern. Highland, Brown and Adams in Ohio, all SES I county. Bracken, Pendleton, Grant, and Gallatin in Kentucky and Switzerland in Indiana are en- Conclusion tirely in SES I and II. In this respect, they Figure 15 and the associated Appendix VII pro- resemble the inner city areas. Tract 9801 in vide a tool for monitoring the changing shape Grant County, for example, has an Occupation of the metropolis over time. Figure 15 can be Indicator of 78.7, Education Indicator of 22.5, used as a base map to plot such variables as poverty, race, health, and education. It can The outer ring of counties has its be used by colleges and hospitals to do client own pattern. Highland, Brown and analysis and by health planners to study dis- Adams in Ohio, Bracken, Pendleton, ease patterns in relation to SES and to plan Grant, and Gallatin in Kentucky and services. SES I and II are, generally, the areas Switzerland in Indiana are entirely in of highest need for various kinds of economic SES I and II. development, education programs and health and social services.

Overcrowding Indicator of 3.2, Family Struc- ture Indicator of 61.5, and an Income Indicator (median family income) of $50,891. The SES I tract in Adams County on the same indicators is 77.8, 25.4, .6, 48.5, and $42,295. The one tract in Gallatin County (9601) has 82.4, 27, 1.0, 61.6, and $47,714. By comparison, the “worst off” tract in inner city Cincinnati (Tract 77) has 96.7, 41.8, 4.0, 8.4, and $15,732. SES 125 Chapter 11 | Cincinnati as a Metropolis Social Areas of Cincinnati

126 Chapter 12 Findings and Policy Recommendations

Part of the intent of the original social areas of 3. Despite the persistence of overall pat- Cincinnati study was to create base line data terns, dramatic shifts in a neighborhood’s SES which could be used to measure change over position can occur. Six former SES I tracts in time. A socioeconomic status index consisting Over-the-Rhine and the West End are now SES of fi ve variables was supplemented by fi fteen II, III, or IV. Fairview-Clifton Heights was all other variables which together comprised the SES II in 1970. In 1990 two tracts had moved base line data. The authors believe the use of a up to SES III and one to SES IV. In 2000, two multivariate approach is more benefi cial than were in SES II, one in SES IV. In 2005-2009 selecting a single variable such as income or one was SES II and two were SES III. poverty. The socioeconomic status index, in 4. SES decline associated with shifts in the particular, is a powerful tool in keeping track African American or Appalachian populations of trends in the neighborhoods and in the city is not necessarily permanent and irreversible. as a whole. Adding a metropolitan area com- The data in Chapter 4 show that some of the ponent to the second and subsequent editions neighborhoods that have experienced a great acknowledges that the central city contains decline in the 70s and 80s had begun to sta- an increasingly small component of the area’s bilize by 1990. Much population movement population base and economy. is associated with Because the SES index is based on a census Much population upward mobility tract’s ranking in the fi ve SES variables (Table movement is on the part of mi- 1a) in comparison to other tracts it provides a associated with norities. The new- measure of the tract or neighborhood’s relative upward mobility comers initially position and is not a fi xed number such as in- on the part of may have lower income measure. With this in mind some overall comes or education minorities. conclusions can be stated: levels and a different family com- City of Cincinnati position than the previous ethnic groups had 1. The social areas within Cincinnati have achieved. Over time their circumstances im- remained relatively constant over time. For prove to come more in line with the new social example, the SES IV areas are, in 2005-2009, area with its better housing and schools, etc. pretty much where they were in 1970. The Several predominantly African American or SES IV area around Hyde Park has expanded. Appalachian neighborhoods improved in SES The SES IV area during the past decade (Table 4c and Table 9). in Price Hill and The social areas Westwood has di- 5. Some of the neighborhoods which have minished but is still within Cincinnati become home to signifi cant segments of the there. Mt. Adams, have remained African American middle class have begun to East Walnut Hills relatively constant slow the pattern of declining SES. Avondale, and other areas over time. East Walnut Hills and Pleasant Ridge, for ex- have been added ample, fi t this description. Bond Hill, Kennedy but overall the high status and low status ar- Heights and College Hill are still declining. eas are pretty much where they were in 1970. 6. The tables in Chapter II show lists of 2. SES I has shifted somewhat to the west neighborhoods which declined the most in var- and northwest across Mill Creek and some- ious decades. In the 1970-1990 period, Bond what to the east along the Reading Road and Hill, Mt. Airy, Avondale, Kennedy Heights and Montgomery Road corridors. East Price Hill topped the list. South Cum- 127 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati minsville-Millvale, Westwood, College Hill, the past decade. Mt. Washington, and Fay Apartments were not 10. Among blue-collar Appalachian areas far behind. In the 2000s the big losers on the Camp Washington, East End, Lower Price Hill, SES Index (Figure 2g-2) were Riverside-Sayler and Linwood saw improvement in SES during Park (-38.4), West Price Hill (-22.2), Kennedy the 00s. East Price Hill continued a pattern Heights (-21.4), Roselawn ( 20.2) and Mt. Airy of decline. Sedamsville-Riverside declined (-15.7). Over the period of the study (1970- slightly. Carthage declined by over 10 points; 2005 to 2009), the greatest losses were Mt. Riverside-Sayler Park by 38.4 points. Airy (-60.1), Bond Hill (47.7), Roselawn (42.0), Kennedy Heights (37.8) and Westwood (36.0). 11. Patterns in working class African Amer- Neighborhoods with the greatest increases in ican neighborhoods were also varied. Neigh- SES score were East End (59.1), Mt. Adams borhoods which gained more than 10 points on (34.6), California (29.4), and Lower Price Hill the SES Index in the 00s were Over-the-Rhine (24.0). (Table 9). (24.6), North Fairmount-English Woods (19.4), West End (14.7), Winton Hills (11.6), and Mt. 7. By at least one measure Cincinnati made Auburn (8.5). Smaller increases occurred in progress in racial integration between 1970 Walnut Hills (1.3), Avondale (1.4) and Fay and 2005-2009. In 1970 76.4 percent of Cincin- Apartments (1.4). Three neighborhoods saw nati’s African Americans lived in the two lower declines on the SES Index. South Cummins- SES quartiles. In 2005-2009 the percentage ville-Millvale lost 3.8 points. Evanston de- was 58.2. clined 1.4 points and Bond Hill 7.7. 8. In the 2000s the two lowest SES quartiles 12. The decline in the population over 60 in Cincinnati became less African American which we reported in the Fourth Edition has (Table 2b) and SES III more African American. reversed itself in three social areas of the city SES IV lost over 4,000 African Americans and of Cincinnati (Table 2b). went from 13 percent to 10.6 percent on this indicator. 13. Family structure has changed funda- mentally and radically since 1970 in the two 9. Cincinnati was poorer and included lower SES areas (Table 2c). more African Americans in 2005-2009 than in 1970. During this period the poverty rate for Table 12a families climbed from 12.8 percent to 20.1 per- Family Structure Indicator in Cincinnati, 1970 to 2005-2009 1970 2000 2005-2009 Cincinnati was poorer and included SES I 71.4 17.0 22.9 more African Americans in 2005- SES II 73.5 34.7 32.5 2009 than in 1970. During this period the poverty rate for families SES III 80.3 50.3 48.9 climbed from 12.8 percent to 20.1 SES IV 83.1 75.4 69.0 percent in the City of Cincinnati. The Family Structure Indicator is the percent of children under 18 living in two parent families. cent in the City of Cincinnati. The percentage Data are for the City of Cincinnati. of African American families increased from 27.6 to 41.0 (Table 2d). Racial isolation contin- The change in SES III is also dramatic. Less ues. Hamilton County is 24.2 African Ameri- than half the children under 18 now live in two can. The percentage African American in the parent homes. The “traditional” family struc- six other counties range from .5% to 4.5% (Ta- ture is holding up only in the highest SES area. ble 11f). Changes in these percentages in the Although we believe this is the most important seven counties were less than one percent in fi nding of this forty-year study we are not quite sure of all its implications. We are certain that 128 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations it is not just associated with an increase in the The New Metro Area and the African American population in these areas. It 20-County Health Foundation has affected some poor white areas and recent- Service Area ly the FSI is declining given in SES III and IV. 17. This Fifth Edition includes a narrative It appears that, at least in Cincinnati, there (Chapter 11, Sections II and III) on the 15- is a correlation between family structure and county Cincinnati Metropolitan Area and the SES that was not as apparent forty years ago. 20-county region served by the Health Founda- We are certain that community organizers, so- tion of Greater Cincinnati. Appendix VI pro- cial workers, school offi cials, health workers vides the fi ve socioeconomic status variables and others concerned about the inner city need for the 15-county area and Appendix VII pro- to assess how practice and policy need to adapt vides the same data for the 20-county area. to the new reality that the two parent family is Both tables are at the census tract level. These rapidly disappearing. data provide rich material which planners, ad- The Seven County (1970) Metro ministrators and proposal writers can use for Area* needs assessment and resource allocation. The 14. In the 7-county metropolitan area both base maps, Figures 14 and 15, can be used to African Americans and the poor are concen- plot epidemiological, crime, food availability, trated. Sixty-two percent of metropolitan area and other data to see how they vary by socio- African Americans and 40.5 percent of metro- economic status. politan area poor live in Cincinnati (Table 11d). 18. The 7-county (Figure 13), 15-county These percentages compare to, respectively, (Figure 14), and 20-county (Figure 15) maps from 67 and 46.6 in 2000. allow us to see at a glance the socioeconomic picture of our region in its various confi gura- Socioeconomic integration is also tions. The two lowest quartiles or social areas (SES I and II) should be given high priority for sorely lacking at the metropolitan certain education, health, and social service area level. Most of the metropolitan programs. The two higher SES areas (SES III area’s poor families live in Hamilton and IV) can also be used for targeting programs County (Table 11e), primarily in such as serving the dispersed poor or prevent- SES I and II. ing neighborhood decline. 19. Future American Community Survey 15. Socioeconomic integration is also sorely or equivalent census data can be used to mea- lacking at the metropolitan area level. Most sure change in the different census tracts and of the metropolitan area’s poor families live in larger ju- Hamilton County (Table 11e), primarily in SES risdictions The maps and charts I and II. in our re- provided in this report 16. Campbell and Kenton Counties’ pover- gion using provide a new tool ty rates of 7.5 and 8.7 are closest to Hamilton this study for regional needs County’s rate of 10.4 (Table 11e). as baseline assessment. data. * In 1970, the metropolitan area included Hamilton, Warren and Clermont Counties in 20. The maps and charts provided in this Ohio, Kenton, Campbell and Boone in Ken- report provide a new tool for regional needs tucky and Dearborn County in Indiana. assessment. Figure 15, for example, could be used to review the location of food pantries, GED or job training programs, or emergency services. SES I and SES II areas would be high priority. Appendix VII provides more detail on education levels, family structure, me-

129 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati dian family income, occupation, and housing. recipients and found that although these pro- In Adams County, for example, Tracts 9904 grams lead to modest employment and income and 9906 are in SES I. These two tracts have gains there was no evidence that these pro- a Family Structure Indicator of 48.3 and 54.9, grams moved families out of poverty. 3 respectively. This means that only approxi- Urban specialists agree that one single policy mately half of the children under 18 live in two cannot be effective with the complicated prob- parent homes. The Education Indicator is 25.4 lems of urban poverty. A framework of policies and 26.0, respectively. Median Family Income is recommended that recognizes psychological is in the $35,000-$40,000 range. Programs to factors, social structure factors and cultural assist single parents might include ready ac- variables. The framework must include: em- cess to GED programs, day care, and job train- ployment access, appropriate education, and ing. family support policies. Additionally the poli- Public Policy Implications of the cies must address the relationship between cit- Continuing Urban Crisis ies and suburbs and both public and private Numerous studies have examined the nature sectors. Whatever framework of policies is de- of our inner cities. They are often described veloped, the outcomes wouldn’t be immediate. as inhabited by an urban underclass which Several years of these policies would be neces- experiences a combination of poverty, social sary to achieve notable results. One example problems, unemployment, and dependence on of a framework of multiple policies in an urban public assistance. Explanations for this con- area is the centrated poverty vary, but most causes in- New Hope Program in The framework must clude: changing employment opportunities, de- include: employment clines in marriage rates, selective outmigration Milwaukee, access, appropriate (movement of the middle-class from the urban Wisconsin. core), and race discrimination in marginalizing This frame- education, and family low-skilled minorities in our society.1 work pro- support policies. vides the A review of poverty research over the past four purchase of decades provides some indications of our prior- child care services, governmentally enforced ities and needed directions. Robert Haverman child support, job training and job-fi nding ser- identifi es trends: 1) the nation has experienced vices, a guaranteed income fl oor, and wage growing inequality in earnings, with particu- subsidies to able bodied adults and possible lar hardships on young workers and those with long-term public employment. Other examples little education; 2) as a nation, our policies are of a comprehensive approach to neighborhood directed more at symptoms and lacks invest- revitalization include the Dudley Street neigh- ment in education policies and support of our borhood project in Boston’s Roxbury neighbor- youth, 3) most of the growth in social welfare hood4 and the Harlem Children’s Zone.5 The spending has been in the form of social insur- former uses the comprehensive community ance benefi ts to elderly and disabled people, development model and began with a commu- and in-kind benefi ts such as Medicare and nity organization effort to insure citizen input. Medicaid. 2 The Harlem project, led by a reformer named Rebecca Blank examined the past two decades Geoffrey Canada, includes educational, social, of changes in welfare policies and found that and medical services. Both of these efforts are changes focused more on increasing work ef- backed by a major local foundation. fort of recipients and less on improving their earnings potential. She examined the effects of on-the-job training, job search assistance, and work experience programs on female Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 130 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Inner City Employment who wanted it. The jobs would be public con- Many Americans view the high rates of inner struction work such as highway construction, city unemployment as the most fundamental housing and ground clean-up. Wages would be problem affl icting the urban poor. It is recog- slightly below the minimum wage. Workers nized as both a personal problem and source of could be promoted to higher paying public work social distress associated with crime, drug traf- or move to the private sector as they increased fi cking, and family break-ups. Employment is their skills. Kaus proposes that all welfare re- not simply a way to support one’s family, but a cipients, after a certain time on welfare, must structure for daily behavior and activities. enroll in this work program or forfeit their welfare payments. (He also recognizes the neces- Employment policy recommendations abound, sity for government fi nanced day care with this but all have a special caveat — they cannot policy.)6 stand alone. Policies of macroeconomic stimulation, human capital development, health Jeffrey Lehman recommends urban policies care, and income support are necessary foun- that recognize the limited impact of legal reg- dations. Specifi c recommended policies vary in ulations to alter discrimination in businesses details, but essentials include: family support and labor market opportunities. He recom- policies, expanded transportation systems, job mends tools of public education and advertising information centers and enforcing antidiscrim- to educate citizens about statistical discrimi- ination laws, and guaranteed public works nation, public transportation and job informa- jobs. Other recommended policies include: a system of national performance standards in Policies of macroeconomic public schools; a school-to-work transition pro- stimulation, human capital gram; city-suburban integration and coopera- development, health care, and tion; and expanding housing vouchers. income support are necessary foundations. The mismatch between residence in the inner city and the location of jobs in the suburbs is a major problem for many cities. Public trans- tion centers. Further, Lehman addresses resi- portation systems which link the metropolitan dential segregation and argues that American areas with the city are recommended as a fun- housing markets are profoundly segregated on damental component to solving unemployment the basis of race and he relies on the spatial problems (although not the only solution). Poli- mismatch hypothesis to suggest policies. 7 cies that achieve city-suburban cooperation are also proposed. Cooperation could range from The spatial mismatch hypothesis suggests that creation of metropolitan governments to met- inner city residents have fewer earnings oppor- ropolitan tax-based sharing, collaborative met- tunities than they would have if they lived in ropolitan planning and regional authorities. the suburbs and that this is a signifi cant factor in explaining poverty among urban residents Lehman and Wilson advocate for job informa- (Some urban researchers are unconvinced of tion and placement centers. These centers this). While transportation and information would provide awareness of the availability of centers may address some of the problems with employment opportunities in the metropolitan employment, housing vouchers are recom- area and refer workers to employers. Just as mended to address the employment problem of importantly, they would provide training for personal acquaintanceship isolation. Anthony individuals needing employment skills. Downs suggest policies or programs to respond Mickey Kaus proposes a public works employ- to overt forms of residential segregation. Ex- ment policy similar to the Works Progress Ad- amples are to expand HUD enforcement staff ministration (W.P.A.) initiated by Roosevelt and HUD-sponsored tester based activities. and in progress for eight years. This program Lehman recommends policies that duplicate would provide employment for every American the experiment for Housing Allowance (EHAP) 131 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati and provide housing vouchers to inner city res- efforts were very unevenly distributed. idents. He refers to the Gautreaux program in Henry M. Levin, a Stanford University edu- Chicago’s public housing. It gave applicants a cational economist, found that most of the choice among three homes in either the city or reforms had relatively little to offer students the suburbs and found that those who left the with parents who have low incomes and little city were 14 percent more likely to have a job. education. He identifi ed that about 30 percent While transportation and of the public school population was education- ally disadvantaged. Levin feared that in the information centers may address absence of explicit efforts to improve education some of the problems with for these youth some of the current reforms, employment, housing vouchers such as stiffer graduation requirements, may are recommended to address the actually increase dropout rates, contributing in employment problem of personal turn to an increased permanent underclass.8 acquaintanceship isolation. Terrel H. Bell, Secretary of Education in the 1980s, said, “The school reform movement has Educational Policies had no signifi cant impact on the 30 percent of Since the 1970s the relative wages of both high our students who are the low-income minority school graduates and dropouts have steadily students. We are still not effectively educat- fallen. For male dropouts, 1991 wages were 26 ing them.” 9 And Ernest L. Boyer, president of percent lower than in 1973 and for female drop- the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement outs wages were 11 percent lower. High school of Teaching, said “Urban schools with students graduates wages fell 21 percent and 6 percent largely from minority groups were getting for males and females, respectively. Also, the worse even as ‘advantaged schools are getting differential wage rates between college gradu- better.’ The fi rst wave of educational reform, ates and high school graduates have increased declared the Committee for Economic Develop- signifi cantly. In 1991 the wage difference was ment in its 1987 report, “has either ignored or 56 percent. Besides low wages, employment underplayed the plight of the disadvantaged.” instability is a problem. Thirty two percent of 10 high school graduates near thirty years of age According to the America’s Promise website had their job for less than one year and 49 per- (see Dropout Prevention) in 2011 only 53% of cent of high school dropouts had their jobs less youth in America’s 50 top cities graduate on than one year in 1991. In 1999, among per- time. In 2009 68% of 4th graders scored below sons 25 to 34 years of age, 43 percent of high profi cient on the NAEP reading test. In Ham- school graduates and only 29 percent of drop- ilton County (2001-2009) 50.2% of 4th graders outs worked year-round full-time. In this age group the unemployment rate for dropouts was 44 percent compared to 23 percent for gradu- From 2003 to 2009 the number of ates. children in poverty increased from 32,751 to 42,305. The poverty rate In the sixties, national attention was drawn for children increased from 16.0% to persistent differences in academic achieve- to 21.4%. ment. Low-income areas produced dispropor- tionate numbers of delinquents and school dropouts. The President and Congress responded were below profi ciency in reading. From 2003 with enactment of new educational support to 2009 the number of children in poverty in- and provided federal funds to poor local school creased from 32,751 to 42,305. The poverty rate districts. Slowly changes were brought into for children increased from 16.0% to 21.4%.11 schools and scores seemed to rise. However, A critical challenge for urban local schools is several reports in the eighties revealed these to ameliorate the disadvantages that children 132 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations from poor families face. Primary recommen- children not currently being served. dations based on these reports include: expan- Research suggests that mastery of reading and sion of preschool programs for disadvantaged math skills taught no later than junior high children, integration of vocational skills with school is increasingly signifi cant in determin- academic training, monitoring the quality of ing access to high paying jobs for high school education provided to poor children and prepa- graduates. This is important as many school ration-for-work programs. districts have found it easier to offer excellent The 1960s saw the development of preschool instruction in advanced material to a subset and Head Start programs for children of poor of motivated students preparing for colleges families. The primary Head Start model in- than to help all students acquire threshold cluded education, health, nutrition, social ser- levels of literacy and mathematical problem vices and parent support to 3 to 5 year old chil- solving skills. Murnane is afraid state test- dren. Children were provided hot meals, social ing programs infl uence what is emphasized in services, health evaluation and care, and their the classroom and policies designed to improve families became partners in their children’s cognitive and testing ability rather than prac- learning experiences. The long-term effects of tical skills are emphasized. these programs are well documented. Many industrialized countries have policies The Perry Preschool program is perhaps the that require their young people to meet high most well-known preschool program with performance standards before they can gradu- evaluation studies. Children who attended ate from high schools. National standards are this quality program developed social and ac- set and high schools are held responsible for ademic competencies later manifested in in- meeting these standards. These standards creased school success. For example, students prepare young people for either immediate em- had lower rates of high school dropouts, lower ployment or training in technical areas. Cur- placement in special education classes, lower rently the United States has no mandatory teenage pregnancy, unemployment and crimi- standards and high school graduates that are nal involvement, enhanced college attendance not preparing for college have severely limited and post-high school training programs. options after high school. The Perry Preschool and other successful pre- Murnane recommends three principles for high schools provide full-time, year round services by highly trained staff. Most Head Start pro- These principles require different grams, however, do not provide such interven- institutions — high schools, tions. They provide three to four hours of ser- colleges and private industries — to vices for a typical school year and often with coordinate their efforts for successful minimally trained staff. The National Head outcomes. Start association in 1989 provided fi ve recommendations to increase the quality of these programs. First, increased staff training, bet- schools in preparing their graduates for the ter compensation and upgraded facilities are workforce. First, integrate vocational training needed. Second, increase the program day to with instruction in traditional academic sub- fi ve or six hours as these are the hours of projects such as language arts and mathematics. grams that had successful outcomes mentioned This is based on a study that showed that many above. Third, combine the program day with students learn academic material most success- child care hours -- typically ten hours a day so fully when it is taught in the context of prepa- family members can work. Fourth, include two ration for real jobs. Second, learning should be generation approaches by helping parents to integrated with experience in real workplaces. develop the skills to help their children. Fifth, This aids in helping students understand the make program available to more of the eligible importance of regular attendance and punctu-

133 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati ality that employers demand. The third prin- ers for the classrooms. ciple is that high school education should be in- Fourth, Wilson advocates that data on school tegrated with postsecondary education. These performance be compared to the national per- principles require different institutions — high formance standards and be widely disseminat- schools, colleges, and private industries — to co- ed. He advocates for a voucher system for the ordinate their efforts for successful outcomes. 12 selection of public schools that parents should The federal government has tried to support be able to select for their child’s attendance. He these efforts through the 1990 Perkins Act, which bases this recommendation on empirical data mandates that vocational education programs that suggests that increased competition among integrate academic and occupational training. public schools improves average student perfor- One example of this is the career academy. Each mance and restrains levels of spending. 14 academy has a particular theme and curricula The K-12 reform program advocated by the are designed to blend academics and vocational George Lucas Foundation (2011) includes com- material to capture students’ interests. Local prehensive assessment, integrated studies, employers provide mentoring for students and project-based learning, social and emotional internships in the academy’s industrial fi eld. learning, teacher development and technology Another model receiving funding from the Per- integration. The ENA’s Priority Schools Pro- kins Act is the Tech Prep or Two plus Two program emphasizes partnerships between schools, grams. These programs coordinate the curric- business and community organizations.15 ulum of the last two years of high school and two years of community college related to one Family Support Policies particular occupation. Youth apprenticeships Education policies have been looked at primari- programs provide work-based mentoring and ly as a solution to urban unemployment and low academic instruction. Long-term evaluations skill levels of labor force entrants. However, we regarding the employment and wages of partici- cannot rely only on improvements in the edu- pants of these programs have not been done. cational system. The quality of the lives children lead outside the school are critical. Family Wilson recommends a four prong policy frame- life factors have often been found as a stronger work that involves the educational system and predictor of cognitive skill levels than are school family support policies. The fi rst important variables. step in this area is targeting schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods with local and national Children who live in single parent families are performance standards. Second, state and local often exposed to high levels of economic and so- governments would have to support these efforts cial insecurity. About half of these children live by creating equity in local funding that attracts in families with below poverty incomes. On av- high quality teachers, curriculum development erage the post-divorce income of a single mother and assessment and teaching development and is about 60 percent of her pre-divorce income. material resources, especially computers. 13 With this loss in income, changes in employment happen often, either through new jobs or Third, the private sector should be encouraged expanded hours. One study found that moth- to work with these schools to improve computer ers who worked one thousand hours or more in- competency training. Federal support started creased from 51 percent to 73 percent after a in 1994 and 1995 when schools could apply for divorce. Clearly these children are exposed to a grant to develop clear and high standards re- risks of more than economic insecurity. garding instruction, curriculum technology, professional development and parental and com- Garfi nkel and McLanahan recommend ways the munity involvement. State governments are government can reduce the economic insecurity expected to create more equity in local school of these families through examples from other funding by supporting these programs as well industrialized countries and empirical studies. as attracting high quality teachers and comput- Providing benefi ts to all single mothers, regard- 134 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations less of income, reduces heavy dependence on tressed communities during the 1990s is a public assistance, but increases the prevalence cause for concern because neighborhoods in- of single parenthood only slightly. Further fl uence many outcomes for children. The high recommendations include providing benefi ts to concentration of black and Hispanic children both one and two parent families.16 Admittedly in disadvantaged neighborhoods indicate that this requires a greater commitment of public a signifi cant segment of our most vulnerable funds than Americans have been willing to children are not likely to get the kind of sup- provide. port they need to thrive19 (www.aecf.org) Family support, as witnessed in other industri- Those supports include the two parent family alized countries, is recommended by nearly all and the elderly (grandparents and other elders) urban specialists. The French system includes which, as we have noted in this report, are be- three programs -- child care, income support coming scarce in inner city neighborhoods. The importance of public education and other Family support, as witnessed in facets of child welfare to community health is other industrialized countries, is illustrated by the listserv publication following recommended by nearly all urban from the Child Welfare Policy Research Center specialists. (May 20, 2004): Census counts from 1990 and 2000 provide and medical care. The child care programs in- ample evidence that Hamilton County is a clude infant care and high quality pre-schools county in distress. The county not only lost that prepare children for kindergarten. The in- population for the third consecutive decade, come support program includes child-support but its 1990-2000 loss of 20,925 people was the enforcement from the absent parent, child al- largest among all of Ohio’s 88 counties. An- lowances and welfare payments for low-income nual estimates issued by the U.S. Census Bu- parents. reau indicate that Hamilton County’s population decline has accelerated even further since The Status of Children 2000. According to the latest estimates, Ham- 17 A report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation ilton County’s population fell by 21,831 from 18 and the Population Reference Bureau focuses April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003. In only 3 ¼ years, attention on the growing number of children the county experienced a loss surpassing that in severely distressed neighborhoods. The of the entire preceding decade, when Hamilton criteria for “severely distressed” fi t several if County was Ohio’s population loss leader. not most of the neighborhoods in SES I in this study. On a national basis, 28% of black chil- Tabulations from the 1990 or 2000 census don’t dren and 13% of Hispanic children live in such neighborhoods while only 1 percent of non-His- The Cincinnati-Middletown, OH- panic whites live in these areas. In Cincinnati, KY-IN CMSA has 33,339 children Covington, and Newport, because of the low income Appalachian population, the percentage living in severely distressed of white children in distressed areas is likely neighborhoods. This is 6.3% of all to be higher. The Cincinnati-Middletown, OH- children, a rate somewhere in the KY-IN CMSA has 33,339 children living in se- middle of the 100 cities surveyed. verely distressed neighborhoods. This is 6.3% of all children, a rate somewhere in the middle of the 100 cities surveyed. include specifi c information on the composition of population change between natural increase The implications of this concentration of chil- (the balance of births over deaths) and net mi- dren is described as follows: gration (the balance of people moving into and The increase of children living in severely dis- out of an area). But simple cohort analysis, 135 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati tracking a group of people across the two cen- Health Status sus years, can provide some valuable insights The Ohio Family Health Status Survey found into the size of the net migration component. that there are signifi cant disparities between Hamilton County was home to 67,593 children Ohio’s central cities and suburbs on the three ages 0 to 4 in 1990, but 10 years later there key variables (overall health, physical health, were 3,771 fewer children who were 10 years and mental health) among adults. The city- older, in the 10-14 age group. Aside from the suburban differences on these variables for the fi rst year of life, the risk of mortality is very elderly were not statistically signifi cant. Most low for children at these ages, so the only con- of the difference between cities and suburbs can be explained by differences in socioeco- clusion is that out-migration of families with 21 young children is responsible for the decline. nomic status and demographics. The socio- Presumably dissatisfi ed with conditions in economic status index used was similar to the Hamilton County, many of these families chose one used in this study except that poverty was to leave. The same cohort analysis reveals substituted for the housing variable. that the seven tri-state suburban counties col- SES was less important as a predictor of phys- lectively gained nearly 11,000 children in this ical health than of self-reported health and age cohort between 1990 and 2000. mental health. Racial composition of a neighborhood is a marginally signifi cant factor in predicting physical health. Age is the most In 2011, 18% of U.S. children were important factor in predicting physical health living in poverty. In 2009, the and mental health but is less important in de- percentages for Hamilton County termining mental health. “After age, poverty and Butler County were 21.4 and and income level are the most important pre- 22 17.5 respectively (up from 13% and dictors on all three health status measures.” 12% respectively in 2005). Several important local studies have been completed in the past several years on the health status of individuals and various sub groups Population gain and loss within this cohort of of the population including children, African children is even more dramatic at the neigh- Americans, and Appalachians. For informa- borhood level. Sixty-eight of 217 census tracts tion consult the web sites of the Institute for experienced a staggering loss of 25% of more in Health Policy and Health Services Research, the cohort of children who were preschool-aged the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati in 1990. Almost all of these tracts are served (www.healthfoundation.org), the Child Poli- by Cincinnati Public Schools, perhaps refl ect- cy Research Center (www.cprc_chmc.uc.edu) ing a strong consumer preference for suburban and the Urban Appalachian Council (www. school districts. 20 uacvoice.org). Local health research is avail- The Child Policy Research Center serves as a able on these sites. See Chapter 10 for a more community resource for evidence-based, policy extensive treatment of socioeconomic status relevant information on the well-being of chil- and health. dren in the 29-county region in southern Ohio, Deconcentrating the Poor northern Kentucky and eastern Indiana. The concentration of the poor and minorities in In 2011, 18% of U.S. children were living in the central city of the region ought to be a mat- poverty. In 2009, the percentages for Hamil- ter of great concern to policy makers. Since ton County and Butler County were 21.4 and 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban 17.5 respectively (up from 13% and 12% re- Development has used the HOPE VI Program, spectively in 2005). vouchers, and other strategies to replace public housing concentrations with dispersed affordable units. In a recent Journal of the American

