Poverty in New York City LEAD SPONSOR AUTHORS JP Morgan Chase & Co

State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods

2016 Focus: Poverty in New York City LEAD SPONSOR AUTHORS JP Morgan Chase & Co. Maxwell Austensen Vicki Been PRINCIPAL SPONSOR Katherine M. O’Regan Citi Community Development Stephanie Rosoff Jessica Yager SUSTAINING SPONSORS Bank of America Santander Bank

SUPPORTING SPONSORS Artimus BNY Mellon State of New York City’s The Community Preservation Corporation Housing and Neighborhoods Douglaston Development in 2016 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP M&T Bank MUFG Union Bank, N.A. The State of New York City’s Housing and Muss Development LLC Neighborhoods report, published annually by New York State Association for Affordable Housing the NYU Furman Center, provides a compendium Nixon Peabody LLP of data and analysis about New York City’s housing, Omni New York LLC land use, demographics, and quality of life for each Park Tower Group borough and the city’s 59 community districts. Peter Fass This year’s full report—including citywide analysis Phipps Houses and city, borough, and community district data— Real Estate Board of New York is available at furmancenter.org. Related Companies Two Trees Management Valley National Bank

CONTRIBUTING SPONSORS The Arker Companies B&B Urban LLC Dime Community Bank Federal Home Loan Bank of New York Forsyth Street Advisors Goldstein Hall Jonathan Rose Companies LISC NYC Mizuho Bank Monadnock Development Morgan Stanley Seiden & Schein P.C. Signature Bank SKA Marin TF Cornerstone FOCUS ON POVERTY

- - - 1

The pressures The pressures . NBER Working Paper Series. 1 The Effects of Exposure to Better

4 . NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergen

State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State The disparities and trends in show this we report are from http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/movers_paper2. Retrieved from http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/gender_paper.pdf. The American Economic Review, 855-902; 106 (4), Chetty, R., Hendren, N., et al. (2016). these neighborhoods. Poor black and Hispanic Yorkers New pdf; Chetty, R., Hendren N., & Katz L.F. (2016). andadults fewer are who college educated working. or are likely more much to live in higher poverty neighbor as they target resources to alleviate and deconcentrate poverty. They are also important because they make clear makehighera up share the of population in higher poverty neighborhoods than adults seniors. or important policymakers for and practitioners to understand children, given the recent evidence demonstrating that neighborhood conditions an play important in role upward economic mobility children. for Childhood Environmental and Gender Gaps in Adulthood have higherhave violent crime rates, poorer performing schools, hoods than poor white and Asian Children Yorkers. New urgenthow the need is to address poverty the for city’s Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. erational Mobility II: County-Level Estimates

4 See, e.g., Chetty, R. & Hedren N.(2016). And, poor New Yorkers areAnd, not all poor Yorkers New equally likely to live in State of New York City’s Housing and Neigh Housing City’s York State of New

- - - . Higher poverty neighborhoods 3 New Yorker. We also We find thatneighbor Yorker. New New City’s York Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 Focus. Who in New York City is poor today? Where do they live? What are the What are live? do they Where City is poor today? in New York Who Focus. Poverty concentration—the extent to which 2 non-poor of rising housing costs may be greatest on those with the fewest resources—people living the fewest resources—people on those with greatest be costs may of rising housing since at least 1970. This sparks a range of questions about the experience of poverty in of poverty about the experience of questions a range This sparks 1970. since at least n New York City in recent years, rents have risen much faster than incomes. risen much faster have rents years, City in recent n New York in poverty. New York City has a larger number of people living in poverty today than it has today poverty living in number of people City has a larger New York in poverty. New York City that we address in this year’s in this year’s City that we address New York 3 Throughout this report we refer to census tracts as “neighborhoods.” typical the measures examine we than the neighborhoods the of 2 Throughout this report, we use the American Community Survey 2006–2010 and 2011–2015 five-year estimates. These data are period estimates and should be inter preted as a measure of the conditions during the whole range. while during this same period median household income for renters increased only other characteristics of poor households? of poor households? other characteristics characteristics of the neighborhoods where poor New Yorkers live? Are poor New Yorkers poor New Yorkers Are live? poor New Yorkers of the neighborhoods where characteristics poverty in a neighborhood. poor New Yorkers are livingpoor Yorkers New in neighborhoods with other a similarpoor Yorkers—followed New trend, dropping in from that the of those but typical non-poor Yorker, New disparities are largely experienced by black and Hispanic relatively constant the over past decades, few there was a drop at the the of end last decade and then an increase in borhoods 6.6 percent.6.6 See Part 1 of hood conditions vary significantly basedon of level the hood the of typical varies poor substantially Yorker New New Yorkers living Yorkers New in poverty. The typical poor Asian and 1 Median gross rent increased 18.3 percent in real dollars between 2005 and 2015, more likely to be living in areas of concentrated poverty than they were in the past? were than they poverty of concentrated be living in areas to likely more white New Yorkers live in neighborhoodswhite Yorkers New that better do on

How, if at all, do the answers to each of these questions differ by the race, ethnicity, and race, ethnicity, by the each to of these questions differ if at all, do the answers How, Though the living share Yorkers New of in poverty has been 2011–2015. 2006–2010 and increasing again since then. The neighbor

State of New York City’s City’s of State York New in 2016 & Neighborhoods Housing on Poverty Focus I Figure 1: Total Population and Poor Population, New York City I. n Total n Poor 9,000,000 Overview of 8,000,000 7,000,000 New Yorkers 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Living in 3,000,000 2,000,000 Poverty 1,000,000 The poverty threshold is a national benchmark created by 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006–10 2011–15 the U.S. Census Bureau that varies based on the number of Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, 5,6 the people in a household and the ages of those people. NYU Furman Center For example, in 2015, a three-person household made up of an adult and two children was living in poverty if it had Figure 2: Poverty Rate, New York City an annual income of less than $19,096.7 A household with two children and two adults was living in poverty if it had 25% an annual income of less than $24,036.8 21.2% 20.6% 20.0% 19.2% 19.1% There were nearly 1.7 million New Yorkers living below 20% the poverty line in 2011–2015—the highest level since 1970 14.8% 15% (Figure 1), but the poverty rate has been relatively steady since

