CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE

FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK

Community
Risk Ranking
Child Well-being
in New York City’s
59 Community Districts

December 2018
We educate and mobilize New Yorkers
to make the city a better place for children.
Our advocacy combines public policy research
and data analysis with citizen action. We cast
light on the issues, educate the public, engage
allies, and identify and promote practical
solutions to ensure that every New York City
child is healthy, housed, educated, and safe.

For more information about CCC, visit

www.cccnewyork.org.

Jennifer March, Ph.D.

Executive Director
Project Staff
Bijan Kimiagar
Associate Executive Director For Research
Sophia Halkitis
Data Analyst
Marija Drobnjak
Data Analyst
Report design by Michael Bierman

iv CCC Community Risk Ranking

CCC Community
Risk Ranking:
Child Well-Being in New York City’s
59 Community Districts
CCC’s Community Risk Ranking looks at 18 different indicators across six domains of
child well-being—Economic Security, Housing, Health, Education, Youth, and Family
& Community—to determine where risks concentrate in New York City. Identifying
where risks concentrate is important, as research tells us that the presence of multi-
ple risk factors can have cumulative negative effects on children’s development.
In order to identify communities where families
are more likely to face risks, we rank New York City’s
levels of risk
59 community districts from highest to lowest risk,
In each domain and overall, we have ranked
within each domain and overall, and place community
New York City’s 59 community districts from
districts into one of five risk categories: highest risk,
highest risk (#1) to lowest risk (#59).
moderate-high risk, moderate risk, moderate-low risk,
and lowest risk. Highest

In this edition of the Community Risk Ranking,

we report the individual indicators in each domain
Risk
1
as well as the index scores. These data tell a detailed
story of how different life can be across the city for
chil­dren and their families.
Moderate
High Risk
Neighborhoods in New York City are continually in flux.
Changes may be occurring in similar or even op­posing
directions from one neighborhood to the other. In each
domain, we identify community districts that experi-
enced the biggest change in their risk ranking between
2009 to 2016 and highlight their year-over-year changes Moderate
for the three indicators in the domain. Risk

Knowing where disparities are declining or increasing

helps community members, policymakers, service pro-
viders, and philanthropic organizations prioritize invest-
ments and develop new programs or initiatives to achieve
better outcomes for children and families in the city. Moderate
Low Risk

Lowest
Risk
59

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 1

We encourage readers to visit Keeping Track Online
(data.cccnewyork.org), home to our online data
visualization tools, which contain data for hundreds
Community Risk Ranking
of indicators related to child and family well-being. Domains and Indicators
These tools allow users to more deeply explore the
data behind the Community Risk Ranking and compare Economic
data for every indicator, across multiple years, and
for all 59 community districts. Security
Child Poverty Rate
This publication serves as a starting point for further
discussion and action aimed at reducing barriers to Median Income for Families with Children
well-being for children and families, and the disparities Parental Employment Instability
that exist between community districts. There is also a
need to delve deeper and address disparities within com-
munity districts. To that end, CCC continues to conduct Housing
community-based assessments of both assets and needs Severe Rent Burden
in specific neighborhoods of the city. In addition to ana-
Rental Overcrowding
lyzing publicly available data to highlight welcomed and
worrisome trends, we speak with service providers and Families Entering Homeless Shelters
residents about their needs and the resources that are
available to them. We engage in this work to answer some
of the questions that the Community Risk Ranking raises: Health
Why are trends in some community districts going in the Infant Mortality Rate
opposite direction of citywide trends? What is working
Low Birth Weight Babies
to ameliorate or address risks that can be replicated in
other parts of the city? What barriers do residents face Children without Health Insurance
that prevent them from accessing needed resources or
services? We hope the Community Risk Ranking inspires
more community level work to identify solutions and im-
Education
prove outcomes in communities where risks concentrate. Early Education Enrollment
All children in New York City must have the opportunities Elementary and Middle School
they deserve to be healthy, housed, educated and safe. Reading and Math Test Pass Rate
High School Graduation Rate

A Note on Index Scores

Calculating index scores allows for summarizing
and comparing outcomes in the 59 community
Youth
Teen Birth Rate
districts across multiple indicators. We report the
Teen Idleness
raw index scores to complement the ranking and
Youth Unemployment
illustrate the variation between community districts.
Larger differences between the highest and lowest
index scores suggest a wider range of outcomes. Family &
The index scores on the Overall Risk Ranking
page reflect outcomes for all 18 indicators in our
Community
Community Risk Ranking, while the index scores Children in Single-Parent Families
on each of the following domain pages utilize Adults without a High School Degree
the three indicators in that domain. Violent Felony Rate

To explore these and other indicators

of child well-being in New York City, visit
data.cccnewyork.org.

2 CCC Community Risk Ranking

New York City
Community
Districts
Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens
Mott Haven B01
Hunts Point B02
Morrisania B03
Concourse/Highbridge B04
University Heights B05
East Tremont B06
Bedford Park B07
Riverdale B08
Unionport/Soundview B09
Throgs Neck B10
Pelham Parkway B11
Williamsbridge B12
Williamsburg/Greenpoint K01
Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts K02
Bedford Stuyvesant K03
Bushwick K04
East New York K05
Park Slope K06
Sunset Park K07
Crown Heights North K08
Crown Heights South K09
Bay Ridge K10
Bensonhurst K11
Borough Park K12
Coney Island K13
Flatbush/Midwood K14
Sheepshead Bay K15
Brownsville K16
East Flatbush K17
Canarsie K18
Battery Park/Tribeca M01
Greenwich Village M02
Lower East Side M03
Chelsea/Clinton M04
Midtown Business District M05
Murray Hill/Stuyvesant M06
Upper West Side M07
Upper East Side M08
Manhattanville M09
Central Harlem M10
East Harlem M11
Washington Heights M12
Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 3
Astoria Q01
Sunnyside/Woodside Q02
Jackson Heights Q03
Elmhurst/Corona Q04
Ridgewood/Glendale Q05
Rego Park/Forest Hills Q06
Flushing Q07
Fresh Meadows/Briarwood Q08
Woodhaven Q09
Howard Beach Q10
Bayside Q11
Jamaica/St. Albans Q12
Queens Village Q13
The Rockaways Q14
Staten Island
St. George S01
South Beach S02
Tottenville S03
Overall Risk Ranking
CCC’s Community Risk Ranking provides Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
a composite picture of the concentration 1 Mott Haven (B01) 0.71
1 Hunts Point (B02) 0.71
of risks to child well-being across New York 3 Morrisania (B03) 0.67