136 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Planning Association article12 Edward G. Goetz Poverty experts have learned that work is not assesses the results of efforts brought about enough. Working a part-time job with no ben- by desegregation lawsuits. The bibliography efi ts or working only part of a year will not makes reference to a variety of recent efforts, lift one’s family out of poverty. And, even if the most famous of which took place in Chi- it does, the commonly used poverty levels rep- cago, Minneapolis and Columbus, Ohio. The resent only about 1/3 of what it would cost to Minneapolis experience is examined in detail. live at an adequate level. Society needs to fi nd a way to increase Goetz points out the limited success of these pro- the minimum grams. Dispersal was mostly to nearby neigh- Poverty experts wage and to pro- borhoods already heavily impacted. There was have learned that vide jobs with a little dispersal to suburbia in most cases. The work is not enough. living wage and reasons include resistance of suburban commu- benefi ts. nities to affordable housing, especially for non- residents, affordability, transportation issues, Building the political will to eliminate or se- and the reluctance of public housing residents riously reduce poverty will require reframing to leave supportive networks and services in the issue. Most Americans believe people in the city. The effects of restrictive zoning were poverty are there because of some moral fail- not examined. The Chicago experience shows ure. The Inclusion Network of the Center for that when public housing conditions are bad Economic Policy Research (www. Inclusionist. enough there is more demand in favor of relo- org) suggests an economic framework in which cation on the part of residents of public hous- the problem is not poverty but our dependence ing. Supportive services must be provided to on low wage jobs. Many of these low wage jobs relocating families over an extended period of are also part time and have limited or no bene- time. fi ts. Under these circumstances people are un- able to “work their way out of poverty” in the A broader design for deconcentrating pover- way that welfare reform policies assumed. ty from the central cities and the creation of low and moderate income housing in suburbia Rural and Small Town Areas should go beyond lawsuits and public housing Most of the discussion in this chapter has fo- project demolition. A regional effort involving cused on inner city poverty. Needs in suburban foundations, corporations, and private devel- and exurban areas are sometimes similar but opers as well as governments needs to be de- required solutions may be different. The avail- veloped. A regional non-profi t developer could ability of transportation to distant jobs is an play a role. The benefi ts to cooperating subur- example. Mass transit might be appropriate ban communities need to be great enough to in the city but carpooling or employer-provided help overcome resistance. vans might be more appropriate for exurbia. Current Antipoverty Thinking – The Annie Cultural differences may also affect solutions. E. Casey Foundation (2009) in its Kid’s Count The availability of strong kinship networks is Indicator Brief (www.aecf.org) recommends one such cultural factor. Where they exist, ser- fi ve strategies for lifting children and families vices should be supportive, not try to replace out of poverty: them. In both urban and exurban communities, a “survey” of community assets is appro- • Build political will to reduce child poverty. priate. We need to know, for example, how • Make work pay people are currently getting to work or to the • Help low-income families keep more of what health clinic before developing a new service. they earn. It might make more sense to subsidize existing • Strengthen the safety net. providers than to expand public transit. Rural • Help low-income families build up savings and needs are changing. Changes in kinship net- assets. works mean more single parents and more isolated rural elderly in some counties. The data 137 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati provided in Chapter 11 provides an additional groups, and certain public offi cials have taken tool for rural needs assessment. steps to promote several regional responses. Citizens for Civic Renewal, a regional citizens’ The Need for Regional organization that was formed in the late 1990s, Approaches sponsored Myron Orfi eld’s study. It currently For over a decade, urbanologists such as David builds supports for a regional tax sharing poli- Rusk and Myron Orfi eld have examined cities cy, an improved area-wide mass transit system and their regions while advocating regional and citizen involvement in priority setting. approaches for managing the trends that are shaping these metro areas. While deploring The Smart Growth Coalition represents anoth- trends such as central city population loss, er initiative of citizens from Greater Cincinnati the geographic concentration of poverty, and and Northern Kentucky. The Coalition formed suburban sprawl, these researchers also point for the purpose of advocating alternatives to to existing reforms such as regional tax shar- sprawling, unplanned growth. It published ing and policies that encourage the dispersal a report in 2001 that emphasized preserv- of affordable housing units throughout urban ing green space and farmland, redeveloping regions. In 2001, Myron Orfi eld completed a brownfi elds, revitalizing urban neighborhoods, and promoting mass transit. Other regional Up to now, Greater Cincinnati cooperation efforts include Agenda 360 and Vi- and most U.S. urban regions sion 2015. Through its funding and research, have made no more than token the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati gestures toward applying regional serves a broad 20-County region (Figure 15). United Way provides a regional structure for approaches to their long term human services funding as well as for coopera- problems. tion on broad planning and service initiatives. The Free Store Food Bank serves a 20-county report that includes both an analysis of the region to coordinate food distribution. Cincinnati region and a series of regional policy In terms of dealing with affordable housing is- recommendations (Cincinnati Metropatterns, sues on a regional basis, offi cials from Ham- Citizens for Civic Renewal). ilton County, the City of Cincinnati, and the Up to now, Greater Cincinnati and most U.S. Metropolitan Housing Authority met with oth- urban regions have made no more than token er interested parties from 2003 - 2004 with the gestures toward applying regional approaches purpose of coming up with some common hous- to their long term problems. Recent events in ing goals. This group, “The Housing Advisory the Cincinnati area, however, reveal some evi- Committee,” issued its report with a series of dence that regionalism is germinating in the recommendations that link housing strategies grassroots. What has caused this change in at- with the deconcentration of poverty. titude? These and other initiatives do show some First of all, problems that used to be associated movement toward grappling with issues on with central city decline have taken root in the a regional basis. Plenty of inertia, however, suburbs. Many of the older incorporated sub- still exists that prevents regional cooperation. urbs (often referred to as the “fi rst ring sub- Nevertheless, more and more citizens are rec- urbs”) have suffered dramatic economic and ognizing that urban regions have become our social decline that place them at greater fi scal geographic, social, and economic realities, and risk than Cincinnati. Meanwhile, the rela- that such realities require public responses tively unplanned growth of the outer suburbs that are regional in scope. creates escalating infrastructure cost, traffi c gridlock, and air and lead pollution. In reacting to these trends, citizens, civic 138 Social Areas of Cincinnati Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Conclusion Many progressive policies and programs have been discussed here. Whatever path Cincinna- ti area leaders take we emphasize the importance of using a multi-dimensional framework. Cincinnati and the region have neighborhoods with various social, economic, and educational needs and a solitary program could not create lasting changes. Programs that support each other and the many demands Programs that on families are support each needed. As stat- other and the ed by Alex Kot- many demands on lowitz in There families are needed. Are No Children Here: Many interventions may fail because we change only one thing at a time. We provide school counseling for children who are acting out, but do little to change the social and family environments that shape these children’s behavior. We offer welfare recipients job training, but do nothing to increase demand for the skills they are acquiring or to assure that completion of training and successful employment will bring added income. In short, some interventions show up as ineffective because we have changed only one factor when we need to change many to succeed. 23

139 Chapter 12 | Findings and Policy Recommendations Social Areas of Cincinnati

140 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix I | References Appendix I References

References for Chapter 1 References for Chapter 3 1. Shevky, Eshref, and Marilyn Williams, The 1. Wallace, 1967. Social Areas of Los Angeles, University of 2. Moroney, Robert; Maloney, Michael; and California Press, Berkeley, 1949. May, Leslie; “Social Planning Uses of Urban 2. ibid, preface Planning Informa on Systems”, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of 3. Bell, Wendell, “Social Areas: Typology of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, September, 1972. Urban Neighborhoods”, in Sussman, Marvin, B., ed., Community Structure and Analysis, References for Chapter 5 Thomas Y. Corwell, New York, 1959. 1. Obermiller, Phillip J. and Michael Maloney, “The Current and Future Prospects of Urban 4. Shevky and Williams, op. cit., and Tryon, Rob- Appalachians” in Borman, Kathryn, and Phil- ert C., Iden fi ca on of Social Areas by Cluster lip J. Obermiller, From Mountain to Metropo- Analysis (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer- lis, Bergen and Earvey 1994. sity of California Press, 1955). 2. Maloney, Michael E., The Social Areas of 5. Greer, Kaufman and Van Arsdel, et al., “An In- Cincinna , 1980, Cincinna Human Rela ons ves ga on into the Generality of the Shevky Commission, January, 1986. Social Area Indexes”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 23 (June, 1958), pp. 277-284; References for Chapter 6 and Green, Kaufman and Van Arsdel, et al., 1. Michael Maloney (Urban Applachian Council “A Deviant Case of Shevky’s Dimensions of Working Paper Number 15, April 25, 1985) Urban Structure”, Proceedings of the Pacifi c 2. The Cincinna Enquirer reported in January Sociological Society in Research Studies in the 1996. State College of Washington, Vol. 25 (June, 3. Hoeweler, Fred, unpublished data, 1995. 1957). References for Chapter 7 6. The “New Haven” Methodology was adopted 1. The Council on Aging has sponsored research by Moroney, Maloney, and May in 1972 on some subgroups. See also David Varaday’s from Health Informa on System II, Volume paper on the Appalachian Elderly, an Urban 12 of the Census Use Series published by the Appalachian Council Working Paper. U.S. Department of Commerce for the 1970 2. The Cincinna Post, February 19, 1997. census. References for Chapter 10 7. Hill, Robert B., “The Illusion of Black Prog- 1. Markus HR, Plaut VC, Lackan NA. Well-being ress”. Social Policy, November/December, in America: Core features and regional pat- 1978, pp. 14-25. terns. In: Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC, eds. References for Chapter 2 How Healthy are We? Chicago, IL: The Uni- 1. Maloney, Michael E., The Social Areas of versity of Chicago Press; 2004:614-650. Cincinna , 1970, Cincinna Human Rela ons 2. Evans RG, Stoddart GL. Producing health, Commission, January, 1974. consuming health care. In: Evans RG, Barer 2. Non-agricultural Wage and Salary Employ- ML, Marmor TR, eds. Why are some People ment in Cincinna Metropolitan Area, Ohio Healthy and Not Others: The Determinants of Bureau of Employment Services, Labor Mar- Health of Popula ons. New York, NY: Aldine ket Informa on Division 2928 8/228, 1984. de Gruyter; 1994:27-64. 3. Maloney, Michael E., The Social Areas of 3. Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and Cincinna , 1970, Cincinna Human Rela ons health. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2010; 1186:125– Commission, January, 1974. 145.

141 Appendix I | References Social Areas of Cincinnati 4. Diez Roux AV. Complex systems thinking and 2012. current impasses in health dispari es re- 15. Brown MK. Community-Based Par cipatory search. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:1627– Health Research in an Urban Appalachian 1634. Neighborhood. In Ludke RL, Obermiller PJ 5. Messer LC, Laraia BA, Kaufman JS, Eyster (eds.). Appalachian Health and Well-Being. J, Holzman C, Culhane J, Elo I, Burke JG, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, O’Campo P. The development of a stan- 2012. dardized neighborhood depriva on index. J 16. Center for Closing the Health Gap in Greater Urban Health 2006;83(6):1041-62. Cincinna . Do Right! Campaign. Available 6. Cubbin C, Pedregon V, Egerter S, Braveman at: h p://www.closingthehealthgap.org/ P. Where We Live Ma ers for Our Health: DoRight/index.html. Accessed December 1, Neighborhoods and Health. Issue Brief 3: 2011. Neighborhoods and Health. Princeton, NJ: 17. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Neighborhoods and Robert Wood Johnson Founda on Commis- Health. New York, NY: Oxford University sion to Build a Healthier America; 2008. Press, 2003. 7. Public Health Agency of Canada. What De- References for Chapter 11 termines Health? Available at: h p://www. 1. Rusk, David in Gilligan, John J., and William K. phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/index- Woods, eds. The Challenge of Regionalism: A eng.php. Accessed December 1, 2011. Civic Forum Report, University of Cincinna 8. Center for Closing the Health Gap in Greater College of Law, Fall, 1996, p. 9. Cincinna . City of Cincinna Data Project, 2. Rusk, ibid, p. 6-7. July 2007-June 208. Available at: h p:// References for Chapter 12 www.closingthehealthgap.org/Docs/City%20 1. Wilson, William Julius (1996), When Work Data%20 Report%20Execu ve%20Summary. Disappears: The World of the New Urban pdf. Accessed December 1, 2011. Poor. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 9. Health Founda on of Greater Cincinna . 2. Haverman, Robert (1994), The Nature, Greater Cincinna Community Health Status Causes, and Cures of Poverty: Accomplish- Survey. Available at: h ps://www.health- ments from Three Decades of Poverty Re- founda on.org/data_publica ons/gcchss. search and Policy. In S.H. Danziger, G.D. html. Accessed December 1, 2011. Sandefur, and D.H. Weinberg (Eds), Confront- 10. City of Cincinna Health Department. Cincin- ing Poverty: Prescrip ons for Change, Har- na Neighborhood-Specifi c Mortality Data. vard University Press, Cambridge, Massachu- Available at: h p://www.cincinna -oh.gov/ se s. health/pages/-41728-/. Accessed December 3. Blank, Rebecca (1994). The Employment 1, 2011. Strategy: Public Policies to Increase Work and 11. McEwen B S. Stress, adapta on, and disease. Earnings. In S.H. Danziger, G.D. Sandefur, and Allostasis and allosta c load. Ann N Y Acad D.H. Weinberg (Eds), Confron ng Poverty: Sci. 1998;840:33-44. Prescrip ons for Change. Harvard University 12. Juster R P, McEwen BS, Lupien SJ. Allosta c Press, Cambridge, Massachuse s. load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact 4. Medoff , Peter and Holly Sklar (1994). Streets on health and cogni on. Neurosci Biobehav of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neigh- Rev. 2010;35(1):2-16. borhood, South End Press, Boston, Massa- 13. Evans G W. A mul methodological analysis of chuse s. cumula ve risk and allosta c load among ru- 5. Tough, Paul. “The Harlem Project”, New York ral children. Dev Psychol. 2003;39(5):924-33. Times Magazine, June 20, 2004, pp. 44-47. 14. Couto RA. Foreward. In Ludke RL, Obermiller 6. Kaus,Mickey. 1995. The End of Equality, New PJ (eds.). Appalachian Health and Well-Being. York: Basic Books. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 142 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix I | References 7. Lehman, 1994. 8. Levin, HM. 1989. Economics of Investment in Educa onally Disadvantaged Students. Ameri- can Economic Review, 79(2): 52-56. 9. Bell, Terrel H. 1988. The Federal Impact. New Direc ons for Community Colleges, 84: 9-13. 10. Boyer, Ernest L. 1988. School Reform: Com- ple ng the Course. NASSP Bulle n, 72(504): 61-68. 11. www.kidscount.org/data/bystate/ 12. Murnane, Richard (1994), Educa on and the Well-Being of the Next Genera on. In S.H. Danziger, G.D., Sandefur, and D.H. Weinberg (Eds), Confron ng Poverty: Prescrip ons for Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachuse s. 13. Wilson, 1996. 14. Wilson, 1996. 15. Wilson, 1996. 16. Garfi nkel, Irwin and Sara McLanahan (1994). Single-Mother Families, Economic Insecurity, and Government Policy. In S.H. Danziger, G.D. Sandefur, and D. H. Weinberg (Eds), Confront- ing Poverty: Prescrip ons for Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachuse s. 17. Shore, Rima and Barbara Shore, Kids Count Indicator Briefs, Annie E. Casey Founda on, July 2009, p.1. 18. Hare and Mather, 2003. 19. Annie E. Casey Founda on, www.aecf.org, p. ii. 20. Child Welfare Policy Research Center, May 20, 2004. 21. Coulton, Claudia, Natalie Colabianchi and Thomas Cook, An Analysis of Diff erences in Health Status Measures Among Neighbor- hoods within Metro Coun es of Ohio – a supplemental analysis to the Ohio Inner City Health Profi le, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied So- cial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, June 29,2001, p.1. 22. Coulton, et al., p.9. 23. Kotlowitz, Alex (1991), There Are No Children Here, Nan A. Talese, New York.

143 Appendix I | References Social Areas of Cincinnati

144 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix II | SES Index and Variables -- Cincinnati City on on Educa Crowding Structure Family Occupa Family Family Income 2 $28,654 29 8.2% 6 2.6% 12 94.5% 2 34.1% 20 9 $28,077 28 0.0% 68 0.0% 1 73.5% 41 37.7% 14 77 $15,7323536 11 $16,20394 $22,12521 4.0% $22,78867 13 $44,583 15 22 $15,93898 0.0% 1788 3.4% 64 8.3% $26,378 16.9%92 12 68 $28,964 10.9% 26 16 $30,33315 7.0% 24 1 0.0% 96.7% 34.7%95 30 2 $14,327 24.4%16 7.5% 31 10 1 $31,731 1 5334 6.3% 0.0% 41.8% 93.9% 35 19.4% $8,72587 9.7% 90.8% 9 9 $7,24368 33 11 77.8% 8 1 $41,161 27 337 41.1% 5 0.0% 4 $24,092 4 81.0% 31.5%80 29 5.7% 39.7% 88.1% 41.1% $14,904 1 57 61 31.0% 48.2% 10 68 $10,135 19 7.8% 4928 9 19 16 8 90.1% 27 0.0% 31.1%17 9.9% 10 71 89.3% 17.7% 0.0% $32,733 36.6% 7 0.0% 25 6 85.2% 6 68 58 $7,434 1.4% 7 3 1 32.5% 53.8% 5539 36 68 12 0.0% 31.1% 0.0% 78.5% 22 48 49.5% 84.8% 42.1% $35,500 2 78 26 15.8% 4.3% 68 26 13 1 73.3% 7 72 6.8% 0.0% 22 29.8% 43 19 34.8% 70.0% 4.3% 92.1% 42 15 85.9% 29 17 68 54.2% 2.9% 45.8% 51 13 68.1% 4 10 34.3% 5 47.5% 0.0% 75.3% 80 30 32.4% 56 19 84.2% 4 35.6% 23 34 20.0% 1 31.7% 16 15 61.1% 28 24 44.4% 81.5% 73 6 37.8% 18 13 19.8% 51 104103 $33,625 $26,250 39 23 2.9% 0.0% 29 68 15.8% 37.1% 23 56 78.3% 83.4% 27 16 22.7% 49.9% 42 2 3.01 $12,981 8 3.0% 27 0.0% 1 63.6% 68 38.6% 12 85.02 $7,459 3 7.5% 885.01 0.0% $26,514 1 25 70.2% 5.9% 49 33.2% 14 21 13.1% 18 76.8% 33 24.4% 39 Number S. Cumminsville - Millvale S. Cumminsville End West Apartments Fay Hills Walnut Hills Walnut East Price Hill Hills Walnut Avondale End West Price Hill West Westwood East Price Hill Mt. Airy End West East Price Hill Over-the-Rhine Avondale S. Fairmount Avondale Hills Walnut Hills Winton Over-the-Rhine Camp Washington Over-the-Rhine Park - Sayler Riverside - Riverside Sedamsville Evanston Neighborhood Tract 1 11.60 3 16.40 4 19.00 2 13.80 5 21.60 6 21.80 7 22.20 8 23.00 9 23.20 14 26.60 23 31.20 26 33.00 27 34.00 10 24.40 11 24.60 12 25.00 13 25.80 15 26.80 16 27.20 17 28.00 17 28.00 19 28.40 20 29.00 20 29.00 22 30.40 24 31.40 25 32.00 SES Index and Variables for the Cincinnati City Census Tracts, for 2005-2009 SES Index and Variables SES Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Appendix II 145 Appendix II | SES Index and Variables -- Cincinnati City Social Areas of Cincinnati on on Educa Crowding Structure Family Occupa Family Family Income 8 $34,167 40 0.0% 68 0.0% 1 54.0% 88 22.5% 43 9397 $35,88996 $31,996 $38,60766 4538 34 $28,07163 5.7% 50 $27,973 1.3% $32,65464 2.7% 27 15 26 52 $33,050 33.3%23 2.7% 35 34 21.2%73 0.0% $38,359 50 16.2% 0.0% 38 33 $42,173 3161 68 77.3% 24 13.9%89 1.9% 49 68 79.6% $39,798 27.1%69 31 60 68.1% $23,750 20 20.8%74 23 3.7% 43 25.6% $47,837 4091 55 2.0% 52 23.8% 62.3% 35 $38,882 29 31.0%22 18 24 34.5% 79.4% 40 $22,784 72 4.3% 69 42 84.6% 18 $36,500 47 13.8%33 24 0.0% 51 24.6% 22.1%26 14 1.4% 16 20 27.1% 77.5% 37 $25,868 19 2.2% 46 68 21.8% 31 $18,627 33 45.6% 30 0.0% 50 51.7% 44 29.6% 1.1% 22 41 20.9% 78.0% 66 29.5% 89 14 68 47 4544 28 0.0% 53 30.3% 4.9% 77.1% 44 41.9% 0.0% 21.3% 85.6% 28 $36,944 29.7% 32 68 14 79.2% 46 63 11 68 22.8% 75.2% 46 25.8% 25 48 14.6% 60.2% 41 16.9% 24.6% 68.8% 36 76 38 75 0.6% 10.7% 36 25 53 47.8% 73.3% 82 65 26.1% 71.7% 3 43 33 33.7% 46 15.2% 8.4% 72 51 90 66.3% 63 27.0% 32 110 $41,090 56 4.4% 18 49.6% 73 86.1% 9 29.7% 30 108 $46,583 67 0.0% 68 0.0% 1 67.0% 59 16.8% 61 3.02 $12,089 7 0.0% 68 8.9% 17 56.6% 86 37.0% 15 86.01 $31,176 32 0.0% 68 28.8%47.02 42 $42,031 80.3%100.2 59 21 $34,684 39.4% 2.4% 11 41 40 0.8% 46.7% 58 70 24.7%62.01 75.2% $41,373 3799.02 35100.1 56.9% 83.2% $40,288 58 $45,909 1 17 1.8% 53 17.7% 66 57 1.7% 44 2.6% 40.4% 46 37 60 31.4% 45.6% 72.3% 48 65 45 74.5% 20.9% 74.4% 37 48 38 15.0% 19.2% 74 52 Number N. Fairmount - English - English Fairmount N. Woods East Price Hill Price Hill West East Price Hill Roselawn Avondale Evanston Bond Hill End West Bond Hill Linwood Mt. Auburn Place Winton Westwood Carthage S. Fairmount Avondale Northside Price Hill Lower Mt. Auburn End West Corryville - Clifton Fairview Roselawn Madisonville Price Hill West Westwood East End Neighborhood Tract 29 35.20 39 41.80 42 42.20 52 51.20 53 51.60 55 51.80 33 37.80 49 48.60 53 51.60 28 34.80 30 36.00 31 36.20 32 37.20 33 37.80 35 38.00 36 38.60 37 41.00 37 41.00 39 41.80 41 42.00 43 43.60 44 44.80 44 44.80 46 45.00 47 46.20 48 48.00 49 48.60 51 51.00 SES Index and Variables for the Cincinnati City Census Tracts, for 2005-2009 SES Index and Variables SES Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 146 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix II | SES Index and Variables -- Cincinnati City on on Educa Crowding Structure Family Occupa Family Family Income 4 $53,115 75 2.8% 32 17.9% 26 48.1% 95 20.0% 50 7 $91,484 103 1.1% 54 56.5% 81 57.0% 83 25.8% 34 8329 $50,73454 $45,25040 $46,96458 72 $32,780 65 $49,62511 3.9% 6810 5.2% 37 $9,205 1.4% 71 23 $24,643 0.0% 17 46.7%27 2.8% 47 5 24.4%32 20 68 $25,333 69 27.7%30 31 $36,875 0.0% 34 27.0%55 0.0% 70.1% $35,208 41 38.3%25 21 56.6% $35,530 68 3978 50 47 68 71.3% $41,083 5884 85 0.0% 42 20.7% 74.0% $51,571 0.0% 14.4%81 47 6.1% 44 16.4% 70.6% 49 $43,36541 39 8.7% 55 68 16.0% 62 $60,549 21 48 1 0.7% 73 13 8.1% 65 $41,042 68.2%60 0.0% 62 15.4% 45.6% 45.5% 5 92 21.9%75 0.8% 87 64 70 $51,697 9579 98 0.0% 54 68 74.6% 99 $57,019 32 51.2% 0.7% 56 14.7% 67.0% $54,097 3.7% 21.1% 4.1% 74 68 97 45.2% 75 106 74 45.4% 60 79 62 65.9% 100 30 28.8%19 1.4% 76 21 17.7% 73.0% 64 45.9% 0.0% 1.6% 57.2% 64 56 $55,114 43 53.0% 44 0.0% 49 62.7% 110 7.3% 67 82 68 14.0% 64.7% 77 58.5% 70 94 77 68 13.0% 60.6% 79 24.5% 66 17.2% 46.8% 81 84 59.4% 74 1.3% 10.2% 59 36 96 24.4% 65.4% 85 85 51 13.8% 56.7% 38 65 73.5% 80 35.2% 84 17.0% 40 15.6% 60 54 15.2% 69 44.9% 73 101 14.6% 77 109 $44,400 63 2.4% 38 79.1%105 102 $63,922 80.1% 92 22 16.0% 0.0% 64 68 56.6% 82 80.4% 20 15.9% 66 82.02 $42,984 61 0.8% 60 38.1% 57 68.1%82.01 54 18.1% $57,35799.01 53 $59,489102.1 82 $57,146 1.7% 85 0.8% 80 45 46.5% 0.6% 57 68 64.1% 66 66.5% 89 61.9% 61 67.9% 87 8.1% 57 62.6% 91 15.2% 71 71 15.7% 67 Number Mt. Airy Heights University Oakley Evanston Heights Kennedy End West Over-the-Rhine Over-the-Rhine College Hill Westwood - Clifton Fairview Corryville Heights University Madisonville - Clifton Fairview Northside College Hill College Hill Hills - E. Walnut Evanston Park Sayler Hartwell Northside Northside College Hill CBD - Riverfront Price Hill West Hills Walnut Westwood Neighborhood Tract 65 57.80 80 71.00 82 72.00 62 55.80 66 60.00 76 66.40 81 71.80 56 52.60 56 52.60 58 53.60 59 55.00 60 55.60 60 55.60 63 56.40 64 57.00 67 60.40 67 60.40 69 61.00 70 63.20 71 64.40 72 64.80 73 65.60 73 65.60 73 65.60 77 67.20 78 68.40 79 69.40 83 74.20 SES Index and Variables for the Cincinnati City Census Tracts, for 2005-2009 SES Index and Variables SES Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank

147 Appendix II | SES Index and Variables -- Cincinnati City Social Areas of Cincinnati on on Educa Crowding Structure Family Occupa Family Family Income 6 $48,000 70 6.2% 12 77.4% 99 29.3% 112 2.8% 109 5665 $63,561 $59,500 91 86 0.0%18 0.9%70 68 $55,795 55 $72,804 76.5%20 52.2% 78 98 96 $83,393 75 2.7% 66.4% 2.4% 57.4% 10053 36 6272 39 81 17.8% $97,066 2.7% 78.9% 14.0% $61,250 55 58.4% 101 78 104 3542 83 55.0%52 88 53.8% $90,259 0.0%45 58.0% $87,870 8712 0.0% $150,658 79 102 6813 79 8.5% $78,750 101 49.7%59 68 $108,618 4.4% 89 112 34.1% 0.0%14 $101,932 103 91 0.0% 73.9%71 99 $250,001 3.6% 107 52 68 4.9% $113,333 105 68 96 42.9% 0.0% 101 0.0% 115 25 82.2% 49.3% 104 0.0% 108 65.6% 68 103 96.1% 0.0% 68 5.8% 93 0.0% 68 92 41.1% 62.5% 112 10.4% 98 86.4% 68 49.2% 106 68.0% 44.3% 83 68 88 109 16.1% 60.1% 94 102 34.8% 94 83.6% 58.5% 63 6.4% 86 3.7% 43.1% 110 107 78 107 96 27.4% 103 3.1% 35.4% 1.2% 114 108 3.7% 112 109 5.1% 105 7.0% 100 95 111 $63,542 90 3.0%101 28 $63,491 67.7%107 89 $75,610 93 0.8% 64.5%106 98 67 59 $66,071 0.0% 5.1% 64.3% 99 94 68 90 100.0% 0.0% 59.2% 113 77 68 69.2% 8.9% 100.0% 52 87 113 10.4% 67.0% 84 58 4.3% 104 46.0157.02 $64,702102.2 $57,256 $71,638 93 81 0.4% 95 0.0%57.01 0.0% 67 68 $57,917 39.5%46.03 68 41.2% $59,115 59 78.8% 83 62 49.6% 10046.02 0.0% 84 57.7% 63.4% 92 $73,144 80 0.7% 68 15.6% 69 8.9% 68 17.9% 52.7% 97 61 88 54 76 82.3% 0.0% 50.3% 104 68 60.2%47.01 90 64.5% $113,333 6.2% 76 97 91 7.7% 108 46.7% 93 0.0% 97 9.5% 68 86 83.5% 106 39.5% 107 4.7% 102 Number Madisonville - Paddock Avondale N. Hills College Hill Mt. Washington Pleasant Ridge Westwood Mt. Auburn Clifton CBD - Riverfront Westwood Hills East Walnut Pleasant Ridge Price Hill West Mt. Washington Oakley Clifton Park Sayler Mt. Washington Hills East Walnut Oakley California Mt. Adams Mt. Adams Pleasant Ridge End West Clifton - Columbia Mt. Lookout Tusculum Neighborhood Tract 87 75.80 89 77.20 90 78.20 96 83.00 98 85.20 87 75.80 92 80.40 94 81.20 97 83.60 84 74.80 85 75.00 86 75.40 91 80.00 92 80.40 95 82.80 99 85.60 101 87.80 102 88.40 100 87.40 103 90.20 104 91.60 105 94.60 106 94.80 107 95.00 108 96.60 109 97.40 110 98.20 SES Index and Variables for the Cincinnati City Census Tracts, for 2005-2009 SES Index and Variables SES Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 148 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix II | SES Index and Variables -- Cincinnati City on 21.6% 45 b --- on Educa b --- 25.4% 115 0.0% 115 b b ------b b --- b --- b --- Crowding Structure Family Occupa values indicator ve ﬁ b --- values indicator ve ﬁ b --- $223,333 114 0.0% 68 --- Family Family Income c a 5150 $115,85249 $105,62548 $132,647 110 $166,087 106 0.0% 111 0.0% 113 0.0% 68 0.7% 68 83.3% 68 95.6% 63 105 85.6% 111 90.9% 42.8% 108 33.8% 105 110 39.0% 111 0.0% 27.8% 108 1.6% 115 113 0.4% 111 0.4% 113 114 43 62.02 Number calculated for Census tract 62.02 due to lack of data for four of the four for lack of data 62.02 due to Census tract for calculated Hyde Park Hyde Park Hyde Park Hyde Mt. Lookout East End Roselawn Neighborhood Tract not c a --- 103 c a --- 111 100.60 112 101.40 113 101.60 114 102.60 115 Data not available Data SES Index Value calculated for Census tract 43, despite lacking data for one of the for lacking data 43, despite Census tract for calculated Value Index SES SES Index Value Value Index SES SES Index and Variables for the Cincinnati City Census Tracts, for 2005-2009 SES Index and Variables SES Index Rank Indexa b c Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank

149 Appendix II | SES Index and Variables -- Cincinnati City Social Areas of Cincinnati

150 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 2 3 2005- 2009 44 344 2222 les 222 11 443 33 97.4 4 4 4 4 4 85 71 3 2 3 4 3 28.2 24.8 23.6 23 2 1 1 1 1 80 56.2 95.8 81 75.7 52.8 32.36 31.32 30.96 32.4 80.8 74.6 90.6 85 80 3 3 4 4 4 93.40 93.33 102.13 90.80 87.67 87.15 58.3 55.2 47.2 39.5 6 96.7 109.6 77 80.4 4 4 4 3 4 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 3466 34 66 34 66 60.4 49.4 34.4 29.8 37.2 25.6 31 37.2 37.8 28 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 84 84 84 107.8 67.7 72.4 69.8 64.8 4 4 3 3 3 7 7 7 7 7 63.3 56.2 82 6667 66 68 67*69 68 67 69 68 67 69 68 67 69 6828 69 42.4 61 28 51 60.8 61 28 38.4 31 61 33.6 35.4 2871 61 32.2 30.8 2872 61 71 44.8 28.4 16.2 72 71 50.7 17.2 2 72 39.8 26.4 7184 2 47.8 72 27.2 71 84* 2 72 53 101.5 31.2 2 109.6 97.9 42.2 1 112.4 95.8 100 2 1 103.4 87.4 2 1 2 1 85.6 2 1 4 2 4 4 64 64 64 64 64 89.9 61.2 61.8 56.4 41 4 3 3 2 2 82.01 82.01 82.01 82.01 82.01 96.9 78.3 87.2 78 69.4 4 4 4 3 82.02 82.02 82.02 82.02 82.02 83.1 80.4 88.2 69 57 3 3 4 3 3 Census Tracts Index SES Quar Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes Bond HillCalifornia 63Camp Washington 63Carthage 45CBD - 63Riverfront 45 63 45Clifton 63 6 45 84.4 6 45College Hill 55.4 70 6 48.6 62.2 70 75.2 81 38 6 70 78.8 81 106.4 70 38 81 70 91.6 4 81 2 81 3 102.5 82.4 82.2 72.4 65.6 Neighborhoods 1970Avondale 1980 1990 2000 34 34* Appendix III 151 Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Social Areas of Cincinnati 2005- 2009 12 444 233 2221 2 les 44 51.8 1 1 1 2 2 59.6 52.4 48.6 2 332.6 2 27.8 2 21.8 2 2 2 2 1 1 101.4 107.6 89.2 75.4 4 4 4 4 3 86.15 78.9 87.8 95.6 84.8 43.25 50.55 55.3 43.9 54.5 56.78 47.62 41.80 38.00 29.00 18.35 28.5 29.2 46.4 77.4 53.38 40.27 45.07 43.67 42.27 100.66 82.04 87.52 75.68 66.44 43 13.6 35.4 26.2 48.8 103 1 2 1 2 4 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 32 32 36.7 35.6 5193 35.4 93 60.4 52.9 2 35.6 2 35 2 38.2 2 35.2 3 2 2 2 2 1 92 92 92 74.4 59.2 44 34.2 25 3 3 2 2 1 40 4041 40 40 41 41 68.3 63.8 41 68.4 73.4 46.3 55 59.4 3 68.8 3 65.6 3 3 3 92 92* 42 42 42 42 42 76.5 73.8 82.4 97.4 88.4 3 3 3 4 4 39 39 39 39 39 36.1 28.8 34 32 34 2 2 2 1 1 33 3344 33 44 33 4493 3394 44 9395 49.8 94 44 93 95 65.5 94 23.1 95 94 21.6 95 94 32.2 95 53.740 51.541 45.2 45.8 44 41.62526 25 26.8 26 25 2 26 25 26 25 61.7 26 41.8 35.8 59.8 59.8 81.6 65.6 51.8 54.4 63.2 48.6 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 96 96 96 96 96 54.8 52.3 53.4 48.2 36.2 2 2 2 2 2 111 111 111 111 111 113 Census Tracts Index SES Quar Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes CorryvilleEast End 32 32East Price Hill 43 32 90 43 43 43 East Walnut HillsEvanston 20 38 20 53.4 - E. Evanston 38 Hills Walnut 20 - Fairview 38Clifton 20 20 38 38 95.8 47.4 84 28.2 93.2 32.8 93.8 25.6 2 81.2 37.8 4 2 4 1 2 Neighborhoods 1970 1980 1990 2000 152 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 3 2 4 2005- 2009 44 332 4444 les 333 33 3 101.6 4 4 4 4 4 47.6 42.6 56.6 61 385.6 2 72.6 2 54.9 2 39.2 3 106.87 111.93 110.13 101.20 89.2 75.8 75.8 78 66.4 4 3 3 3 3 99.3 60.1 98.4 100.5 109.9 94.7 34.70 33.40 47.53 46.87 55.40 63.97 53.70 60.13 69.93 62.33 42.23 59.13 80.27 62.80 57.27 102.33 27 49.1 57.8 93.6 82.2 60 2 3 4 4 3 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 91 91 91 21 18.6 15.6 19.223 45 23 1 23 1 1 33.3 26.6 1 29.2 2 30.4 41.8 1 1 1 2 85.02 85.02 85.02 26.3 34.4 14 15 16.4 1 2 185.01 1 85.01 1 85.01 80.8 64.2 34.8 25.8 3 2 1 47.02 47.02 47.02 47.02 27.8 37.6 35 41 1 2 2 2 22 22 22 22 22 41.6 34.4 55.8 41.8 46.2 2 2 2 2 2 51 51 51 51 51 109.2 109.4 114.6 108.4 100.6 4 4 4 4 4 50 50 50 50 5056 87.7 56 101.4 105.6 56 109.6 56 101.4 56 4 4 70.123 59.7 4 62.8 23 47 71.6 47.01 74.8 63 91.2 27 27 27 27 13 13 13 13 13 61 102.2 112 108.6 94.8 2 4 4 4 4 108 108 108 108 108 49.5 53.8 75 81.6 51.2 2 2 3 3 85.01 Census Tracts Index SES Quar Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes Fay ApartmentsHartwell ParkHyde 86.02 85.02* 60 49 Kennedy Heights 60 49Linwood 60 Price Lower 49HillMadisonville 60 58 49 60 49 58 55Mt. Adams 110.1 58 91 55 109.8 91* 115.6 58 55Mt. Airy 112.4 12 58 55 12Mt. Auburn 55 93.4 83 12 72.8 72.3 72.4 83 18 12Mt. Lookout 77 12 83 18 18 83 59.2 55.6 83 94.6 4 18 89 18 3 99.3 111.2 90.4 3 29.2 94.6 81 3 39.2 3 57.6 75 68.4 52.6 78.2 4 1 4 2 2 3 Neighborhoods 1970 1980 1990 2000

153 Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Social Areas of Cincinnati 3 2005- 2009 44 111 4444 les 334 33 98.2 4 4 4 4 25.4 55.8 1 1 1 1 3 52.8 48.75 61.2 91.2 102.4 104.6 30.4 31.6 31.2 44.8 1 1 1 1 2 73.70 72.30 82.13 85.60 76.33 85.45 101.7 118.2 112.2 107.60 98.93 95.20 93.93 82.40 58.925 46.85 10 17.7 11.6 12.8 23.6 56.4 1 1 1 1 3 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 54 54 57.2 56.4 59.6 65 53.6 2 2 2 3 2 79 79 79 71.1 46 55.6 52.2 68.4 3 2 2 2 3 47.01 47.01 47.01 86.01 86.01 86.01 21.5 17.8 14.2 15.4 34.8 1 1 1 1 1 46.03 46.03 46.03 46.03 110 97.2 102.2 93.6 83.6 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 28.2 9.6 22.4 3 30.4 1 1 1 1 1 17 17 17 17 17 7 5.4 12 15.4 31.4 1 1 1 1 1 65 65 657578 7579 65 78 65 79* 7552 7853 106.4 75 5254 78 53 75 87 52 54 78 96.2 5310 54 5211 79 84 53.2 53 1016 52 11 66 53 45 10 1624 86.8 75 80.1 11 37.2 83.8 65.6 16 10 82.7 4 46 11 77.8 95.8 16 4 67.2 11 96.2 91 64.4 16 4 95.6 20.3 2 90.2 4 23.2 2 85.2 9 3 10.2 3 30.6 2 3 4 16 2 10.8 3 4 33.4 4 4 27.2 4 4 1 4 1 1 48 48* 48 48 48 107.9 112.2 118.2 112.2 102.6 4 46.03 46.02 46.02 46.02 46.02 46.02 107.1 99.6 102 98.6 87.8 4 4 4 4 4 Census Tracts Index SES Quar Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes Mt. Lookout - Columbia TusculumMt. Washington 46.01 46.01 47.01* - Avondale N. 46.01 Hills Paddock 46.01 - Fairmount N. 46.01 WoodsEnglish Northside 86.01 105.7 86.01* 100 81.4 74 89.6Oakley 74 75.8 74 4Over-the-Rhine 74 4 74 3 32.4 Neighborhoods 1970 1980 1990 2000 154 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 2005- 2009 331 3334 les 2 --- a a --- 35.8 65.2 37.2 413.2 4 3 11.6 3 2 71.4 60.4 60.4 3 3 3 3 3 105.2 96.2 82.8 4 4 4 4 4 42.5 40.2 34.6 29.4 74.7 71.05 80.5 67.5 75.95 78.65 75.7 63.7 56.5 95.10 89.33 89.87 84.73 84.53 86.13 89.80 74.70 64.3027.35 44.1 11.2 13.2 21.633333 9.16 18.76 15.64 40.24 19 31.2 32.6 78.6 65.2 72 1 2 3 3 3 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 29 29 82.8 84.2 80 67 52.6 3 3 3 3 2 77 7789 77 89 19 89 11.2 59.1 13.2 57.6 15.4 48.8 37.8 11.6 1 43.6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 106 106 106 106 85 78.6 88.4 65.6 87.4 3 3 4 3 4 77 77* 8789 87 89* 87 87 8730 25.9 22.8 30 20.4 30 21 30 30 28 1 69.1 73.1 1 1 1 1 59 59 59 59 59 100.5 92.8 96.2 88.4 95 4 4 4 4 4 110 110 110 110 110 111.1 86.6 76.2 105106 105 105103 105 103 105 103 64.4 103 63.5 103 72.6 25.1 69.4 39 65.6 35.8 35.4 3 3 33 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 57.02 57.02 57.02 57.02 57.0262.0162.02 62.01 89.2 62.01 62.02 76.4 62.02 62.01 62.01 68.2 62.02 62.02 69.6 109.2 38.1 93 75.8 73.2 4 63.4 51 4 4 3 3 2 Census Tracts Index SES Quar Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes Pleasant Ridge 57.01 57.01 57.01 - Riverside 57.01 ParkSayler 57.01Roselawn 95.6 104 98.8 104S. 104 - Cumminsville Millvale 104 104S. Fairmount 76 49 Park Sayler 71.6 69.8 70.4 - Sedamsville Riverside University Heights 32 2 HillsWalnut 3 29 35.7 19 29 19 29 19 19 2 Neighborhoods 1970 1980 1990 2000

155 Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Social Areas of Cincinnati 4 1 2005- 2009 22 44 111 3211 les 333 32 55.6 2 2 2 2 3 74.2 4 4 4 4 3 32.76 23.2 22.2 1 1 1 1 1 90.1 91.8 92.6 71.8 4 4 4 3 85.13 80.29 68.26 58.26 14.7 11 7.6 22.2 38.6 1 1 1 188.3 2 90.6 95.4 91 80.4 4 4 4 4 4 34.64 23.8 37.88 31.48 94.26 79.44 78.52 76.96 75.56 53.36 27.76 18.34 19.80 28.46 43.20 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 98 98 98 75.1 73.2 69.4 54.8 24.4 3 3 3 2 1 8 8 8 15 25.6 9.6 24.6 16 26.6 1 1 1 1 1 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 16.8 6.6 5.6 10.4 23.2 1 1 1 1 1 100.01 100.01100.02 100.01 100.02 100.1 100.02 100.2 92.1 70.4 89 59.4 63.2 40.2 51.6 42 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 24 2 48 2 4 2 4 49.6 4 40.4 36.7 24 34.8 14 42.4 49 13.8 2 2 1 1 1 3637 36 37 36 37 36 37 36 37 29.7 43.6 20 29.4 31.6 24 22.4 30 29 21.6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 15 15 15 14 18 13.2 15.8 39.8 96.6 1 1 1 2 4 35 35 35 35 3514 39.3 14 21.4 1497 29.298 16.6 14 97 98 8 97 19 97 32.9 2 97 12.8 1 18.6 47.8 61 63.2 56.4 48 56.8 1 1 36 1 2 3 2 3 2 21 21 21 21 21 29.4 15.6 26 109 109 109 109 109 88.5 84.4 78.8 68.2 57.8 4 4 3 3 3 107 107 107 107101 107 101 101 88.9 90.1 101 101 90.4 94.2 83 4 4 4 4 3.01 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02 99.0199.02 99.01 99.01 99.02 99.02 99.01 99.01 99.02 99.02 90 82.2 76 76.8 79.4 51.6 102.01 102.01102.02 102.01 102.02 102.01 102.02 102.1 102.02 102.2 91.7 95.7 88.6 104 87.6 105.2 87.6 99 77.2 4 4 4 Census Tracts Index SES Quar Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes End West Price Hill West Westwood 100 88* 88 HillsWinton 88 88 80 107.1 80 65.8 80 46.6 28.6 80 80 24.6 4 32.4 19 22.2 17.4 29 1 1 1 1 Neighborhoods 1970 1980 1990 2000 156 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 --- 2005- 2009 ood SES les 1 --- of the ive SES indicator values. Consequenally, the neighborh Consequenally, values. SES indicator of the ive 25.8 a. 2005- 2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-2009 1970 1980 1990 2000 1 1 1 1 17.1 5 34.4 2 73 73 73 73 73 48.1 53.2 62.6 52.6 41.8 2 2 3 2 2 calculated for Census tract 62.02 due to lack of data for four lack of data for 62.02 due to Census tract for calculated not Census Tracts Index SES Quar SES Index Value Value SES Index Index value is the average of the two tracts with available dat with available tracts of the two is the average value Index Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Neighborhood Changes Queensgatea 1 Neighborhoods 1970 Place Winton 1980 1990 2000

157 Appendix III | Neighborhood Changes 1970-2009 Social Areas of Cincinnati

158 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 34.1% 24 42.1% 7 39.7% 11 on Educa 90.8% 6 41.1% 9 92.1% 4 47.5% 4 85.6% 16 20.4% 96 41.1% 80 90.1% 7 32.5% 27 53.8% 124 73.3% 114 45.8% 5 Family StructureFamily Occupa 4.0% 34 8.4% 17 96.7% 1 41.8%5.7% 8 21 36.6% 70 84.8% 20 34.8%4.4% 21 27 49.6% 112 86.1% 14 29.7% 41 $7,459 3 7.5% 10 0.0% 1 70.2% 149 33.2% 25 $14,512$19,398 10 16$26,304 10.7%$28,964 26 4.7% 3 36 25 10.0% 5.0%$44,583 25.7% 6.3% 24 19 89 16 41 89.3% 29.2%$15,938 10.9% 83.7% 31.5% 51 13 9 2 24 57 81.7% 29.0%$26,514 37.5% 89.3% 7.0%$32,733 0.0% 44 37 28 17 40.5% 12 45 8 1 31.1% 19.4% 5.9%$35,889 10 81.0% 4.3% 35 19 29 56 46 28 88.1% 13.1%$33,750 31.1% 54.2% 5.7%$35,500 11 20 34 49 128 17.7% 20 76.8% 54$12,981 84.2% 33.3% 121 9.8%$43,963 82 2.9% 8 23 24.4% 61 86 5 44.4% 57 77.3% 52.0% 61 3.0% 20.0% 1.6% 6 77 118 49 124 25.6% 30 91.6% 26.3% 0.0% 81.5% 52 5 43 40 1 19.6% 82.6% 19.8% 63.6% 104 101 30 230 37.3% 38.6% 18 13 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quartile 88 21 67 28 93 671 505 262 257 3.01 85.01 Number CountyHamilton Census TractKenton CampbellHamilton Income Family Campbell Hamilton 2 Crowding Hamilton 501 1Hamilton 36 1 Hamilton $28,654Hamilton 1Hamilton 34 98Hamilton $22,125 94Hamilton 1 8.2%Hamilton 17 1 95Hamilton 8 $26,378 92Hamilton 3.4% 1 $22,788 2.6% 85.02Hamilton 27 1 43Hamilton 19 $31,731 1 12 34.7% 87Hamilton 7.5% $30,333 94.5% 16.9%Hamilton 42 1 68 11 Hamilton 39 1 2 16Hamilton $41,161 104 24.4%Hamilton 9.7% 1 1Kenton 73 110 38 6Hamilton 77.8% $8,725 35 1 $33,625Hamilton 9.9% 48.4% 73 1 109 48 39 31.0% 4 4 $41,090 85.2% 650 49.5% 1 $16,203 37 2.9% 72 7.8% 18 111 1 14 55 9 15.8% $36,629 0.0% 24 247 58 78.3% 0.0% 4.2% 66 22.7% 1 30 93.9% 44.1% 66 92 3 216 317 45 24.6 6 28.6 7 29.6 7 30.4 9 30.4 33.6 1 14.4 Hamilton 77 1 $15,732 12 k Index 12 35.8 16 42 22 55.2 26 60.2 10 34.4 20 53.2 11 34.8 1415 37.6 39.2 171819 46 51.2 51.8 20 53.2 2425 56.4 58.4 26 60.2 13 37.2 23 56.2 SES Index SES SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran Appendix IV 159 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 34.5% 22 27.7% 46 21.8% 74 on Educa 78.5% 61 29.8% 40 80.3% 50 39.4% 12 79.4% 56 27.1% 48 37.6% 74 83.3% 26 29.4% 42 27.4% 46 88.6% 10 31.1% 36 24.7% 40 83.2% 28 17.7% 119 Family StructureFamily Occupa 4.3% 29 45.6% 99 77.1% 80 22.8%3.3% 65 44 62.4% 157 84.4% 22 22.6% 67 0.0% 247 20.8% 32 84.6% 21 21.8% 75 $7,243 1 0.0% 247 0.0% 1 70.0% 154 34.3% 23 $31,996 43$42,031 1.3%$14,904 77 141 11$42,173 21.2% 2.4%$33,050 78 1.4% 34 78 47 134 79.6% 46.7% 2.0%$26,250 6.8% 1.9% 55 105 97 25 23.8% 103 75.2% 16 22.5%$10,135 31.0% 68.1% 63 0.0%$30,911 95 36 56.9% 6 247 176 55 78.0% 40$47,837 35.6% 77.5% 37.1%$28,077 1 0.0% 105 68 20 2.3% 74 71 21.3% 247 33 20.9% 83.4% 88 1.4%$28,071 4.3% 82 30.0% 87 137 0.0% 25 32 13 49.9% 29.5% 247 54 75.3% 69.5% 0.0% 52 2.7%$47,029 2 94 79.2% 158 101 62 31.7% 1$45,789 25.2% 14.0% 57 73.5% 30 2.0% 24.6% 55 95 113 22 96 37.7% 58 62.3% 2.6% 47.9% 16 242 69 108 24.6% 53.1% 82.6% 59 122 32 75.4% 20.9% 92 90 25.4% 54 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quartile 9 97 73 64 80 69 66 34 103 255 47.02 Number CountyHamiltonHamilton Census TractHamilton HamiltonHamilton 228 Income Family Hamilton 68 1Hamilton Crowding Hamilton 1 61 $48,958Hamilton 96Hamilton 1 $24,092 109Campbell 1 37Hamilton 21 2.6% $39,798 15Hamilton 1 $38,607 70 Hamilton 0.0% 67 1Kenton 64 247 512Hamilton 15.9% $14,327 227 1Kenton 2.7% 223.01 1 25Hamilton 9 64 85.9% $27,061 1Hamilton 16.7% 612 $29,855Hamilton 0.0% 30 15Hamilton $46,918 26 32.4% 1 247 38 86.01 651Hamilton 68.1% 0.0% 99 Hamilton 0.0% 28 1 1 $49,083 0.9% 174 247 Hamilton 100.02 166 111Warren 1 $31,176 216.04 31.6% 1Hamilton 2.3% 1Clermont 41 59Hamilton $34,684 86 78.4% 63Hamilton $43,365 0.0% 41.6% 325 51 1 247 63 402.04 82 29.1% 83 1 28.8% 0.8% 1 78.4% $32,654 38 43 3.0% 175 49 $48,307 64 44 1 50 107 43.9% $27,973 3.3% 91 76.5% 31 45 62.0% 83 0.0% 18.8% 154 247 81.3% 108 27.1% 43 45 k Index 32 70 36 72.2 42 78 46 81.8 52 84.6 56 86.4 29 67.2 40 74 50 83.4 29 67.2 31 68 3435 71.4 71.6 3738 73.2 38 73.8 73.8 41 77.8 4445 79 79.8 474849 82 82.6 82.8 51 83.8 5454 85.4 85.4 28 64.2 33 71.2 42 78 53 85.2 SES Index SES SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran 160 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 19.7% 102 21.5% 78 15.9% 141 on Educa 80.9% 47 30.5% 38 75.2% 97 10.7% 237 71.2% 135 21.5% 79 66.2% 180 76.1% 87 20.9% 88 13.8% 21 51.7% 320 30.3% 39 71.7% 222 81.3% 42 24.9% 56 Family StructureFamily Occupa 6.5% 14 43.0% 89 78.9% 59 14.2% 170 1.9% 101 53.3% 123 76.1% 86 20.5% 95 0.0% 247 0.0% 1 61.1% 254 37.8% 15 $53,219 139$47,515 5.2% 104 22$28,846 64.4% 3.6%$53,265 35 168 41 140 83.2%$45,909 34.2% 0.0%$41,373 6.4% 96 27 247 66 21.5% 74 15 78.4% 6.7% 2.6%$36,500 64.6% 80 1.8% 62 72 15 57 170 13.9% 106 71.6% 45.6% 82.1%$40,288 40.4% 180 1.1%$23,750 132 98 68 34 33.1% 153 79 74.4% 20.0% 20$50,734 72.3% 33.1% 26 1.7%$54,289 102 99 125 125 0.0% 19.2% 117 60 145 20.9% 247 68.8% 31.4% 106 3.9%$37,083 29.6% 91 4.1% 168 36 56 26.1% 61 31 53 74.5% 46.7%$50,439 85.6% 55.9% 50 101 104 1.2%$26,563 121 15.0% 133 70.1% 146 17 29 73.0% 14.6% 159 38.0% 150 0.9% 20.7% 166 119 162 2.2% 75 21.5% 47.6% 93 67.2% 89 81 107 51.0% 187 78.2% 27.8% 116 59.8% 45 67 22.1% 273 31.8% 73 29 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quartile 22 83 502 416 607 252 62.01 99.02 207.42 215.09 100.01 Number CountyHamilton Clermont Census TractKentonHamilton Kenton Income Family Boone 418Campbell Crowding 1 609ClermontWarren 1 644 $42,845Hamilton Hamilton 701 1 $29,196 80Hamilton 409 1Kenton 37 $50,457 6.7% 302 1 Hamilton $42,025 122 Warren 13 1.7% 1Boone 108 76 23Hamilton $43,697 41.5% 669Hamilton 1 1.1% 305.01Hamilton 85 82 1 155Hamilton 72.1% 703.01 $38,359 1 33.7%Clermont 2.9% $50,139 128 1Dearborn 63 20.6% 62 $45,313 53 89 118Clermont 78.8% 74 76.4% $40,407 94 Kenton 3.7% 1 93 3.2%Hamilton 244 60 1 39 69Hamilton 803 46Hamilton $38,882 420 66.5% 1.1% 1Kenton 159 1 184Hamilton 65 216.02 17 79.9% $51,100 61.7% $49,965 1 2.2% 1 152 128 54 81.4% 21.1% 116 217.02 93 616 $39,750 2.7% $7,434 41 86 1 4.9% 1.4% 1 65 66 135 14 2 $49,135 62.2% 3.8% 112 155 37 82.1% 2.3% 46.6% 35 103 81 22.2% 67.5% 55.8% 72 182 131 k Index 62 91 66 94.8 72 99.8 76 101.6 82 105.8 60 90.6 69 97.6 80 102.8 5859 89.6 89.8 61 90.8 6465 91.6 93.4 676869 95 96.4 97.6 71 99.6 7475 100.6 101.2 7778 101.8 78 102.6 102.6 81 103.8 8485 107.2 107.6 57 87.2 62 91 73 100.2 83 106 SES Index SES SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran

161 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 20.1% 97 47.8% 3 16.8% 130 on Educa 77.9% 72 21.2% 84 76.9% 81 16.1% 138 38.5% 77 70.6% 146 15.4% 150 25.8% 42 73.3% 115 15.2% 154 81.9% 286 71.8% 129 24.1% 62 Family StructureFamily Occupa 2.2% 91 44.7% 95 81.9% 36 11.2% 230 2.2% 92 42.9% 88 75.5% 91 10.8% 236 2.8% 60 17.9% 28 48.1% 342 20.0% 98 $44,857$35,139 90 52 0.0%$41,625 0.7% 247 75 186 33.9%$42,476 46.4% 4.6%$38,182 64 79 101 78.4% 26 62 72.7%$36,944 89.5% 0.0%$45,250 65 122 60 1.2% 21.5% 247 349 21.1% 92 152 80.4% 28.4% 77 0.6%$50,500 85 44.5% 5.2% 203 49 48 124 24.7% 93 69.1% 33.7% 23$42,984 65.4% 0.9% 24.4% 57 164$44,400 63 31.3% 81 164 212 66.3% 37 25.6% 88$46,059 71.2% 31 56.6% 202 0.8%$47,384 53 220 27.0% 97 2.4% 181 295 103 86.5% 16.4% 38.1% 49 76 0.9%$35,530 134 13 0.0% 79.1% 167 76 22.3% 55 247 271 68.1% 46.8%$55,481 37.5% 71 80.1% 172 106 0.7%$55,714 150 18.1% 73 73.2% 198 51 151 77.9% 16.0% 112 51.2% 116 1.3% 15.6% 139 1.9% 142 70 117 15.9% 149 100 73.0% 68.9% 63.7% 143 120 202 14.0% 165 77.3% 77.9% 175 78 19.7% 71 13.1% 103 189 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Quartile 44 29 55 614 610 603 506 229 314 82.02 207.41 232.01 Number CountyKenton Kenton Census TractHamiltonHamiltonKenton Income Family BooneClermont 58 Crowding Campbell 54Clermont 1Clermont 1 402.02Hamilton 702 $49,625 1Hamilton $46,964 411.02 1 115Hamilton 417.01 100 1 Hamilton $47,366 2.8% $49,079 1Hamilton 102 1.4%Hamilton 110 59 133Hamilton $51,167 2.3% 33 27.7%Hamilton 3.02 129 85Hamilton 11 207.62 47 2Hamilton 76.8% 2.3% 71.3% $25,868 2Warren 250 91 $12,089 84 134Hamilton 82.8% 16.0% 24Kenton 69.2% $44,176 2 109 218.02 7Hamilton 140 29 205 0.0% 87 2 2Hamilton $22,784 247 0.0%HamiltonHamilton 247 18 $51,045 657Hamilton 219 127 8.9%Dearborn 0.0% 2 2 247 18 1.7% 4 56.6% 41.9% 108 $52,000 113 $50,089 2 296 65.4% 2 134 85 37.0% 807 117 60.2% 175 $53,115 2 3.1% $46,583 19 0.0% 266 138 47 247 98 20.2% 0.0% 31 247 74.5% 0.0% 100 14.4% 1 169 67.0% 192 k Index 92 112.6 96 115.4 90 111.2 8788 109.2 89 109.4 110.8 91 112.4 9495 114.4 114.8 9798 116.2 99 116.4 117.4 86 108.6 93 113.8 SES Index SES 102 123.8 112 133.6 101 118.8 103104 124.4 105 125 106 126.8 107 127 108 127.2 109 131.6 132.8 111 133.2 113114 135 135.2 100 118.4 110 133 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran 162 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 20.9% 89 23.1% 64 15.1% 156 on Educa 67.2% 185 16.9% 129 72.9% 121 16.2% 135 46.8% 345 13.8% 183 50.7% 115 76.1% 88 12.5% 201 93.2% 368 79.9% 53 21.2% 83 45.4% 97 62.7% 239 17.2% 125 Family StructureFamily Occupa 1.9% 102 65.5% 176 74.2% 104 17.6% 123 0.0% 247 34.6% 67 70.8% 143 16.8% 131 0.0% 247 56.6% 137 80.4% 48 15.9% 142 $34,167$51,716 50 133 0.0%$18,627 0.0% 247 15 247 0.0%$58,371 59.6% 0.0%$54,435 166 146 1 247 146 82.6% 54.0%$32,780 16.9% 1.7%$60,769 31 309 0.3% 46 109 27 17.1% 22.5% 181 241 69.9% 71.7% 126 0.0%$55,795 58.3% 70 210 0.0% 130 247 152 139 75.2% 247 8.4% 27.0% 73.8%$66,113 75.0% 271 96 0.0%$63,919 110 44 17.7% 217 236 247 22.6% 74.0% 199 87.5% 120 $51,697 77.9% 2.5% 68 107$48,511 132 12 261 1.5% 8.1% 73 27.5% 108 81.1% 127 60.6% 276 1.4%$67,589 55.1% 47 44 0.0% 136 150 31.2% 232 130 247 72.5% 58.5% 67.5%$54,583 41.9% 32 124 142 3.8% 181 13.6% 147 65.4% 84 18.0% 38 184 71.6% 213 85.7% 114 0.7% 17.0% 133 184 317 13.6% 128 79.1% 62.7% 185 159 58 76.2% 17.5% 124 85 12.4% 202 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Quartile 8 26 40 60 805 315 656 261.01 249.01 703.04 705.02 232.22 Number CountyCampbellHamilton Census TractDearborn Hamilton 511.01Hamilton Income Family 2Hamilton Hamilton Crowding Hamilton $43,380 258 217.01Hamilton 84 2 2Warren 204.01Hamilton 261.02 4.0% $61,477 2Hamilton $49,487 2Hamilton 33 186 113Kenton $62,464 76.5% 216.03 321Hamilton $50,483 2.1% 0.8% 190 246 2Boone 2 123 171 95 Hamilton 50.7%Warren 637.02 $68,442 1.2%Warren 114 234 234 2 148 72.5%Clermont 215.06 83.6% 2Hamilton 123 2.9% $52,038 301.02 2Hamilton 301 14.6% 81.6% 56 $45,636Kenton 135 167 2 417.02Hamilton 63.4% $55,893 94 38 2 Kenton 2.1% 163 154 $57,679 41Boone 94 1.8% 164Hamilton 2 107Warren 78 0.0% 45.4%Hamilton $41,042 642 247 2 96 70 74.5% 105 2 60.3% 301.01 $51,571 233 2 264 4.1% 81.6% 2 $59,174 14.1% 130 32 172 $63,922 173 39 $65,313 0.8% 53.0% 200 173 3.9% 208 121 35 1.6% 85.8% 120 318 71.6% 75.3% 221 78.0% 93 15.6% 69 148 k Index SES Index SES 122 139.8 132 149.4 141 154.8 115117 135.4 118 136.6 119 137 137.6 121 139 123124 140.2 125 140.8 126 141.8 127 144 128 144.6 129 146.6 146.8 131 148.4 133134 149.6 134 150.2 134 150.2 137 150.2 138 151.4 139 152.8 153.2 141 154.8 143 155.4 120 138 130 147.2 140 153.8 115 135.4 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran

163 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 11.6% 218 13.8% 182 13.9% 179 on Educa 69.8% 155 17.8% 116 45.2% 352 1.6% 378 66.5% 199 8.1% 275 60.7% 151 75.0% 98 12.4% 205 56.5% 136 70.7% 144 15.4% 152 42.8% 87 65.2% 217 10.4% 241 Family StructureFamily Occupa 0.7% 193 44.6% 94 70.8% 141 11.4% 223 0.9% 163 63.0% 160 61.8% 247 18.1% 113 1.3% 138 35.2% 69 44.9% 355 14.6% 168 $25,333 23$60,549$62,007 179 0.0% 188 247 0.7%$24,643 68.2% 2.7% 190 22 198 45.9% 67 67.0%$41,083 77.5% 100 0.0%$56,319 194 60.6% 71 258 247 17.7% 155 74.0%$53,833 259 14.4% 118 0.0%$43,365 24.4% 142 108 1.8% 247 23 14.1% 60 82 104 45.6% 21.1% 0.5% 171 $59,489 37.3% 216 348 0.0% 33 173 14.7% 72 43.2% 247 57.2% 57.8%$64,028 164 28.8% 0.8% 291 90$53,856 201 287 13.0% 174 71.1% 50 11.8% 143$50,417 64.9% 191 64.7% 137 0.0% 216 $66,250 120 171 0.0% 9.5% 247 222 218 67.9% 10.2% 247 53.8% 258 0.8%$35,208 67.1% 244 178 127 3.0% 176 15.2% 187 76.0% 53 72.5% 52 153 68.8% 65.0% 89 226 8.7% 169 13.2% 68.4% 172 19.2% 188 7 58.9% 171 107 14.9% 84.9% 277 16.2% 162 312 65.9% 136 205 7.3% 291 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Quartile 81 10 25 84 30 408 99.01 218.01 205.05 209.01 215.71 Number CountyHamiltonClermont Census TractHamilton Clermont Kenton 413.04 Income Family 27Hamilton 2Hamilton 2 Crowding HamiltonCampbell $66,893 659Hamilton 226 79Clermont 2 215.72Hamilton 2 2.3% 511.02 2Hamilton $59,013 82 2Hamilton $54,097 407.01 169Hamilton 69.8% $56,486 144 2 Hamilton $51,607 208 157 32 0.9%Hamilton 131 0.0%Hamilton 170 2 247Clermont 238 0.0% 207.05 59.4%Hamilton $36,875 247 2 2Campbell 145 254.02 70.1%Hamilton 59 73.5% 414.03 $59,071 2Hamilton 212 $66,600 112 84.9% 2Hamilton 6.1% 15.2% 170 221Hamilton $58,971 521 18 155 19 82.01Kenton $53,676 0.2% 0.0% 168 21.9% 2 Hamilton 2 244 141 247Hamilton 35 215.04 63.1%Hamilton 0.7% $57,357 2 162 188 162 638 73.1% 56.3% $57,239 117 2 209.02 19 1.7% 135 19.9% 160 65.9% 116 2 2 100 $49,536 46.5% 206 0.9% 114 $55,259 $55,114 102 161 149 148 1.3% 143 0.5% 55.8% 215 132 66.3% 55.3% 182 303 69.7% 14.0% 156 176 k Index SES Index SES 152 165.4 162 170.4 172 176.2 145146 157.4 147 157.6 148 158.4 149 158.6 160.6 151 161.6 153154 166.6 155 166.8 156 168.4 157 168.6 158 169 159 169.2 169.4 161 170.2 162164 170.4 165 170.6 166 170.8 166 171 168 171 169 173.2 173.6 171 175.6 150 160.8 160 169.8 169 173.6 144 156 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran 164 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 19.5% 105 12.2% 207 on Educa 62.6% 240 14.0% 178 70.9% 140 9.1% 260 69.7% 157 11.3% 225 77.6% 259 67.5% 183 12.4% 203 42.5% 86 80.0% 52 11.3% 226 77.2% 254 74.4% 103 15.6% 145 Family StructureFamily Occupa 1.3% 144 82.7% 294 60.5% 261 20.8% 92 1.6% 123 31.6% 58 53.2% 314 18.2% 111 3.0% 51 67.7% 192 64.5% 225 5.1% 327 $9,205 5 0.0% 247 0.0% 1 45.5% 350 3.7% 357 $52,750$64,450 137 203$57,019 0.0%$64,946 158 1.6% 247 205 122 70.1% 0.0%$57,146 77.3% 214 1.1% 247 159 255 65.4% 156 24.5% 74.2%$59,500 59.1% 214 0.6% 39$50,250 22.5% 105 174 143 209 56.7% 12.7% 119 70.0% 69 $67,880 61.9% 197 294 0.9%$64,234 153 15.6% 233 153 0.0% 168 10.9% 202 62.6% 147 247 52.2% 234 1.0%$58,657 72.7% 241 119 0.0% 160 15.7% 167 227 57.4% 247 65.8% 144 75.7%$65,053 69.9% 290 179 0.0% 14.0% 206 90 209 65.8% 247 174 69.4% 9.9%$52,614 50.7% 207 0.8%$81,597 15.0% 250 159 136 113 180 16.5% 160 294 62.9% 69.1% 133 0.0%$59,856 236 204 1.7% 247 13.1% 175 70.2% 114 65.6% 190 67.5% 148 178 0.4% 11.6% 190 67.6% 228 222 76.3% 65.4% 180 11.3% 84 174 228 65.3% 7.4% 288 216 12.7% 196 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Quartile 75 65 253 225 306 530 405 232.1 102.01 260.02 413.02 214.21 Number CountyHamilton Clermont Census TractHamiltonHamilton Hamilton 401.02 Income Family Boone 2 Dearborn 256 Crowding Hamilton 2KentonClermont 706.04 $44,965Hamilton 806 2Hamilton 91 2Hamilton 401.01 613 $62,419Warren 0.0% $65,578 2Hamilton 189 2 210.01 247Kenton 212 215.08 53.8% 2 Warren $68,875 2.8% $50,846 2Campbell 0.2% 126 235 58 126 Kenton 242Hamilton $65,404 0.4% 72.5% 654Clermont 209 221 323 225Hamilton 2 81.1% 82.3%Dearborn 2 1.1% 215.05 670Clermont 280 $98,065 33 154 77.2% 3Hamilton 12.9% $60,872 2 65.0% 340Clermont 192 11 79 182Dearborn 173 $63,841 $101,563 804 0.0%Hamilton 3 198 348 0.0% 3Hamilton 247 402.03 247 801.01 0.0% $66,798 3 56.1% 247 3 224 134 58.3% $66,731 66.8% 111 $60,966 140 1.5% 223 196 3 69.1% 128 12.9% 184 166 0.0% 75.0% 193 $63,542 1.4% 247 235 195 131 92.9% 367 72.2% 127 14.7% 165 k Index SES Index SES 182 184 192 191.6 174174 176.4 176 176.4 177 177 178 178.2 179 178.4 180.8 181 183.4 183184 185 185 186.6 186 187.2 187 187.8 188 190 189 190.2 190.4 191 190.8 193193 192 195 192 195 193.8 197 193.8 198 194 199 194.4 194.8 201 198 180 181.2 190 190.6 200 197.8 172 176.2 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran

165 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 11.4% 224 17.0% 127 15.1% 157 on Educa 71.2% 136 10.1% 245 74.6% 99 6.5% 304 66.3% 203 9.8% 251 85.7% 316 70.7% 145 11.6% 217 71.0% 218 67.0% 189 11.6% 220 67.9% 195 67.2% 186 13.3% 186 Family StructureFamily Occupa 0.7% 197 54.3% 129 67.8% 179 10.3% 243 2.5% 75 76.4% 243 60.3% 263 12.7% 195 $64,702$60,885 204 183$73,906 0.4%$59,904 263 0.0% 229 176 247 39.5% 2.9%$61,932 74.4% 0.0% 78 54 187 232 247 49.6% 80.4% 65.0%$66,905 82.3% 335 0.0% 276$57,440 221 15.6% 227 289 247 73.0% 18.5% 163 72.2% 146 $69,236 78.0% 109 118 0.0%$80,111 126 240 263 0.0% 7.6% 247 14.9% 287 70.1% 247 71.1% 287 163 2.6%$75,298 84.3% 152 219 1.6% 14.9% 71 269 307 68.7% 121 87.6% 161 70.8%$66,290 85.4% 170 0.7% 331$57,256 15.4% 142 220 314 199 66.1% 15.0% 151 161 73.8%$71,134 78.9% 158 204 2.7%$71,417 111 14.0% 246 270 0.0% 12.8% 63 250 68.1% 177 247 68.8% 194 2.0%$66,066 41.2% 175 0.0% 200 17.6% 98 215 247 81 62.8% 88.1% 122 57.7% 60.5% 237 0.4% 337 288 149 6.1% 230 69.3% 70.1% 8.9% 66.7% 319 160 264 151 12.1% 185 9.6% 67.0% 209 253 193 11.0% 232 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Quartile 524 410 236 46.01 802.01 637.01 237.01 636.03 520.01 221.02 214.01 214.22 Number CountyKentonHamilton Census TractHamiltonHamiltonDearborn Income Family 646Campbell 237.02Campbell 3 Crowding 3 Hamilton 247Kenton $75,208 3Hamilton 519.01 268Hamilton $66,000 3Hamilton 56 1.5%Clermont 214 210.03Kenton 126 $68,882 3 254.01 3Kenton 63.6% 0.3% 236 3Campbell $63,561 236 407.02 164Hamilton $74,464 65.8% 2.2% 63.8% 196 3 Kenton 636.04 $56,326 265 209 166 90 Clermont 156 3 0.0%Kenton 230.01 247Clermont 0.0% $65,243 76.5% 3Hamilton 247 658Hamilton 207 247 77.9%Hamilton $67,500 66.4% 3 611Hamilton 0.0% 260 419 231 201 64.6%Hamilton 247 17.8% 3 $74,934 57.02 3Campbell 63.0% 223 0.9% 207.01 117 266Clermont 3 $73,444 169 161 $67,168 3Hamilton 2.8% 262 229 $60,078 531 61 415.02 0.0% 177 84.6% 3 3 247 309 0.7% 87.6% 67.1% $69,207 $65,421 187 330 188 239 210 72.9% 77.5% 12.0% 229 211 0.0% 0.0% 75 246 247 69.9% 211 66.5% 197 13.2% 187 k Index SES Index SES 211 202.6 221 207.6 203203 198.4 205 198.4 206 199.4 207 199.6 208 200.2 209 200.8 201.6 211 202.6 213214 202.8 215 203.4 216 203.6 217 204.6 217 205.4 219 205.4 207 221 207.6 223224 207.8 225 208.2 226 209.4 226 210 228 210 228 210.4 210.4 210 202 219 207 230 211 202 198.2 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran 166 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 8.5% 270 2.8% 371 11.6% 219 on Educa 61.2% 253 11.9% 212 58.0% 282 4.4% 348 66.5% 200 8.7% 268 84.2% 305 69.2% 162 10.1% 246 78.8% 268 63.4% 233 17.9% 115 67.9% 194 58.2% 281 11.8% 214 Family StructureFamily Occupa 0.0% 247 70.7% 217 63.4% 232 18.3% 110 0.5% 217 66.9% 186 61.9% 246 12.4% 204 0.7% 182 84.4% 308 71.6% 131 8.8% 266 $78,125$87,059 278 311$63,491 1.7%$62,969 193 1.7% 118 191 112 67.6% 0.8%$63,000 66.4% 191 2.3% 177 192 183 60.2% 64.3% 83 49.7%$72,204 265 81.1% 167 0.0%$71,406 11.8% 333 254 59.2% 247 281 16.8% 213 249 100.0% 65.3%$63,503 275 132 0.6%$73,041 379 8.9% 194 215 0.8% 212 81.1% 258 6.5% 263 179 69.3% 0.6%$63,609 76.6% 306 45 206 1.2% 211 11.3% 197 248 65.2% 147 76.3% 229 66.5%$86,452 72.2% 218 242 0.0%$66,270 12.1% 198 309 223 69.2% 247 11.3% 210 219 69.0%$66,944 69.0% 161 227 1.1%$65,903 167 7.0% 228 203 0.6% 157 6.2% 213 60.0% 298 204 87.6% 0.0% 316 81.1% 270 332 2.0% 247 12.2% 282 71.0% 81.2% 99 206 65.7% 139 83.6% 283 12.6% 210 70.6% 302 11.6% 198 60.5% 147 221 10.4% 260 240 8.3% 272 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Quartile 668 101 643 259 310 311 412 208.11 705.01 207.61 210.02 Number CountyCampbellHamilton Census TractKenton CampbellHamilton 525 Income Family Hamilton 18 3Kenton Crowding Campbell 3 503 206.02 $72,963Warren 3 3Hamilton 257 $55,795Clermont 520.02 152Warren $60,735 3Warren 180 2.7% 324Campbell 411.03Hamilton $80,625 68 3 0.0% 3Hamilton 78.9% 290 247 307Boone $66,824 269 66.2%Hamilton $70,515 528 3 2.5% 55.0% 225Clermont 181 244 70 3 74 304 Hamilton $67,419 0.0%Dearborn 3 102.02 230 247Hamilton 413.03 3Warren 87.3% $72,804 0.0% 3Kenton 329 802.02 255 247Campbell $71,638 77.4% 3Hamilton 72.8% $79,397 251 2.4%Clermont 6 76 228 283 12.5% $69,517Clermont 636.05 77 68.1% 0.0% 3Hamilton 200 58.4% 522 241 1.5% 3 247 173 130 141 $48,000 3 414.04 82.8% 106 205.04 $60,536 3 295 63.9% 3 6.2% 178 $65,509 226 17 13.9% $83,676 0.0% 211 77.4% 181 247 301 257 0.0% 76.7% 29.3% 2.4% 247 249 380 80 78.6% 267 63.9% 227 8.2% 274 k Index SES Index SES 231 212.6 241 219.4 252 226.2 233234 213 235 214.2 236 214.6 237 215 238 215.2 238 215.4 215.4 241 219.4 243244 220 245 220.2 246 220.6 247 221.2 248 222.2 249 222.8 223 251 225.6 253254 227 255 227.2 256 228.4 257 229 258 229.2 259 229.4 229.8 240 218.4 250 224.6 231 212.6 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran

167 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 8.0% 279 10.0% 248 10.3% 242 on Educa 58.3% 280 10.9% 235 57.0% 293 25.8% 51 65.7% 211 6.4% 311 62.4% 156 60.2% 268 1.8% 377 84.2% 306 68.0% 177 12.2% 208 90.9% 357 71.0% 138 7.1% 295 Family StructureFamily Occupa 2.7% 66 53.8% 125 49.7% 334 4.9% 333 0.4% 223 83.2% 296 67.3% 184 11.1% 231 1.4% 132 77.1% 252 49.8% 332 14.1% 172 $81,048 291$80,558 0.7%$75,893 289 185 273$75,357 68.8% 1.2%$57,917 270 201 1.3% 151 165 63.7% 139 67.4% 1.2%$71,960 74.5% 229 189 0.0% 149 9.9% 252 234 65.1% 247 78.2% 61.3% 249 $73,108 52.7% 219 265 0.4%$85,904 251 6.2% 259 120 66.9% 233 8.8% 308 50.3% 314 $81,048 70.4% 195 0.0% 265 $86,667 325 7.3% 291 216 0.6% 247 6.2% 310 64.5% 290 201 69.8% 0.6% 315 $61,250 78.1% 224 207 3.5% 202 8.2% 185 264 63.4% 59.4% 42 63.1% 273 $83,197 234 86.0% 144 0.0%$71,299 235 9.6% 298 58.0% 247 321 12.6% 248 255 59.4%$79,753 73.9% 284 199 1.2%$70,886 6.5% 285 274 231 1.5% 145 245 49.3% 7.8% 305 125 60.0% 0.8% 90.7% 283 336 147 0.0% 172 10.4% 355 52.0% 247 72.9% 238 62.1% 70.1% 318 230 244 4.7% 213 57.8% 8.0% 57.9% 340 286 277 285 7.9% 8.5% 281 269 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Quartile 72 313 641 57.01 243.03 213.03 319.04 703.08 215.01 320.03 414.01 230.02 Number CountyHamilton Hamilton Census TractKentonHamilton Hamilton Income Family Hamilton 20Warren Crowding 652Hamilton 3Hamilton 222 3 235.22Hamilton $83,393 3 3Boone $71,196 299 Clermont 226.02 247Campbell $73,235 46.03 3Hamilton 261 1.3%Campbell 3 411.01Hamilton 140 $85,250 0.6% 519.03 3Warren 67.9% $59,115 306 205 3Kenton 193 67.3% 171Hamilton $74,222 529 49.8% 2.3%Campbell 188 $83,696 264 0.7% 3 331 87 Hamilton 7 302 183Hamilton 204.02 3Kenton 82.3% 0.9% 3Warren 526 290 165 $91,484Kenton 60.2% 86.7% 3Hamilton 327 $85,759 242 267Clermont 327 307 7.7% 3 69.1% 649 $66,700Hamilton 1.1%Hamilton 285 158 222 165 0.4% 3 $105,536 653 100.0% 220 232 351 379 0.0% 3 $83,438 3 247 213.04 300 100.0% $70,066 3 379 0.0% 243 74.0% 247 $69,167 109 48.5% 0.0% 237 7.9% 247 110 280 54.3% 0.0% 75.8% 247 308 240 k Index SES Index SES 262 231.8 272 240.2 282 248.8 261 231.4 263263 232.4 265 232.4 265 233.8 267 233.8 268 234.4 269 238.8 239.2 270 239.6 273274 240.4 275 241.4 276 241.6 277 245.2 277 246 279 246 247.4 281 247.8 283284 249.6 285 249.8 286 250.4 287 250.8 288 251.8 254.8 270 239.6 279 247.4 260 231 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran 168 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 5.8% 320 6.3% 313 11.8% 215 on Educa 65.1% 220 4.4% 344 61.6% 248 9.0% 261 49.2% 337 6.4% 308 68.3% 199 51.7% 321 7.1% 294 87.1% 328 74.1% 106 3.7% 359 Family StructureFamily Occupa 0.3% 235 68.0% 197 53.2% 315 9.5% 259 1.8% 105 75.4% 238 55.8% 299 3.3% 363 0.6% 208 81.2% 284 61.9% 245 6.3% 312 $76,953 276$76,890 0.0%$72,837 275 247 256$80,139 82.4% 0.4%$75,610 288 292 0.2% 225 271 67.0% 243 75.0% 0.5%$88,505 79.8% 191 237 0.0% 214 8.0% 318 274 55.5% 247 78.4% 61.1% 100.0% 278 $72,092 302 266 2.4%$79,097 256 379 9.6% 253 63.5% 79 69.2% 8.7% 282 256 $70,000 231 91.8% 0.0% 267 163$83,016 6.9% 242 0.6% 10.4% 247 361 297 300 210 59.0% 86.5% 239 0.0% 77.1% 276 324 1.2% 247 253 60.6% 7.7% 150 89.6% 61.3%$66,071 80.8% 284 258 350$87,384 250 9.8% 216 278 61.4% 4.1% 313 54.8% 252 $88,767 249 0.0% 353 $87,685 306 8.9% 320 0.4% 247 5.6% 316 100.0% 262 222 0.4% 322 77.3% 379 3.1% 231 67.0% 256 79.4% 48 61.1% 190 88.8% 273 4.3% 255 62.2% 340 4.8% 350 47.8% 243 336 5.4% 344 4.4% 324 347 $107,425 354 1.7% 111 83.4% 298 53.9% 310 6.8% 301 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Quartile 107 316 645 106 706.01 223.02 703.06 636.06 205.01 704.01 703.07 239.01 Number CountyHamiltonBoone Census TractClermontHamilton 46.02Hamilton Income Family Warren 3 404.02Boone 243.01 Crowding 3Boone $73,144 3Hamilton 260 320.07Hamilton $78,510 $110,556Boone 703.05 4 279 0.0%Kenton 357 4 247Campbell 235.21Hamilton 0.0% 64.5% $75,673 4Warren 247 704.02 169Hamilton 46.7% 272 57.4% 523.01 4Campbell $69,201 138 346 4Hamilton 0.0% 238 50.1% 53 9.5% $75,132Kenton 247 251.02Hamilton 328 $89,322 257 4 267 0.0% 519.04 70.4% 4 Hamilton 323 247 215 4Boone 0.0% $97,066Boone 247 260.01 338Kenton $76,597 87.8% 4Hamilton 274 0.0% 42 335Warren 65.8% 247Hamilton $88,882 4 706.03 0.0% 34.1%Boone 208 321 247 4 648Hamilton 9.6% $90,259 65 85.9% 0.0% 4 42.9% 254 326 312 $92,642 320 247 52 364 330 4 $89,297 0.0% 4 247 322 82.2% $87,870 0.7% 288 317 200 41.1% 72.4% 367 0.0% 16.1% 224 247 51.6% 137 65.6% 322 177 k Index SES Index SES 291 257 302 266.8 312 276.2 291 257 293294 259 295 259.2 296 259.6 296 259.8 296 259.8 299 259.8 262.2 301 265.6 302304 266.8 305 269.6 305 270 307 270 308 270.6 309 272.2 273 311 275.8 313313 276.4 315 276.4 316 277.2 317 278.2 279 290 256.8 300 263.6 310 274.8 289 255.8 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran

169 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 3.1% 367 7.9% 282 10.0% 247 on Educa 59.9% 271 7.0% 299 49.1% 339 5.1% 328 44.3% 358 3.7% 358 76.5% 245 56.6% 297 6.4% 310 80.2% 275 58.0% 283 6.7% 302 60.1% 148 27.4% 383 5.1% 330 Family StructureFamily Occupa 0.4% 224 93.6% 370 55.7% 300 11.0% 233 0.6% 206 79.2% 272 57.7% 289 3.3% 362 0.0% 247 89.3% 348 58.3% 279 7.6% 286 $77,159 277$80,000 0.7%$93,352 286 192 334$95,658 81.4% 0.0%$83,721 336 285 1.7% 247 303 53.6% 110 82.2% 0.0%$84,187 87.9% 313 287 0.0% 247 4.4% 305 336 51.2% 247 76.0% 50.3% 346 $87,665 80.4% 323 241 0.0%$88,750 326 7.2% 315 277 51.8% 247 4.5% 319 54.9% 292 $93,125 88.4% 319 0.7% 341 305 6.4% 333 338 0.0% 191 5.6% 63.8% 309 247 93.2% 0.6% 321 $98,571 77.0% 228 369 207 4.7% 341 251 61.2% 86.6% 55.6% 339 $99,327 252 326 1.6% 301 4.9% 344 52.6% 119 4.4% 334 $78,852 82.4% 316 0.7% 345 6.5% 281 291 196 42.5% 307 89.0% 0.0% 366 342 247 2.0% 50.0% 91.2% 376 330 359 7.2% 56.4% 293 298 5.1% 329 $100,938 347 0.5% 219 90.7%$101,932 354 349 60.1% 269 0.0% 6.7% 247 303 68.0% 196 43.1% 363 3.7% 356 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Quartile 647 504 224 404.01 240.02 801.02 221.01 206.01 415.01 320.05 208.12 Number CountyWarrenKenton Census TractKenton Hamilton 305.03Hamilton Income Family Clermont 4 640Warren 208.02 Crowding Hamilton 4 $83,811 4Hamilton 12 304Campbell $97,054 320.06Clermont $81,098 4 205.02 0.0% 337Boone 4 293 4Dearborn 247 $78,750 1.5%Hamilton 280Hamilton 129 $82,723 406Hamilton 84.1% 703.09 295 0.0% 4Hamilton 212.02 304 4 247Hamilton 57.2% 0.0% 240.01 $100,781 62.5% 4Hamilton 247 292 $92,975 346 4Clermont 158 250.02 88.8% 4.2%Hamilton $92,292 34.8% 331 250.01 0.0% 4 Campbell 339 $82,917 351 329 376 4Warren 247 0.0% 296Warren 247Warren $79,655 0.0% 78.0% 14Hamilton 513 284 247 262Hamilton 4 82.4% 60.4% 4Hamilton 0.0% 308 322.02 $250,001Hamilton 293 262 $107,321 247 49.0% 4.2% 4 384 4 80.9% 353 340 352 59 279 $110,625 0.0% $95,271 45 0.4% 4 247 358 335 226 4 75.8% 0.1% $150,658 239 245 379 44.5% 86.5% 357 323 3.6% 6.1% 51.1% 40 318 324 96.1% 377 k Index SES Index SES 322 285.6 331 291.6 342 299.4 319 282.6 321 284 323324 287 325 289.4 326 290.2 327 290.4 327 290.6 329 290.6 290.8 331 291.6 333334 292.2 335 292.6 336 295.4 337 297.8 337 298.4 339 298.4 298.6 341 299 343344 301 345 302.2 346 302.4 302.8 319 282.6 330 291.4 339 298.6 318 280.6 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran 170 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro on 5.4% 323 7.4% 289 3.1% 368 on Educa 43.4% 361 6.1% 317 53.7% 312 2.5% 374 34.0% 377 4.9% 332 89.1% 344 60.7% 257 4.8% 337 88.8% 341 45.5% 351 4.5% 343 83.3% 297 42.8% 365 0.0% 386 Family StructureFamily Occupa 0.7% 189 84.8% 311 52.2% 317 2.5% 373 0.0% 247 83.5% 299 39.5% 369 4.7% 338 0.0% 247 89.1% 345 39.1% 370 4.0% 355 $98,665 342$89,552 0.5% 324 218$87,473 85.9% 0.0% 314 319 247 53.9% 91.6% 0.0% 311 360 247 5.3% 59.8% 84.0% 326 272 303 5.4% 46.4% 325 347 4.5% 342 $99,167 343 0.3% 238 93.7% 371 50.2% 327 3.6% 360 $107,692 355$113,333$108,618 361 0.4% 356 227 0.0%$114,114 84.7% 0.0% 247 365 310 247 83.6% 48.1%$126,094 86.4% 300 0.3%$114,069 343 373 322 35.4% 234 4.9% 364 58.5% 86.5% 375 1.7% 331 $121,792 278 7.0% 325 0.0% 115 1.2% 371 45.1% 297 247 98.4% 380 $121,101 95.3% 353 378 0.7% 4.9% 370 375 29.0% 195 48.2% 335 $132,647 90.4% 381 0.3%$142,184 341 3.0% 376 353 240 7.0% 377 43.2% 369 89.2% 0.0% 296 362 347 0.6% 247 3.1% 45.5% 213 85.6% 366 92.4% 349 315 3.1% 366 39.0% 38.6% 365 371 372 0.4% 3.3% 382 364 Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Quartile 71 13 49 241 233 309 403 251.03 211.01 249.02 207.07 Number CountyHamilton Hamilton Census TractHamiltonHamilton Warren 213.02 Income Family Warren 211.02 4Hamilton Crowding 4Hamilton 319.02Warren $97,119 322.01Hamilton $91,614 4 339Hamilton 4 328 243.21Kenton 0.0% $99,400 320.04 4 Campbell 0.0% $89,561 247 345 Hamilton 4 247 325Hamilton 91.0%Hamilton 655.02 $112,361 523.02 0.0%Hamilton 358 360 4 62.8% 4Warren 247 47.01Kenton 87.8% 238 239.02 0.8% $87,131 $104,167Hamilton 4 4.0% 334 178 4Warren 312 350 54.6% 354 90.0% 305.04Hamilton $113,333 $132,500 307 Hamilton 0.0% 0.0% 655.01 352 4 361 Clermont 375 247 247 4Hamilton 85.4%Hamilton 0.0% 313 $93,095 51Hamilton 247 231 50.0%Hamilton 332 4 89.0% 4 329Hamilton 248 226.01 343 $115,852 0.0% 2.7% 44.0% $111,250 4 4 247 368 372 243.22 359 360 92.1% 235.01 $114,167 $114,316 4 0.0% 362 0.0% 366 4 367 247 247 $125,840 0.0% 93.9% 372 247 373 87.7% 49.1% 0.0% 333 338 247 36.9% 4.4% 92.3% 373 349 365 k Index SES Index SES 352 307.2 361 322.8 372 337.6 348349 304.8 305 351 307 353354 310.6 355 313.2 356 313.6 357 316 358 316.6 359 318.8 322.2 361 322.8 363364 323.2 365 324.6 366 325.4 367 327.8 368 329.4 369 332.6 333.2 371 336.6 373374 338.2 375 338.4 338.6 350 305.6 360 322.4 370 334.2 347 303.2 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran

171 Appendix IV | SES Index and Variables - Cincinnati Metro Social Areas of Cincinnati on 0.2% 385 37.9% 14 31.1%21.6% 33 76 c c c ------on Educa c c c ------25.4% 384 0.0% 386 c c c c ------c c c c values indicator ve ------fi 93.9% 372 45.0% 354 3.5% 361 Family StructureFamily Occupa c c c ------c c c ------0.0% 247 95.6% 376 33.8% 378 1.6% 379 c c c ------c c c --- $166,087$113,839 380 363 0.7%$128,324 0.0% 194 374 247 90.9% 92.3% 356 0.3% 364 27.8% 239 44.7% 92.2% 382 356 0.4% 363 2.8% 40.9% 383 370 368 2.5% 375 values indicator ve Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank fi 4 4 4 4 Quartile 48 317 251.01 319.03 Number calculated due to lack of data for four of the four for lack of data due to calculated CountyHamilton Hamilton Census TractHamiltonHamiltonWarren Income Family Hamilton 212.01Hamilton Crowding 4Hamilton 245Hamilton $116,453 4Hamilton 50 369Hamilton 244 251.04 $150,000Warren 4 4 378 4 0.0% 43 $105,625 247 $227,042 $206,500 0.3% 62.02 1 4 352 383 237 381 4 4 $223,333 89.2% 0.5% 0.0% 382 346 220 247 44.2% --- 94.2% --- 89.9% 0.0% 359 247 374 351 0.2% 35.9% 33.1% 384 --- 374 379 0.7% 381 not a b b b ------349.75 a b b b k Index SES Index SES ------382 347.2 377378 340 379 340.6 340.8 381 346.4 383 347.8 380 343.8 376 339 384 SES Index Value Value Index SES SES Index Value calculated for Census tract 43 of Hamilton County (rank value: 384), despite lacking data for one of the for lacking data 384), despite value: (rank County 43 of Hamilton Census tract for calculated Value Index SES Data not available Data SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Ran a b c 172 Appendix V Definition of Variables Variables as Labeled in the Tables ACS 2005-2009 Variables Used African American Families Below Poverty - African American or Black head of households with B17010B income at or below poverty level compared to total number families with a Black or African American householder Crowding Index - Percent of occupied housing units with more than 1 person per room B25014 Educa on Index - Percent of popula on 25 years or older with less educa on than a high B15002 school diploma Family Structure Index - Percent of children living in married-couple families B09005 Female Headed Families - The number of females responsible for households with families B17010 Female Headed Families Below Poverty - Female headed households (no husband present) B17010 with income at or below poverty status over total number of families Func onal Illiteracy Rate - Percent of adults over 25 years of age with 8 or less years of educa- B15002 on High School Drop-out Rate - Percent of persons 16-19 years old not enrolled in school and B14005 without a high school diploma Households on Public Assistance - Percent of households with public assistance income B19057 Jobless Rate - Percent of popula on that is either unemployed or under 65 years of age and B23001 not in the civilian labor force Less Than HS Diploma - Persons 25 years and older without a high school diploma B15002 Median Family Income (individual census tract fi gures) - Median annual family income in 2009 B19113 infl a on-adjusted dollars Median Family Income (when calculated for neighborhoods - i.e. groups of census tracts) - B19113; B19101 Calculated with individual incomes of families in neighborhoods (which are provided in ranges by tract in table B19101). This controls for bias resul ng from varying numbers of families within diff erent tracts that are in the same neighborhood. For example: if a neighborhood is composed of two tracts, one with many families and one with just a few, this adjusted sta s c takes this diff erence into account, and produces a more accurate median.

