The affordable housing crisis in NYC is well documented. Rent increases outpace income gains for most New Yorkers every year on record. As a proportion of take-home pay, rent accounts for an ever larger share of New Yorkers’ wallets: 60% in 2015. Increasing affordable housing units has been a centerpiece of the City’s administration, but “affordable” is a relative term. Families in low- to middle-income brackets struggle with housing costs in an economic climate of stagnant wages and falling levels of job security, and those in low-income households in particular may live in substandard housing. Displacement and neighborhood erosion due to gentrification loom large in New Yorkers’ fears around housing, as does homelessness.
Our indicators under the Housing theme explore how disadvantaged groups experience significant disparities in the topic areas of Homelessness,Affordability of Housing,Quality of Housing, and Neighborhood.
You can see a snapshot of the indicators averaged in this theme in the chart to your right and then visit the sections below for more detail.
Across the United States, an estimated 3.7 million renters have faced eviction from their homes. In many of these cases, eviction is the result of missed rent payments. In some cases, landlords evict tenants because of property damage or other…
Over the past year, Community Land Trusts (CLTs) have become a focal point of the affordable housing movement in New York City, and recent City support and funding for the alternative homeownership model signals an embrace of CLTs as a…
Homelessness takes on many faces in NYC. Few dispute the need to properly count, monitor, and help NYC’s homeless population. The pathways into homelessness also are varied. A confluence of factors can affect whether someone becomes homeless, including family support, access to emergency shelters and temporary housing, continuity of employment, and education. Additionally, recent immigrants and children are disproportionately affected by homelessness.
To understand Homelessness as a function of inequality, we used four indicators:
Recent Immigration & Youth Homelessness
Child Homelessness Status & School Attendance
Age & Homelessness
Age & Length of Shelter Stay
Take a look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then look at each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of recent immigrant students and other students who lost or could not afford housing in the past 30 days.
What’s the Backstory? Lack of stable, affordable housing has many negative effects on the health and wellbeing of students. Recent immigrant youth may experience less housing stability than youth who were born in the US or have lived in the country for a longer period of time.
What Did We Find? In the most recent NYC Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 8.9% of NYC public school students living in the United States for six years or less reported losing or not being able to afford housing within the past 30 days. This rate was over twice that of NYC students who had lived in the country for seven or more years (4.2%). This disparity is greater than at baseline, resulting in a moderate decrease in score for this indicator. The most recent survey also found that 10.8% of students identifying as gay or lesbian lost or could not afford housing within the past 30 days, compared to 4.2% of students identifying as heterosexual or straight. *Data are collected every two years for this indicator.
What is Measured? Ratio between the absenteeism rates for homeless and non-homeless children.
What’s the Backstory? Homeless children are more likely to have cognitive and mental health problems than those who have stable housing, and to miss school or drop out. Homeless children in the US miss substantially more days of school than their peers who have housing, in large part because of family transience.
What Did We Find? The average daily absenteeism rate among children residing in shelters (17.7%) was more than double that of children in the general population (8.6%). This disparity was slightly larger than at baseline, when the rate among homeless children was 16.1% and the general population absenteeism rate was 8.3%. The percentage of families placed in the shelter system based on their youngest child’s school address decreased from the baseline year, from 52.9% to 49.8%, which could account for greater difficulty in getting to school and increased absenteeism.
What is Measured? Ratio between the shelter use rates for children and adults.
What’s the Backstory? Homelessness is destabilizing for children and adults and can have detrimental short- and long-term effects. Children are a large proportion of NYC shelter users and are more likely to have cognitive, social, and behavioral problems than their peers in stable housing.
What Did We Find? Across the shelter system, the rate of shelter use for children (1,265.015 per 100,000) was over twice that of adults (559.439). The rate for children decreased by 37.078 from baseline, but the rate increased by 51.139 for adults, resulting in negligible change in the disparity.
What is Measured? Ratio between the average length of stay in shelters for families with children and single adults.
What’s the Backstory? Conditions and regulations in shelters may interrupt family routines and infringe on the privacy of children and parents. These challenges, exacerbated by the stressors of poverty, are physically and mentally taxing. Over the long term, these stressors also erode the number and quality of relationships family members are able to maintain.