1980, with a slight increase in the most recent time period 10% (Figure 2). The poverty rate in New York City in 2011–2015 was 20.6 percent; nationally, the poverty rate was 15.5 percent. 5% New Yorkers living in poverty are different from non- 0% poor New Yorkers in a variety of ways. Table 1 describes 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006–10 2011–15 the shares of poor and non-poor New Yorkers that fell Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center into different demographic categories in 2011–2015 (e.g., the share of poor New Yorkers that were children). Table 2 shows the poverty rate for each of these demographic This is over seven percentage points higher than the child groups nationally and in New York City (e.g., the share of all poverty rate nationally, which was 22.4 percent in 2011–2015. New York City children that were poor). In New York City, adults 65 years old and over are slightly Children in New York City are more likely to be poor than less likely to be poor than the average New Yorker (18.4% the average New Yorker. While 20.6 percent of New Yorkers versus 20.6% in 2011–2015). This poverty rate, however, lived in poverty in 2011–2015, 30.1 percent of all New York City was about twice the national rate of 9.1 percent for seniors children (roughly 535,700 children) were living in poverty. in 2011–2015.9 New Yorkers of different races are not equally represented among the poor. In 2011–2015, the poverty rate for Hispanic 5 U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty: About. (12 May,2016) Retrieved from https://www. census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/about.html. New Yorkers was 28.9 percent; for black New Yorkers it was 6 New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (formerly known as the Center for Economic Opportunity), calculates its own “NYCgov” poverty measure 21.7 percent; and for white New Yorkers it was only 12.1 per- that differs from the federal measure in two primary ways: it takes into account a cent. Nationally, whites were also much less likely to be poor wider scope of resources, like government benefits, in calculating income, and it reflects the high cost of housing in New York City. In 2015, the NYCgov poverty rate than other races and ethnicities (nationally, the poverty rate for the city was 19.9 percent. Mayor’s Office of Economic Opportunity.New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-2015. (May 2017). Retrieved from http://www1.nyc. gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/NYCgovPovMeas2017-WEB.pdf (4). It is important to note that our measure is an average of 2011 to 2015; the NYCgov measure is for 2015 only. 9 According to the NYCgov measure (see footnote 6), 22.8 percent of children were living in poverty in 2015; 18.6 percent of adults 18 to 64 years old were poor; and 21.6 7 U.S. Census Bureau (February 13, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/ percent of seniors were poor. Thus, compared to the official poverty measure in 2011- data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html. 2015, the NYCgov measure has a lower poverty rate for children and higher rates for 8 Id. These income levels for a three-person or four-person household both fall below adults and seniors. Mayor’s Office of Economic Opportunity.New York City Government 30 percent of New York City’s area median income, as calculated by the U.S. Depart- Poverty Measure 2005-2015. (May 2017). Retrieved from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ ment of Housing and Urban Development. See the Methodology section in the State opportunity/pdf/NYCgovPovMeas2017-WEB.pdf (33). It is important to note that our of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016. measure is an average of 2011 to 2015; the NYCgov measure is for 2015 only.

2 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

- 3

7.1% 17.1% 12.1% 17.5% 21.7% 30.1% 18.4% 14.2% 19.9% 32.9% 20.2% 28.9% New York City York New

9.1% 9.1% 7.4% 8.6% 7.4% 4.4% 4.4% 10.1% 10.1% 28.1% 28.1% 15.5% 20.6% 15.5% 21.6% 29.9% 21.6% 10.7% 10.7% 14.3% 14.3% 13.9% 13.9% 14.4% 14.4% 19.5% 19.5% 15.0% 20.5% 15.0% 22.4% 22.4% 24.5% 24.5% 26.8% 26.8% United States State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State In summary, in living 2011–2015, Yorkers New in pov

for the civilian population aged 20–64. Overall povertyrates are from the American biggergap between the overall poverty rate and the black to be poor than Asian Black New and white Yorkers. New graduated high school. NYU Furman Center Furman NYU Note: Educational attainment is for the population aged 25 and older. Employment is Education Race/Ethnicity Disabled Disabled Foreign-Born Employed Employed average New Yorker, whereas nationallyaverage Yorker, New there was a much Table 2: National and New York City Poverty Rates by Group, 2011–2015 Group, by Rates City Poverty 2: National and New York Table period. Black and Hispanic likely more were Yorkers New poverty living rate. Finally, Yorkers New in poverty were erty likely more were to be children than adults seniors; or likelymore to be disabled, unemployed, and to not have Sources: IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, American Community Survey, Overall Overall Community Survey Summary File, while all other values are derived from IPUMS-USA. 30.1 percent City children of 30.1 poorwere in this in York New

Degree College Hispanic Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other, (<18) Children Adults (18-64) High School No College Some Non-Hispanic Asian, (65+) Seniors School High Black, Non-Hispanic Age Age Yorkers were only were slightlyYorkers likely more to be poor than the

- - - Poor 8.3% 8.7% 2.2% 31.9% 56.8% 11.3% 18.3% 20.5% 13.5% 23.6% 41.4% 19.4% 35.4% 15.0% 61.6% Share Share of New City York Govern 9.5% 9.0% 2.7% 18.9% 68.3% 12.8% 20.9% 12.9% 29.0% 13.9% 21.8% 25.9% 35.8% 60.8% 77.5% Share of Share Non-Poor Non-Poor

2.6% 21.6% 66.0% 12.5% 11.3% 20.9% 11.9% 24.9% 13.8% 22.1% 32.4% 10.2% 60.9% 70.3% Share of Share 29.1% While across the nation a higher . (May 2017). Retrieved from http://www1.nyc.gov/ 10 Total Population Population Total In 2011–2015, 8.6 percent of employed New Yorkers, In 2011–2015, percent Yorkers, New employed of 8.6 that our measure is an average of 2011 to 2015; the NYCgov measure is for 2015 only. share black Americans of living were in poverty than any for white New Yorkers was 13.3 percent; for black New Yorkers it was 21.2 percent; for for the civilian population aged 20–64. HispanicNew Yorkers it was 24.6 percent; and for Asian New Yorkers it was 23.4 Hispanic population, and Hispanic includes all races. measure in 2011-2015. Mayor’s Office of Economic Opportunity. to 26.8%). In fact,to 26.8%). the poverty rate black Yorkers New of percent.Thus, the NYCgov poverty rateswere higher for white and Asian NewYork Note: Educational attainment is for the population aged 25 and older. Employment is Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Education Disabled Foreign-Born Employed Employed assets/opportunity/pdf/NYCgovPovMeas2017-WEB.pdf(33). It is important to note and 29.9 percent New disabled of poor. were and Yorkers, New 29.9 and 10.7% for whites). for and 10.7% Table 1: Characteristics of Poor and Non-Poor New Yorkers, 2011–2015 New Yorkers, and Non-Poor of Poor 1: Characteristics Table poverty percent. rate 32.9 of poor than those with years. fewer example, For York New overall poverty rate in 2011–2015. ers with college degrees had percent, poverty a rate 7.1 of other race ethnicity, or City less were blacks in York New ersand lower for black and Hispanic New Yorkers compared to the official poverty Sources: IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, NYU Furman Center ment Poverty Measure2005-2015 likely to be poor than Hispanic and had a Yorkers, New povertylower rate than blacks nationally compared (21.7% 11 According to the NYCgov poverty measure (see footnote in 2015, 6), the poverty rate 10 Unless10 we indicate otherwise, Asian, black, and white always refer to the non- whereas New Yorkers withwhereas high no Yorkers New school degree had a wasjust percentage one point higher City’s than York New was blacks;for 26.8% 24.5% Hispanics; for Asians; 14.4%for (<18) Children Degree College Non-Hispanic Asian, Adults (18-64) (65+) Seniors High School No School High College Some Black, Non-Hispanic Hispanic Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other,