City’s 59 community districts (CDs). This 3

5
East Tremont (B06)
University Heights (B05)
0.67
0.66

measure combines all six domains of 6

7
Brownsville (K16)
Concourse/Highbridge (B04)
0.66
0.65
child well-being. 8
9
Bedford Park (B07)
East New York (K05)
0.62
0.61
10 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 0.61
level of risk ▼ moderate high risk ▼
n Highest Risk 11 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.55
n Moderate High Risk 12 Central Harlem (M10) 0.55
n Moderate Risk 13 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.54
n Moderate Low Risk 14 East Harlem (M11) 0.53
n Lowest Risk 15 Bushwick (K04) 0.52
16 East Flatbush (K17) 0.51
17 Pelham Parkway (B11) 0.49
18 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.48
19 St. George (S01) 0.48
20 Washington Heights (M12) 0.47
21 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.47
22 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.46
23 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.46
▼ moderate risk ▼
24 Howard Beach (Q10) 0.46
25 Borough Park (K12) 0.45
26 Sunset Park (K07) 0.44
27 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.44
28 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.44
29 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.43
30 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.43
31 Coney Island (K13) 0.42
32 Flushing (Q07) 0.41
33 Manhattanville (M09) 0.40
34 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.40
34 Canarsie (K18) 0.40
36 Queens Village (Q13) 0.39
37 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.38
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY 38 Riverdale (B08) 0.38
Mott Haven (B01) Upper East Side (M08) 39 Astoria (Q01) 0.35
40 Lower East Side (M03) 0.34
Domain Rankings Domain Rankings
41 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.34
Economic Housing Economic Housing 42 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.33

7 5 59 52
Security Security
▼ moderate low risk ▼
43 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.32
44 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.30
44 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.30

20 4 59 59
Health Education Health Education 46 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.28
47 South Beach (S02) 0.26
48 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 0.25
49 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 0.25
50 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 0.23
Youth Family and Youth Family and 51 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.23

2 1 56 59
Community Community
52 Park Slope (K06) 0.22
▼ lowest risk ▼
53 Tottenville (S03) 0.19
54 Bayside (Q11) 0.18
55 Upper West Side (M07) 0.14
56 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.13
57 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.12
58 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.11
59 Upper East Side (M08) 0.07

4 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Community Districts Trending Toward Higher Risk
All the community districts highlighted below experienced notable changes that increased their overall risk ranking.
Pelham Parkway, St. George and Flatbush/Midwood moved from Moderate Risk to Moderate-High Risk.
Queens Village, Flushing, and Sheepshead Bay were Moderate-Low Risk in 2009, but Moderate Risk in 2016.

Community Districts with Notable Trends Towards Higher Risk

■ 2009  n 2016

East Tremont (B06) 3 6

Pelham Parkway (B11) 17 24
St. George (S01) 19 27
Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 21 28
Howard Beach (Q10) 24 35
Flushing (Q07) 32 45
Queens Village (Q13) 36 44
Sheepshead Bay (K15) 41 47

1 59
Highest Moderate Moderate Moderate Lowest
Risk High Risk Risk Low Risk Risk

Community Districts Trending Toward Lower Risk

All the community districts below experienced changes that decreased their overall risk ranking. Bedford Stuyvesant
moved the from Highest Risk category in 2009 to Moderate-High Risk in 2016, Rockaways moved from Moderate-High
to Moderate Risk, and Fresh Meadows moved from Moderate Risk to Moderate-Low risk.

Community Districts with Notable Trends Towards Lower Risk

■ 2009  n 2016

Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 5 13

Washington Heights (M12) 14 20
Crown Heights North (K08) 19 28
The Rockaways (Q14) 18 29
Manhattanville (M09) 23 33
Crown Heights South (K09) 26 34
Lower East Side (M03) 33 40
Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 29 42
Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 38 46

1 59
Highest Moderate Moderate Moderate Lowest
Risk High Risk Risk Low Risk Risk

Notable Community District Trends

On the following pages, we highlight year-to-year trends for the community districts with the largest difference
(both positive and negative) in their ranking between 2009 and 2016 within the domain, as well as their overall risk ranking.

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 5

Economic Security
Children’s well-being is tied closely to Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
the economic security of their families 1 University Heights (B05) 0.94
2 East Harlem (M11) 0.93
and communities. This domain illustrates 3 Borough Park (K12) 0.83

whether children live in households where 4

5
Central Harlem (M10)
Concourse/Highbridge (B04)
0.83
0.83

resources are adequate to meet their 6

7
Bushwick (K04)
Hunts Point (B02)
0.82
0.82
basic material needs. 8
9
Mott Haven (B01)
East Tremont (B06)
0.82
0.80
Indicators: Child poverty, Median Income for Families with Children, 10 Morrisania (B03) 0.80
Parental Employment Instability 11 Bedford Park (B07) 0.79
12 East New York (K05) 0.75
▼ moderate high risk ▼
level of risk 13 Brownsville (K16) 0.74
n Highest Risk 14 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.72
n Moderate High Risk 15 Manhattanville (M09) 0.70
n Moderate Risk 16 Sunset Park (K07) 0.70
n Moderate Low Risk 17 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 0.69
n Lowest Risk 18 Coney Island (K13) 0.67
19 Washington Heights (M12) 0.66
20 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.66
21 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.65
22 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.64
23 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.63
24 Lower East Side (M03) 0.63
25 St. George (S01) 0.63
26 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.61
27 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.60
28 Pelham Parkway (B11) 0.59
▼ moderate risk ▼
29 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.57
30 East Flatbush (K17) 0.55
31 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.54
32 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.53
33 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.52
34 Astoria (Q01) 0.50
35 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.49
36 Flushing (Q07) 0.49
37 Riverdale (B08) 0.48
38 Howard Beach (Q10) 0.47
39 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.46
40 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.46
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY
41 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.45
University Heights (B05) Upper East Side (M08) 42 Queens Village (Q13) 0.45
Child Poverty Rate Child Poverty Rate 43 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.44

56.9% 2.3%
44 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.44
45 Canarsie (K18) 0.42
▼ moderate low risk ▼

Median Income, Families w/ Children Median Income, Families w/ Children 46 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.36

$20,706 $226,321
47 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 0.36
48 South Beach (S02) 0.35
49 Bayside (Q11) 0.34
Parental Employment Instability Parental Employment Instability 50 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 0.33