Occupa on Index - Percent of workers not employed in management, professional, and re- C24010 lated occupa ons (i.e. semi-skilled and unskilled workers) compared to all employed persons 16 years and older Percent African American Popula on - Percent of popula on who self-iden fy as Black or C02003 African American Percent of Families Below Poverty - Percent of families with annual income at or below the B17010 poverty level. Poverty sta s cs were based on the standards used by federal agencies. These standards take into account varying family sizes, types, and are revised anually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reﬂ ected in the consumer price index. In the case of the 2005- 2009 ACS, poverty levels are also adjusted for inﬂ a on, as the ACS data was collected between 2005 to 2009. Percent of First Genera on Immigrants - Percent of popula on that is a foreign born, natural- B05002 ized U.S. ci zen Percent of Households Below Poverty - Percent of households with annual income at or below B17017 the poverty level Percent Single Family Dwellings - Percent of living quarters with one unit B25024 Percent White or Other Popula on - Percent of popula on who self-iden fy as White or an- C02003 other race

173 Appendix V | Definition of Variables Social Areas of Cincinnati

Definition of Variables Variables as Labeled in the Tables ACS 2005-2009 Variables Used Socioeconomic Status (SES) Index - A composite scale developed from compara ve ranking B25014; B15002; of fi ve variables. These variables were the fi ve dimensions used by the census bureau in the B09005; B19113; New Haven Study: median family income, occupa onal status, educa onal a ainment, hous- C24010 ing volume, and family structure. The rela ve rank for each census tract was determined and then the average of these fi ve variables made the SES index number for the tract.

Total Families - Total number of families living in a given census tract B17010 Total Housing Units - Number of separate living quarters in a given census tract, such as B25024 houses, apartments, mobile homes, or trailers. Separate living quarters are those in which occupants live and eat seperately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. If quarters contain nine or more persons unrelated to the householder, it is classiﬁ ed as group quarters

Total Popula on - Total number of persons living in a given census tract B01003 Unemployment Rate - Percent of unemployed persons in the civilian labor force B23001 White Families Below Poverty - White head of households with income at or below poverty B17010A level compared to total number of families with a White householder

174 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 12 17.23 Hamilton 18.44 Hamilton 20.85 Kenton6 22 Butler 29.27 Campbell 77 33.68 Hamilton 2 35.4 19 Hamilton 671 35.6 Hamilton 1 501 1 36 96.7% Campbell 4 36 1 94.5% 3 88 89.3% 1 1 98 4 41.8% 15 1 83.7% 505 34.1% 1 11 93.8% 39 29.0% 90.8% 1 28 89.3% 4.0% 37.5% 6 55 9 90.1% 14 8.2% 10.7% 45.5% 42 19 41.1% 81.7% 10 31.1% 4.7% 57 8.4% 9 12 4 32.5% 7 45 18 11.1% 40.5% 10.0% 3.4% 30 2.6% 35 6.3% 20 25.7% 13 $15,732 13 7.5% 52 2 17 42 12 5.0% $14,512 34.7% $28,654 35.2% 12 31.5% 10 $19,398 76 38 78 28 41.1% 60 16 29.2% 92 $22,125 $19,985 $28,964 54 19 17 $26,378 41 $26,304 29 28 1011 38.212 Butler 40.213 Butler14 42 Hamilton 42.815 Hamilton 44.216 Hamilton 45.4 14017 Hamilton 47.418 Hamilton 1 6 9519 48 94 Hamilton 51.820 1 Hamilton 92 1 54.8 89.9% 121 Hamilton 21 57.6 1 1222 Hamilton 87 85.8% 59.2 84.8% 123 Butler 77.8% 85.02 33.5% 67 27 1 3324 106 61 85.2% 85.01 Butler 65.6 1 3125 Hamilton 33.9% 81.0% 1 34.8% 31 31.0% 66.4 126 Hamilton 28 92.1% 3.4% 67 67.4 29 42.1% 2527 Hamilton 47 70.2% 67.8 88.1% 7 1 31.1% Hamilton 5.0% 16.9% 211 53 76.8% 5 5.7% 10 69.8 110 19 Hamilton 120 47.5% 31.6% 44 33.2% 8 9.7% 26 1 93 22 84.2% 1 17.7% 1 10.9% 63 24.4% 27.1% 16 5 33 36.6% 37 24.4% 1 165 104 1 7 83 $27,022 47 89.8% 79 9.9% 7.5% 3 39 1 86.1% 44.4% 7.0% 35 48.4% 1 32 5.9% 13 99.1% 24 $37,452 128 0.0% 77.3% $31,731 11 $22,788 5 1 13 8 111 33.5% 73.3% 72 20 2 29.7% 51 21 $30,333 1 78.3% 49.5% 0.0% 19.4% 167 4.3% 25.6% 13.1% 32 132 24.6% 99 51 45 93.9% 30 45.8% $44,583 1 21 35 67 2.0% 112 4.4% 22.7% 79 $41,161 5 $15,938 54.2% 6 5.7% 126 $26,514 $7,459 88 3.0% 91 154 13 39.7% 33 33.3% 30 7.8% 21 3 49.6% 2.9% 64 14 $32,733 66 133 33.3% 10 45.7% 54 0.0% 67 $34,154 67 113 53.8% $41,090 15.8% 315 150 59 87 $35,889 $30,417 25 0.0% 66 47 $8,725 $33,625 1 4 57 $16,203 14 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VI 175 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 2829 70.430 Hamilton31 72 Hamilton 73.232 Kenton 74.633 Butler 75.2 26234 Hamilton 78.235 Hamilton 1 81.4 3936 Hamilton 650 82.437 Butler 1 85.4 105 257 91.6%38 1 Hamilton 86.6 3.0139 Hamilton 1 8 1 87.2 81.5% 22840 Hamilton 1 85.6% 88.2 19.6% 6141 Butler 1 89.2 28 131 85.6% 82.6%42 Hamilton 138 68 19.8% 90.4 63.6% 3043 Butler 46 20.4% 97 1 9.8% 306 90.8 135 1 83.3%44 Hamilton 61 127 32.2% 37.3% 91.8 146 2.9% 38.6% Campbell 41 7.01 92.8 6 4.2% 85.9% 1 3844 Hamilton 20 96 85.9% 29.4% 16 69 52.0% 2547 93 1 79.6% 47.02 2.7% 26 1.6% 38 Hamilton 92.8 141 142 148 20.0% 3.0% Hamilton 52 77.1% 28.2% 78 93.6 44.1% 512 32.4% 1 15849 Hamilton 118 79 100.0% 31 1 $33,750 2.6% 93.8 105 60 23.8% 5650 Hamilton 26.3% 73 68.1% 48.3% 1 37 22.8% 58 151 $35,500 240 94 127 103 85 $36,629 0.0% 75.2% 44 1.0% 87 Hamilton 94.8 88.1% 1 0.0%52 Butler 90 37 140 100.4 64 58.6% 37.6% 34.5% 68 Kenton 207 88.6% 1.3% 18 1 152 $42,955 $43,963 15 315 4.3% 56.9% 101 83 152 108 39.6% 16 26 64 Butler 1 99 78.0% 181 27.7% 15.9% 101 $12,981 155 101 Hamilton 90 227 37 83.4% $48,958 21.2% 31.1% 2.7% 2 0.0% 101 26 1 5956 Hamilton 68.1% 8 146 45.6% 21.3% 40 102 35 1 $27,157 612 2.4% 315 242 46 Kenton 102.6 78.5% 77 112 3 2.4% $24,092 Hamilton 111 49.9% 34 77.5% 86.01 93 $31,996 16.7% 0.0% 35.6% 0.0% 1 23 122 96 1 223.01 107 $39,798 2.0% 98 78.4% 52 27 29.8% 315 3 46.7% 1 23 1 79 38.7% 1 20.9% 95 120 1 122 78.4% 27.4% 0.0% 50 $38,607 86.7% 651 1.4% 88 117 22.5% 80 $46,000 29.1% 96 49 80.3% $42,031 22 76 315 123 84.0% 0.0% 171 37 84.4% 1 1.9% $53,750 1 54 73 27.7% 94 37.1% 38 $27,061 25.2% 189 315 35 6.8% 131 $42,173 0.9% 39.4% 80 58 33 35.6% 69.5% 72 17 31.0% 22.6% 0.0% 75.3% 95 222 215 138 15 2.3% $26,250 58 22 0.8% 92 $14,904 1 31.6% 25.2% 0.0% 105 31.7% 27 5.0% 236 11 $33,050 3.3% 62 $14,327 41.6% 73 315 40 31.8% 56 27 54 95 $29,855 28.8% 9 2.3% 64 0.0% 71.9% 62.4% 44 52 109 $49,083 278 315 196 $40,139 148 30.0% $31,176 80 $48,227 4.3% $46,918 57 50 140 128 14 $30,911 $10,135 49 6 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 176 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 5759 106.4 Hamilton58 106.8 Butler61 106.6 Hamilton60 107.2 Hamilton62 107 6963 Hamilton 107.4 216.04 Hamilton64 107.8 136 1 100.02 Hamilton65 1 108.4 Hamilton 166 1 108.6 Clermont 79.2%67 109.6 66 76.5% Butler68 86 9 110.4 81.7% 122 83.2% Butler 63 170 402.04 24.6% 58 111 38 1 43 18.8%69 Ohio 111.6 1 Hamilton71 15.1% 80 144 1 111.2 17.7% 62.3% 1 Warren72 320 112.4 209 73.5% 163 1.4% 3.0% 11 Hamilton 84.6%73 166 114.2 127 82.6% 1.7% 24.6% Hamilton 79.4% 0.8% 17474 34 115.2 1 61 255 37.7% Butler 48 9657 175 83 149 29.5% 116.2 81 228 43.9% 21.8% Clermont 32576 1 18 116.6 26.9% 20.9% 55 104 1 24.7% 207.42 27.1% 2.7% Boone 104 79.6% 3477 77.1% 120 45 0.0% 1 117 41 7978 61 $47,837 $43,365 0.0% 116 Kenton 1 1 75 75.4% 118 2.0% 315 82.0%79 137 102 Hamilton 118.4 $37,608 135 134 418 20.6% $34,684 0.0% 315 14.0% 20.1% Kenton 81.3%80 54 118.6 119 73 0.0% 124 83.2% Warren 61 20.8% 25.4% 129 70.0% 23 1 31581 1 64 701 47.9% 18.4% 218 119 4282 33 1.4% 215.09 1 27.1% Campbell 119.4 4.5% 71 126 609 $28,071 21.8% Grant 147 183 34.3% 119.8 21.5% 72.9% 48 168 76.1% Clermont 1 $32,654 2.6% 103 $28,077 36 85 644 32 $47,029 1 175 120.6 3.8% 126 109 38.2% Brown 27 30284 53 130 37 $27,973 121.2 3.3% 48.6% 78.8% 84 1 25.8% Butler 20.9% 86 502 5.2% 47 78.4% 130 0.0% 35 89 1 72.1% 121 53.1% 118 55 9801 Hamilton 58.2% 65 94 409 185 1 315 $41,547 148 24 $48,950 19.7% 168 78.9% 62.0% 6.7% 2.7% 1 145 9516 13.9% 91 64.4% 20.6% 80.9% 1 193 0.0% 136 88 $45,789 118.01 212 $48,214 238 71.6% 125 68 14 121 1 80 1.1% 139 1 14.2% 190 $48,307 1 78.7% 23 66.2% 3.6% 82.1% $53,219 1.7% 52.9% 30.5% 141 227 196 225 33.1% 90 184 145 51 $7,243 72.5% 138 1 48 50 33.7% 6.5% 79.4% 178 34 22.5% $42,845 41.5% 20.0% $44,432 34.2% 1 69 2.9% 82 111 15 25.1% 98 0.0% 133 94 51.7% 97 74 17.4% 411 $42,025 43.0% 65 315 74 6.4% 3.2% $29,196 101 169 $47,515 93 76.4% 30.3% 2.3% 6.7% 134 43 306 16 56 4.7% $50,457 49 16 108 64.6% 61.5% 161 $43,697 29 214 3.7% 186 52.9% 106 $28,846 146 63.1% $53,265 $50,891 48 40 201 185 168 $42,536 13.8% $46,350 97 22 125 $38,359 75 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

177 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 8688 122.4 Hamilton87 12489 Brown 123.6 Hamilton90 124.6 100.01 Hamilton91 125.8 Grant92 1 126.6 Butler 62.0193 9518 12793 Bracken 127.2 1 74.4% Kenton 22 195 127.2 150 Butler96 9804 1 128 19.2%97 72.3% Boone 128.2 123 80.7% Gallatin 1 181 950198 141 128.8 70 Hamilton 68.8% 199 669 129.2 20.9% 1 2.6% Warren 233 24.4% 73.7% 132 121 1 130 703.01 163 26.1% Hamilton 88 84.2% 9601 84 1.8% 1 77.1% 25.0% 45.6% 1 36 64 117 89 305.01 0.9% 79.9% 1 135 111 76 18.3% 1.1% 29.2% 77 74.9% 99.02 1 220 40.4% 1 81.4% $45,909 146 148 1.3% 194 82.4% 51.9% 21.1% 91 53 122 1 62 141 2.0% 22.4% 33.1% 49 85.6% 184 116 76.1% 0.0% $41,373 21.5% 125 65 29 46.1% 125 98 $43,472 27.0% 3.2% 74.5% 315 90 107 117 105 61.7% 149 20.5% 14.6% 0.5% $36,500 63 43.2% 189 57 1.1% 126 $41,316 102 222 15.0% 67 278 1.0% 66.5% 201 $47,542 89 214 1.9% 0.0% 230 33.4% $30,809 206 135 61.7% 1.7% 128 68 315 48 188 61.6% $50,139 53.3% 187 29.6% 156 147 $30,388 $40,407 149 56 31.4% $47,714 46 82 $45,313 59 136 $23,750 118 22 $40,288 81 100100 130.8 Hamilton102 130.8 Kenton103 132104 Butler 133105 Dearborn 133.4 Hamilton 74106 134.2 Hamilton107 607 134.6 1 Clermont109 135.2 1 Kenton 130 803107 135.6 Butler 83 75.2%110 135.2 1 1 Clermont 142 17111 67.2% 137.2 420 1 Hamilton 255112 10.7% 139.6 1 Hamilton 79.3% 81.3%113 616 1 305 27.8% 140 70.1%114 84 63 Grant 140.8 416 216.02 1 Kenton 214 2.2% 61.1% 57 1 141.2 82.1% 21.5% 24.9% Pendleton 336 1 20.7% 1 115 1.2% 252 1 52 105 59.8% 77 37.8% 123 4.9% 187 357 1 0.0% 22.2% 73.0% 2.7% 9802 67.5% 17 3.9% 9903 38.0% 614 15 82.0% 172 101 31.8% 250 315 0.0% 84 1 53 78 1 78.2% 44 1 $38,882 45.8% 1.4% 21.5% 15.9% 39 100 71.7% 315 114 46.7% 17.8% $37,083 110 77 193 172 2.2% 277 121 78.5% 22.1% 78.6% 160 78.4% 0.0% 71 $28,971 62.2% 4.1% 3.8% 110 92 102 91 $51,100 194 97 $50,734 2.4% 42 1 51.0% 170 39 165 45 17.2% 0.9% 25.5% 21.5% 139 $49,965 95 55.9% 46.6% 173 211 $7,434 154 106 70 160 58.7% 120 $26,563 5.5% 47.6% 173 0.0% 2 1.9% 31 125 $54,289 $39,750 23 315 195 130 $54,492 78 $50,439 197 70.9% 33.9% 76.1% 160 269 302 72 $48,480 $44,803 $44,857 143 113 114 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 178 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County 9 1 9 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 115116 141.4 Butler117 142 Kenton 142.2 Hamilton 139 217.02 603 1 1 1 90.0% 71.2% 196 11 80.4% 72 21.5% 31.6% 108 24.7% 41 2.3% 78 0.0% 100 4.6% 315 55.8% 69.8% 158 31 257 89.5% $49,135 437 $40,746 14 83 $41,625 92 118119 142.8 Kenton120 143.6 Boone122 143.8 Pendleton121 144.6 Clermont123 144.2 Hamilton124 610 145.4 Clermont 9902126 146.4 702 402.02 1 Campbell125 147.2 1 Bracken 1126 1 146.8 411.02 Hamilton 58130 72.7% 147.2 Hamilton 81.8% 176128 2 149.4 81.9% 506 1 82.8% Franklin129 56 9503 21.1% 55 149 45131 2 Hamilton 149.2 18.3% 115 65.4% Hamilton 54 70.6%132 2 11.2% 149.6 20.1% 286 Clermont 207 150 44133 0.7% 296 150.6 9699 2 130 69.1% Butler 25.6%134 2.6% 15.4% 151.4 228 243 2 80.7% 2.2% Hamilton 3.02 2.3% 2135 151.8 203 68 417.01 46.4% 69 Hamilton 29 31.3% 71.3% 89136 112 152.6 104 2 118 Franklin 194 2.8% 66.3% 1.2%137 24.2% 71.1% 2 154.2 44.7% 42 87.8% 2 76.8% 207.62 Hamilton 274138 271 108 16.0% 154.4 $35,139 121 193 312 20 72 85 Grant 0.0% 56.6%139 27.0% 2 157.2 191 62 44.5% 77.9% Hamilton 383 $49,821 38.5% 33 $49,079 56.6% 2140 25.5% 0.9% $47,366 315 157.6 9697 106 105 153 Pendleton 382 62 147 1.4%141 132 87 37.0% 161.2 28.4% 229 2 216 69 75.5% Hamilton 21.2% 2142 $38,182 0.6% 16.4% 162.4 170 83.2% 133 51 Hamilton 67.6% 21 $49,625143 1.1% 2 9803 114 165.6 184 74 27.7% 44 240 260 152 Hamilton 91 9901 73.3% 10.8% 0.0% 166.8 $42,476 79.4% 202 2.3% 50 Butler 168 2 33.7% 5.2% 22.6% 302 $46,447 109 2 2 86.5% 81 315 96 77.6% 82.02 103 70 15.2% 126 $46,964 325 207.41 2.2% 25 94 23 19.0% 2 8.9% 69.2% 75.4% 129 207 2 $36,944 24.4% 60.2% 72.6% 113 135 4.4% 255 22.3% 2 143 $47,059 19 350 177 0.0% 70 38 131 42.9% 128 20.4% 80.1% 2.0% 99 $51,167 34 68.1% 100 $12,089 47.8% 20.1% 315 77.9% 17 128 74 $45,250 238 2 89.6% 122 0.9% 131 25.8% 103 117 7 $44,176 439 4 1.4% 16.0% 76.1% 18.1% 213 43 10 4.3% 15.9% 301 190 60.9% 154 176 0.0% $48,316 71.2% 195 339 $25,868 142 36 273 68.3% 2.4% $45,156 0.8% 315 0.0% 249 26 35.1% 116 62.0% 41.9% 235 $50,500 93 192 315 24 163 $41,023 97 38.1% 79.1% 37.5% $62,546 84 339 0.0% 85 $22,784 252 82 315 20 $44,400 $42,984 $47,384 110 50.7% 100 133 138 $20,188 18 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

179 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 0 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 143145 166.8 Warren146 168147 Hamilton 168.8 Brown148 170.6 Hamilton149 171.8 Butler 314150 218.02 173151 Hamilton 173.4 2 Kenton 2 9517152 173.8 Hamilton153 4 2 175 73.2%154 76.9% Hamilton 175.4 Butler 169 2 119154 2 176.6 55 Hamilton 75.9%156 657 176.6 15.6% 16.1% 2 129 Campbell 2158 8 48.1% 201 189 2 177 219157 436 22.8% Hamilton 109.01 178 2 0.9%159 1.7% 77.3% Dearborn 177.8 73.0% 108 511.01 20.0% 2 Dearborn 89 113159 2 71.8% 173 178.2 217 143 Hamilton 132 186161 232.01 2 0.0% 2 178.2 54.0% 18.7% 46.8% 65.4% 14.0% Hamilton162 74.5% 397 2.8% 123 24.1% 77.4% 220 315 145 2 181 148 805 232 Hamilton 182.2 110 807 67.0% 22.5% 67.2% Hamilton 63.1% 86 73 0.0% $46,059 $51,045 0.7% 14.4% 262 258 253 2 204 15.9% 124 2 96 17.9% 77.3% 169 3.1% 315 225 255 26 16.8% 16.9% 112 192 261.02 2 $43,942 29 0.0% 217.01 58.1% 51.2% 0.0% 82.6% 178 177 58 107 0.6% 77.9% 2 19.7% 167 2 140 315 $53,115 47 2 104 81.9% 315 0.0% 76.1% 4.0% 137 269 183 359 $45,344 127 0.0% $35,530 20.2% 17.1% 13.1% 315 71.7% 50.5% 1.3% 119 81.6% 41 72.5% 187 65 32 174 12.5% 134 248 $52,000 1 59 0.0% 179 182 76.5% 178 264 0.0% 1.9% 308 $50,089 8.4% $51,364 68.9% 20.9% $34,167 14.6% 1 155 2.1% 172 252 315 346 127 119 60 $43,380 223 $46,583 59.6% 118 63.7% 104 0.0% $55,481 1.2% 0.8% 127 178 207 50.7% 202 315 189 137 223 $51,716 $55,714 16.9% 83.6% 50.7% 176 203 $61,477 376 28 136 245 $50,483 $18,627 $49,487 162 15 15 163164 183.2 Butler165 184165 Hamilton 184.8 Butler167 184.8 Hamilton168 185.2 Hamilton168 204.01 185.6 134 Hamilton170 185.6 101.01 Warren 2 2171 261.01 186 40172 2 Brown 187.4 249.01 Hamilton 74.2% 2 187.6 71.3% 2 Butler 152 193 2 75.3% 321 139 17.6% 216.03 75.2% 16.5% 74.0% 9514 141 2 167 87.5% 157 25.1% 183 2 109.08 21 2 17.7% 1.9% 0.0% 75 8.1% 73.8% 2 164 27.5% 129 72.9% 315 351 161 0.0% 74.1% 174 1.7% 65.5% 60 47.3% 0.0% 155 315 22.6% 61.9% 221 124 16.2% 139 0.0% 324 66.4% 315 18.3% 93 186 69.9% $62,464 229 $43,316 315 27.0% 32.5% 151 261 251 0.3% 101 2.9% 75.0% $50,777 46 1.3% 36 309 $58,371 295 166 68 22 180 $32,780 1.8% 58.3% $60,769 63.4% 169 67.5% 55 133 237 205 237 63.1% $54,435 $68,442 203 196 $56,000 304 207 $61,078 242 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 180 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County 8 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 173174 187.8 Butler175 188.6 Hamilton175 189.2 Kenton177 189.2 Butler179 190.4 Brown177 190.8 113 234 Butler180 637.02 190.4 Hamilton 2181 2 191 2182 Boone 129 193 9512183 Butler 194.8 71.6% 60.3% Warren 2184 7.02 189 195.8 79.9% 348 2 Hamilton 41185 76 17.9% 196 2 14.1% 703.04186 Butler 196.2 88.6% 2 Warren 157 76.6% 21.2% 109.04186 230 301.02 196.6 215.06 2 17 121 Brown188 113 196.6 79.5% 1.4% 1.8% 2 2 Hamilton 46.8%189 22.2% 21.2% 2 80 2.1% 439 197 175 136 81.1%190 Clermont 100 112 198 315 67.5% 42.8% 116191 73.9% 45.4% 81.6% 12 65 13.8% Kenton 199.4 70.8% 0.0% Hamilton 9513 238 2.0% 160 109192 93.2% 200.8 60 241 204 2 31.2% Boone 60 2 9193 462 417.02 315 201.4 123 18.2% 2 $52,250 $45,636 Hamilton 23.1% 4.1% 100.0% 16.8%194 43 201.8 0.0% 180 80.7% 2 152 120 Kenton 2 $52,038 475 72.5%195 179 202.6 72.2% 348 88 656 40 179 0.0% 315 Hamilton 78 180 75.7% 0.0%196 184 705.02 $28,750 0.0% 131 203 0.0% 53.0% 49.0% 65.4%197 $62,000 315 67.5% 2 Warren 203.8 13.6% 315 105 2 15.5% 147 Butler 287 131 39 248 249 315198 2 315 19.3% 77.9% 243 59.8% 204 202199 642 2 328 34.6% 17.0% Butler 204.4 140 74.5% $41,042 180 18.0% $91,845 71.6% Hamilton 27 62.7% 2.5%200 0.9% 204.8 292 176 419 75 191 79.1% 301.01 156 85 2 Butler 317 0.8% $55,795201 $50,313 111.07 2 80.4% 219 87 90 205 204 1.4% 13.6% $57,679 158 1.5% $55,893 2 17.2% Hamilton 205.2 237 Hamilton 71 56.6% 219 60.6% 109.06 206 2 244 75.3% 17.5% 173 172 73.9% 162 165 184 81 67.0% 137 15.9% 289 168 58.5% 109.09 0.0% 2 78.0% 55.1% 264 0.8% 172 194 $56,434 15.6% 102 2 $66,113 63.2% 156 232.22 3.8% 315 $53,412 2 17.7% 225 210 10 311 284 200 0.0% 186 15.1% $51,697 71.2% 41.9% 2 $63,919 162 45.4% 46 195 60.6% 175 2 3.9% 210 262 8.9% 315 110 96 62.9% 343 85.7% 0.0% 15.0% 313 333 56.6% 1.6% 401 76.2% 43 $51,571 $48,511 24.4% 315 164 45.6% 124 212 2.1% 11.7% 173 153 144 85.8% 442 $67,589 68.2% 82 402 1.6% 12.4% 281 $63,922 71.6% 117 302 247 14.7% 263 276 265 0.7% 151 33.8% 1.8% $59,174 220 $25,333 227 63.9% 0.7% 247 71 $65,313 137 25 0.0% 209 274 45.9% 241 46.1% $53,629 115 315 116 $62,764 62.7% 187 14.4% 253 198 $60,549 $51,723 24 235 177 $54,583 19 $24,643 24 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

181 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 5 1 5 8 3 9 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 202 206.6 Clermont 413.04 2 69.8% 219 17.8% 159 2.3% 101 69.8% 259 $66,893 29 203204 208.2 Clermont205 208.4 Hamilton206 208.6 Kenton207 209.6 Brown208 210.4 408 Butler209 211.6 Hamilton 32210 2 211.8 Hamilton211 659 212.6 2 Hamilton 9519212 213.4 74.0% 215.72 2 Campbell213 213.8 158 2 Franklin 45.2%214 9 2 214.8 Clermont 446 79 14.1%215 75.0% 216.2 511.02 2 Hamilton 25 70.5% 144216 228 217.8 2 1.6% 70.8% 209 Bracken217 2 9698 12.4% 2.7% 2 202 407.01 219 472218 73.6% 17.2% Brown 220.2 268 Hamilton 73.5% 164 2 11.4%219 6.1% 2 220.4 82 171 84.9% 165 Hamilton 84 57.2%220 0.9% 288 221.6 9502 77.5% 14.3% 377 Hamilton 2.3% 32 19220 15.2% 324 75.2% 222 2 218.01 0.7% 226 57.8% 222222 2 21.9% 13.0% 143 Hamilton 107 9515 11.6% 208 373 60.7% 222 82.01 250223 $62,007 0.4% Hamilton 2 222.6 251 36 82.1% 283 185 205.05 12.7% Hamilton 0.0% 64.7% 249 11.8% 2224 44.6% 222.8 360 75.0% 288 2 Clermont 296 0.0% 255 0.0%224 107 207.05 280 $36,875 2 223.2 315 $59,013 145 63.9% 71.1% Campbell224 $55,445 224 10.2% 223.2 315 1.6% 315 69 75.3% 59.4% 198 210 215.71 1.8% Kenton 2 33.9% $56,486 201 238224 66.5% 136 223.2 177 315 21.1% 70.1% 414.03 76.0% 21 Hamilton 154 271 132228 2 223.2 $50,536 30 9.5% 263 128 2 34 17.2% Hamilton 0.0% 72.6%229 $54,097 164 73.1% 37.3% 2 223.8 521 329 8.1% Hamilton 1.0% 284 170 194 13.2% 170230 $51,607 224.8 315 $41,083 81 58.9% Hamilton 350 0.5% 638 174 70.7% 2 247 208 225.2 0.5% 28.8% 19.9% 362 $60,417 254.02 86 65.9% Hamilton 30 205 $56,319 1.7% 92.8% 281 233 279 0.0% 134 53 2 280 99.01 16.2% 208 2 460 15.4% 2 68.8% 43.2% 215.04 146 77.1% 13.8% 315 0.0% 187 235 $43,365 103 205 209.01 2 316 46.5% $61,607 55.3% 240 53.8% 2 102 315 3.0% 61.8% 119 19.2% 246 65.9% 390 0.2% 153 $53,833 2 327 $54,030 0.7% 63.1% 278 142 67.9% 190 63 312 193 14.0% $57,357 202 65.2% $64,028 244 18.1% 245 216 0.0% 291 65.0% 56.5% 7.3% 233 68.4% 26 155 56.3% $66,600 15.2% 216 163 237 374 315 10.4% 1.3% 162 289 206 0.9% 14.9% 67.1% 311 $66,250 $59,071 8.7% 183 $53,676 233 0.8% 212 285 225 218 0.9% 55.8% 18 63.0% 8 226 159 0.8% $53,856 209 199 191 84.9% 64.9% 229 42.8% $49,536 393 215 $58,971 151 72.5% 99 22 283 $35,208 $59,489 228 $57,239 63 $50,417 214 15 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 182 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County 0 3 5 6 1 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 231232 225.4 Hamilton233 227.2 Hamilton235 229234 Hamilton 229.6 Butler236 229.4 Hamilton 19237 256 231238 Clermont 2 232 253 2 Hamilton 232.2 Hamilton 106 2 75 44.9% 401.02 62.6% 450 2 318 2 209.02 2 225 65.4% 14.6% 14.0% 288 2 224 75.8% 2 56.7% 236 74.2% 130 22.5% 381 1.3% 153 0.0% 69.7% 16.6% 95 70.0% 15.6% 177 12.7% 220 217 315 181 0.0% 199 35.2% 259 13.9% 53.8% 0.0% 10.9% 77 315 0.0% 152 1.6% 237 300 315 70.1% 315 $55,114 156 0.5% $44,965 265 72.2% 1.1% 199 24.5% 115 77.3% 279 277 198 $52,750 320 40 66.3% 182 $61,090 59.1% 227 $64,450 $57,019 243 175 267 212 $55,259 $64,946 20 270 239240 232.6 Butler242 232.8 Boone241 234.6 Dearborn243 234.4 Butler244 237.2 118.02 Hamilton245 237.6 706.04 Kenton246 2 238.2 806 Butler246 2 239.4 102.01 Clermont 10.01248 2 239.4 74.0% Hamilton249 3 156 2 67.5% 242250 613 Hamilton 242.4 251 82.3% 401.01 Kenton251 8.6% 242.6 119 50 62.6% 3 Hamilton 12.4% 71.4%252 3 342 319 192 243 65 3 266253 210.01 12.9% Kenton 244.2 Hamilton 2.6% 15.7%255 60.5% 11.3% 245.4 252 2.8% 3 77.2% Warren 3 345256 654 196 247.2 290 79.2% 115 86 Campbell 0.2% 11254 71 249.2 20.8% 215.08 0.6% 85 3 Hamilton 76.3% 0.0% 57.4% 19.5%257 310 75.7% 246.8 77.6% 3 670 122 304 Warren 376 132 267258 139 3 249.6 315 326 72.5% 8.4% Hamilton 306259 1.3% 80.0% 61.9% 3 14.0% 282 250.4 $65,352 530 55.6% 260.02 0.4% 345 Hamilton 9.9% 45.5% $62,419 191 251.2 275 75 157 231 185 3 70.9% Clermont 444 250 $65,578 287 321 0.0% 3 3 201 215.05 53.2% 82.7% 11.3% $57,146 0.9% 279 323 $57,542 81.1% 404 0.0% 315 369 214.21 3.7% 21 218 292 65.8% 351 3 218 9.1% 62.9% 413.02 3 58.7% 69.4% 448 280 315 18.2% 3 $50,846 314 0.0% 52.2% 223 331 174 $68,875 72.7% 153 167 0.0% 3 143 15.0% 69.1% 30 13.1% 315 285 1.1% 16.5% 66.8% $65,096 231 215 1.6% 315 76.3% 266 250 42.5% $59,500 182 272 195 123 70.2% $50,250 1.0% 229 157 12.2% 0.0% 98 12.9% 0.0% 210 157 65.0% 0.0% 31.6% 271 7.4% 205 218 253 1 315 11.6% $98,065 315 61 370 65.8% 0.0% 432 0.0% 50.7% 287 $65,404 69.9% 224 $101,563 $9,205 135 1.7% 315 276 260 315 0.8% 440 $67,880 58.3% 144 5 56.1% $58,657 $64,234 234 303 170 161 222 67.5% 26 69.1% 236 $63,841 254 $60,872 26 239 $81,597 $65,053 379 27 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