Age Age Yorkers with years more Yorkers education of less were likely to be Table 3: Typical Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Poor New Yorkers by Race/Ethnicity II. 2000 2006–2010 2011–2015 All Poor 29.9% 27.9% 29.0% The Typical All Non-Poor 19.0% 17.1% 18.6% Poor Asian 22.4% 22.1% 23.1% Poor New Poor Black 33.5% 30.6% 31.3% Poor Hispanic 33.6% 31.1% 32.1% Yorker’s Poor White, Non-Hispanic 21.7% 22.5% 24.0%

Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, Neighborhood NYU Furman Center Note: All Racial/Ethnic categories are not mutually exclusive. Asian and black In this section, we describe the neighborhoods the typical includes all ethnicities, and Hispanic includes all races. poor New Yorker lives in, and how the characteristics of those neighborhoods vary based on race and ethnicity. We There are disparities in other key neighborhood charac- highlight racial disparities because there are stark differ- teristics, as well, based on poverty and race and ethnicity. ences between the neighborhoods poor households of dif- The typical poor New Yorker was living in a neighborhood ferent races and ethnicities live in: poor black and Hispanic with 5.7 violent crimes per 1,000 residents in 2011–2015, New Yorkers are living in neighborhoods with significantly compared to 4.2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents for the more disadvantage than their Asian and white counterparts. typical non-poor New Yorker.12 However, exposure to vio- Table 3 shows the neighborhood poverty rate for the lent crime for poor New Yorkers varies significantly by race. typical New Yorker living in poverty. The typical poor New Indeed, the typical poor Asian or white New Yorker lived Yorker in 2011–2015 lived in a neighborhood with a poverty in a neighborhood with less violent crime than the typical rate of 29.0 percent. Notably, between 2000 and 2006– non-poor New Yorker in 2011–2015. As Figure 3 shows, the 2010, the rate fell from 29.9 percent to 27.9 percent. Since typical poor New Yorker who is black lived in a neighbor- 2006–2010, however, this improvement in neighborhood hood with over twice as much violent crime as the neigh- poverty rate for poor New Yorkers has been largely erased. borhood of her Asian or white counterparts. The number of The neighborhood poverty rate for the typical non-poor New violent crimes in the neighborhood of the typical Hispanic Yorker was 18.6 percent in 2011–2015, also following a dip and New Yorker was also much higher than that of the typical subsequent rise in the 2000s. poor Asian or white New Yorker. Table 3 also reveals that there are large disparities in There are also significant disparities in the quality of the neighborhood poverty rates experienced by poor New the schools in or near the neighborhoods in which poor New Yorkers of different races and ethnicities. Poor New York- Yorkers of different races and ethnicities live, as measured ers who are black or Hispanic live in neighborhoods with by student performance on fourth grade standardized tests. much higher poverty rates than poor New Yorkers who are Based on 2014 test scores, in 2011–2015 the typical poor New Asian or white. In 2011–2015, the typical poor Asian New Yorker lived in a neighborhood where only 26.1 percent of Yorker lived in a neighborhood where the poverty rate was fourth graders in nearby schools performed at grade level in 23.1 percent, compared to 24.0 percent for the typical poor English language arts and 34.7 percent performed at grade white New Yorker, 31.3 percent for the typical poor black New level in math, compared to 34.4 percent and 43.3 percent, Yorker, and 32.1 percent for the typical poor Hispanic New respectively, for non-poor New Yorkers (see Figure 4). But, Yorker. Neighborhood poverty rates have increased slightly again, the schools in the neighborhood of the typical poor for all four of these groups since 2006–2010. Asian and white New Yorker performed better than the schools in the neighborhood of the typical non-poor New Yorker. Additionally, the typical poor black and Hispanic New Yorker lived in neighborhoods with schools where children performed substantially worse on these tests.

12 Serious violent crimes include most types of assault, murder (including non- negligent manslaughter), and robbery. Rape offenses are excluded because data about the location of these crimes is suppressed.

4 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

- - 5

Non- 30.2 Hispanic Poor White, White, Poor 77.2 Poor Poor Hispanic 82.8 Poor Black Poor 31.9 Poor Asian Poor New Yorker. categories are not mutually exclusive. 62.7 Poor State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State 44.2 Non-Poor ) in the neighborhoods lived of in by poor Yorkers New 13 There are also significant differenceshousing in quality information. Development defined as class(“immediately C hazardous”) that were opened in a tions the typical non-poor typical poor black and poor Hispanic liv were Yorkers New Figure 5: Typical Neighborhood Serious Housing Maintenance Code Neighborhood Serious Housing Maintenance 5: Typical Figure 2015 City, New York Housing Preservation and Development (2015), New City York Department of Finance Final Roll Tax File (2015), New City York Housing Authority (2015), NYU Furman Center Note: Racial/Ethnic All group Violation Rate (per 1,000 Privately Owned Rental Units) by Group, Group, Units) by Owned Rental Privately (perViolation Rate 1,000 poor white New Yorker was livingpoor whiteYorker New in neighborhooda that performed better this on metric than the neighborhood of given time period, regardless of their current status. SeeMethodology for more ingin neighborhoods with than more the double number different races and ethnicities. Figure 5 shows neighbor the - thefor typical non-poor and the New Yorker typical poor serious of codeviolations than the typical poor Asian or Sources: American Community Survey (2011-15), New City York Department of hoodrate serious of Housing Maintenance Code violations New Yorker of different of races Yorker New and ethnicities. In 2015, the 13 All violations that the City New York Department Housing Preservation and white New Yorker. Once again, thewhite Yorker. New typical poor Asian and (as measured(as by serious Housing Maintenance Code viola 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0 Asian and blackAsian and includes ethnicities, all Hispanic and includes races. all 47% 3.0 Non- Non- Hispanic Hispanic 36% Poor White, White, Poor Poor White, White, Poor

29% 6.4 Poor Poor Poor Poor Hispanic 21% Hispanic 24% 7.5 Poor Black Poor 19% Poor Black Poor 52% 3.7 Poor Asian Poor 37% Poor Asian Poor Math n categories are not mutually exclusive. categories are not mutually exclusive. Asian and black