50.6% 5.5%
51 Tottenville (S03) 0.31
52 Park Slope (K06) 0.30
▼ lowest risk ▼
53 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 0.16
In University Heights, which ranks highest risk in the economic security
54 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.16
domain, children were over 25 times more likely to live in poverty than 55 Upper West Side (M07) 0.12
children in the Upper East Side, which ranks lowest risk. Median income 56 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.03
57 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.03
for families with children in the Upper East Side was nearly 11 times higher 58 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.02
than the median income for families with children in University Heights. 59 Upper East Side (M08) 0.01

6 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Economic Security Indicators Data, 2016 Notable Community District Trends
Parental
Child Median Employment A focus on trends in Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01)
Poverty Income Instability
▼ highest risk ▼
and Flushing (Q07).
1 University Heights (B05) 56.9% $20,706 50.6% n Flushing  n Williamsburg/Greenpoint  n New York City
2 East Harlem (M11) 47.0% $28,491 60.9%
3 Borough Park (K12) 44.5% $40,617 50.8% Child Poverty
4 Central Harlem (M10) 42.6% $44,854 53.6%
5 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 45.7% $30,623 46.4% 53.6%
6 Bushwick (K04) 43.5% $34,952 48.8%
7 Hunts Point (B02) 47.0% $29,385 42.8%
8 Mott Haven (B01) 47.0% $29,385 42.8%
9 East Tremont (B06) 46.9% $28,038 39.0%
35.0%
10 Morrisania (B03) 46.9% $28,038 39.0%
11 Bedford Park (B07) 43.1% $34,167 43.8% 27.1% 26.6%
12 East New York (K05) 41.0% $36,682 40.1%
▼ moderate high risk ▼
17.3%
13 Brownsville (K16) 38.0% $38,562 41.9%
14 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 36.2% $40,591 40.8% 9.2%
15 Manhattanville (M09) 36.5% $63,719 43.2%
16 Sunset Park (K07) 37.6% $45,134 37.1%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
17 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 37.1% $41,453 34.8%
18 Coney Island (K13) 28.6% $51,028 43.1%
Median Income for Families with Children*
19 Washington Heights (M12) 32.3% $38,656 34.4%
20 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 27.9% $51,721 40.9%
$75,848
21 The Rockaways (Q14) 30.8% $58,343 39.5%
22 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 35.0% $54,509 31.6%
23 Williamsbridge (B12) 27.7% $48,580 36.5%
24 Lower East Side (M03) 25.4% $45,508 37.8%
25 St. George (S01) 33.2% $66,966 34.5% $57,976
26 Crown Heights North (K08) 27.4% $50,687 34.0% $55,049
27 Throgs Neck (B10) 25.6% $60,373 36.2% $54,509
28 Pelham Parkway (B11) 27.7% $45,921 28.4%
▼ moderate risk ▼ $49,920
29 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 21.7% $40,282 29.3%
30 East Flatbush (K17) 20.4% $45,270 29.0%
31 Jackson Heights (Q03) 21.1% $45,093 26.8% $31,179
32 Crown Heights South (K09) 23.0% $56,686 26.0%
33 Bensonhurst (K11) 18.4% $52,997 27.4% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
34 Astoria (Q01) 17.4% $55,588 26.0%
*Data are adjusted to 2016 dollars using the CPI-U-R-S
35 Bay Ridge (K10) 22.2% $67,160 23.3%
36 Flushing (Q07) 17.3% $49,920 23.7%
37 Riverdale (B08) 23.8% $60,737 17.7% Parental Employment Instability
38 Howard Beach (Q10) 16.6% $72,249 27.3%
39 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 15.7% $64,434 23.9%
40 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 14.3% $61,441 24.4%
41 Woodhaven (Q09) 17.5% $67,178 22.1% 51.4%
42 Queens Village (Q13) 15.4% $83,462 27.5%
43 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 20.4% $71,377 18.6%
44 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 16.9% $60,598 18.6%
45 Canarsie (K18) 11.4% $82,088 26.1%
▼ moderate low risk ▼ 32.5% 31.7%
46 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 11.6% $77,606 15.5%
47 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 16.6% $113,904 20.0% 31.6%
48 South Beach (S02) 14.4% $110,014 19.8% 19.5%
49 Bayside (Q11) 9.7% $101,052 18.9% 23.7%
50 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 13.4% $114,531 18.3%
51 Tottenville (S03) 5.6% $107,863 21.4% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
52 Park Slope (K06) 10.0% $167,867 30.3%
▼ lowest risk ▼
53 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 4.5% $164,810 11.7%
54 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 4.5% $164,810 11.7%
55 Upper West Side (M07) 7.2% $232,016 19.4%
56 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 4.8% $226,721 6.4%
57 Greenwich Village (M02) 4.8% $226,721 6.4%
58 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 1.8% $216,962 5.5%
59 Upper East Side (M08) 2.3% $226,321 5.5%

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 7

Housing
A stable home is key to children’s healthy Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
development. The housing domain contains 1 University Heights (B05) 0.72
2 Morrisania (B03) 0.69
indicators that measure housing affordability, 3 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 0.69

conditions, and stability within a community. 4

5
Borough Park (K12)
Mott Haven (B01)
0.68
0.66
Indicators: Severe Rent Burden, Rental Overcrowding, 6 Bedford Park (B07) 0.64
7 Hunts Point (B02) 0.64
Families Entering Homeless Shelters
8 East Tremont (B06) 0.64
▼ moderate high risk ▼
level of risk 9 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.57
n Highest Risk 10 East New York (K05) 0.57
n Moderate High Risk 11 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.53
n Moderate Risk 12 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 0.52
n Moderate Low Risk 13 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.49
n Lowest Risk 14 Sunset Park (K07) 0.48
15 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.47
▼ moderate risk ▼
16 Brownsville (K16) 0.45
17 Flushing (Q07) 0.44
18 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.43
19 East Flatbush (K17) 0.41
20 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.40
21 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.37
22 Bushwick (K04) 0.37
23 St. George (S01) 0.36
24 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.36
25 Washington Heights (M12) 0.35
26 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.35
27 Pelham Parkway (B11) 0.34
▼ moderate low risk ▼
28 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.32
29 Howard Beach (Q10) 0.32
30 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.32
31 Coney Island (K13) 0.31
32 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.30
33 Riverdale (B08) 0.30
34 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 0.29
35 South Beach (S02) 0.29
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY 36 Manhattanville (M09) 0.29
University Heights (B05) Tottenville (S03) 37 Canarsie (K18) 0.29
38 Central Harlem (M10) 0.28
Severe Rent Burden Severe Rent Burden