What Did We Find? In 2018, the average length of stay in shelters for families with children increased to 438 days from 430 days at baseline, and the average length of stay for single adults increased from 329 to 401. These changes resulted in a smaller disparity between the two groups and a moderate positive change in score. There was a large disparity in shelter return rates between families who had been placed in subsidized housing and those who had been placed in unsubsidized housing: 1.5% of families with children placed in subsidized housing returned to the shelter system within a year, compared to 20.4% of families placed in unsubsidized housing.
Affordability of Housing
NYC moved closer to its goal of building and preserving up to 200,000 affordable housing units, with completion of 53,000 in 2016. However, city residents and community groups continue to debate how truly affordable these units are; many have been built for low-income residents, but some are slated for middle-income use. The contentiousness of affordable housing is indicative of how challenging this area is for New Yorkers across a wide range of income brackets.
To understand Affordability of Housing as a function of inequality, we used four indicators:
Race & Severe Rent Burden
Race & Homeownership
Race & Home Purchase Loan Denial
Sexual Orientation & Homeownership
Take a look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then look at each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of Asian and white renters who spend more than 50% of their income on rent.
What’s the Backstory? In the US, more than 8.5 million people face severe rent burden, which means they spend more than half of their income on rent. In NYC, almost three in 10 renters are severely rent burdened, and this disproportionately affects Hispanics and Asians.
What Did We Find? Severe rent burden refers to spending more than 50% of household income on rent. Hispanics (28.5%) and Asians (27.7%) were the most likely to be severely rent burdened, followed by blacks (27.6%) and whites (20.1%), and there was negligible change in the disparity between Asians and whites from baseline. Severe rent burden also varied according to disability and citizenship status: people with a disability were more likely to be severely rent burdened (35.7%), compared to people without a disability (24.7%), and people born outside the US were more likely to be severely rent burdened (26.6%) than those born in the US (25.5%), although the difference was small.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of Hispanics and whites who are homeowners.
What’s the Backstory? In addition to its economic benefits, homeownership affects health, education, community involvement, and neighborhood stability. In the US and in NYC, whites have historically been more likely to own homes than racial and ethnic minorities.
What Did We Find? Whites were the most likely to be homeowners at 41.9%, followed closely by Asians at 41.1%. Hispanics (10.9%) remained the least likely. Homeownership among blacks (30.3%) was higher than among Hispanics, but lower than among Asians and whites. Homeownership rates also varied by educational attainment and nativity. Individuals with less than a high school diploma were less likely to be homeowners (23.8%) than those with a high school diploma (30.9%). Among those with some college experience, 34.5% owned a home, while those with a bachelor’s degree and above (37.9%) were the most likely to be homeowners. People born in the US (33.6%) were more likely to own a home than those born outside the US (26.9%).
What is Measured? Ratio between the home purchase loan denial rates for black and white applicants.
What’s the Backstory? Homeownership has a host of benefits to individuals, families, and communities. Racial and ethnic minorities in the US are disproportionately likely to be denied home-mortgage loans, with denial rates among blacks and Hispanics more than twice those of whites.
What Did We Find? A higher number of whites (20,736) than blacks (4,342) applied for home purchase loans, yet the denial rate was higher for black applicants (15.9%) than it was for white applicants (10.7%); the rate for Hispanics (13.4%) and Asians (12.0%) fell between the two. The denial rate decreased somewhat across all racial groups from baseline, and there was negligible change in the disparity. Residents in Queens and Brooklyn had the smallest disparities in denial rates between black and white applicants (12.7% vs. 11.8%, and 17.4% vs. 12.1%, respectively). The greatest inequalities were found in Manhattan (21.1% vs. 9.1% for blacks and whites, respectively), Staten Island (15.9% vs. 8.8%), and the Bronx (18.3% vs. 11.8%).
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of lesbian/gay/bisexual and heterosexual individuals who are homeowners.
What’s the Backstory? Homeownership affects quality of life, including improved health and education and increased civic participation and neighborhood stability. Gay and lesbian couples are less likely to be homeowners than married heterosexual couples are, although they are more likely than unmarried heterosexual couples are.