5.7 35% Poor Poor 26% 4.2 43% Non-Poor 34% Non-Poor English Language Arts English Language n in New York City, 2014 City, in New York includes ethnicities, all Hispanic and includes races. all Figure 4: Typical Share of Fourth Grade Students Proficient in Students Proficient Grade of Fourth Share 4: Typical Figure Group Schools by Arts and Math for Nearby English Language Figure 3: Typical Neighborhood Violent Crime Rate by Group, Group, by Rate Crime Violent Neighborhood Typical 3: Figure New York City, 2011–2015 City, New York Education (2014), NYU Furman Center Note: Racial/Ethnic All group Note: Racial/Ethnic All group Sources: American Community Survey (2011–2015), New City York Department of Sources: American Community Survey, New City York Police Department, Center Furman NYU Census, U.S. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Asian and blackAsian and includes ethnicities, all Hispanic and includes races. all Figure 6: Typical Neighborhood Share of Residents Aged 25+ Figure 7: Residence of Poor New Yorkers, 2011–2015 with College Degrees and Employed Share of Civilian Residents Aged 20–64 by Group in New York City, 2011–2015 ● 1 Dot = 300 poor persons (any race/ethnicity) n College Degree n Employed 80%

70% 67% 65% 65% 61% 59% 60% 58%

50%

40% 35% 37% 30% 30% 25% 21% 21% 20%

10%

0% Non-Poor Poor Poor Asian Poor Black Poor Poor White, Hispanic Non- Hispanic Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center Note: All Racial/Ethnic group categories are not mutually exclusive. Asian and black includes all ethnicities, and Hispanic includes all races.

Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center Note: Data are displayed by census tract.

In 2011–2015, the typical poor New Yorker lived in a New Yorkers of different races and ethnicities are clus- neighborhood with a smaller share of adults with college tered in different parts of the city. Figure 7 shows where degrees compared to the typical non-poor New Yorker (25.2% poor New Yorkers were living in 2011–2015. Figure 8 shows vs. 35.2%). For this measure too there was substantial varia- the location of poor New Yorkers by race and ethnicity in tion based on race and ethnicity (see Figure 6). Poor white the same time period. Poor Hispanic New Yorkers were con- New Yorkers lived in neighborhoods where a larger share of centrated in the Bronx and northern Manhattan; poor black the residents had a college degree compared to the neigh- New Yorkers were very concentrated in northern Brooklyn borhood of the typical non-poor New Yorker. There was less and also in northern Manhattan and the Bronx; poor Asian variation in the employment rate for adults in the neigh- New Yorkers were concentrated in Queens, southern Brook- borhoods of poor and non-poor New Yorkers, or across the lyn, and the lower east side of Manhattan; and poor whites neighborhoods of the typical poor New Yorker of different were concentrated in southern and northwest Brooklyn. races and ethnicities. As these figures show, poor New Yorkers of different races and ethnicities are living in neighborhoods with significantly different conditions. Poor New Yorkers, and poor black and Hispanic New Yorkers especially, live in neighborhoods with much higher violent crime rates, poorer performing schools, more serious Housing Maintenance Code violations, fewer college graduates, and lower rates of employment. In New York City, the typical poor black resident and the typical poor Hispanic resident also live in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates than their Asian and white counterparts. On every one of these measures, the typical poor white New Yorker lives in a neighborhood that performs better than the neighborhood of the typical non-poor New Yorker.

6 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State 1 Dot = 300 white persons in poverty in poverty 1 Dot persons = 300 white 1 Dot = 300 black persons in poverty in poverty 1 Dot persons = 300 black ● ● categories are not mutually exclusive. Asian and black includes all ethnicities, and Hispanic includes all races. 1 Dot = 500 Persons in Poverty NYC Poverty Density Map by Race 1 Dot = 500 Persons in Poverty NYC Poverty Density Map by Race 1 Dot = 500 Persons in Poverty NYC Poverty Density Map by Race 1 Dot = 500 Persons in Poverty NYC Poverty Density Map by Race 1 Dot = 300 Hispanic persons in poverty in poverty 1 Dot = 300 Hispanic persons 1 Dot = 300 Asian persons in poverty 1 Dot persons = 300 Asian Figure 8: Residence of Poor New Yorkers by Race/Ethnicity, 2011–2015 Race/Ethnicity, by Yorkers New of Poor Residence 8: Figure Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center Note: Racial/Ethnic All group Data are displayed by census tract. ● ● Figure 9: Share of the Total Population by Neighborhood Poverty Status, New York City III. n Low n Moderate n High n Extreme Poverty and 100% 25.4% 29.9% 25.7% Neighborhoods 80% In this section, we shift from looking at the characteristics 60% 50.0% 51.2% and experiences of individuals living in poverty to the char- 49.7% 40% acteristics of the neighborhoods in which large numbers of poor households reside. Neighborhoods with particu- 20% 13.3% 12.7% 12.8% larly high levels of poverty, or “concentrated poverty,” have 11.4% 7.8% 10.3% 0% been the focus of considerable research and policy concern. 2000 2006–2010 2011–2015 Here, we explore how poverty concentration has changed Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, in New York City over time and describe the characteris- NYU Furman Center tics of neighborhoods based on their poverty rate. For this discussion, we categorize neighborhoods by the share of Figure 10: Share of the Poor Population by Neighborhood Poverty Status, New York City their populations living below the poverty line. We define n Low n Moderate n High n Extreme neighborhoods as low-poverty if they have a poverty rate of zero to 10 percent; moderate-poverty if they have a poverty 100% 7.6% 9.0% 8.0% rate between 10 percent and 30 percent; high-poverty if they 80% have a poverty rate between 30 percent and 40 percent; and 45.5% 48.7% 47.2% extreme-poverty if they have a poverty rate of over 40 per- 60% cent.14 Because poverty concentration is a continuum and not simply a threshold, we also explore absolute changes in 40% 21.5% 21.3% neighborhood poverty rates below. 22.9% 20% 25.4% 19.4% 23.5% a. Trends in Poverty Concentration 0% In the 2000s, the share of all New Yorkers living in low-pov- 2000 2006–2010 2011–2015 erty neighborhoods grew, and the share living in extreme- Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center poverty neighborhoods fell. Since 2006–2010, that trend has reversed. Figure 9 shows this change. New York City and some other large cities avoided this The experience of poor New Yorkers followed a similar trend. But, as more recent data shows, the progress made in trend. The share of poor New Yorkers living in extreme- New York City during the 2000s on poverty concentration poverty neighborhoods fell between 2000 and 2006–2010, has somewhat reversed since then. but has risen since then (see Figure 10). Recently, 44.8 per- To address inequities between neighborhoods, of course, cent of the city’s poor population was living in areas of one must know where these different neighborhoods are high or extreme poverty. located. The neighborhoods that were included in each of Notably, New York City’s change in poverty concentra- these poverty-level categories in 2011–2015 are shown in tion was different from the national experience during the Figure 11. In the Bronx, 52.6 percent of all neighborhoods 2000s. Nationally, poverty concentration rose between were high or extreme poverty; while in Brooklyn, 21.5 percent 2000 and 2010, although that increase was driven primar- of neighborhoods were high or extreme poverty. Queens had ily by medium and smaller cities.15 During this period, the lowest share of its neighborhoods qualifying as high or extreme poverty (3.3%). 14 Within these neighborhood types, there is still a significant amount of income diversity. For example, in 2011–2015, while nearly half of households in tracts of extreme poverty were themselves poor, nearly 30 percent of households in those significant increase in the share of poor Americans living in high-poverty neighbor- tracts had incomes greater than 200 percent of the poverty line. hoods—rising from 10.3 percent in 2000 to 14.4 percent in 2009-2013. Jargowsky noted 15 Looking at a slightly different time period, Jargowsky reported that between 2000 that the concentration of poverty grew fastest in metropolitan areas that are small and 2009-2013, the number of census tracts with poverty rates above 40 percent and mid-size. Jargowsky, P. (August 9, 2015). The Architecture of Segregation: Civil increased by 76 percent nationally. He also found that, in 2009-2013, there were more Unrest, the Concentration of Poverty, and Public Policy. The Century Foundation. people living in these census tracts than ever previously recorded. There was also a Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/report/architecture-of-segregation/.