39.3% 22.3%
39 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.28
40 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.27
41 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.27
42 East Harlem (M11) 0.25
Rental Overcrowding Rental Overcrowding

17.4% 2.8%
43 Queens Village (Q13) 0.25
▼ lowest risk ▼
44 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.20
45 Lower East Side (M03) 0.19
Families Entering Homeless Shelters Families Entering Homeless Shelters

10.8 0.2
46 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.19
47 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.17
48 Astoria (Q01) 0.16
49 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.16
In University Heights, which ranks highest risk in the housing domain, 50 Park Slope (K06) 0.13
four out of every ten households spent at least half of their income on 51 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.12
rent, compared to about two in ten households in Tottenville, which 52 Upper East Side (M08) 0.10
53 Upper West Side (M07) 0.10
ranks lowest risk in the housing domain. Families in University Heights 54 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.10
were more than 50 times more likely to enter a homeless shelter 55 Bayside (Q11) 0.09
56 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 0.08
than families in Tottenville. 57 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.08
58 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 0.08
59 Tottenville (S03) 0.08

8 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Housing Indicators Data, 2016 Notable Community District Trends
Families Enter- Overcrowded
Severe Rent ing Homeless Rental A focus on trends in Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01)
Burden Shelters Housing
▼ highest risk ▼
and Howard Beach (Q10)
1 University Heights (B05) 39.3% 10.8 17.4% n Howard Beach   ●● Williamsburg/Greenpoint  n New York City
2 Morrisania (B03) 33.0% 14.5 14.6%
3 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 33.6% 10.4 20.7% Severe Rent Burden
4 Borough Park (K12) 45.7% 0.6 26.1%
5 Mott Haven (B01) 32.4% 13.5 13.9%
6 Bedford Park (B07) 33.1% 7.3 22.4%
7 Hunts Point (B02) 32.4% 12.9 13.9% 27.8%
8 East Tremont (B06) 33.0% 11.9 14.6%
▼ moderate high risk ▼
9 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 37.2% 1.5 24.0% 27.7% 27.7%
10 East New York (K05) 30.2% 10.3 14.6%
11 Jackson Heights (Q03) 36.4% 1.3 21.9% 26.3% 26.1%
12 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 30.9% 7.4 15.2%
13 Williamsbridge (B12) 32.4% 8.7 9.8%
14 Sunset Park (K07) 31.0% 1.2 23.0% 19.6%
15 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 33.8% 2.0 18.7%
▼ moderate risk ▼ 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
16 Brownsville (K16) 34.6% 8.8 5.6%
17 Flushing (Q07) 38.0% 0.3 15.9%
Rental Overcrowding
18 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 28.2% 8.5 9.6%
19 East Flatbush (K17) 31.4% 5.4 10.6%
20 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 29.3% 5.4 11.3%
21 Bensonhurst (K11) 30.5% 0.5 16.7%
22 Bushwick (K04) 32.2% 4.1 9.3%
23 St. George (S01) 31.8% 3.3 10.2%
24 Bay Ridge (K10) 30.5% 0.4 15.8% 21.3%
25 Washington Heights (M12) 27.0% 2.4 14.6%
26 Crown Heights South (K09) 29.7% 2.9 11.6%
27 Pelham Parkway (B11) 25.0% 4.3 12.9%
▼ moderate low risk ▼
11.3%
28 The Rockaways (Q14) 27.0% 4.7 9.2% 10.0%
10.5%
29 Howard Beach (Q10) 34.0% 1.6 8.8%
30 Woodhaven (Q09) 29.5% 1.5 12.2% 5.4% 8.8%
31 Coney Island (K13) 28.7% 2.1 10.9%
32 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 28.5% 0.6 13.0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
33 Riverdale (B08) 30.8% 1.9 8.7%
34 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 30.3% 0.1 11.9%
Families Entering Homeless Shelters
35 South Beach (S02) 31.3% 0.4 10.4%
36 Manhattanville (M09) 28.4% 3.2 8.1%
4.0
37 Canarsie (K18) 25.3% 2.7 11.2% 3.8
38 Central Harlem (M10) 21.2% 5.7 9.0%
39 Crown Heights North (K08) 29.9% 3.7 5.2%
40 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 27.4% 0.9 11.5%
41 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 26.1% 1.8 10.5%
42 East Harlem (M11) 17.7% 6.3 8.8%
2.4
43 Queens Village (Q13) 28.8% 2.2 6.7%
▼ lowest risk ▼ 1.8
44 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 23.5% 1.0 9.1% 1.3
45 Lower East Side (M03) 22.0% 2.1 7.8% 1.6
46 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 21.6% 0.4 10.7%
47 Throgs Neck (B10) 20.6% 2.7 7.0%
48 Astoria (Q01) 21.1% 1.8 7.3% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
49 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 17.6% 3.6 7.0%
50 Park Slope (K06) 20.1% 1.6 6.4%
51 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 23.6% 0.2 5.1%
52 Upper East Side (M08) 20.8% 0.2 5.9%
53 Upper West Side (M07) 23.3% 0.9 2.6%
54 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 20.3% 0.9 4.5%
55 Bayside (Q11) 20.5% 0.1 5.5%
56 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 20.3% 0.4 4.5%
57 Greenwich Village (M02) 17.6% 0.1 7.0%
58 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 16.0% 1.6 5.5%
59 Tottenville (S03) 22.3% 0.2 2.8%

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 9

Health
A child’s physical, mental, and emotional Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
health is critical to his or her overall well- 1 Brownsville (K16) 0.72
2 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.65
being. The health domain contains indicators 3 Queens Village (Q13) 0.64

that reflect both health outcomes and 4

5
East Flatbush (K17)
Howard Beach (Q10)
0.63
0.61

access to healthcare. 6 Pelham Parkway (B11)