183 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 1 1 0 5 6 9 7 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 260261 252.2 Clermont262 252.4 Dearborn 254.4 Dearborn 405 804 801.01 3 3 3 67.6% 248 69.7% 72.2% 221 183 11.3% 11.3% 14.7% 294 291 221 0.0% 1.5% 1.4% 315 163 166 65.6% 223 75.0% 92.9% 294 461 $52,614 181 $66,798 $60,966 293 24 263264 254.6 Clermont265 255266 Hamilton 256266 Hamilton 257.4 402.03 Kenton268 257.4 Hamilton268 3 258.4 Dearborn 111270 258.4 46.01 Hamilton271 258.8 237.02 3 74.4% Butler272 646 3 151 802.01 261273 Campbell 3 261.2 3 Hamilton 232.1 15.6%274 64.5% 3 262.2 49.6% Campbell 299274 197 262.8 428 3 65.0% Franklin276 519.01 65.8% 262.8 295 0.0% 73.0% 13 5.1% Hamilton 15.6% 282277 263.4 171 247 3 Hamilton 415 18.5% 315278 198 65.3% 264.2 3 524 11.4% Butler 290278 3 146 77.2% 264.6 7.6% 9696 3.0% 0.4% 210.03 289 Kenton278 319 3 70.7% 264.6 12.7% 367 0.0% Hamilton 66.6% 296 206 3281 1.5% 62 3 264.6 258 71.2% 268 Hamilton $66,731 56 2.9% 315282 39.5% 264.8 67.7% 197 101.02 11.6% 161 72.2% 29 Kenton 0.4%282 636.04 241 74.4% 265.6 89 182 65.5% 8.0% 3 237.01 282 63.6% 66 67.8% Butler 10.1%284 291 3 285 265.6 295 246 206 254.01 356 Kenton 3 14.9% 80.4% $63,542284 316 $64,702 2.2% 3 266.6 65.4% 14.0% Clermont 346 258 $60,885 66.4% 269 10.3% 219286 0.8% 637.01 3 266.6 $75,208 219 0.3% 111 53.3% 24 Hamilton 273 234287 349 314 266.8 74.6% 403 0.0% $73,906 227 68.7% 85.7% Hamilton 3 304288 147 636.03 $59,856 17.8% 267.2 120 1.5% 342 236 400 407.02 0.7% 59.8% 64.6% Hamilton 13.1% 315 230 63.8% 161 297 179 268 159 3 6.5% 57.02 208 3 15.4% 254 249 82.3% 3 Campbell 70.1% $68,882 221.02 0.0% 364 85.6% 17.0% 216 388 204 306 54.3% $64,000 1.0% 230.01 3 $66,000 398 155 175 264 3 315 66.1% 77.3% 0.0% 281 14.9% 0.0% $59,904 70.8% 203 520.01 277 114 3 76.5% 203 231 $60,781 0.0% 216 $74,464 315 315 57.7% 71.2% 309 238 14.0% 62.8% 34 3 16.3% 374 274 15.0% 315 63.0% 0.0% 71.1% 315 67.0% 235 185 200 $63,561 272 213 77.9% 259 315 $53,929 8.9% 259 327 73.8% 2.6% 0.0% 6.1% 192 0.0% $65,243 78.0% $66,905 336 162 11.6% 405 273 330 29 315 $56,326 87 315 285 0.0% 12.8% 20 84.5% 2.7% 87.6% 84.3% $61,932 0.9% 254 315 387 418 385 247 76 41.2% 221 1.6% $72,042 $69,236 $57,440 68.8% 93 71.0% 327 155 311 21 250 270 85.4% $57,256 $66,290 397 215 $67,500 288 30 $80,111 372 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 184 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County 0 7 6 5 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 288290 268291 Kenton 268.2 Kenton292 269.8 Butler293 270294 Clermont 270.2 Clermont294 658 272296 611 Hamilton 272297 3 Hamilton 272.2 133 3 Hamilton 419297 272.4 410 Butler 3 272.4 3 67.1% Hamilton 207.01 3 60.3% 18 256 214.22 347 70.2% 3 12.0% 3 77.5% 212 3 12.7% 68.1% 214.01 108 275 126 241 257 12.6% 66.3% 3 15.1% 55.0% 2.8% 70.1% 17.6% 260 3 275 2.5% 392 215 211 166 1.1% 74 69.3% 92 9.8% 0.0% 8.5% 9.6% 66.1% 0.7% 224 84.6% 197 76.4% 322 276 344 315 388 324 256 305 85.4% 12.1% 0.7% 87.6% 2.7% 395 0.0% 78.9% 7.5% $74,934 273 417 $73,444 244 338 347 369 315 83 340 $66,250 2.0% 72.9% $67,168 285 60.5% $75,298 78.9% 2.8% 287 121 299 183 350 337 88.1% 70 $60,078 424 $71,417 $55,795 232 83.7% 324 204 379 $71,134 32 $64,569 268 299300 273.4 Campbell301 273.8 Clermont302 274.2 Hamilton302 274.8 Campbell302 274.8 531 415.02 Kenton305 274.8 Butler306 3 3 275.2 236 Campbell307 277.4 525 Kenton308 3 277.6 67.2% 66.5% Hamilton309 668 3 278.2 254 269 Hamilton 10.02311 278.4 503 67.0% 3 Campbell 13.3% 13.2%312 279.8 263 3 63.4% 206.02 Butler 245313 643 3 246 280.4 308 Hamilton 11.0%310 60.2% 3 281.2 0.0% 101 520.02 0.0% 3 Hamilton 18.3% 68.8% 349314 298 279.4 49.7% 234 Warren 314 315 149315 3 3 426 11.8% 0.4% 61.2% 282316 67.9% 65.3% 69.9% 10.8% Butler 283.2 103 0.0% 335 277 Ohio 70 16.8% 297 244 289317 262 283.8 303 259 59.2% 69.2% Hamilton 315 3 11.9% 180 1.7% 66.7% 284.2 359 226 3 $69,207 Clermont $65,421 6.5% 0.6% 324 231 70.7% 3 276 1.7% 148 310 27 268 111.09 10.1% 390 8.9% 270 69.1% 3 0.0% 67.6% $66,066 142 58.0% 317 230 9658 335 2.3% 71.3% 239 81.1% 282 411.03 3 $72,963 368 315 66.4% 6 275 334 2.5% 12.7% 66 0.8% 102 228 77.4% 3 66.2% 3 $78,125 4.4% 109 3 256 81.1% $66,766 63.6% 226 361 11.3% 230 91 $87,059 437 305 352 292 12.5% 1.4% 295 64.3% 78.3% 400 84.2% 61.9% $60,735 2.4% 29.3% 211 10.3% 383 325 263 $62,969 98 23 167 0.0% 477 254 312 0.0% 84.6% 12.4% 94 $63,491 $80,625 14.9% 315 390 256 2.8% 1.6% 375 100.0% 267 58.4% 217 315 475 171 464 150 87.3% $76,857 0.5% 0.4% 416 356 6.2% 80.3% $63,000 $72,804 282 286 345 255 332 $66,824 66.9% 18 95.6% 294 232 $66,981 471 77.4% 298 322 $70,515 $74,375 31 344 $48,000 138 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

185 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 8 5 0 7 9 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 318319 284.6 Warren320 284.8 Warren321 285.8 Campbell322 287.4 Boone322 287.6 Butler 310324 287.6 Hamilton 307 288.6 528 3 Clermont 705.01 3 3 208.11 65.2% 3 108 413.03 292 68.1% 3 66.5% 239 3 3 12.1% 270 69.0% 11.6% 232 274 69.2% 11.3% 67.1% 225 284 63.9% 0.6% 293 6.2% 258 301 0.0% 7.0% 272 402 0.8% 12.2% 13.9% 315 382 69.3% 1.2% 233 270 239 256 72.8% 0.6% 76.6% 188 0.8% 286 1.5% 310 $72,204 271 72.2% 232 165 329 $67,419 280 76.3% $71,406 82.1% 300 82.8% 303 323 361 $73,041 370 335 $63,503 $70,599 $79,397 257 317 36 324326 288.6 Hamilton327 290.2 Hamilton328 290.8 Butler329 292.8 102.02 Dearborn330 207.61 293331 Hamilton 3 294.2 Kenton331 3 294.6 110.01 802.02 Campbell331 294.6 63.4% Clermont334 3 3 294.6 309 60.0% Hamilton335 636.05 294.8 20 354 Butler 17.9%336 295.2 522 67.1% 71.6% Warren 3 3 12.2%337 158 257 188 412 205.04 296338 3 269 Clermont 296.8 0.0% Hamilton 10.7%339 3 3 65.7% 8.8% 49.7% 0.0% 297 315340 304 283 Kenton 427 298.6 107 339 66.5% Hamilton 311 315341 414.04 78.8% 298.8 272 0.6% 60.5% 11.6% 210.02 63.9% Hamilton 0.7% 3342 336 4.9% 69.0% 344 302 3 3 286 299 261343 253 8.7% Hamilton 3 299.4 421 239 243.03 Hamilton $71,638344 77.0% 0.6% 8.3% 300.4 8.2% 341 67.8% 84.4% 652 213.03 32 2.7% Hamilton $63,609 313 71.0%345 58.2% 245 3 386 347 349 262 70.6% 26 302 0.0% 200 366346 3 Warren 3 303.6 208 81 $70,903 13.7% Hamilton 81.1% 2.0% 57.01 222 2.4% $69,517 315 307.6 12.6% 11.8% 319 235.22 353 53.8% 63.7% Hamilton 242 10.4% 312 124 76.7% 304 261 151 3 3 49.8% 278 65.1% 99 310 3 311 0.5% $66,270 83.6% 424 293 319.04 226.02 1.1% 78.6% 0.0% 287 $83,393 378 9.9% 0.0% 279 335 10.0% $60,536 50.3% 61.3% 385 3 3 6.2% 199 315 320 58.3% 417 333 234 83.6% 315 $65,903 319 7 365 400 87.6% $83,676 67.9% 377 280 0.7% 81.2% 419 388 1.3% 243 66.9% 60.2% 6.2% 8.8% 3 1.2% 10.9% 354 242 265 352 $72,675 401 337 179 $86,452 301 $65,509 192 331 68.8% $66,944 397 67.9% 278 57.0% 7.3% 0.0% 1.3% 1.8% 251 67.4% 0.6% 29 242 380 235 372 471 315 178 263 $81,048 25.8% $71,196 1.2% 52.7% 74.5% 2.3% 376 $80,558 67.3% 321 144 293 374 234 66 190 106 78.2% $57,917 $75,893 62.4% 1.1% $73,235 332 220 354 195 33 200 100.0% $75,357 $85,250 475 351 394 $91,484 417 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 186 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County 3 9 5 53 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 347348 307.8 Boone349 309350 Hamilton 309.4 Hamilton351 309.8 Butler 310.6 703.08 Clermont 215.01 46.03 3 3 411.01 3 112 64.5% 63.4% 3 298 3 310 60.2% 351 8.2% 67.3% 9.6% 348 60.8% 252 7.7% 326 340 0.4% 365 11.1% 0.0% 5.4% 297 300 0.7% 315 413 70.4% 0.4% 240 69.8% 267 2.2% 82.3% 258 290 365 $71,960 114 83.2% $73,108 326 371 77.0% $59,115 336 315 226 $74,222 34 $79,302 367 352353 311.6 Campbell354 311.8 Campbell355 314356 Warren 314.6 519.03 Kenton357 315358 3 Butler 316.4 529 Kenton359 317.2 Hamilton359 3 317.4 313 69.1% Hamilton361 641 317.4 229 Warren362 3 318.6 63.1% 3 Hamilton 10.3%363 649 14 319.2 312 242 Campbell364 313 319.6 58.0% 3 Butler 72 12.6% 3365 320.03 3 59.4% 320.2 370 0.9% 204.02 Kenton 358 262366 321.6 3 3 Hamilton 214367 54.3% 6.5% 3 322.2 67.7% 526 0.6% 49.8% Hamilton 7.8% 396368 247 86.7% 322.6 425 389 102.03 Clermont 258 49.3% 361368 413 3 52.0% 326.6 10.6% 68.0% Hamilton 430 0.6% 8.0% 14.1% 409370 653 78.1% 4 326.6 3.5% 220 243 230.02 Hamilton 306 $83,696 331 355371 229 10.4% 259 329.2 74.0% 414.01 38 4 Clermont 4.7% 12.2%372 4 0.6% 51 4 329.8 159 308 59.4% 0.0% 1.4% 70.2% $85,904 Hamilton 46.02 428373 272 4 176 213 86.0% 396 243.01 273 331 0.0% 315 169373 62.1% 7.9% Boone 332.2 405 1.2% 65.7% 404.02 0.4% 4 57.9% Boone 86.6% 322 $81,048 48.5%375 77.1% 7.5% 4 332.2 315 284 357 371 213.04 57.8% 411 Hamilton 186 376 129 317 $86,667 299 4 332.4 368 73.9% 372 Hamilton 8.0% 0.0% 398 60.0% 46.7% 84.2% 6.4% 4 $105,536 290 8.5% $73,168 $83,438 50.1% 0.5% 440 181 706.01 352 384 446 315 338 7.9% 396 703.05 420 387 343 223.02 53.2% 100.0% $61,250 276 1.5% 405 359 235.21 4 $83,197 71.0% 9.5% $85,759 0.0% 475 244 0.0% 11.8% 4 4 81.3% 199 383 39 160 328 0.8% 279 4 315 356 9.5% 315 $66,700 90.7% 67.0% 0.0% 7.1% 224 75.8% 65.1% 330 290 70.1% 0.0% 55.5% 261 445 $83,393 299 294 264 389 379 72.9% 51.7% 315 385 0.3% 315 288 412 $71,299 8.0% 64.5% 0.0% $70,066 $70,886 4.4% 57.4% 9.6% 303 322 213 354 314 318 166 $79,753 7.1% 433 315 327 68.0% 370 0.0% 246 $110,556 378 $73,144 90.9% 0.0% 0.4% 4 337 449 315 0.0% $78,510 315 292 82.4% 362 $69,167 315 70.4% 75.0% 367 307 266 296 68.3% 248 $76,953 $75,673 $76,890 358 353 357 $69,201 309 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

187 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 376377 333378 Warren 333.6 Butler379 333.8 Franklin380 334.4 Boone381 335.6 320.07 Hamilton382 336.4 102.02 Kenton383 4 336.6 9601 Campbell384 4 336.8 703.06 Hamilton 4384 338.2 107 61.1% Boone386 4 636.06 338.2 338 66.6% 523.01 Butler387 4 343.4 267 61.8% Warren 4388 4 328 344.6 8.7% 63.5% Butler 53389 7.7% 344.8 307 704.02 340 69.2% Kenton390 7.3% 345.2 59.0% 227 364 4 55.8% Hamilton 0.2%391 361 4 6.9% 346.2 373 125 386 Hamilton 0.0% 10.4% 316392 346.6 311 384 0.8% Butler 42.9% 7.7% 4393 309 347.2 315 124 3.3% 65.8% 79.8% 4 251.02 Campbell 460 0.5%394 645 363 238 348.6 281 343 86.0% 0.0% 454 205.01 Hamilton 4395 275 4 349.2 84.6% 406 58.1% 2.4% 5.8% 4 Hamilton 315 1.8% 60.6%396 $72,837 389 9.6% 367 4 349.4 78.4% 109.07 519.04 100.0% Boone 406 342397 333 $70,529 333 97 134 325 55.3% 260.01 475 61.3% 10.6% 352 $73,663 316 398 4 54.8% 0.0% 4 391 Kenton 352.4 332 91.8% 75.4% 61.4% 9.8% Boone 341 0.0% 307 394 $80,139398 4 353.2 $75,610 454 297 331 315 Hamilton 42 323 373 400 2.9% 352 315 353.2 0.0% 4.1% 704.01 64.1% 61.6% Hamilton 34.1% 5.6%401 $88,505 $89,322 353.4 462 0.0% 8.9% 300 87.8% 330 4 442 74.1% Butler 315 408 407 402 412 73 4 354.4 422 706.03 154 334 648 0.0% 315 Hamilton 79.6% 0.6%403 7.9% 354.6 9.0% 1.2% 239.01 Warren $97,066 52 342 86.5% 41.1% 0.0% $75,132404 4 315 4 3.7% 268 358 332 53.9% 430 464 356 409 191 348 Boone 4 356.8 61.8% 398 315 101.03 4 450 $77,900 77.1% Butler 0.0% 0.0% 80.8% 190 16.1% 360 318 106 $72,092 61.9% 89.6% 51.6% 349 0.0% 4 6.8% 315 323 315 328 188 438 413 47.8% 312 49.2% $79,009 4 $79,097 385 315 91.4% 438 85.9% $83,016 431 365 0.0% 703.07 366 $70,000 6.3% 6.3% 452 404 109.03 382 43.2% 87.1% 4 1.7% 313 315 4.4% 458 397 414 398 67.0% 4 6.4% $69,179 4 $76,597 141 260 82.2% 436 392 0.6% 0.7% 308 61.1% 355 $88,882 3.7% 363 83.4% 337 3.1% 62.2% 410 0.0% 4.3% 266 373 257 447 59.2% 321 $90,259 360 439 81.2% 72.4% 315 $107,425 4.8% 59 0.0% 416 355 281 450 5.4% 65.6% 0.0% 424 88.8% 8.8% 315 222 428 411 $92,642 $89,297 315 0.4% 338 65.0% 421 411 100.0% 0.4% 217 $87,870 $87,685 289 0.0% 475 406 405 298 77.3% $72,532 315 $66,071 321 79.4% 330 88.3% 283 341 425 $87,384 402 $88,767 $74,850 409 346 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 188 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 404406 356.8 Butler407 358.4 Warren408 358.6 Kenton409 360.2 Kenton410 361.4 111.13 Hamilton411 305.03 362.2 Butler412 4 4 364413 640 Hamilton 365.2 Butler414 647 366.4 53.3% 4 Butler 12415 56.6% 367.2 402 109.02 4 Warren 384416 208.02 367.6 4 Clermont417 4 57.2% 4.6% 369.2 110.02 Hamilton 4 6.4% 378417 53.6% 370.4 429 Campbell 111.1 34.8% 401 394417 320.06 4 370.4 57.2% 404.01 Clermont 473 4.2% 1.0%420 55.7% 370.4 379 0.0% 4 240.02 4 Hamilton 4.4% 440 387421 4 370.6 204 61.9% 3.1% Boone 315 435422 6.3% 4 371.6 326 1.5% 504 77.4% 11.0% Hamilton 459 61.6%423 76.5% 50.3% 371.8 323 399 0.7% 406 212.02 299 51.2% 329 Hamilton 164 307 418424 4 0.0% 8.0% 415 51.8% 372 0.0% 249 84.1%425 $94,661 0.4% 4 Hamilton 4 372.8 353 703.09 410 240.01 6.4% 315 $83,811 Dearborn 4.5% 382 426 81.4%426 374.2 315 7.2% 291 392 54.9% 250.02 Hamilton 395 62.5% 0.0% 357 430427 4 4 375.2 393 6.4% 78.5% 375 58.0% $97,054 57.7% 197 93.6% Hamilton428 205.02 0.0% 4 375.4 315 334 369 1.7% 375 801.02 429 393 465 $77,159 Butler 0.0%428 5.6% 376.6 $78,750 89.9% 359 60.4% 221.01 315 49.0% Hamilton 4 140 0.0%430 $83,250 4 6.7% 376.6 363 $81,098 441 346 3.3% 315 407 434 55.6% Warren 85.2% 384 431 87.9% 378 4 379.2 315 386 388 453 82.2% 394 Campbell 0.0% 14 423432 $83,782 59.9% 4.2% 379.8 7.9% 362 111.11 76.0% 250.01 63.8% Hamilton 0.0% 391 0.6% 355433 315 4.4% 441 303 $86,966 300 4 360 $93,352 61.2% 380 320.05 4 $80,000 Hamilton 4 381.2 315 399 264 80.4% 334 425 434 Hamilton 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 371 $95,658 4.7% 347 513 80.2% 79.2% 206.01 4 27.4% 0.0% 383 428 315 344 4.9% 315 340 427 52.9% 49.1% 480 $83,721 4 4 406 315 78.0% 0.0% 433 422 82.4% $100,781 0.0% 390 42.5% $92,292 329 45 368 438 77.0% 5.1% 59 315 462 0.7% 420 7.8% 315 5.1% 314 44.5% 52.6% 418 4 $92,975 88.8% $82,917 452 248 362 4 407 88.4% 416 2.0% 422 427 381 $88,750 0.0% 426 93.2% 0.0% 0.0% 470 408 6.1% 6.5% 44.3% 463 315 $82,723 43.1% $84,187 453 315 404 315 1.6% 391 380 459 60.1% 393 $87,665 84.1% 80.9% 182 0.4% 152 0.6% 404 3.7% 381 350 3.7% 82.4% $250,001 293 449 265 446 366 481 $89,500 $79,655 75.8% 86.6% 3.6% 413 369 0.0% 298 412 $98,571 49 433 315 $107,321 $93,125 449 96.1% 68.0% 424 473 245 $150,658 $101,932 476 441 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

189 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 9 1 4 1 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 434 381.4 Clermont 415.01 4 60.1% 353 6.7% 387 0.5% 284 90.7% 444 $100,938 43 435436 381.6 Warren436 381.8 Butler438 381.8 Warren439 383.6 Hamilton440 386.4 Hamilton 308441 386.6 111.01 Hamilton442 322.02 388.4 4 Hamilton443 4 388.8 224 208.12 4 Hamilton444 389.8 251.03 Warren 58.3%445 4 4 49.5% 211.02 390 364446 51.1% Hamilton 4 391.2 429 213.02 Warren 416447 4 50.0% 56.4% 7.6% 394448 319.02 7.1% Hamilton 4 397.6 423 10.0% 385 53.9% Warren 366449 211.01 398.4 377 399 318 62.8% 4 Hamilton450 322.01 7.2% 0.0% 5.1% 316 60.7% 4 400 0.9%451 0.1% Hamilton 402.2 5.3% 376 341 417 4 315 Hamilton 241452 320.04 52.2% 402.4 210 4.0% 313 414 243.21 Butler 0.7% 89.3% 408 0.0%453 59.8% 404.4 4.8% 90.9% 443 4 86.5% 4 Kenton 436 0.5% 356454 54.6% 4 405.4 253 446 315 425 408 Hamilton 2.5% 395 0.0%455 407.4 71 283 89.0% $95,271 91.2% $105,563 Butler 13 5.4% $110,625 0.0% 466456 46.4% 43.4% 407.6 430 315 427 451 111.08 447 85.9% 48.1% Hamilton 454 5.4% 441 456 4457 412 655.02 408.2 315 0.7% 403 4 437 91.0% Campbell 410458 $99,327 4 $78,852 408.4 450 233 0.0% 89.1% 4.5% Butler 6.1% 4 246 436 458 364 $98,665 408.6 4.9% 35.4% 0.0% 432 111.04 Hamilton 315 431 58.5% 47.01 403460 84.8% 434 4 $91,614 472 408.6 419 45.0% 523.02 Hamilton 363 315 392460 418 91.6% 4 $97,119 45.5% 0.0% 449 0.8% 4 412 453 0.4%462 87.8% 431 445 7.0% 4 Kenton 111.06 29.0% 239.02 1.2% $99,400 412 315 231 421 3.9% Warren 415.4 381 478 294 437 50.0% 249.02 $89,552 Hamilton 474 4.5% 84.0% 90.0% 39.5% 4 4 422 445 414 84.7% $89,561 50.0% 0.0% 380 466 442 432 0.0% 3.0% 4 391 421 415 655.01 0.0% 315 5.5% $112,361 461 0.0% 305.04 51.2% $87,473 207.07 315 44.0% 4.7% $107,692 456 315 83.6% 4 2.7% 414 409 403 455 45.1% 45 86.4% 1.7% 426 315 375 4 4 81.8% 447 465 407 0.0% 88.8% 3.3% 145 358 0.0% 7.4% $113,333 53.7% 0.0% 429 $108,618 315 4.9% 456 457 98.4% 371 400 48.2% 50.2% $104,712 315 452 474 315 90.9% 435 419 423 445 $87,131 0.0% 83.5% 0.0% 448 2.5% 85.4% 401 $126,094 374 0.3% 315 7.0% 3.6% 315 396 469 467 $104,091 $113,333 302 87.1% 380 451 443 89.0% $104,167 0.0% 457 415 431 86.5% 44 0.0% 0.3% 410 315 $102,745 $132,500 315 306 442 92.1% 47 $114,114 95.3% 455 93.7% 46 470 466 $93,095 $114,069 423 $99,167 460 435 SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar 190 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County 3 4 5 8 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank ACS data does not allow computation of two or more indices (institutionalized population) ACS estimates no children under 18 years living in census tract SES County Census Tract Occupa (2) (1) 462464 415.4 Warren465 418.4 Hamilton466 421.6 Hamilton467 421.8 Clermont468 424.2 Hamilton 309 425.6 Hamilton 51 231 4 403 4 4 248 226.01 43.2% 4 457 42.8% 4 4 49.1% 461 432 45.5% 3.1% 443 39.1% 0.0% 36.9% 458 4.4% 467 470 480 3.1% 0.7% 438 0.0% 4.0% 3.1% 457 252 0.0% 444 460 315 0.3% 90.4% 315 443 83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 308 93.9% 372 $121,792 315 468 315 89.2% 467 $115,852 435 89.1% 87.7% $111,250 464 433 420 455 $121,101 466 $114,167 $114,316 462 46 469470 426470 Hamilton 426.2 Hamilton472 426.2 Hamilton473 427474 Hamilton 429475 Hamilton 429.2 49 243.22 Hamilton 48476 429.4 Hamilton 4477 235.01 4 433.2 4 Warren478 251.01 433.8 Butler 4479 436.6 39.0% 245 212.01 38.6% Hamilton 4 27.8%479 468 436.8 469 Hamilton 479481 319.03 4 34.0% 4 436.8 Hamilton 438.75 474 0.4% 44.7% 3.3% Hamilton 111.12 0.4% 4 451 476 455 44.2% 45.0% 477 50 4.9% 4 454 244 448 251.04 0.0% 2.8% 0.6% 420 40.9% 0.7% 4 465 463 4 315 0.2% 4 3.5% 274 43 0.0% 41.5% 251 85.6% 463 478 0.0% 452 92.4% 90.9% 2.5% 315 33.8% 4 399 459 35.9% 33.1% 447 475 0.3% 315 0.0% 468 92.3% 2.3% 471 476 $132,647 $142,184 458 $166,087 92.3% 305 315 469 0.3% 472 25.4% 1.6% 47 477 457 0.2% $125,840 0.7% 481 89.2% 93.9% 473 0.4% 307 468 $113,839 434 479 467 475 92.2% 459 0.0% 0.0% 301 $150,000 $116,453 0.5% 456 0.0% 480 93.2% 475 315 46 285 $128,324 463 315 95.6% 0.0% 470 94.2% 89.9% $134,500 472 315 469 440 473 $105,625 $227,042 $206,500 448 (2) 480 47 $223,333 479 ---- (1)---- (1) ------(1) Butler ------(1) Butler ------(1) Hamilton ---- Hamilton ---- 101.04 Warren 102.01 --- 62.02 --- 1 ------317 --- SES Index and Variables for Cincinnati Metropolitan Area 15 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Area 15 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables Rank Index Number Quar