8 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

- 9

Only 64 neighborhoods in the 17 State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State Figure 13 shows changes atfinera grain, highlighting the

No Significant Change Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 Between 2006-2010 Change No Significant Reverted to High or Extreme Poverty Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 Between Poverty High or Extreme to Reverted 2011-2015 2006-2010 and Between Poverty or Moderate Maintained Low n n n low or moderate poverty status categories. treat larger areas the of city as monoliths. tended to be adjacent near or neighborhoods that experi thatpolicy responses that can address varying needs across Figure 12: High or Extreme Poverty Census Tracts in 2000 Tracts Census Poverty 12: High or Extreme Figure NYU Furman Center Furman NYU Note: A census tract is considered to have “no significant change” if its 2011–2015 areasthat experienced an in improvement their poverty rate That Became Low or Moderate Poverty in 2006–2010 Poverty Moderate Low or That Became points more; 356 or neighborhoods the of to 16.5% (home population—about experienced 1,366,000 an Yorkers) New neighborhoods in the city where the poverty rate increased decreasedor than by more percentage 10 points between thecity of to 2.6% population—about (home New 216,000 increase in their poverty rates the of same magnitude. The enced a substantial uptick in poverty. This wide variation in the experience proximate of neighborhoods suggests neighborhoods may be successful more than policies that estimates in City New York was percent +/-6.7 in 2006-2010 percent and +/-6.9 in 2011-2015. Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, poverty rate plus or minus its margin of error overlapped the high or extreme and 17 The 17 mean margin of error the (at 90% confidence level) for census tract poverty rate 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. and 2006–2010 Yorkers) saw a decrease in theirYorkers) poverty percentage rate 10 of

16 Extreme n

High n

Moderate n

Of the neighborhoods that high were extreme or poverty Low n level margin of error. in the remaining 53 census tracts was not significant within a 90 percent confidence between 2000 and 2006-2010. Some the of neighborhoods that 2006-2010 saw improvement and remained at this lower that moderate or to moved low poverty between 2000 and that improvements enjoyed in their poverty rates in the Figure 11: New York City Neighborhoods by Poverty Status, 2011–2015 Poverty by Neighborhoods City New York 11: Figure 2006-2010. Of those, 27 remained low or moderate poverty and 6 reverted back to high were high or extreme poverty in 2000, 86 improved to low or moderate poverty in Note: Data are displayed by census tract. poverty in level 2011-2015 in (shown green). neighborhoods that high were extreme or poverty in 2000 in 2000, 19 percentin moderate improved or 2000, 19 to low poverty others lost the ground they had gained. Figure 12 shows the or extreme poverty. The change in the poverty rate between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015 Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Center Furman highextreme or poverty between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 16 Within16 a 90 percent confidence level margin of error. Of the 452 census tracts that (shown in There(shown orange). twenty-seven were neighborhoods 2006-2010. Of those neighborhoods, just six reverted back to 2000s maintained those improvements into 2011-2015, while Figure 13: Percentage Point Change in Neighborhood Poverty Rate b. Neighborhood Characteristics between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015 by Poverty Status n Poverty Rate Increased More Than 10 Percentgage Points n Poverty Rate Decreased More Than 10 Percentage Points Much of the research and policy concern about poverty n No Significant Change concentration arises from the correlation between higher neighborhood poverty rates and substandard neighborhood conditions. We explore those correlations in New York City, looking at a number of key conditions here and describe how they differ based on the poverty level of the neighborhood. We conclude with a discussion of who is living in these different neighborhood types. There is a strong negative correlation between neighborhood poverty levels and school quality. Higher poverty neighborhoods have schools in which many fewer children were performing at grade level in English language arts (ELA) and math on fourth grade standardized tests. In 2014, there was about a 30 percentage point difference between the share of children performing at grade level in schools in or near low-poverty neighborhoods versus those in extreme- poverty neighborhoods (see Figure 14). There was a large disparity between schools near low-poverty areas and those

Sources: Neighborhood Change Database, American Community Survey, near moderate-poverty areas as well (14.7 percentage points NYU Furman Center Note: Data are displayed by census tract. for ELA; 13.2 percentage points for math).

New York City’s recent trend of increased poverty con- Figure 14: Share of Students Performing at Grade Level in English Language Arts and Math (Fourth Grade) in Neighborhood centration in 2011–2015 is distressing, especially after the Schools, by Neighborhood Poverty Level in New York City, 2014 progress made in the 2000s. The varied experiences of the n English Language Arts n Math neighborhoods in the city that were higher poverty in 2000 60% warrants further investigation to understand how individual 53.5% 50% neighborhoods changed over time and what policy levers and 45.6% 40.3% larger economic trends in the city might have contributed 40% to those changes. Exploring the variation across neighbor- 30.9% 30% 25.5% hoods may offer important insights into why poverty fell in 22.2% one high-poverty neighborhood but rose in another, which 20% 19.0% 14.8% can inform efforts to counter poverty concentration. 10%

0% Low Moderate High Extreme

Sources: American Community Survey (2011-15), New York City Department of Education (2014), NYU Furman Center