▼ moderate high risk ▼
0.61

Indicators: Infant Mortality Rate, Low Birthweight Babies, 7 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.55
Children without Health Insurance 8 Central Harlem (M10) 0.55
9 Canarsie (K18) 0.55
10 East Harlem (M11) 0.54
level of risk 11 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.51
n Highest Risk 12 East New York (K05) 0.51
n Moderate High Risk 13 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.48
n Moderate Risk 14 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 0.47
n Moderate Low Risk ▼ moderate risk ▼
n Lowest Risk 15 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.44
16 Flushing (Q07) 0.44
17 St. George (S01) 0.44
18 Bushwick (K04) 0.43
19 University Heights (B05) 0.43
20 Mott Haven (B01) 0.43
21 Morrisania (B03) 0.42
22 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.41
23 Bedford Park (B07) 0.40
24 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.40
25 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.40
26 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.39
27 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 0.38
28 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.37
29 Hunts Point (B02) 0.37
▼ moderate low risk ▼
30 East Tremont (B06) 0.33
31 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.33
32 Coney Island (K13) 0.33
33 Riverdale (B08) 0.33
34 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.31
35 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.30
36 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.30
37 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.29
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY
38 Astoria (Q01) 0.29
Brownsville (K16) Upper East Side (M08) 39 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.28
Infant Mortality Rate Infant Mortality Rate 40 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.27

5.4 1.8
41 Washington Heights (M12) 0.26
42 South Beach (S02) 0.24
43 Manhattanville (M09) 0.24
Low Birthweight Low Birthweight 44 Park Slope (K06) 0.24

13.2% 6.4%
45 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.23
46 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.22
▼ lowest risk ▼

Children without Health Insurance Children without Health Insurance 47 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.20

3.4% 0.1%
48 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.20
49 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 0.19
50 Upper West Side (M07) 0.19
51 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 0.18
Infants were over three times more likely to die before their first birthday
52 Borough Park (K12) 0.18
in Brownsville, which ranks highest risk in the health domain, compared to 53 Bayside (Q11) 0.18
the Upper East Side, which ranks lowest risk. Uninsured rates for children 54 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 0.17
55 Lower East Side (M03) 0.16
citywide are historically low, however, the percentage of children lacking 56 Sunset Park (K07) 0.14
health insurance was substantively higher in Brownsville than in the 57 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.13
58 Tottenville (S03) 0.10
Upper East Side.
59 Upper East Side (M08) 0.09

10 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Health Indicators Data, 2016 Notable Community District Trends
Low
Birthweight Uninsured A focus on trends in Washington Heights (M12)
IMR Babies Children
▼ highest risk ▼
and Flushing (Q07).
1 Brownsville (K16) 5.4 13.2% 3.4% n Flushing   n Washington Heights  n New York City
2 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 6.1 12.3% 2.3%
3 Queens Village (Q13) 5.6 12.6% 2.4% Infant Mortality Rate
4 East Flatbush (K17) 8.5 9.9% 1.8% 5.3
5 Howard Beach (Q10) 5.5 11.6% 2.6%
6 Pelham Parkway (B11) 7.8 8.4% 3.2%
▼ moderate high risk ▼
7 Woodhaven (Q09) 4.4 9.3% 4.2%
8 Central Harlem (M10) 6.7 9.5% 2.2% 4.2
9 Canarsie (K18) 5 10.3% 2.9%
10 East Harlem (M11) 5.2 10.9% 2.1% 4.1
11 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 4.3 8.6% 4.1%
12 East New York (K05) 6.2 10.8% 0.8% 3.5
13 Williamsbridge (B12) 6.2 9.3% 1.5% 3.0
2.9
14 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 5.8 9.7% 1.4%
▼ moderate risk ▼
15 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 4.9 8.8% 2.2% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
16 Flushing (Q07) 3 5.8% 6.0%
17 St. George (S01) 4.8 8.8% 2.2%
Low Birthweight Babies
18 Bushwick (K04) 3.4 8.7% 3.4%
19 University Heights (B05) 4.6 9.6% 1.6%
20 Mott Haven (B01) 4.6 9.6% 1.5%
21 Morrisania (B03) 4.8 10.7% 0.5%
22 Jackson Heights (Q03) 4.6 7.2% 3.2%
23 Bedford Park (B07) 4.2 9.0% 1.9% 8.8%
24 The Rockaways (Q14) 5.2 8.5% 1.4% 8.3%
25 Crown Heights North (K08) 4.9 9.7% 0.8%
7.6%
26 Bensonhurst (K11) 3.6 7.5% 3.3% 7.7%
27 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 3.4 9.5% 1.7% 5.8%
28 Throgs Neck (B10) 3.9 9.5% 1.2%
4.8%
29 Hunts Point (B02) 2.7 10.2% 1.5%
▼ moderate low risk ▼
30 East Tremont (B06) 4.1 9.4% 0.5%
31 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 1.8 7.1% 4.0%
32 Coney Island (K13) 4.7 6.7% 2.0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
33 Riverdale (B08) 4.3 8.6% 0.8%
34 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 2.3 9.8% 1.1%
Children without Health Insurance
35 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 2.1 7.1% 3.2%
36 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 3.3 7.1% 2.2%
37 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 3 6.8% 2.6%
38 Astoria (Q01) 5 7.2% 0.6%
39 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 3.1 6.9% 2.3%
40 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 2.2 6.5% 3.0% 8.3%
41 Washington Heights (M12) 4.2 7.7% 0.4%
42 South Beach (S02) 2.8 6.9% 1.8% 5.8% 6.0%
43 Manhattanville (M09) 5 6.8% 0.0%
44 Park Slope (K06) 2.3 5.4% 3.2%
45 Greenwich Village (M02) 1.7 6.7% 2.6% 4.5%
46 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 2.8 6.2% 1.8% 2.0%
▼ lowest risk ▼ 0.4%
47 Crown Heights South (K09) 3.8 6.1% 0.9%
48 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 2.5 7.9% 0.6% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
49 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 2.4 7.2% 0.9%
50 Upper West Side (M07) 2.3 8.1% 0.3%
51 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 2.8 6.7% 0.9%
52 Borough Park (K12) 2.2 5.6% 2.1%
53 Bayside (Q11) 1.9 5.7% 2.2%
54 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 1.8 7.0% 1.1%
55 Lower East Side (M03) 3.2 6.8% 0.0%
56 Sunset Park (K07) 2.4 5.5% 1.4%
57 Bay Ridge (K10) 1 6.8% 1.3%
58 Tottenville (S03) 2.6 5.7% 0.2%
59 Upper East Side (M08) 1.8 6.4% 0.1%