What Did We Find? People who identified as heterosexual were more likely to be homeowners (32.8%) than people who identified as LGB (16.9%). The rates for both groups decreased from baseline (38.7% and 26.8%, respectively), but there was a greater decrease in homeownership among LBG individuals, widening the disparity and resulting in a large decrease in score. Homeownership rates varied by family structure as well: single parents were less likely to be homeowners (20.1%) than those in two-parent households (40.7%). There were also differences based on criminal record: people with a criminal record were less likely to be homeowners (23.0%) than people without a record (31.2%).
Quality of Housing
Finding quality housing, that is also affordable, remains a challenge for many New Yorkers. Things like safety, hygiene, and adequate space and heating may be taken for granted by advantaged groups, but for the most disadvantaged these are major concerns. A tight supply of affordable housing units that also meet quality standards is a continuous problem.
To understand Quality of Housing as a function of inequality, we used four indicators:
Race & Overcrowding
Income & Heat/Hot Water
Income & Vermin Infestation
Public Housing & Murder
Look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then go to each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of Hispanic and white renter households that have more than 1.5 people per room.
What’s the Backstory? Overcrowding reflects economic disparities and can affect mental health and child development and increase the transmission of infectious disease. In the US, the rate of overcrowding is disproportionately high among racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Hispanics.
What Did We Find? Households were considered severely overcrowded when they had more than 1.5 residents per room. By this measure, 4.6% of renter households were severely overcrowded. The severe overcrowding rate for Hispanics decreased from 6.6% at baseline to 5.8%, while the rate for whites increased from 1.4% to 2.0%, resulting in moderate change in the disparity. The severe overcrowding rate for Asians was greater than for Hispanics (6.0%) in the current year, while blacks fell between the other racial groups with a rate of 3.0%.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who have had problems with heat or hot water in the past year.
What’s the Backstory? In addition to increasing health risks, insufficient heat or hot water can affect mental health as well as children’s development and academic performance. People with lower incomes are more likely to have low-quality housing and problems with heat or hot water than people with higher incomes.
What Did We Find? The percentage of people making less than $30,000 per year who reported having had a problem with their heat or hot water (41.1%) greatly increased from baseline (24.0%). The rate increased only slightly for people making more than $150,000 per year (from 12.5% to 13.8%), resulting in a moderate increase in the disparity between the two groups. The likelihood of having heat or hot water problems varied by race and ethnicity as well: Hispanics (33.5%) and blacks (33.8%) were more likely to report having had a problem than whites (13.5%) and Asians (10.6%).
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who have had problems with vermin in the past year.
What’s the Backstory? Insects and rodents are often present in poor-quality housing, which affects residents’ health and wellbeing and is more common among people with lower income than those with higher income. Vermin are also associated with asthma and allergies, and can transmit disease.
What Did We Find? The disparity for vermin infestation according to income persists: over two thirds (68.8%) of those making less than $30,000 a year reported having had a problem with vermin, compared to 29.0% of those making more than $150,000. Although rates increased for both the bottom and top income groups, those making less than $30,000 saw a much larger increase, resulting in a widening disparity compared to baseline and a moderate decrease in score. The likelihood of vermin infestation varies by race as well: Hispanics (64.2%), Asians (52.9%), and blacks (48.2%) were more likely to have had problems with vermin than whites (38.7%).
What is Measured? Ratio between the murder rates in NYCHA housing developments and in the rest of NYC.
What’s the Backstory? Violent crime affects more than just victims; exposure to violence has serious mental and even physical repercussions. Violent crime in US public housing developments occurs more than in otherwise similar urban areas, and in NYC the murder rate is higher in public housing than it is in the remainder of the city.
What Did We Find? There was negligible change in the disparity in murder rates within and outside of NYCHA housing developments from the baseline year. In total, 15.1% of murders citywide occurred within NYCHA developments, and the murder rate within NYCHA (11.217 per 100,000) remained more than three times the rate in the rest of NYC (3.013). Regarding shooting incidents, 19.8% of shootings were located within NYCHA, and the shooting rate within NYCHA (39.770 per 100,000) was over 5 times higher than the rate outside of NYCHA (7.691 per 100,000).