10 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

- - 11

14.5% 50.6% Extreme Extreme High High 12.8% 58.3% 9.7% 66.5% Moderate Moderate Low Low 9.0% 73.4% State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State In extreme-poverty neighborhoods in 2011–2015, the Figure 18: Disabled Share of Population by Neighborhood Poverty Level, Level, Neighborhood Poverty by of Population Share 18: Disabled Figure 2011–2015 City, New York Figure 17: Employment Rate by Neighborhood Poverty Level, Level, Poverty Neighborhood by Rate Employment 17: Figure 2011–2015 City, New York Note: Civilian population aged 20–64 poverty areas may be related in part by the higher disability person and to work because caring family for memberswith dentsFigure employment The (see rates lower in high 18). employment rate was about 50 percent, than more 20 per- centagepoints than lower the rate in low-poverty neighbor rates, both because disabilities impossible may render it a for disabilities outsideemployment the preclude may home. Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Center Furman Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Center Furman hoods Figure (see In 2011–2015, 17). neighborhoods with higher poverty rates also had larger shares disabled of resi 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 00% 15% 10% 9% 6% 3% 0%

7.5 80.5 315.8 Extreme Extreme 6.9 88.4 341.7 4.4 45.7 171.0 Moderate High Moderate High Other Violations n

2.2 15.3 57.8 Low Low High- and extreme-poverty neighborhoods also have Rates violent of crimes also differ dramatically Newin Serious Violations n in New York City, 2015 City, in New York by Neighborhood Poverty Level, New York City, 2011–2015 City, New York Level, Poverty Neighborhood by serious violent crime than low-poverty neighborhoods. Figure 16: Housing Maintenance Code Violation Rate (per 1,000 (per Code Violation Rate Maintenance 16: Housing 1,000 Figure Status Neighborhood Poverty Units) by Owned Rental Privately Figure 15: Serious Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents) residents) (per Crime Rate 1,000 15: Serious Violent Figure Housing Preservation and Development (2015), New City York Department of Finance Final Roll Tax File (2015), New City York Housing Authority (2015), NYU Furman Center of low-poverty neighborhoods. neighborhoods experienced than more three times as much Sources: American Community Survey (2011-15), New City York Department of Sources: American Community Survey, New City York Police Department, Center Furman NYU Census, U.S. low-poverty neighborhoods. higher shares Housing of Maintenance Code violations. had a serious code violation rate five times higher than that Evenmoderate-poverty areas had rates twice as high as 100 0% 300 200 500 400 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 (see Figure(see In 2011–2015, 15). high- and extreme-poverty York City based theYork on poverty the of level neighborhood As Figure shows, in 16 2015, extreme-poverty neighborhoods In 2011–2015, higher poverty neighborhoods also had (54.1% of whom live in these areas). Children overall and higher shares of residents with no high school degree and poor children were also the groups least likely to be living smaller shares of residents with college degrees (see Figure in low-poverty neighborhoods. Poor seniors, however, were 19). In low-poverty neighborhoods, 52.4 percent of residents less likely than other poor New Yorkers to live in high- or had a college degree; in extreme-poverty areas, the rate was extreme-poverty neighborhoods in 2011–2015. only 12.6 percent. There were smaller variations in other levels of educational attainment across different neighborhood Table 4: Distribution of Groups by Neighborhood Poverty Status in New York City, 2011–2015 types (high school degree; some college; Associate’s Degree). Share living in: Low Moderate High Extreme Figure 19: Educational Attainment by Neighborhood Poverty Level, Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty New York City, 2011–2015 Total population 25.7% 51.2% 12.8% 10.3% n No High School n High School n Some College n Associate’s Degree n College Degree Poor population 8.0% 47.2% 21.3% 23.5% Age: 100% 12.6% 19.9% All children (<18) 21.0% 48.7% 15.3% 15.0% 33.3% 5.8% 80% 6.0% Poor children 4.0% 41.8% 23.8% 30.3% 52.4% 15.3% 15.1% All adults (18-64) 26.0% 52.4% 12.4% 9.2% 6.6% 60% Poor adults 8.9% 49.3% 20.5% 21.2% 14.4% 29.7% 6.2% 27.2% All seniors (65+) 32.5% 49.2% 10.6% 7.6% 40% 13.5% 25.4% Poor seniors 13.5% 51.3% 18.2% 17.0%

20% Race/Ethnicity: 19.3% 31.8% 36.6% 20.2% All Asian, non-Hispanic 23.7% 63.8% 8.4% 4.1% 8.6% 0% Low Moderate High Extreme All black, non-Hispanic 17.5% 51.9% 17.0% 13.6% All Hispanic 11.4% 51.0% 20.5% 17.1% Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center Note: Population aged 25 or older. All white, non-Hispanic 45.1% 45.1% 5.0% 4.7% Poor Asian 9.5% 67.5% 14.4% 8.6% As we showed in the previous two sections, New Yorkers Poor black 4.8% 42.5% 24.7% 27.9% are not all equally likely to live in poverty, and the neighbor- Poor Hispanic 3.5% 41.0% 26.6% 28.9% hood conditions of poor New Yorkers are also not uniform. Poor white, non-Hispanic 19.5% 50.8% 11.5% 18.2%

There are also wide disparities based on race and ethnicity Sources: American Community Survey, NYU Furman Center Note: For poor population by Race/Ethnicity, the categories are not mutually exclu- and age in who is living in neighborhoods with high rates sive. Asian and black includes all ethnicities, and Hispanic includes all races. of poverty (shown in Table 4). In 2011–2015, black and Hispanic New Yorkers were In sum, neighborhood conditions vary significantly more likely to live in neighborhoods of high and extreme based on a neighborhood’s poverty rate. Higher poverty poverty than New Yorkers overall. This was not solely driven neighborhoods have much higher violent crime rates and by the higher poverty rates of blacks and Hispanics and schools with much lower shares of children performing at the greater likelihood of the poor to live in higher poverty grade level. They also have many more serious housing code neighborhoods; poor black and Hispanics were more likely violations, higher unemployment rates, and lower shares of to live in neighborhoods of higher poverty than other poor residents who have completed high school or college. Not New Yorkers. In fact, non-poor blacks and Hispanics were all New Yorkers are equally exposed to these conditions, also more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty than however. Children and black and Hispanic New Yorkers other non-poor (number not in table). Thus, racial and ethnic make up a higher share of the residents in higher poverty concentration in areas of higher poverty reflects more than neighborhoods than other New Yorkers. Thirty percent of the poverty status of black and Hispanics. all children in the city were living in census tracts with Children were more likely than adults to live in high- and concentrated poverty in 2011–2015. extreme-poverty neighborhoods in 2011–2015. This was true for children in the city overall (30.3% of whom live in areas of concentrated poverty), and for poor children in particular