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 11

Education
Quality educational programming is Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
critical for children’s academic and social 1 Hunts Point (B02) 0.93
2 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 0.81
development. The indicators in the education 3 Brownsville (K16) 0.80

domain provide data along the develop- 4

▼ moderate high risk ▼
Mott Haven (B01) 0.76

mental continuum from early education 5

6
Morrisania (B03)
Concourse/Highbridge (B04)
0.75
0.75
to high school completion. 7
8
East Tremont (B06)
Bedford Park (B07)
0.74
0.71
Indicators: Early Education Enrollment, Elementary and Middle School 9 St. George (S01) 0.68
Reading and Math Test Pass Rate, High School Graduation Rate 10 East New York (K05) 0.67
11 Washington Heights (M12) 0.66
12 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.66
level of risk 13 Central Harlem (M10) 0.64
n Highest Risk 14 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.64
n Moderate High Risk 15 Bushwick (K04) 0.63
n Moderate Risk 16 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.62
n Moderate Low Risk 17 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.61
n Lowest Risk 18 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.61
19 Howard Beach (Q10) 0.61
20 East Flatbush (K17) 0.61
21 Flushing (Q07) 0.61
22 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.60
▼ moderate risk ▼
23 University Heights (B05) 0.60
24 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.56
25 Pelham Parkway (B11) 0.56
26 Manhattanville (M09) 0.54
27 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.52
28 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.51
29 Sunset Park (K07) 0.51
30 Borough Park (K12) 0.51
31 East Harlem (M11) 0.51
32 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.50
33 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.50
34 Coney Island (K13) 0.49
35 Queens Village (Q13) 0.49
36 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.49
37 Canarsie (K18) 0.48
38 Astoria (Q01) 0.46
39 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.44
▼ moderate low risk ▼
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY
40 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.43
Hunts Point (B02) Upper East Side (M08) 41 Riverdale (B08) 0.42
Early Education Enrollment Early Education Enrollment 42 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.40

52.4% 83.2%
43 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.39
44 Tottenville (S03) 0.36
45 Lower East Side (M03) 0.35
ELA/Math Test Pass Rate ELA/Math Test Pass Rate 46 South Beach (S02) 0.34

15.9%/14.4% 72.8%/74.2%
47 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.32
48 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.30
▼ lowest risk ▼
High School Graduation Rate High School Graduation Rate 49 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.28

33.8% 79.0% 50
51
52
Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
Midtown Business Dist. (M05)
Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06)
0.27
0.27
0.25
There were substantial disparities in educational outcomes between 53 Park Slope (K06) 0.24
54 Bayside (Q11) 0.22
Hunts Point, which ranks highest risk in the education domain, and the 55 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.20
Upper East Side, which ranks lowest risk. These disparities exist at every 56 Upper West Side (M07) 0.17
level of education, from enrollment in early educational programs, pass 57 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.14
58 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.12
rates on ELA and Math tests, through high school graduation. 59 Upper East Side (M08) 0.12

12 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Education Indicators Data, 2016 Notable Community District Trends
Early Grad-
Education uation A focus on trends in The Rockaways (Q14)
Enrollment ELA/Math Pass Rate Rate
▼ highest risk ▼
and St. George (S01).
1 Hunts Point (B02) 52.4% 15.9%/14.4% 33.8% n St. George   n The Rockaways  n New York City
2 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 45.4% 24.1%/20.6% 54.9%
3 Brownsville (K16) 61.9% 21.0%/16.3% 39.3% Early Education Enrollment
▼ moderate high risk ▼
4 Mott Haven (B01) 52.4% 20.1%/16.4% 57.0% 64.6%
5 Morrisania (B03) 45.9% 19.0%/16.5% 66.9% 60.2%
6 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 44.3% 21.9%/19.4% 67.2% 61.0%
58.2%
7 East Tremont (B06) 45.9% 22.0%/18.8% 66.7%
8 Bedford Park (B07) 42.8% 24.8%/25.8% 70.9% 51.8% 51.8%
9 St. George (S01) 51.8% 31.4%/25.6% 63.0%
10 East New York (K05) 57.6% 24.1%/18.9% 63.6%
11 Washington Heights (M12) 57.2% 26.6%/24.0% 62.6%
12 Williamsbridge (B12) 56.8% 23.0%/18.9% 66.8% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
13 Central Harlem (M10) 62.0% 20.5%/13.2% 67.2%
14 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 73.7% 26.2%/21.5% 48.2% Math Pass Rates*
15 Bushwick (K04) 59.2% 28.5%/21.5% 65.1%
16 Throgs Neck (B10) 54.0% 40.2%/36.2% 61.9% 81.8%
17 Woodhaven (Q09) 46.1% 41.2%/42.8% 69.5% 80.7%
18 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 62.4% 28.6%/22.5% 63.8% 78.2%
19 Howard Beach (Q10) 51.4% 41.6%/37.9% 65.5%
20 East Flatbush (K17) 61.3% 33.4%/26.0% 62.4%
21 Flushing (Q07) 48.4% 53.8%/62.7% 54.4%
22 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 50.4% 35.6%/36.5% 70.3%
▼ moderate risk ▼
23 University Heights (B05) 52.1% 20.1%/17.0% 84.1% 36.4%
24 Jackson Heights (Q03) 51.8% 37.9%/39.0% 73.2%
25 Pelham Parkway (B11) 59.0% 29.6%/27.9% 73.0% 25.6%
26 Manhattanville (M09) 57.9% 31.2%/27.0% 77.4%
27 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 51.5% 46.1%/46.6% 74.2% 24.4%
28 The Rockaways (Q14) 64.6% 33.6%/24.4% 73.7% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
29 Sunset Park (K07) 55.9% 39.3%/43.2% 74.1% *In 2010, NYSED changed the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels,
30 Borough Park (K12) 69.7% 39.3%/48.1% 56.3% increasing the number of questions students needed to answer correctly to meet pro-
31 East Harlem (M11) 62.3% 32.8%/28.6% 75.5% ficiency. In 2013, proficiency became based on the Common Core—a more demanding
32 Crown Heights South (K09) 66.7% 32.5%/26.4% 73.7% set of knowledge and skills necessary for 21st century college and careers.
33 Bensonhurst (K11) 55.3% 46.2%/52.2% 71.1%
34 Coney Island (K13) 60.4% 50.4%/47.8% 65.6%
High School Graduation Rate
35 Queens Village (Q13) 60.3% 43.4%/36.3% 73.4%
36 Crown Heights North (K08) 75.6% 30.1%/27.9% 65.5%
37 Canarsie (K18) 76.9% 36.6%/31.0% 61.4% 73.7%
38 Astoria (Q01) 60.3% 47.4%/43.8% 74.2%
70.0%
39 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 61.4% 39.5%/37.1% 80.9% 62.1%
▼ moderate low risk ▼
63.0%
40 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 56.3% 56.6%/57.9% 74.5% 60.5%
41 Riverdale (B08) 71.6% 38.2%/35.1% 74.4%
42 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 60.2% 53.2%/53.8% 77.6% 51.5%
43 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 59.1% 47.2%/48.1% 84.9%
44 Tottenville (S03) 56.8% 56.4%/54.3% 85.8%
45 Lower East Side (M03) 76.1% 48.3%/53.3% 68.9%
46 South Beach (S02) 66.6% 47.3%/43.3% 85.5%
47 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 87.5% 37.1%/31.5% 74.2%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
48 Bay Ridge (K10) 68.9% 60.3%/64.5% 74.9%
▼ lowest risk ▼
49 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 70.2% 63.1%/61.1% 77.8%
50 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 76.4% 46.8%/40.0% 86.8%
51 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 70.2% 73.1%/71.4% 71.1%
52 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 71.9% 55.6%/55.7% 86.1%
53 Park Slope (K06) 78.5% 63.3%/61.5% 74.3%
54 Bayside (Q11) 64.5% 66.6%/72.7% 86.9%
55 Greenwich Village (M02) 81.3% 76.7%/81.7% 62.9%
56 Upper West Side (M07) 88.3% 64.1%/59.6% 74.6%
57 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 87.4% 72.0%/69.7% 71.7%
58 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 81.3% 70.3%/70.1% 82.6%
59 Upper East Side (M08) 83.2% 72.8%/74.2% 79.0%