Neighborhood
Place matters. High-poverty neighborhoods perform worse than middle- or high-income ones on a number of quality of life and health measures. Residents of high-poverty neighborhoods are typically representative of the most disadvantaged groups. They experience crime, addiction, and mistrust of their neighbors. The social cohesion present in high income neighborhoods may be absent in lower income ones: low-income residents are more likely than their higher income peers to feel their neighbors do not help one another or that their neighborhood is not family friendly, and often it is racial or ethnic minorities who live in these areas. On the other hand, it may take time for social cohesion to develop, and housing stability is also important for family wellbeing. Therefore, we also included a measure of housing tenure.
To understand Neighborhood as a function of inequality, we used four indicators:
Race & Neighborhood Family Friendliness
Income & Trust in Neighbors
Income & Neighborhood Family Friendliness
Sexual Orientation & Housing Stability
Take a look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then explore each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of blacks and whites who think their neighborhood is not a good place to raise a family.
What’s the Backstory? A neighborhood’s family friendliness can have a positive impact on a family’s functioning and resiliency. Furthermore, the social cohesion of a neighborhood, which is closely related to family friendliness, is associated with better mental wellbeing and self-reported physical health.
What Did We Find? The disparity between blacks and whites who think their neighborhood is not a good place to raise a family decreased considerably from baseline. The rate for blacks decreased from 30.5% to 25.9%, while the rate for whites increased from 11.6% to 19.9%. Among all racial groups, Hispanics were most likely to feel their neighborhood was not a good place to raise a family (37.7%) and Asians were the least likely (19.2%). Across the five boroughs, residents of the Bronx were most likely to disagree that their neighborhood was family friendly (42.7%), followed by residents of Brooklyn (29.2%), Manhattan (28.4%), Queens (16.5%), and Staten Island (16.0%).
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who think their neighbors are not willing to help one another.
What’s the Backstory? Trust among neighbors reflects social cohesion, which is more often found in high-income than low-income neighborhoods. Stronger relationships within a community are associated with better physical and mental health and with lower levels of violence and crime.
What Did We Find? Respondents in the lowest income group reported lower levels of trust in their neighbors than respondents in the highest income group: 36.3% of those with incomes below $30,000, compared to 23.8% of those making more than $150,000, felt their neighbors were not willing to help each other. Though rates for both the bottom and top income groups have increased from baseline (from 32.5% and 10.4%, respectively), the rate for the top income group has increased considerably more, resulting in a much smaller disparity and a large positive change in score. Trust in neighbors also varied by race: 32.6% of Hispanics, 27.2% of Asians, 28.2% of blacks, and 24.1% of whites reported that they did not think their neighbors were willing to help one another.
What is Measured? Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who think their neighborhood is not a good place to raise a family.
What’s the Backstory? A neighborhood’s family friendliness can have a positive impact on a family’s functioning and resiliency. Furthermore, the social cohesion of a neighborhood, which is closely related to family friendliness, is associated with better mental wellbeing and self-reported physical health.
What Did We Find? The percentage of people who disagree that their neighborhood is a good place to raise a family increased for people making less than $30,000 (from 32.1% to 35.2%), but decreased for people making more than $150,000 (from 14.5% to 13.0%), resulting in a larger disparity and a slight decrease in score. Perceptions of family friendliness also varied by religion: Jewish residents were least likely to report disagreement that their neighborhood was family friendly (10.0%), while Muslims (42.3%), Atheists (34.6%), Catholics (25.6%), those with other religious beliefs (29.1%), and Protestants (18.6%) were considerably more likely to disagree.
What is Measured? Ratio between the mean years spent at their current address for lesbian/gay/bisexual and heterosexual individuals.
What’s the Backstory? Housing stability, reflected in part by longevity in a home, contributes to family wellbeing and neighborhood social cohesion. In the US, gay and lesbian couples may have shorter housing tenures than their heterosexual counterparts.
What Did We Find? This year, there was a small increase from the baseline year in the disparity between the average number of years that people who identified as heterosexual (14.54) and people identifying as LGB (11.37) had lived at their current address. However, the mean years increased for both groups from baseline. Among racial and ethnic groups, whites had the longest average tenure (15.07), which was only slightly longer than blacks (14.92), followed by Hispanics (13.98) and Asians (10.49).