191 Appendix VI | Cincinnati Metro 15 County Social Areas of Cincinnati

192 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 12 17.2 Hamilton3 18.4 Hamilton4 20.8 Kenton5 226 77 Butler 29.6 Campbell7 34.2 2 1 Hamilton8 671 35.4 Hamilton 19 35.6 96.7% 501 1 Hamilton 36.6 4 94.5% Campbell 36 1 89.3% 3 88 1 1 98 41.8% 83.7% 4 1 505 15 93.8% 34.1% 90.8% 1 29.0% 1 11 41 89.3% 37.5% 90.1% 28 4.0% 6 9 81.7% 55 14 45.5% 8.2% 41.1% 10.7% 19 10 31.1% 42 60 32.5% 4.7% 12 8.4% 40.5% 7 9 4 45 11.1% 3.4% 10.0% 18 35 2.6% 30 6.3% 13 25.7% 20 $15,732 7.5% 13 55 5.0% 2 17 42 $14,512 34.7% 35.2% $28,654 12 12 31.5% 28 $19,398 76 41.1% 78 10 38 60 29.2% $22,125 $19,985 16 92 $28,964 54 $26,378 19 17 $26,304 41 29 28 1011 38.8 Butler12 4113 Butler 42.2 Hamilton14 44.4 Hamilton15 44.6 140 Hamilton16 47.8 Hamilton17 1 95 48.8 6 Hamilton18 94 51.6 1 Hamilton 89.9%19 92 1 1 5820 21 Hamilton 58.6 84.8% 1 Hamilton21 87 12 85.8% 59.2 77.8% 1 Hamilton22 67 33.5% 62.4 85.2% 1 34 85.02 Butler23 114 28 81.0% 1 34.8% 6424 28 1 85.01 31.0% 31 Butler 67.2 33.9% 92.1% 32 Hamilton25 88.1% 1 71 1 42.1% 3.4% 25 7026 70.2% Hamilton 72.8 47 29 31.1% Hamilton 727 5.7% 5 84.2% 16.9% 76.8% 19 110 10 73 242 5628 5.0% 47.5% Hamilton 17.7% 1 8 44 74 33.2% 31.6% 1 9.7% Hamilton 135 22 93 39 104 76 10.9% 1 26 1 Hamilton 24.4% 183 36.6% 63 5 44.4% 89.8% 1 86.1% 33 24.4% 1 27.1% 16 7 7.0% 9.9% $27,022 79 262 99.1% 3 7.5% 90 39 47 13 48.4% 77.3% 1 78.3% 8 25 $31,731 35 1 0.0% 33.5% 32 5.9% 129 13 $22,788 $37,452 29.7% 5 4.3% 11 2 123 107 73.3% 1 19.4% 51 $30,333 91.6% 49.5% 1 24.6% 25.6% 22.7% 21 32 0.0% 75 20 51 30 192 133 35 93.9% 13.1% $44,583 45 2.0% 100 45.8% 54.2% 4.4% 86 71 1 8 $15,938 $41,161 120 21 157 2.9% 19.6% 142 3.0% 5.7% 5 $7,459 13 33 94 $26,514 6 33.3% $32,733 39.7% 153 49.6% 75 72 21 7.8% 66 3 30 134 15.8% 9.8% 54 45.7% 33.3% 14 $34,154 113 $41,090 25 10 0.0% 67 6 53.8% $30,417 59 $33,625 $35,889 93 346 52.0% 153 47 145 57 0.0% 68 $8,725 $33,750 1 4 58 $16,203 14 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

193 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 2930 76.6 Kenton31 77.6 Hamilton32 7833 Butler 8134 650 Hamilton 86.2 Hamilton35 39 86.4 1 Hamilton36 1 8737 105 257 Butler 91.8 3.01 85.6% Hamilton38 92.8 81.5% 1 1 228 Hamilton39 1 93.2 29 Hamilton40 1 96.2 85.6% 82.6% 64 Butler 20.4% 63.6%41 68 131 96.8 19.8% Butler42 61 83.3% 97.8 1 1 31 140 338 48 Hamilton43 97 150 1 32.2% 38.6% 37.3% 9844 4.2% 43 Campbell 98.4 7.01 85.9% 85.9% 1 Hamilton 2.9%45 29.4% 99.6 77.1% 141 38 Hamilton 1 16 2046 96 38 79.6% 100 27 26 Hamilton 100.847 1 77 512 47.02 131 2.7% 44.1% 3.0% 1.6% 100.0% 52 Hamilton 1 32.4% 28.2% 101.248 20.0% 22.8% Hamilton 105 83 1 1 103 2.6% 88.1% 101.649 177 68.1% 87 Hamilton 68 23.8% 31 227 37 56 150 $36,629 1 26.3% 99 102 48.3% 88.6% 75.2% 73 Butler 103.2 0.0%51 58.6% 93 18 $35,500 272 0.0% 1.0% 1 Hamilton 15 127 44 94 71 4.3% 107.251 83.4% 37.6% 1 27.7% 34.5% 161 Butler 64 16 1 107.253 66 346 229 1 $42,955 78.4% 1.3% $43,963 56.9% Kenton 1 83 31.1% 107.654 37 78.0% 15.9% 39.6% 1 42 59 $12,981 26 Hamilton 37 107 116 108.255 102 0.0% 202 78.5% 45.6% $48,958 49.9% 3 Hamilton 26 90 2.4% 109 2.7% 46 256 77.5% 29.1% 21.2% 1 122 112 223.01 112 8 161 346 100 612 1 21.3% Kenton 112.6 $24,092 $27,157 0.0% 2.4% Highland 109 1 35 $39,798 86.01 3 117 1 29.8% 85 68.1% 54 0.0% 1 38.7% 121 86.7% 20.9% 23 34 16.7% $31,996 346 107 0.0% 1 84.0% 0.9% 85 84.4% 274 9550 50 1 2.0% 88 27.4% 46.7% 78.4% 651 27 128 35.6% 22 52 346 80.3% 122 238 1 0.0% $46,000 $53,750 40 49 1 136 37 25.2% 103 37.1% $38,607 1.9% 31.6% 35.6% $42,031 22.5% 22.6% 23 132 27.7% 210 $27,061 346 78 77.4% 80 69.5% 149 79 62 78 39.4% 100 1.4% 37 0.0% 101 22 31.0% $26,250 33 122 58 $29,855 254 0.8% $42,173 27.1% 3.3% 191 5.0% 58 15 25.2% 1 2.3% 27 260 44 101 6.8% 0.0% $33,050 $14,327 63 57 31.8% 117 27 79 17 62.4% 41.6% 71.9% 346 1.8% 56 64 2.3% 9 204 $14,904 294 28.8% 95 $40,139 153 121 $46,918 $48,227 52 $49,083 11 51.9% 30.0% 86 139 153 144 $31,176 163 57 $38,992 50 $30,911 81 49 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 194 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 57 112.858 Hamilton 115.259 Hamilton 115.860 Hamilton60 116 80 Hamilton62 116 69 Hamilton 116.263 1 Hamilton 38 100.02 116.463 1 Butler 216.04 116.465 75.3% 1 1 Hamilton 116.666 79.2% 1 Clermont 63 158 118.267 79.4% 83.2% Butler 31.7% 118.668 1 136 91 76.5% 402.04 Hamilton 66 118.868 88 24.6% Ohio 45 1 1 118.870 84.6% 40 137 1 27.1% Warren 17.7% 119.271 18.8% 87 Butler 0.0% 11 81.7% 82.6% 120.472 9 62.3% 36 181 62 Hamilton 1.4% 122.4 16073 1 9657 21.8% 346 Hamilton 1 61 325 0.8% 352 0.0% 50 124.874 3.0% Hamilton 194 1 4.3% 15.1% 24.6% 79.6%75 20.9% 113 127 1 255 207.42 73.5% 125 252 346 29.5% Butler76 14 126 0.0% 69 232 82.0% 1 24.7% 27.1% 1 131 1 Clermont 126.277 88 84 81.3% 191 55 Boone 43.9% 34 $10,13578 1.7% 20.6% 41 2.0% 37.7% 48 346 127 2.7% 77.1% 75.4% $47,837 57 83.2% 104 Warren 127.679 1 67 20.8% Hamilton 135 $34,684 $27,973 418 168 18.4% 13680 6 135 149 $43,365 129 21.8% 18 128 154 83 26.9% 33 Kenton 128.2 4480 70.0% 701 47.9% 1 1 1.4% 215.09 20.1% Grant 25.4% 61 164 35 14.0% 110 0.0% 128.282 21.5% 112 302 126 $32,654 45 Hamilton 1 249 183 72.9% 3.8% 188 76.1% 144 23 129 3.3% 346 76 1 $47,029 119 $37,608 34.3% Clermont 129.284 38.2% 53 644 Kenton 78.8% 4.5% $28,071 78.4% 201 9801 129.4 143 0.0% 2.6% 47 5.2% 141 Highland 23 80.9% 59 86 76 1 25.8% 20.9% 27 58.2% 1 101 36 94 409 32 62.0% 1 1 $41,547 92 24 174 0.0% 13.9% 19.7% 78.9% 72 129 609 48.6% 9552 201 69 1 78.7% 53.1% 64.4% $28,077 30.5% $48,214 51.7% 131 97 6.7% 346 1 265 1 $48,307 2.7% 151 151 222 93 82.1% 37 152 96 $48,950 0.0% 444 3.6% 1.1% 14.2% 155 $45,789 48 $53,219 72.1% 78.7% 14 22.5% 88 30.3% 160 53 2.9% 66.2% 129 1 203 52.9% 218 254 215 52 106 20.0% 95 238 33.7% 148 49 20.6% 34.2% 6.5% $7,243 21.6% 73 3.2% $42,845 148 69 $44,432 3.7% 74 76.4% 137 15 114 6.4% 106 1 $42,025 328 119 62 $47,515 1.7% 43.0% 48 3.2% 61.5% $43,697 101 146 13.8% 99 16 157 193 64.6% 114 60 $50,457 41.5% 22 $50,891 224 57.2% 177 94 $38,359 184 171 $53,265 $29,196 78 $53,528 204 43 207 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

195 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 85 129.686 Butler 131.287 Campbell 131.888 Brown 133.289 118.01 Brown 133.690 502 Hamilton 1 135.891 Bracken 9516 1 136.492 100.01 Hamilton 9518 79.4% 136.693 1 Hamilton 71.6% 1 137.293 1 9501 Gallatin 62.01 87 137.293 72.5% Grant 220 1 74.4% 17.4% 137.296 80.7% 1 Kenton 33.1% 22 205 137.497 9601 Butler 173 77.1% 188 25.1% 137.698 1 72.3% 75 Boone 19.2% 34 1 980499 4.7% 24.4% 130 139 669 Butler 140.4 209 68.8% 80 0.0% 1 Hamilton 157 29.2% 82.4% 20.9% 123 703.01 29 1 91 2.3% 265 2.6% 346 73.7% 63.1% 1 53 1 132 0.9% 26.1% 51 79.9% 120 6.7% 209 89 132 27.0% 96 0.0% 187 1.8% 52.9% 84.2% 81.4% 244 16 $46,350 67 45.6% 1 1 25.0% 82 149 51.9% 346 154 65 111 $28,846 21.1% 1.1% 135 38 65 143 43.2% $42,536 85.6% 74.9% 40.4% 82 1.0% 18.3% $45,909 21.5% 102 40 126 216 $43,472 105 91 1.3% 168 30 131 33.1% 228 165 $30,809 117 3.2% 22.4% 113 $41,373 14.6% 61.6% 205 65 2.0% 1.1% 48 194 46.1% 107 63 96 248 $36,500 141 117 223 66.5% $47,714 0.5% 0.0% 61.7% 61.7% 243 70 $41,316 148 306 196 195 346 $50,139 33.4% 95 29.6% $47,542 $40,407 172 68 56 147 88 $30,388 $23,750 46 22 100 140.6101 Warren 141.2102 Butler 142.2103 Kenton 305.01104 143 Dearborn104 1 144 Adams106 130 144 607 Hamilton 144.6106 76.1% Hamilton 1 803 144.6108 1 Kenton 145.2109 142 9904 1 99.02 Hamilton 79.3% 145.4110 20.5% 67.2% Clermont 1 74 1 146.8111 81.3% Hamilton 89 616 138112 287 1 147 77.8% 83 74.5% 21.5% Highland 147.2 27.8% 420 66 1 1.9% Butler 75.2% 1 115 24.9% 171 115 17 1 145 59.8% 57 25.4% 9545 15.0% 163 0.0% 70.1% 1 53.3% 83 82.1% 1.2% 10.7% 1 389 237 152 77 346 245 1 2.7% 61.1% 31.8% 209 336 1.7% 54 45.8% 78.3% $45,313 20.7% 0.6% 1 38.0% 368 22.2% 114 86 2.2% 39 126 166 106 135 297 37.8% 84 71.7% 82.0% $28,971 31.4% 110 2.2% 22.9% 48.3% 129 3.9% 293 $37,083 128 17 1.4% 59 4.9% 42 55 123 $51,100 97 44 $42,295 74 0.0% 17.8% 51.0% $40,288 15 192 2.3% 187 46.7% 141 62.2% 103 346 178 $38,882 121 87 112 202 $26,563 0.0% 2.4% $50,734 75.4% 80 $49,965 31 318 106 181 1 169 58.7% $42,179 $7,434 179 102 $54,492 2 218 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 196 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 4 8 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 126 157.2127 Clermont 157.6127 Adams 157.6129 402.02 Clermont 158.8130 Bracken 1 159.4131 411.02 Hamilton 9906 159.8132 Hamilton 82.8% 1 160.6133 1 9503 Campbell 161.6133 Clermont 58 1 65.4% 47 161.6135 74.2% Hamilton 44 161.8135 20.1% 1 506 417.01 Adams 318 80.7% 177 161.8137 2 Hamilton 25.6% 2 145 26.0% 2 162.2137 70.6% Butler 29 74 162.2139 66.3% 2.3% Franklin 9901 69.1% 77.9% 72 237 24.2% 163.2140 68 2 3.02 Hamilton 306 15.4% 165.4 116 2 1.2% Adams 260 0.4% 113 2 27.0% 92 56.6% 76.8% 9699 121 31.3% 21.2% 226 69.9% 215 321 334 0.9% 56.6% 2 2 54 415 64 44.5% 2.8% 54.9% 124 9902 42 $47,366 250 16.4% 2 239 106 416 0.6% 159 87.8% 83.2% 27.0% 2.3% 2 0.0% 144 80 67.6% 37.0% 205 $38,182 $35,130 71.3% 286 38.5% 253 115 20 46 346 72.2% 66 5.2% 33.7% 21 77 69.2% 25.5% 22.6% 224 63 87 $46,447 28.4% 3.3% 212 16.0% 70 268 0.0% 25 $49,625 136 51 103 25.6% 74 24.4% $36,944 $51,167 58 212 346 167 $42,476 4.4% 1.1% 73.3% 38 18 73 1.4% 8.9% 73 104 305 224 34 $45,250 2.5% 19 190 77.6% 89.6% $45,809 125 27.7% $12,089 101 350 472 130 78.0% 50 $47,059 $48,316 357 7 $46,964 143 156 $39,786 140 84 113 147.4114 Clermont 148.8115 Hamilton 149.4116 Clinton 150.6117 416 216.02 Hamilton 151.2118 Grant 1 1 151.6119 Butler 9943120 252 152 73.0% 67.5% Kenton 152.2121 1 Kenton 1 9802122 198 153 282 81.2% Pendleton 155.2123 139 1 Kenton 21.5% 15.9% 78.2% 155.6124 614 Pendleton 1 603125 68 9903 120 78.5% 214 156 108 1 Boone 156.2 20.8% 1 Hamilton 22.1% 90.0% 1 9902 4.1% 610 3.8% 99 78.4% 133 1 80.4% 111 1 217.02 78.6% 17.2% 11 39 45 3.6% 104 702 0.9% 31.6% 1 55.9% 81.8% 46.6% 72.7% 192 77 21.5% 97 1 164 120 24.7% 51 233 25.5% 71.2% 5.5% 41 202 59 116 77.1% 47.6% $54,289 $39,750 81.9% 21.1% 18.3% 0.0% 226 85 341 125 0.0% 75 23 216 21.5% 83 125 70.9% 167 4.6% 346 58 $48,281 $50,439 1.9% 346 285 69.8% 11.2% 0.7% 118 2.6% 33.9% 154 176 148 31 271 $48,480 2.3% 327 267 76.1% 72 89.5% 97 $40,746 46.4% 157 324 2.2% 470 111 $44,857 71.1% 118 55.8% 89 $44,803 287 $41,625 122 125 $35,139 162 44.7% $49,821 121 98 $49,135 108 64 168 16 $49,079 162 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

197 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 7 6 70 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 142143 166 Franklin144 167 Hamilton 167.6145 Hamilton 168.8146 Grant 9697 169.8147 Hamilton 229 172.2148 2 Ripley 33 172.4149 2 Switzerland 9803 173.8150 79.4% 2 Pendleton 91 175.6151 9658 86.5% 2 Hamilton 9686 175.8152 73.3% 2 86 Highland 2 9901 176.2153 2 19.0% 23 75.4% Clinton 193 179.8154 60.2% 2 109 22.3% Butler 75.9% 15.2%155 9547 159 86.4% 155 180 2 382 Hamilton 180.2156 72.6% 108 20.4% 147 Clinton 2 9946 2.0% 230 47.8% 180.4157 24 14.7% Adams 0.9% 80.1% 204 207.41 182.8158 2 141 0.0% 128 138 84.7% 21.0% Warren 20.1% 183.4159 245 76.1% 2 236 4 Brown 1.4% 9947 2 79 72.1% 346 184.4160 127 Hamilton 71.2% 35 323 9903 2.2% 146 0.0% 16.0% 185.6161 2 25.8% 196 77.9% Hamilton 60.9% 20.5% 0.7% 289 214 314 186.6162 $45,156 2 4.3% 68.3% 218.02 Butler 130 43 9517 346 211 17.0% 73.1%163 111 $50,500 2 371 139 278 187 262 56.9% 124 41.9% 2 Clinton 187.4164 73.6% $25,868 2 2.4% 15.9% 36 35.1% Ripley 70.5% 195 188.25 179 170 195 1.2%165 $41,023 4 Highland 73.2% 97 62.0% 282 14.2% 76.9% 188 26 103 188.4 216166 2.6% 75.9% $50,000 Hamilton 2 200 24 207 $22,784 90 24.7% 2 194 189.6167 9949 79.1% $47,853 0.0% Hamilton 253 133 9548 1 74.8% 9687 146168 15.6% 0.0% $62,546 98 367 2 48.1% 191 2 20 150 16.1% 313 22.8% Butler 191.4 3.5% 84 2 346 74.7% 2 Kenton 283 $44,400 223 346 8 469 37.5% 77.3% $50,951 312 80.8% 210 2.0% 55 50.7% 76.5% 98 77.7% 54 118 0.9% 20.0% 2 109.01 82 185 $34,893 1.7% 140 126 2 61.9% 134 0.0% 73 138 657 116 241 147 18.7% 2 $47,384 77.9% 199 54.0% $20,188 15.0% 162 62 17.5% 18.0% 73.0% 46.8% 346 2 2.8% 354 65.4% 145 $52,649 161 77.4% 430 123 63.1% 18 239 187 173 199 231 $47,036 71.8% 22.5% 0.0% 200 212 81 $46,059 0.7% 14.0% 121 0.0% 3.7% $51,045 142 17.9% $43,942 15.9% 216 105 346 133 273 259 346 18 24.1% 58.1% 29 49 0.0% 115 63.1% 213 50.4% 0.7% 173 77.2% $53,115 213 135 0.6% 93 346 344 $45,344 281 202 $46,458 $39,625 3.1% 0.0% 51.2% 296 $59,313 127 137 50.5% 142 82 1 255 64 136 $35,530 81.9% $34,167 $51,364 388 67 60 189 $52,000 196 141 165.8 Hamilton 207.62 2 75.5% 152 10.8% 333 2.2% 127 42.9% 100 $44,176 11 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 198 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 7 2 7 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 173174 195 Highland 195.4175 Hamilton 195.6176 Dearborn 196.8177 Hamilton 9549178 108 197 Hamilton 197.4 2179 807 Hamilton 2 198.6180 258 Ripley 2 75.0%181 261.02 200 67.0% 2 Clinton181 26 201 77.9% 167 2 Clinton183 201 294 2 76.1% 20.2% 9688 Hamilton 201.2184 112 Butler 16.8% 81.6% 201.6185 9948 2 Hamilton 13.1% 144 143 71.7% 217.01185 9950 198 202 2 12.5% Butler 62187 0.0% 76.9% 277 217 2 249.01 202 2 0.0% Hamilton 202.2188 20.9% 134 293 76.4% Highland 1.9% 346 8.4% 2 134 202.4189 72.5% 77.3% Hamilton 346 2 2.1% 101.01 130 59.6% 202.6190 13.5% 139 82.02 Switzerland 144 379 87.5% 203.4191 9544 0.0% 185 206 125 15.8% 2 1.2% Warren 71.3% 63.7% 133 2 272 203.8192 0.0% 9657 14.6% 20.3% Butler 2 $46,071 50.7% 40 217 1 204.2 21192 217 211 75.3% 3.2% 223 Hamilton 2 68.1% 139 346 204.2 249194 134 27.5% 142 83.6% 2 $55,714 77.0% $46,583 16.5% Hamilton 3.1% 321 16.9% 204.8194 159 $61,477 406 0.8% 61 Butler 270 3.1% 82.0% 228 138 204.8196 25.1% 74.0% 129 132 60 204 2 204.01 28 Hamilton 73.7% 18.1% 41 67 $50,483 275 247 15.5% 205 2 0.0% 0.0% 306 65 56 77.9% 181 2 $18,627 Butler 2 73.8% 81 50.7% 178 171 261.01 83.1% 23.6% 352 7.02 225 $54,934 8.1% 346 346 138 88.6% 0.0% 0.8% 15 74.2% 2 400 185 46.8% $55,433 1.5% 2 75.0% 47.3% 220 109.08 $49,487 95 22.6% 384 $61,193 346 259 175 315 124 17 75.2% 472 225 179 2 1.3% 79.5% 165 66.4% 0.0% 38.1% 17.6% 22.2% 102 273 13.8% $60,769 $43,316 69.8% 162 242 85 61.9% 201 0.3% 346 185 270 109 85 17.7% 266 109 268 $50,777 86.2% 27.0% 42.8% $42,984 1.9% 356 $53,367 0.0% 338 4.1% 437 182 182 46 32.5% 58.3% 108 205 147 346 1.7% $55,360 9 175 40 $32,780 100.0% 65.5% 36 53.0% 224 0.0% 508 158 $54,435 232 55 150 1.8% 69.9% $28,750 217 346 $62,464 275 $41,042 151 49.0% 28 39 $58,371 63.1% 132 91 211 24 $91,845 $61,078 452 271 169170 193 Campbell 193.2171 Dearborn172 194 511.01 Hamilton 194.2 Hamilton 805 2 232.01 2 219 67.2% 2 2 82.6% 285 77.3% 16.9% 74.5% 49 124 17.1% 197 170 19.7% 14.4% 4.0% 193 152 251 0.0% 41 1.3% 0.0% 76.5% 346 203 330 59.6% 346 68.9% 184 20.2% $43,380 265 $51,716 32 112 $55,481 194 $50,089 22 171 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

199 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 197 205.2198 Adams 205.4199 Kenton 205.8199 Brown 205.8201 Hamilton 9905 206.6202 637.02 Hamilton 207.6203 2 Butler 2 9514 208.4204 234 216.03 Boone 210.4205 70.6% 2 79.9% Brown 2 2205 212 238 Butler207 74.1% 113 703.04 212 81 60.3% 72.9% 27.1% Warren 215.8208 Hamilton 21.2% 2 9512 2 179209 216 380 200 109.04 18.3% Brown 216.4210 61 2 301.02 123 Warren 14.1% 71.6% 81.1% 16.2%210 2 217 0.2% 60 168 2.1% 2 Butler212 76.6% 257 219 207 217 69 Hamilton 217.2213 2 1.3% 9513 73.9% 339 17.9% Ripley 131 315 1.8% 81.6% 136 31.2% 2.9% 217.6214 75.6% Boone 2 93.2% 21.2% 215.06 200214 184 65.4% 175 2 218 319 155 495 63 Clermont216 67.5% 12 43 18.2% 76 2 218 75.7% 45.4% 1.4% 122 9685 319 Hamilton 218.4217 $35,962 23.1% 63.4% 72.5% 250 705.02 $52,038 Kenton 0.0% 2 109 169 417.02 17.0% 219.8217 2.0% 2 215 70.8% 150 195 Hamilton $56,000 2 69 197 207 219.8219 96 346 0.0% $45,636 2 19.3% 72.2% Highland 67.5% 196 $68,442 139 221.4220 13.6% 234 78 72.7% 232 77.9% Hamilton 0.0% 79.1% 251 128 656 221.6221 80.7% 346 1.4% 16.8% 156 213 105 67.5% 335 Kenton 355 2 270 203 222.2222 9551 59.8% $52,250 377 15.5% 2 346 Hamilton 0.8% 2 92 193 222.4 199223 $55,795 18.4% 281 2.5% 187 Warren 2 74.5% 62.7% 27 $62,000 198 17.5% 222.6224 58.5% 224 18.0% 71.6% 0.0% 261 Hamilton 229 310 80.4% $50,313 163 642 222.8 2 178 278 349 78.5% 99 Hamilton 73.9% 0.9% 32 186 301.01 174 221 $57,679 346 0.9% 174 2 17.2% 60.6% $51,697 307 76 67.0% 3.8% 13.6% 2 34.6% 243 2 1.5% 98 191 10 245 15.9% 234 $53,412 193 191 75.3% 56.6% 19.5% 81 75 296 271 45.2% 64.6% $66,113 2 182 78.0% 46 169 0.8% 206 215 17.7% 157 2 55.1% 225 $55,893 85.7% 0.0% 155 315 479 $56,434 45.6% 110 15.6% 0.0% 160 249 431 180 $60,100 231 0.9% 60.6% 15.1% 346 1.6% 45.4% 236 475 $63,919 222 346 $67,589 0.0% 41.9% 261 240 110 375 14.7% 233 56.6% 505 3.9% 293 333 87.2% 96 24.4% 346 $51,571 168 1.6% 6.1% 244 447 68.2% $48,511 43 $63,922 191 89 0.0% 172 260 $48,685 85.8% 19 158 294 71.6% 0.7% $25,333 21.9% 432 159 346 292 14.4% $59,174 36 271 25 $65,313 45.9% 24 $36,875 254 305 115 $24,643 72 $60,549 24 264 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 200 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 6 0 32 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 247 242.4248 Hamilton 242.6249 Hamilton 243.2249 Hamilton 82.01 243.2251 Kenton 243.8252 2 215.71 Hamilton 30 244.2 Hamilton 2 2 66.5% 205.05 638 207.05 58.9% 2 303 65.9% 2 2 8.1% 394 76.0% 310 55.3% 16.2% 73.1% 383 7.3% 145 423 208 196 1.7% 13.2% 407 14.0% 19.9% 3.0% 165 276 8.7% 260 149 46.5% 0.0% 71 1.3% 119 0.0% 8 65.0% 346 84.9% 204 $57,357 227 346 53.8% 55.8% 423 242 63.1% $66,250 156 163 $35,208 210 316 $64,028 $49,536 $66,600 65 29 166 32 225 223.8226 Ripley227 224 Butler 224.2228 Highland 224.8229 Butler 9689230 225 111.07 Hamilton 226.6231 9546 2 Butler232 2 109.09 2 228 232.22 Clermont233 75.4% 230 2 Kenton234 63.2% 109.06 77.4% 2 231 413.04 153 Clermont 231.4235 Butler 62.9% 2 232.4235 343 13.3% 119 76.2% 2 Campbell 232.4237 12.2% 659 8.9% Hamilton 345 71.2% 408 274 232.8238 141 69.8% 511.02 Brown 11.7% 2239 299 12.4% 366 0.6% 2 225 233 2 9 Hamilton240 251 312 234 1.9% 15.0% 25 2.1% 75.0% Hamilton 294241 288 17.8% 74.0% 2 236 9519 1.8% 84.9% Clermont 236.6241 63.4% 2 146 235 0.7% 132 Franklin 165 215.72 177 236.6 182243 2 79 214 73.6% 76.9% Hamilton 33.8% 156 12.4% 1.6% 407.01 33244 14.1% 57.2% 265 2.3% 2 239 335 46.1% 2 $51,411 Bracken245 11.6% 70.5% 71 189 9698 62.7% 2 297 240 170 116 255 410 Clinton 241.2246 $55,156 14.3% 113 190 70.8% 206 Brown $53,629 73.5% 2 63.9% 84 314 240 0.9% 13.0% 241.4 69.8% 2.7% $51,723 57.8% Switzerland 222 9502 219 17.2% $54,583 252 208 232 2 0.0% 190 273 75.2% 246 280 195 9945 405 9659 11.4% 2 $62,764 0.4% 15.2% 90 219 9515 190 60.7% $66,893 346 64.7% 0.0% 11.8% 164 2 77.5% 2 284 192 319 70.1% 75.0% 2 2.3% 316 231 12.7% 326 349 328 346 310 63.9% 277 $59,013 72.4% 0.7% 75.9% 0.0% 10.2% 166 119 21.1% 75.3% $62,007 284 1.8% 220 $51,607 250 33.9% 82.1% 208 275 148 346 34 1.6% 279 346 156 $50,536 389 150 10.0% 44.6% 192 16.6% 59.4% 17.2% $41,083 0.0% 30 37.3% 180 173 107 $55,445 183 349 201 72.6% 1.0% 189 81 92 $56,486 346 $54,097 226 2.2% 0.2% 300 28.8% 0.5% $56,319 230 237 215 $60,417 126 92.8% 343 53 234 308 65.8% 70.6% 493 262 77.1% $43,365 237 283 $61,607 339 110 $62,339 $56,000 276 $54,030 280 2 214 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