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 13

Youth
The period between childhood and adult- Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
hood presents a unique set of challenges 1 East Tremont (B06) 0.72
2 Mott Haven (B01) 0.68
for young people and their families. The 3 Hunts Point (B02) 0.66

youth domain focuses on specific risks that 4

▼ moderate high risk ▼
Morrisania (B03) 0.55

children and youth face as they transition 5

6
University Heights (B05)
Unionport/Soundview (B09)
0.53
0.52
to adulthood. 7
8
Brownsville (K16)
Concourse/Highbridge (B04)
0.51
0.51
Indicators: Teen Birth Rate, Teen Idleness, Youth Unemployment 9 East New York (K05) 0.50
10 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.49
11 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.49
level of risk
12 Bedford Park (B07) 0.47
n Highest Risk
13 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.47
n Moderate High Risk
14 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.45
n Moderate Risk
15 Washington Heights (M12) 0.44
n Moderate Low Risk
▼ moderate risk ▼
n Lowest Risk
16 Central Harlem (M10) 0.43
17 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.43
18 Pelham Parkway (B11) 0.42
19 St. George (S01) 0.40
20 Howard Beach (Q10) 0.39
21 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.38
22 Coney Island (K13) 0.38
23 East Flatbush (K17) 0.37
24 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.36
25 Canarsie (K18) 0.36
26 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 0.36
27 Riverdale (B08) 0.35
28 Sunset Park (K07) 0.34
29 Borough Park (K12) 0.33
30 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 0.33
31 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.33
32 Bushwick (K04) 0.32
33 East Harlem (M11) 0.32
34 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.31
35 Astoria (Q01) 0.31
36 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.31
37 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.31
38 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.30
▼ moderate low risk ▼
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY
39 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.29
East Tremont Murray Hill/ 40 Queens Village (Q13) 0.27
(B06) Stuyvesant (M06) 41 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.27
42 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.25
Teen Birth Rate Teen Birth Rate

59.7 1.1
43 Park Slope (K06) 0.24
44 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.24
45 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.23
46 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 0.23
Teen Idleness Teen Idleness

4.4% 1.4%
47 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.23
48 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.23
49 Tottenville (S03) 0.22
50 Flushing (Q07) 0.21
Youth Unemployment Youth Unemployment

29.0% 5.0%
51 Lower East Side (M03) 0.21
52 Manhattanville (M09) 0.20
53 South Beach (S02) 0.16
54 Bayside (Q11) 0.16
Young people were more likely to face challenges in East Tremont, which ▼ lowest risk ▼
ranks highest risk in the youth domain, compared to Murray Hill/Stuyve- 55 Upper West Side (M07) 0.15
56 Upper East Side (M08) 0.05
sant, which ranks lowest risk. Teen girls were 54 times more likely to have
57 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.03
a baby, and teens were nearly six times more likely to be out of school and 58 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.03
out of the labor force in East Tremont compared to Murray Hill. 59 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.01