12 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

. - - - - 18 13 . The

The 19 Where, When, The Effects of Exposure to Better Neigh . Annual Review of Sociology 40, 559-579; Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent Evidence State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State In recent years, were 45 percent poor of Yorkers New some those of neighborhoods able to maintain were that status in 2011–2015 might offer insights for policy efforts borhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. (1997). Housing Policy Debate 833-866. 8(4), neighborhoods than poor adults of the same race. Jargowsky,P. Op.cit. Table 5. transformed poverty into lower areas in 2006–2010. Why that neighborhoodsin play the lives children of and, spe trend willboth poor help children and ensure better a future that the individual challenges they faced because their of aimed at ensuring better and sustainable more progress. areas concentrated of poverty, and the fact that the trend analysis, what was happening in the neighborhoods in New are likely more much to be Hispanic. black or City’s York New progress and others reverted back to their higher poverty economic status compounded were by living in neighbor children also are disproportionately bearing the burdens poverty,of and living of in high-poverty neighborhoods. cifically, in theirprospects employment as adults. relatively high City children share York New of living in is going in the wrong direction, should raise serious alarm. Finally, the therefor city. be may helpful lessons to learn from exploring in detail, more through data and policy mous Understanding of Neighborhood Effects Neighborhood of Understanding mous living inneighborhoods concentrated of poverty, meaning hoods also facing substantial challenges. Those Yorkers New It alsoIt highlights that investments made to counter this 18Nationally, poor black and Hispanic children are more likely to live in high-poverty Chetty,19 R., Hendren, N., & Katz, ( 2016). L. F. AmericanEconomic Review855-902; 106 (4), Sharkey, Faber,& (2014).J. P., Why, and For Whom Do Residential Contexts Matter? Moving Away fromthe Dichoto Thereis growing a body research of highlighting the role York City that higher were York poverty in 2000 and that then

Of particular concern, there are large differences by test scores, housing more code violations, a higher rate of typical lives in a neighborhood poor white Yorker New that that improvement more recently has reversed. than Also other Yorkers. New like the rest the of nation, in and the number people of are who and employed college have unemployment, and college fewer educated residents. The performs better all on these of measures than the typical poverty at higher rates than others. Children and black and Conclusion non-poor New Yorker. non-poor New Yorker. rate, higher a much violent crime rate, schools with lower race and ethnicity in the neighborhood environments peopleof living in poverty. Compared to poor Asian and of schoolsof in a neighborhood, the number violent of crimes, educations is strongly correlated with the extent poverty of in a neighborhood. City While made progress York New in deconcentrating poverty in the 2000s, distressingly, of livingof in a neighborhood high of extreme or poverty. theof dramatic disparities in the city between areas of concentrated poverty and poverty lower areas. The quality New Yorker livesin neighborhood a Yorker New with higher a poverty New York, living York, inNew poverty greatly increases the likelihood In New York City, as in City, the nation, Insome groups York New experience Hispanic are likely more to live in Yorkers New poverty white New Yorkers, the typicalwhite Yorkers, New poor black and Hispanic Those differences significant have consequences because Student Performance Methodology The New York State Education Department provides school- level data on math and English language arts (ELA) profi- For the State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods ciency. Schools are linked to school zones and from school in 2016 Focus on Poverty, some analyses use methods that zones we are able to calculate a weighted census tract profi- differ from other sections of the report. ciency rate. Specifically, we first calculate average math and ELA school zone proficiency rates weighted by the number of U.S. Census Bureau Data tested students. We then assign each residential unit within In order to track neighborhood change, we use the Neighbor- a school zone its respective math and ELA proficiency rate. hood Change Database (NCDB) 2010, which is compiled by Residential units are also associated with census tracts, and GeoLytics and the Urban Institute with support from the so lastly we weight the residential unit proficiency rates up Rockefeller Foundation (2010). The NCDB provides cen- to the census tract level. Because students can attend schools sus tract data from the U.S. Census Bureau back to 1970 outside of their zone, the student performance indicators recalculated to match the census tract boundaries from provide information about the performance of students 2010. We supplement NCDB data with five-year estimates who attend schools in that neighborhood, rather than the from the 2011–2015 American Community Survey (ACS), performance of students who live in that neighborhood. which are already tabulated for 2010 census tract boundaries. This dataset allows us to examine census tracts over Crime Rates the course of several decades, and therefore better under- The New York City Police Department (NYPD) collects data stand how neighborhoods—as they are defined today— on criminal activity, which the department reports consis- changed over time. tent with classifications set primarily by the New York State Unless otherwise noted, census tracts are the unit of Penal Law. A crime is considered serious if it is classified as analysis in this report and are referred to as neighborhoods. a major felony as defined by the NYPD. This category con- We restrict our sample of census tracts to those with at least tains most types of assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle 200 residents and less than 30 percent of their population theft, murder (including non-negligent manslaughter), rape, living in group quarters (which include correctional facilities, and robbery. Serious property crimes include most types of nursing homes, dormitories, and other types of institutions) burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Serious violent in 2000, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015. crime includes most types of assault, murder (including Tables one and two of this report use the Public Use non-negligent manslaughter), rape, and robbery. Rates Microdata Samples (PUMS) from the ACS five-year esti- are calculated as the number of crimes committed in a mates for 2011–2015, provided by the Minnesota Population given geographic area per 1,000 residents (based on decen- Center and the University of Minnesota. Because the PUMS nial population counts) and it is possible that perpetrators samples are anonymized individual-level data, we are able or victims of crimes may reside in other neighborhoods to calculate characteristics of the population broken out by or outside of New York City. To create census tract-level poverty status. crime rates we geocode publically available address-level crime data from the NYPD. Because precise address information is not available for rapes, we exclude these crimes from the rate calculation.

14 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU FOCUS ON POVERTY

State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State , - - - - is X , i is the poverty rate in i [ i y i x X [ n ∑ i=1 . The Typical Neighborhood Poor New Yorker’s i is the poor population census of tract I

Where x sure the exposure a subpopulation of to a neighborhood the citywide poor population, and y the neighborhood characteristic in each neighborhood. The the denominator, join data we level lot from NYCHA with tions, while serious housing code violations to class refer C tions ifhousing inspections reveal problems. Total housing Subpopulations ardous”), andC (“immediately hazardousserious”) or viola privately owned rental units. process recording for and inspecting housing violations census tract exposure to poverty poor for Yorkers New thus is given by: for subpopulationsfor These Yorkers. indicators New of mea characteristicas the subpopulation-weighted average of in this indicator. also To public housing exclude units from data City Department from the York New Finance of Final only. Theseonly. numbers all include violations that HPD opened in a given time period, regardless their of current status. The from tenantsin privately owned units and issues code viola codeviolations class include (“non-hazardous”),A (“hazB Characteristics ofCharacteristics Typical for Neighborhoods In Section II, New York City Housing Authority York New (NYCHA) has a parallel Development (HPD) investigates (HPD) Development housing code complaints Housing Maintenance Code Violations final violation rates as number the of violations per 1,000 we describewe the characteristics the of typical neighborhood within public housing, so their violations are not included Tax Roll File and those exclude properties to calculate the The New York City Department TheYork New Housing of Preservation and About the NYU Furman Center The NYU Furman Center advances research and debate on housing, neighborhoods, and urban policy. Established in 1995, it is a joint center of the New York University School of Law and the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Its mission is to:

Provide objective academic and empirical research on The Center’s Faculty Directors are Vicki Been, Boxer Family legal and public policy issues involving land use, real estate, Professor of Law at NYU School of Law; Ingrid Gould Ellen, housing, and urban affairs in the United States; Paulette Goddard Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at NYU’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service; Promote frank and productive discussions among elected and Katherine O’Regan, Professor of Public Policy and Plan- and appointed officials, leaders of the real estate industry, ning at NYU’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public leaders of non-profit housing and community development Service. Jessica Yager is the Center’s Executive Director. organizations, scholars, and students about critical issues Our staff regularly collaborates with faculty and research- in land use, real estate, and urban policy; ers from the School of Law, the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Present essential data and analysis about the state of and many other research organizations at NYU and beyond. New York City’s housing and neighborhoods to those involved in land use, real estate development, community economic development, housing, urban economics, and NYU Furman Center urban policy; and Wilf Hall, 139 MacDougal Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10012 Train the next generation of urban policy leaders—includ- 212-998-6713 ing researchers, analysts, and practitioners—by fostering [email protected] an enriching environment where students meaningfully @FurmanCenterNYU contribute to the Center’s work. www.furmancenter.org

16 NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU PART 1: FOCUS ON GENTRIFICATION

Eugene Schneur Eugene Managing Director Omni New York LLC David Schwartz Principal PropertySlate Group Scott Denise Executive Vice President for Programs Support Initiatives Local Corporation Jesse Sharf JD ’86 Partner; Co-Chair, Department Estate Real Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Douglas Shoemaker President Cheltenham Cheltenham Inc. Enterprises, Aviva Yakren BA ’94 Partner Sidley Austin LLP Aaron Yowell JD ’07 Partner Nixon Peabody LLP New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development ’05 Visnauskas MUP RuthAnne (ex officio) Commissioner New York State Homes and Community Renewal Jon Vogel JD ’96 Vice President Development of AvalonBay Communities, Inc. ’81 JD Wagner Elise Partner Kramer Levin Naftalis & LLP Frankel David Walsh Senior Vice President of Community Banking Development ChaseJPMorgan Bank Wambua Mathew President RHR Funding LLC Adam Weinstein President and Chief Executive Officer Houses Phipps Marc Weisman LLM ’80 Officer Operating Chief JD Carlisle LLC President Mercy Housing California Housing Mercy Larry Silverstein BA ’52 Chairman Silverstein Properties Singer Richard Partner Hirschen Singer & Epstein LLP (ex Torres-Springer Maria officio) Commissioner

State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2016 City’s of New York State Stephen Ross LLM ’66 Chairman and Founder Related Companies MS’12 Rudin Michael Vice President Inc. Company, Management Rudin Mitchell Rutter JD ’80 Chief Executive Officer and Founding Partner Essex Capital Partners, Ltd. Jacobson LLP Jacobson Jr. Menendez, Manuel Senior Vice President, Multifamily Chief Credit Officer Mae Fannie Ron Moelis JD ’82 Chief Executive Officer and Founding Partner Partners, Development Inc. M + L Moore Jonathan Officer, Investment Chief Multifamily BrookfieldProperty Group Jason Muss JD ’96 Principal LLC Development Muss Pianko Melissa Managing Director BlackstoneThe Group Angela Pinsky MUP ’05 Executive Director Association for a Better New York Herbert Podell BA ’54, JD ’58 PartnerSenior & Schwartz, Schechter Podell, Banfield, LLP ’99 MUP Gary Rodney Chairman CREA, LLC Aaron Koffman Aaron Principal The Hudson Companies, Inc. ’99 BS Lalezarian Kevin Principal Lalezarian Properties Holly M. Leicht ’90 JD Lieber Janno President World Trade Center Properties LLC Mannarino Anthony Executive Vice President Extell Company Development Timothy J. Mayopoulos JD ’84 President and Chief Executive Officer Mae Fannie McEnerney Patrick Managing Director Deutsche Bank McFadden Marion Vice President, Public Policy Community PartnersEnterprise ’77 JD Mechanic Jonathan Department Estate Real Chair, & Shriver Harris, Frank, Fried,

Partner & Shriver Harris, Frank, Fried, LLP Jacobson Corporation Grier Bernell Executive Director IMPACCT Brooklyn Fred Harris MS ’76, JD ’79 DevelopmentManaging Director, Companies Rose Jonathan HeppoletteJohn Co-Head Capital Community Citi Jahr Marc Consultant Community Futures Development David Karnovsky Mark Ginsberg Mark Partner Curtis + Ginsberg Architects LLP GleberJohn P. Managing Director, Head of Tax Exempt and Affordable Housing Deutsche Bank Gomez Todd Senior Vice President Lynch Merrill America of Bank Grannum Colvin President and Chief Executive Officer Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration TF CornerstoneTF officio) (ex Enderlin Eric President New York City Housing CorporationDevelopment Robert Ezrapour Vice President ConstructionArtimus Bernard Falk ’75 JD/MBA Senior Vice President and General Counsel Loeb Partners Realty LLC Peter Fass LLM’64 Partner Proskauer Rose LLP Rafael Cestero President and Chief Executive Officer The Community Preservation Corporation ’96 JD Chorost Dan Principal Sive, Paget & Riesel P.C. Martin Dunn President Corp. Development Dunn ’12 JD Elghanayan Jake Vice President

. Glied y A

Jim Buckley Jim Executive Director University Neighborhood Program Housing Chair, Real Estate Department Estate Real Chair, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Jeffrey I. Brodsky MBA ’82 Vice Chairman Related Companies Erica Buckley F. Special Counsel Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Chief Executive Officer McCormack Salazar Baron Zachary Bernstein Partner, Real Estate & Shriver Harris, Frank, Fried, LLP Jacobson Leonard Boxer JD ’63 Daniel Alger Vice President SachsGoldman Barahona Juan PartnersBFC Baron Richard Chairman and and Dean Emeritus Wyman Katrina Sarah Herring Sorin Professor Law of NYU Furman Center Board of Advisors Clayton Gillette Max E. Greenberg Professor of Contract Law Roderick M. Hills, Jr. Comfort, T. IIIWilliam Professor Law of Revesz Richard Lawrence Professor King Law of Dean New York University School of Law Faculty Advisory Committee, NYU Law of School Ryan Bubb Professor Law of New York University York New Sherr Dean School Graduate Wagner Robert F. of Public Service, University York New Morrison Trevor like to thank the following people, whose leadership, advice, and support are invaluable: Andrew Hamilton President The NYU Furman Center would would Center NYUThe Furman Wilf Hall 139 MacDougal Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10012 212-998-6713 [email protected] @FurmanCenterNYU

www.furmancenter.org

ii NYU Furman Center • @FurmanCenterNYU