201 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 9 9 5 8 3 6 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 253 244.4255 Hamilton 244.6256 Hamilton 245.6257 254.02 Hamilton 245.8258 Campbell 2259 238 247 Hamilton 247.4259 Hamilton 19 2 61.8% 247.4261 521 Hamilton 215.04 247.6261 2 Clinton 359 70.7% 2 99.01 247.6263 3 Hamilton 18.1%264 44.9% 3 256 250 235 68.8% Hamilton 251.8265 65.2% 209.01 Hamilton 172 9951 15.4% 3 483 252.8266 67.9% Butler 267 3 0.9% 14.6% 256.2266 3 323 228 Butler 19.2% 62.6% 253 256.2 276266 10.4% Dearborn 75 235 250 0.2% 68.4% 75.3% 256.2269 15.2% 3 158 Hamilton 350 63.0% 256.4 342270 3 1.3% 106 118.02 Clermont 14.0% 342 269 160 0.0% 229 207 256.8271 65.4% 806 0.9% Hamilton 3 56.5% 14.9% 11.7% 3 197 257.8272 56.7% 0.8% 225 263 401.02 $58,971 Boone 346 3 167 258.8273 320 35.2% 231 209.02 Butler 242 75.8% 311 67.1% 74.0% 3 0.0% 414 3 24 259.4274 22.5% 250 42.8% $59,071 Butler 77 82.3% 246 3 0.8% 15.6% 259.6275 1.9% 64.9% 706.04 149 Kenton 180 346 70.0% 74.2% 99 251 104276 $55,114 $53,856 226 16.6% 260 53.8% 10.01 253 221 3 52 143 69.7% 8.6% Hamilton277 0.0% $57,239 262 248 221 176 72.5% $59,489 212 155 12.9% 80.1% Hamilton 262.2278 3 0.0% 119 202 Hamilton 10.9% 252 67.5% 12.7% 375 240 613 102.01 299 262.4279 372 346 $44,965 256 Kenton 281 3 0.0% 13.9% 346 262.6280 71.4% 2.6% 70.1% 331 3 3 $50,417 283 Clermont 288 $59,073 123 263.4 24.5% 0.2% 11 279 346 Kenton 264 12.4% 79.2% 65 1.1% 222 1.6% 17 252 60.5% 94 62.6% 401.01 72.2% 40 3 $52,750 654 340 0.5% 11.3% 3 295 76.3% 220 295 175 90 3 72.5% $57,019 377 351 201 3 326 45.5% 59.1% 305 321 2.8% 77.3% 670 57.4% 298 20.8% 8.4% $61,090 15.7% 238 66.3% 77.2% 181 345 $65,352 0.0% 80.0% 477 3 $65,578 272 408 79 134 240 378 218 $64,946 $64,450 306 128 3.7% 14.0% 346 77.6% 310 53.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.6% $55,259 80 19.5% 301 29 55.6% 351 11.3% 481 258 22 437 206 161 346 294 154 $62,419 0.0% 18.2% 0.9% 82.7% 58.7% 61.9% 323 $57,542 0.4% 281 398 180 198 0.0% 346 170 242 244 315 $50,846 $65,096 $57,146 52.2% 0.0% 1.6% 346 81.1% 146 183 303 239 42.5% 380 1 176 $59,500 98 31.6% $68,875 $9,205 257 $98,065 61 33 $101,563 465 5 473 253 244.4 Clermont 414.03 2 65.9% 311 13.8% 267 0.7% 269 56.3% 166 $53,676 20 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 202 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 2 2 2 0 9 8 97 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 289 275.6290 Hamilton 276.8291 Clermont 277.2292 215.05 Clermont 277.5293 Hamilton 3 278.4294 405 413.02 Hamilton295 218.01 279 3 69.1% 3 Hamilton 279.2296 Dearborn 3 280.8297 111 Clermont 263 67.6% 70.2% 281.6298 46.01 Dearborn 12.2% 3 71.1% 282.6298 804 402.03 Hamilton 280 241 3 282.6300 801.01 Kenton 301 11.3% 228 11.6% 64.5% 3 3 284.2300 237.02 Butler 49.6% 3 0.0% 284.2300 9.5% 325 Dearborn 318 331 69.7% 74.4% 3 284.2303 Hamilton 461 346 72.2% 0.0% 362 646 0.8% 5.1% 287.4304 802.01 253 Hamilton 15.6% 174 58.3% 65.0% 287.8305 0.5% 3 Hamilton 11.3% 13 211 346 15.6% 258 448 232.1 3 176306 220 288 14.7% 327 65.6% 69.1% Campbell 288.4307 3 309 3.0% 3 322 65.8% 247 210.03 $63,841 Butler 219 18.5% 73.0% 0.4% 234 267 289.2308 43.2% 247 Clinton 1.5% 3 519.01 0.0% 3 66.6% 29 289.6 314 65.3% $52,614 103 70 $65,053 Kenton 162 197 325 1.4% 11.4% 101.02 67.7% 3 183 39.5% 71.2% 346 300 $53,833 67.8% 199 0.0% 30 7.6% 322 9944 254 75.0% 186 77.2% 3 320 636.04 12.7% 8.0% 89 70.7% 211 227 278 92.9% 346 314 400 343 3 $63,542 1.5% 3 10.1% $64,702 10.3% 53.3% 74.4% 287 494 389 236 2.9% $66,798 $66,731 289 57.4% 309 11.6% 181 300 0.4% 347 $60,966 0.8% 74.6% 345 436 324 32 63.6% 74 $60,885 13.1% 409 0.3% 27 0.7% 313 324 251 169 216 80.4% 26 9.9% 65.4% 59.8% 278 2.2% 333 375 6.5% 280 $75,208 230 186 63.8% 54.3% 1.0% 354 $73,906 124 382 421 $59,856 218 $64,000 158 85.7% 2.4% 225 375 0.0% $66,000 258 430 295 $74,464 71.2% 105 346 290 312 $68,882 37 65.7% 63.0% $53,929 235 337 208 213 $69,282 $65,243 343 304 281 264.8282 Hamilton 269.4283 Warren 269.6284 210.01 Hamilton 270.4285 Ripley 3 271.2286 215.08 Campbell 306 271.8287 Warren 75.7% 3 273.4288 3 Hamilton 275.25 9684 Hamilton 530 151 70.9% 65.8% 3 214.21 323 3 260.02 9.9% 231 3 312 74.5% 3 3 62.9% 353 15.0% 9.1% 76.3% 172 66.8% 0.0% 69.4% 346 238 364 14.7% 13.1% 140 298 346 255 1.0% 1.1% 246 12.9% 7.4% 72.7% 16.5% 279 227 217 2.2% 301 0.0% 282 403 203 65.8% 65.0% $50,250 122 0.0% 1.7% 236 229 0.0% 346 87.9% 173 50.7% $67,880 $65,404 346 163 455 346 137 56.1% 67.5% 334 307 69.9% $71,572 165 $58,657 249 274 357 $60,872 $81,597 248 $64,234 268 412 2 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

203 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 7 5 3 8 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 315 291.4316 Hamilton 291.6317 Kenton 293.4318 254.01 Kenton 293.6319 Kenton 3320 636.03 294 Hamilton 294.6320 Clermont 3 64.6% 611 294.6322 637.01 Kenton 230.01323 3 66.1% 407.02 295 3 329 Campbell 295.4324 3 Clermont 17.0% 3 297.4325 309 60.3% 70.1% Hamilton 658 520.01 297.6326 14.0% 67.0% Clermont 194 70.8% 298.4327 379 247 419 3 3 Butler 0.0% 298.6328 262 291 12.7% 14.9% Hamilton 233 18 3 298.8329 11.6% 67.1% 410 73.8% Campbell 2.6% 15.0% 346 286330 240 3 207.01 299 77.5% 3 77.9% Hamilton 299.2 316331 288 186 133 2.5% Butler 236 0.0% 95 3 353 300.2332 55.0% 12.0% 12.8% 503 0.9% Kenton 118 3 68.1% 87.6% 0.0% 214.22 300.4333 102 346 $56,326 Campbell 15.1% 3 66.3% 425 450 305 283 300.6334 245 76.4% 78.0% 3 Campbell 273 70.2% 346 23 335 126 71.0% 8.5% 234 2.8% $69,236 1.6% 327 301 358 17.6% 307 49.7% 84.3% 668 Hamilton 301.2336 531 70.1% 243 286 Clermont 3 0.0% $73,444 342 415 301.4 $61,932 9.8% 377 174 525 184 3 12.6% Hamilton 459 82 3 214.01 $67,500 246 85.4% 415.02 373 $57,440 2.7% 16.8% 277 66.1% 346 84.6% 3 0.7% 355 289 60.2% 3 427 332 9.6% 87.6% 67.2% 418 3 24 0.7% 236 200 308 282 1.1% 63.4% 91 449 $80,111 381 $74,934 69.3% 357 286 78.9% 78.9% 1.7% 3 7.5% 66.5% 268 11.8% $67,168 405 219 340 13.3% 380 0.0% 366 365 256 72.9% 85.4% 18.3% 161 402 301 67.0% 330 307 12.1% $75,298 303 273 $55,795 346 66.4% 13.2% 425 2.8% 166 1.7% 295 60.5% 0.0% 241 $60,078 383 229 303 $66,250 275 11.0% 0.0% 190 167 78 $87,059 260 2.0% 345 316 0.0% 67.6% 83.7% $71,417 329 346 67.9% 433 137 252 409 70.7% 346 0.4% 257 356 88.1% 69.9% 284 $78,125 $64,569 $69,207 457 326 276 $72,963 394 299 66.7% 341 $71,134 $65,421 367 244 352 30 $66,066 313 309 290.2309 Campbell 290.2309 Franklin 290.2309 Hamilton 290.2313 524 Hamilton 291.2313 9696 Butler 3 291.2 221.02 Hamilton 3 56 72.2% 3 3 237.01 65.5% 120 210 62.8% 3 66.4% 317 14.9% 3 14.0% 347 68.7% 305 243 77.3% 17.8% 6.1% 261 268 0.0% 127 1.5% 15.4% 179 438 16.3% 346 0.0% 2.7% 178 227 82.3% 206 85.6% 393 0.0% 346 84 0.0% 428 76.5% $59,904 68.8% 346 $60,781 331 346 263 71.1% 259 84.5% $63,561 267 288 $66,290 417 290 $66,905 319 $72,042 32 360 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 204 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 5 8 1 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 342 304.8343 Kenton 305.4344 Campbell 306.2345 Warren 307.2346 520.02 Hamilton 643 308.2347 Ohio 3 308.6348 3 Butler 324 310.4349 259 Butler 69.2%350 3 65.3% 311 3 Clermont 311.8351 9658 Warren 258352 321 77.4% 103 111.09 313 10.1% 81.1% 3 411.03 Warren353 314 6.5% 3 3 120 Campbell 314.6354 3 348 Boone 78.3% 310 70355 12.5% 423 315 69.1% 63.6% 2.5% 11.3% Hamilton 316.8355 3 307 61.9% 105 Clermont 2.3% 528 292 316.8357 705.01 262 Hamilton 337 14.9% 100 326 3357 357 65.2% 0.0% 3 413.03 12.7% 317 114 10.3% 3 84.2% Butler359 0.0% 20 12.4% 241 208.11 317 81.1% 68.1% 3 413 324 Hamilton 317.4360 346 66.5% 285 343 Hamilton 3 69.0% 0.4% 381 3 346 296 319.6361 12.1% 87.3% $80,625 271 Butler 100.0% 1.4% 1.6% 63.9% 102.02 302362 $62,969 448 0.5% 207.61 264 322 314 11.6% 49.7% 108 304 69.2% 508 40 Hamilton 322.6363 11.3% 3 187 Dearborn 169 95.6% 333 $66,824 285 6.2% 3363 3 310 0.6% 110.01 $63,000 315 460 323 84.6% 257 80.3% 13.9% 504 324 205.04 Clermont 66.9% 325 63.4% 802.02 323 435 420 0.0% 3 4.9% 60.0% 374 286 Kenton 300 7.0% 67.1% $74,375 0.8% 3 245 266 3 69.3% 341 1.2% $76,857 $66,981 346 454 386 67.1% 377 412 415 290 1.5% $70,515 257 17.9% 269 63.9% 72.8% 12.2% 389 71.6% 329 210 12.2% 2.7% 76.6% 3 0.6% 652 347 289 185 $72,204 302 176 72.2% 334 332 298 218 10.7% 300 82.8% 3 299 296 60.5% 89 $67,419 362 0.0% 8.2% $71,406 0.0% 399 8.8% 76.3% 0.8% 53.8% 335 $73,041 49.8% 331 376 346 355 325 382 154 $79,397 346 372 0.6% 256 368 78.8% 8.3% 457 69.0% 2.4% $63,503 $83,393 40 82.1% 0.7% 364 287 10.0% 266 390 380 288 418 110 77.0% $71,638 263 $63,609 351 78.6% 2.0% $70,599 336 84.4% 358 363 1.3% 29 349 416 $70,903 140 $83,676 83.6% 199 $69,517 351 408 67.9% 421 344 255 $65,903 $71,196 311 353 337 302.4338 Butler 303.2339 Hamilton 304.2340 Hamilton 304.6340 Hamilton 10.02 304.6 Hamilton 70 3 101 3 206.02 3 6 68.8% 3 58.0% 3 59.2% 266 61.2% 400 10.8% 29.3% 391 4.4% 367 334 8.9% 510 11.9% 470 0.6% 2.8% 368 306 2.4% 298 0.8% 497 0.0% 71.3% 104 6.2% 254 291 58.4% 346 64.3% 177 $66,766 66.2% 18 221 239 $72,804 77.4% 323 $63,491 347 $60,735 365 287 $48,000 26 151 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

205 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 6 2 9 8 2 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 366367 324 Campbell 324.2368 Kenton 324.4369 Warren 324.6370 Hamilton 522 324.8371 636.05 Butler 325.4371 3 Hamilton 3 311 57.01 325.4373 Hamilton 326.2374 66.5% 3 3 65.7% 213.03 Hamilton 327.2375 107 243.03 Hamilton 3 304 327.4376 71.0% 50.3% 315 Hamilton 3 3 327.6377 11.6% 222 8.7% 226.02 Hamilton 65.1% 230 331.6 450378 210.02 Warren 67.8% 3 63.7% 3 332.6 12.6% 317 374 235.22 6.2% Hamilton 325 3 277 0.6% 336 0.0% 61.3% 290 60.2% 319.04 3 6.2% 434 13.7% 70.6% 9.9% 1.1% 289 3 346 365 384 0.0% 58.3% 433 7 269 81.1% 76.7% 239 352 8.8% 221 1.8% 1.2% 66.9% 346 3 382 397 0.5% 333 10.4% 87.6% 0.7% 52.7% 10.9% 370 504 $66,270 214 297 $60,536 451 57.0% 307 341 147 266 67.4% 1.3% 2.3% 332 7.3% 83.6% 318 263 $86,452 0.0% 68.8% $57,917 413 248 407 0.6% 198 118 25.8% 430 405 264 246 346 $80,558 74.5% 62.4% $72,675 290 1.2% 81.2% $81,048 311 203 407 70 364 67.3% 383 409 212 $75,893 $85,250 1.1% 247 $66,944 78.2% 387 427 $73,235 222 360 32 100.0% 37 $75,357 508 384 $91,484 450 365 323.4 Clermont 414.04 3 58.2% 398 11.8% 308 0.0% 346 67.9% 256 $65,509 30 Rank Index Number Quar 388389 341.6390 Campbell 342.6391 Kenton 519.03392 343 Warren 344.4 Hamilton 3 346 649 Butler 320.03 69.1% 242 4 4 261 4 54.3% 10.3% 52.0% 14 49.8% 429 344 4 442 458 8.0% 0.9% 4.7% 67.7% 14.1% 388 237 461 279 256 0.0% 86.7% 1.2% 10.6% 1.4% 444 346 208 337 $83,696 189 48.5% 60.0% 0.6% 77.1% 130 42 188 340 $83,438 301 $83,197 $105,536 86.6% 420 416 479 442 $73,168 371 379380381 336 Boone 336.8382 Butler 337.6383 Hamilton 338.4384 Hamilton 703.08 215.01385 340 Warren 340.5 112 3386 Hamilton 46.03 3 340.6386 Kenton 3 341.4 64.5% 3 Campbell 57.02 63.4% 341.4 313 Clermont 60.8% 330 60.2% 3 342 3 641 529 372 8.2% 411.01 383 9.6% 57.7% 3 58.0% 3 5.4% 3 381 7.7% 359 406 59.4% 402 446 0.4% 63.1% 67.3% 398 0.0% 8.9% 6.5% 2.2% 390 329 344 284 0.7% 346 369 70.4% 7.8% 12.6% 11.1% 422 128 69.8% 264 0.0% 281 77.0% 0.6% 394 272 291 328 82.3% 338 $71,960 346 394 3.5% 0.6% $73,108 0.4% 285 41.2% $79,302 359 59.4% $59,115 369 284 318 53 93 400 182 78.1% 253 83.2% 86.0% $57,256 $81,048 359 401 435 241 409 $85,904 $74,222 $86,667 429 37 431 Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 206 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 8 86 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 395 349.6396 Campbell 350.2396 Clermont 350.2398 Kenton 350.4399 526 414.01 Butler 350.6400 Hamilton 4 4 351.6401 Hamilton 653 353.2402 102.03 230.02 Hamilton 74.0% 57.8% 354.6403 4 Hamilton 4 4 357.4404 220 243.01 Clermont 183 404 360.6405 62.1% Hamilton 70.2% 4 46.02 57.9% 7.9% 4 360.8406 7.9% 404.02 Boone 361.4407 354 4 235.21 Hamilton 244 403 65.7% 390 50.1% 392 4 361.6408 Hamilton 8.0% 4 7.5% 362.6409 8.5% 0.0% 46.7% 703.05 0.8% 213.04 Boone 316 453 53.2% 362.8410 385 223.02 Hamilton 11.8% 401 4 51.7% 376 4 6.4% 346 473411 248 364 438 100.0% 1.5% 4 Campbell 364.2411 72.9% 0.5% 706.01 0.0% 9.5% Franklin 309 445 65.1% 429 508 71.0% 364.2413 9.5% 304 Warren 180 53 4 55.5% 523.01 0.0% 304 364.8414 7.1% 346 0.0% 361 $66,700 326 Kenton 90.7% 229 $79,753 363 365.2414 81.3% 70.1% 4 9601 4 Boone 422 0.0% 67.0% 346 478 321 411 320.07 4.4% 346 365.2416 7.1% 385 0.3% 403 278 Butler 4 57.4% 367.6417 636.06 75.8% 9.6% 42.9% $71,299 0.0% 55.8% 4 346 293 Hamilton $83,393 466 $70,886 412 172 369.2418 332 321 703.06 Butler 4 64.5% 61.8% 354 360 493 8.0% 370.4419 $110,556 346 419 0.0% 68.0% 418 0.0% 61.1% 102.02 350 Boone $70,066 223 4420 68.3% 0.4% 107 5.8% 259 360 59.0% 372 3.3% 4 387 4 346 Butler 374.8 346 370 $73,144 346 261 Kenton 63.5% 4 7.3% $78,510 70.4% 320 439 0.0% 90.9% 125 393 704.02 487 8.7% 66.6% 370 $69,201 75.0% 280 395 482 339 0.0% 406 7.7% 4 69.2% 4 1.8% 346 373 316 340 299 $75,673 124 $69,167 645 6.9% 82.4% 0.8% 346 396 259 152 58.1% 65.8% 0.2% $76,890 7.7% 4 396 386 338 4 34.1% 10.4% 75.4% 417 262 2.4% 390 399 313 341 $76,953 397 317 84.6% 73 55.3% 0.5% 54.8% 340 10.6% 79.8% 108 9.6% 419 0.0% 391 $89,322 $97,066 91.8% 371 0.0% 424 303 427 338 $73,663 358 445 487 463 346 78.4% $72,837 2.9% 5.6% 346 0.0% 86.0% 374 0.0% 361 100.0% $88,505 366 495 436 441 346 508 $80,139 440 346 79.6% 0.0% $70,529 1.2% $75,610 87.8% 406 370 454 348 346 385 213 $77,900 61.8% 80.8% $75,132 197 393 378 381 $79,009 $83,016 398 415 392394 346 Hamilton 349.4 Hamilton 204.02 72 4 4 68.0% 49.3% 275 463 12.2% 10.4% 302 339 0.4% 0.0% 328 346 84.2% 73.9% 414 308 $85,759 $61,250 42 274 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

207 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 445 397.4446 Warren 397.6447 Butler 398.2448 Butler 320.06 399.4 Clermont 110.02 4 404.01 111.1 4 50.3% 4 4 61.9% 451 51.2% 61.6% 358 4.5% 448 361 8.0% 463 7.2% 6.4% 386 1.7% 408 428 0.0% 159 0.0% 0.0% 87.9% 346 456 89.9% 346 346 82.2% 474 $93,352 85.2% 391 424 $83,782 458 $80,000 $86,966 424 404 432 421422 375 Hamilton 375.4423 Warren 378.4424 Hamilton 251.02 378.6424 Butler 378.6426 4 205.01 Hamilton 316426 379 4 Boone426 4 109.07 61.3% 379 Campbell429 379 42 4 61.4% Hamilton 380.2430 364 60.6% Kenton 704.01 519.04431 4 381 4.1% 363 64.1% 260.01 374 Hamilton 381.4432 4 4 Hamilton 381.6433 8.9% 41.1% 475 9.8% 4 Butler 332 648 239.01 383.2434 53.9% 61.6% Boone 0.6% 367 497 7.9% 384.8435 356 74.1% 4 4 Warren 52 16.1% 431436 362 0.0% 101.03 386 295 0.0% 391 Butler 386.4437 178 4 706.03 51.6% 47.8% 6.8% Hamilton 9.0% 77.1% 209 4438 346 0.0% 346 387 3.7% 4 312 342 Boone 388.4439 49.2% 446 471 89.6% 0.0% 418 365 Kenton 86.5% 43.2% 111.13 346 388.8440 4 106 $79,097 471 483 Warren 6.3% 4.4% 1.7% 440 61.9% 0.0% 464 346441 91.4% 4 491 389 703.07 4 0.0% $70,000 399 Hamilton 389.2442 82.2% $72,092 61.1% 485 6.4% 431 469 160 355 Butler 346 640 305.03 3.7% 390.8443 392 53.3% 4 345 Kenton 83.4% 346 85.9% 361 $69,179 67.0% 0.7% 3.1% 6.3% 369 393.8444 425 4 4 Butler 87.1% 403 $90,259 480 434 395.6 435 12 62.2% 339 109.03 4.8% Hamilton 292 0.0% 283 430 $107,425 445 66 0.0% 449 57.2% 56.6% $76,597 4.6% 72.4% 4 4 647 4.3% 353 88.8% 0.6% 457 109.02 483 $88,882 346 208.02 297 388 346 411 417 461 462 4 65.6% 5.4% 34.8% 0.4% 59.2% 472 4 443 4 293 65.0% $89,297 4.2% 6.4% 233 1.0% $87,685 81.2% 0.0% 228 444 53.6% 506 317 392 57.2% 444 55.7% $87,870 384 438 473 427 226 77.3% 0.4% $72,532 3.1% 8.8% 346 434 412 77.4% 439 420 $92,642 100.0% 346 1.5% 0.0% 363 327 4.4% 492 11.0% 348 371 508 6.3% $87,384 454 79.4% 184 346 0.0% 0.0% $94,661 468 $66,071 330 84.1% 76.5% 369 435 432 459 0.7% 412 329 346 314 0.4% 346 $88,767 0.0% 62.5% 88.3% $97,054 $83,811 274 442 319 346 205 458 81.4% 93.6% 462 425 78.5% $78,750 $74,850 386 498 362 396 379 $77,159 $81,098 $83,250 392 41 417 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 208 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 2 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 469 413.8470 Warren471 414 Warren 415.2472 Hamilton 322.02473 418 Hamilton474 4 419 Hamilton 420.4475 308 224 Warren 251.03 420.8476 51.1% Hamilton 4 4 208.12 421.2 4 Hamilton 319.02 449 4 211.02 58.3% 50.0% 10.0% 53.9% 4 213.02 4 56.4% 396 456 4 350 432 52.2% 62.8% 7.6% 7.2% 418 0.1% 5.3% 60.7% 441 5.1% 348 399 409 344 447 2.5% 373 4.0% 0.0% 0.7% 86.5% 450 0.5% 4.8% 499 439 0.0% 476 346 279 $110,625 311 0.7% 458 89.3% 89.0% 0.0% 346 85.9% 487 469 463 0.0% 270 91.2% 433 346 84.8% $95,271 $99,327 484 346 91.0% $98,665 422 89.1% 460 469 $78,852 483 467 $99,400 465 $91,614 397 470 $97,119 451 464 449 399.6450 Hamilton451 401 Hamilton 401.8452 240.02 Boone453 402 4 212.02 Clermont 402.2454 Campbell 402.4455 703.09 4 Hamilton 51.8% 402.6456 Hamilton 4 406 403.4457 504 57.7% 250.02 Hamilton 443 404.4458 4 Hamilton 60.4% 4 4 405.2458 6.4% 407 240.01 Dearborn 14 405.2460 58.0% 205.02 378 Hamilton 3.3% 54.9% 55.6% 426 4461 4 801.02 406 4.2% 4 Warren 406.6 401462 0.0% 486 221.01 Hamilton 426 421 49.0% 4 407.4463 27.4% 6.7% Butler 474 0.6% 59.9% 5.6% 4 408.4464 4.4% 346 320.05 Hamilton 467 63.8% 513 409.2465 0.0% 76.0% 419 Campbell 291 387 45 440 61.2% 467 4 409.8466 7.9% 111.11 5.1% 322 250.01 Hamilton 335 79.2% 0.0% 346 411.2467 7.0% 0.0% 4 0.0% Hamilton 366 4 42.5% $95,658 368 393 4 4.7% 412.6468 78.0% 451 513 346 Butler 416 346 413.2 4.9% 44.3% 346 356 0.0% $92,292 461 206.01 Clermont 80.2% 0.0% 495 59 52.9% 4 460 49.1% 80.4% 77.0% 0.0% $92,975 373 453 455 486 4 2.0% 346 4 376 0.0% 111.01 337 346 415.01 439 466 44.5% $100,781 346 82.4% 455 0.7% 3.7% 60.1% $83,721 4 $88,750 503 52.6% 4 7.8% 346 5.1% 43.1% 88.8% 397 471 485 189 88.4% 272 482 423 1.6% 460 441 440 $250,001 49.5% 395 $82,917 60.1% 449 492 6.1% 93.2% 459 3.6% $82,723 171 6.5% 0.0% 514 0.0% 3.7% 496 414 462 385 437 $84,187 82.4% 413 50 $87,665 424 7.1% 346 6.7% 346 479 0.4% 426 395 96.1% 84.1% 80.9% 0.6% 437 0.0% 410 $98,571 420 506 322 411 379 75.8% $150,658 292 0.9% 0.5% 466 346 $89,500 $79,655 86.6% 320 68.0% 509 232 312 446 $107,321 443 402 258 90.9% 90.7% $101,932 $93,125 482 479 477 474 $105,563 457 $100,938 480 47 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

209 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati 7 4 4 01 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank SES County Census Tract Occupa 490 440.4491 Hamilton 440.6492 Butler 441.2493 249.02 Hamilton 444.6493 Kenton 4 444.6495 111.06 239.02 Warren 446.8496 Warren 4 45.1% 4 447.6497 655.01 Hamilton 305.04 450.4498 Hamilton 4 451.75 480 51.2% 44.0%499 Hamilton 4 207.07 309500 4.9% 53.7% 447 454 488 4 Clermont 454.2501 235.01 4 48.2% Hamilton 51 456 3.3% 456.8502 7.4% 433 Hamilton 4 50.2% 457.6503 468 4 43.2% 0.3% Hamilton 2.5% 489 403 404503 231 34.0% 458 7.0% 452 490 Hamilton 42.8% 331 0.0% 4 0.0% 248 500 458 4 Hamilton 3.6% 86.5% 507 413 3.1% 48 4 494 0.0% 346 346 45.5% 441 4.9% 49.1% 0.0% 484 226.01 87.1% 89.0% 4 49 491 0.0% $114,114 346 39.1% 476 446 0.3% 464 4 453 465 346 0.7% 4 92.1% 49 27.8% 513 $102,745 3.1% $132,500 500 95.3% 488 0.0% 4.4% 335 36.9% 277 0.0% 39.0% 503 475 512 4.0% 50 93.7% 490 $93,095 90.4% 346 471 $114,069 503 0.4% 499 346 501 0.3% 476 477 92.3% 456 0.0% 83.3% 493 3.1% $121,792 0.4% $99,167 491 510 0.0% 337 402 346 $125,840 500 468 493 89.2% 0.7% 509 $115,852 346 93.9% 5 468 0.0% 89.1% 0.0% 501 497 276 $121,101 466 $111,250 90.9% 346 346 $114,167 499 480 87.7% 488 85.6% $166,087 452 495 429 $114,316 $132,647 510 496 505 477 422.4478 Hamilton 423.6479 Warren480 211.01 426 Hamilton 428.8481 Warren 322.01 4482 430 Hamilton483 4 432 241 59.8% 320.04 Hamilton 434.2483 Butler 243.21 434.2485 4 54.6% 4 Hamilton 388 435.6486 4 Hamilton487 5.4% 428 71 46.4% 43.4% 111.08 437 Kenton 439.6488 48.1% Hamilton 5.4% 4 13 4 445489 474 489 233 440 Butler 440.2 470 4 0.0% 443 4.5% Campbell 655.02 6.1% 35.4% 45.0% 4 47.01 4.9% 0.0% 4 58.5% 346 464 4 436 505 523.02 482 29.0% 111.04 91.6% 452 346 0.0% 0.8% 7.0% 395 4 45.5% 3.9% 39.5% 4 486 511 87.8% 0.4% 1.2% 346 255 414 478 478 453 50.0% $89,552 3.0% 499 50.0% 84.0% 323 90.0% 0.0% 507 4.5% 0.0% $89,561 447 4.7% 454 84.7% 410 494 475 455 0.0% 448 421 346 $112,361 465 346 2.7% 1.7% $87,473 459 5.5% 83.6% $107,692 81.8% 346 0.0% 489 0.0% 436 498 164 405 387 442 86.4% 484 98.4% 346 $113,333 0.0% $104,712 346 438 0.0% 507 88.8% 83.5% $108,618 490 478 346 $126,094 462 346 404 85.4% 485 90.9% $113,333 502 $87,131 426 481 490 434 $104,167 $104,091 47 476 Rank Index Number Quar Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables 210 Social Areas of Cincinnati Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County 7 2 1 on Crowding Structure Family Income Family institutionalized population) act on Educa le Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank 246.4 2 341.2 3 158.95 1 471.25 4 QUARTILE FOR TRACTS BY RANK BY TRACTS FOR QUARTILE SES County Census Tract Occupa (1)(1) ----(1) Butler ----(1) Butler ---(1) Hamilton --- 101.04 Hamilton --- 102.01 --- Warren --- 62.02 1 ------317 --- 506 461.4507 Hamilton 461.6508 Hamilton509 462 Hamilton 465.4510 245 251.01 Warren511 466 4 4 212.01 Butler 468.8512 Hamilton 319.03 469.2513 4 Hamilton 44.2% 44.7% 469.4514 4 Hamilton 471.25 111.12 Hamilton 244 45.0% 487 484 4 40.9% 251.04 50 4 0.2% 2.8% 481 4 498 4 41.5% 43 3.5% 35.9% 511 496 2.5% 4 33.1% 496 33.8% 0.3% 0.0% 485 504 501 2.3% 509 25.4% 0.0% 508 0.2% 334 346 0.3% 89.2% 0.7% 92.3% 502 1.6% 514 346 512 467 490 336 93.9% 0.4% 508 0.0% 506 0.5% $150,000 $113,839 92.2% 500 0.0% 330 0.0% 513 489 508 $116,453 313 49 93.2% $128,324 94.2% 346 0.0% 346 498 496 89.9% 502 95.6% 503 $134,500 346 $227,042 473 505 506 $206,500 $105,625 513 (2) 51 481 $223,333 512 505 458.2 Hamilton 243.22 4 38.6% 502 3.3% 488 0.6% 302 92.4% 492 $142,184 50 Rank Index Number Quar (1) indices ( or more data does not allow computation of two ACS (2) in census tr living under 18 years no children estimates ACS Appendix VII Area 20 County Census Tracts, 2005-2009 Cincinnati Metropolitan for SES Index and Variables

211 Appendix VII | Cincinnati Metro 20 County Social Areas of Cincinnati

212 Appendix VIII Changes in Statistical Neighborhood Approximations (SNAs) for the 2010 Census These SNA deﬁ nitions are not used in this edition because they were just published. 1. Fairview Clifton-Heights and University Heights have been combined into a neighborhood called CUF (an acronym of the combined names Clifton Heights, University Heights, Fairview). There is no change in the tracts included. 2. CBD-Riverfront is redesignated as Downtown and Tracts 6 and 7 are replaced by Tract 7 and Tract 265 (BG 2). BG 1 is in the West End. 3. East End – Tracts 43 and 44 are combined in new Tract 266. 4. Westwood is divided into East Westwood -- Tracts 88 (BG 1) and 100.02 (BG 4) and Westwood. 5. Lower Price Hill (BG 2) and Queensgate (BG 1) form the new Tract 263. 6. South Cumminsville-Millvale is divided. BG 1 of Tract 77 becomes Millvale and BG 2 becomes South Cumminsville. 7. Mt. Adams – Tracts 12 and 13 form the new Tract 268. 8. North Fairmount-English Woods is divided. North Fairmount is BG 1-3 of Tract 86.01 and English Woods is BG 4. 9. Over-the-Rhine – Tract 11 becomes Pendleton. 10. Riverside and Sedamsville are divided. Riverside is Tract 103 (BG 2) and Tract 104. Sedamsville is Tract 103 (BG 1). 11. Fay Apartments becomes Roll Hill. 12. South Fairmount – Tracts 87 and 89 are combined into new Tract 272. 13. Winton Place becomes Spring Grove Village. 14. West End – Most tracts and combined are renumbered. The new Tract 265 is shared with Downtown.

213 Appendix VIII | Changes in SNAs for 2010 Census Social Areas of Cincinnati

214