14 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Youth Indicators Data, 2016 Notable Community District Trends
Teen Youth
Birth Teen Unemploy- A focus on trends in Manhattanville (M09)
Rate Idleness ment
▼ highest risk ▼
and Flatbush/Midwood (K14).
1 East Tremont (B06) 59.7 4.4% 29.0% n Flatbush/Midwood  n Manhattanville  n New York City
2 Mott Haven (B01) 27.6 18.7% 19.7%
3 Hunts Point (B02) 24.5 18.7% 19.7% Teen Birth Rate
▼ moderate high risk ▼
4 Morrisania (B03) 30.9 4.4% 29.0% 30.2
5 University Heights (B05) 24.2 11.5% 20.4% 29.7
6 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 25.3 6.2% 26.6%
7 Brownsville (K16) 25.1 8.0% 23.4%
8 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 30.8 7.9% 20.9%
17.2
9 East New York (K05) 34.7 8.8% 17.3% 19.1
10 Williamsbridge (B12) 23.8 8.0% 22.5% 16.7
11 Throgs Neck (B10) 11.7 5.8% 30.4%
12 Bedford Park (B07) 32.5 4.3% 22.2% 8.4
13 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 23.7 9.1% 19.1%
14 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 16.7 9.9% 19.9%
15 Washington Heights (M12) 17.9 7.9% 21.3% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
▼ moderate risk ▼
16 Central Harlem (M10) 18.7 8.4% 19.5%
17 Crown Heights South (K09) 12.0 7.4% 23.4% Teen Idleness
18 Pelham Parkway (B11) 15.2 4.9% 25.2%
19 St. George (S01) 23.0 10.3% 12.6%
20 Howard Beach (Q10) 12.2 5.1% 23.6%
21 Crown Heights North (K08) 13.8 8.6% 17.1%
22 Coney Island (K13) 18.4 2.2% 24.2%
23 East Flatbush (K17) 16.7 8.1% 16.2% 11.7%
24 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 18.4 4.2% 20.4% 9.9%
25 Canarsie (K18) 9.3 7.6% 19.3%
8.1%
26 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 8.0 5.4% 22.6%
27 Riverdale (B08) 14.9 2.9% 22.6% 8.0% 6.1%
28 Sunset Park (K07) 21.5 7.5% 12.9%
29 Borough Park (K12) 22.6 7.7% 11.1% 5.2%
30 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 4.2 7.8% 18.7%
31 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 15.9 3.1% 20.3% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
32 Bushwick (K04) 25.4 2.0% 17.3%
33 East Harlem (M11) 18.7 5.0% 15.6%
34 Woodhaven (Q09) 13.0 7.4% 14.6% Youth Unemployment
35 Astoria (Q01) 15.6 5.1% 16.2%
36 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 13.3 6.5% 15.1%
37 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 18.6 6.7% 12.4%
38 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 30.9 3.9% 11.0%
▼ moderate low risk ▼ 19.9%
39 Bay Ridge (K10) 9.9 4.6% 18.0%
40 Queens Village (Q13) 8.7 4.2% 17.3% 16.1%
41 The Rockaways (Q14) 20.4 1.7% 15.6% 17.3%
13.2%
42 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 8.5 9.7% 8.1%
43 Park Slope (K06) 11.4 3.8% 15.0%
10.8%
13.0%
44 Bensonhurst (K11) 11.5 2.6% 16.2%
45 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 9.4 5.6% 12.0%
46 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 4.6 9.7% 8.1%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
47 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 5.2 5.1% 14.4%
48 Jackson Heights (Q03) 25.0 2.4% 9.5%
49 Tottenville (S03) 2.8 6.1% 13.6%
50 Flushing (Q07) 8.7 1.6% 16.7%
51 Lower East Side (M03) 9.5 5.1% 11.1%
52 Manhattanville (M09) 8.4 5.2% 10.8%
53 South Beach (S02) 6.5 2.2% 13.3%
54 Bayside (Q11) 1.9 2.2% 14.9%
▼ lowest risk ▼
55 Upper West Side (M07) 7.5 3.6% 9.4%
56 Upper East Side (M08) 2.2 1.5% 7.6%
57 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 1.5 0.8% 7.3%
58 Greenwich Village (M02) 1.0 0.8% 7.3%
59 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 1.1 1.4% 5.0%

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 15

Family & Community
Children’s development is greatly Ranking and Index Score by CD
▼ highest risk ▼
influenced by family and community factors. 1 Mott Haven (B01) 0.93
2 Hunts Point (B02) 0.86
The indicators in the Family & Community 3 Morrisania (B03) 0.83

domain capture critical influences in 4

5
East Tremont (B06)
University Heights (B05)
0.81
0.77

children’s environments. 6 Concourse/Highbridge (B04)

▼ moderate high risk ▼
0.75

Indicators: Children in Single-Parent Families, Adults without a 7 Brownsville (K16) 0.74

High School Degree, Violent Felony Rate 8 Bedford Park (B07) 0.70
9 East New York (K05) 0.67
10 East Harlem (M11) 0.65
level of risk 11 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 0.62
n Highest Risk ▼ moderate risk ▼
n Moderate High Risk 12 Central Harlem (M10) 0.56
n Moderate Risk 13 Williamsbridge (B12) 0.56
n Moderate Low Risk 14 Bushwick (K04) 0.53
n Lowest Risk 15 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 0.51
16 Lower East Side (M03) 0.50
17 East Flatbush (K17) 0.49
18 Sunset Park (K07) 0.48
19 Washington Heights (M12) 0.47
20 Jackson Heights (Q03) 0.47
21 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 0.46
22 The Rockaways (Q14) 0.45
23 Crown Heights North (K08) 0.45
24 Pelham Parkway (B11) 0.44
25 Manhattanville (M09) 0.44
26 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 0.42
27 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 0.41
▼ moderate low risk ▼
28 Riverdale (B08) 0.39
29 St. George (S01) 0.37
30 Throgs Neck (B10) 0.37
31 Crown Heights South (K09) 0.37
32 Astoria (Q01) 0.36
33 Howard Beach (Q10) 0.33
34 Coney Island (K13) 0.32
35 Woodhaven (Q09) 0.32
36 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 0.30
37 Bensonhurst (K11) 0.28
HIGHEST RISK COMMUNITY LOWEST RISK COMMUNITY
38 Canarsie (K18) 0.28
Mott Haven (B01) Upper East Side (M08) 39 Flushing (Q07) 0.27
Children in Single-Parent Families Children in Single-Parent Families 40 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 0.26

58.5% 13.3%
41 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 0.26
42 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 0.24
43 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 0.24
Adults without a High School Degree Adults without a High School Degree 44 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 0.23

36.9% 3.1%
45 Queens Village (Q13) 0.23
▼ lowest risk ▼
46 Bay Ridge (K10) 0.21
Violent Felony Rate Violent Felony Rate 47 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 0.21

11.9 1.1
48 Borough Park (K12) 0.19
49 Park Slope (K06) 0.16
50 South Beach (S02) 0.16
51 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 0.15
In Mott Haven, which ranks highest risk in the Family & Community
52 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 0.13
domain, households were 12 times more likely to include adults without 53 Greenwich Village (M02) 0.11
a high school degree and 4 times more likely to be headed by a single 54 Bayside (Q11) 0.11
55 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 0.09
parent, than households on the Upper East Side. Community safety 56 Upper West Side (M07) 0.09
is also a concern as far higher rates of violent crime occurred in 57 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 0.07
58 Tottenville (S03) 0.07
Mott Haven than the Upper East Side.
59 Upper East Side (M08) 0.04

16 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Family & Community Indicators Data, 2016 Notable Community District Trends
No Single Violent
High School Parent Felony A focus on trends in Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01)
Degree Household Rate
▼ highest risk ▼
and Flushing (Q07).
1 Mott Haven (B01) 36.9% 58.5% 11.9 n Flushing  ●● Williamsburg/Greenpoint  n New York City
2 Hunts Point (B02) 36.9% 58.5% 9.4
3 Morrisania (B03) 32.5% 59.5% 9.5 Children in Single-Parent Families
4 East Tremont (B06) 32.5% 59.5% 8.7
5 University Heights (B05) 34.3% 56.9% 7.6 33.7%
6 Concourse/Highbridge (B04) 35.2% 51.9% 7.7
31.7%
▼ moderate high risk ▼
7 Brownsville (K16) 26.1% 58.2% 8.5
8 Bedford Park (B07) 33.3% 47.0% 7.5
9 East New York (K05) 21.7% 47.9% 9.9
10 East Harlem (M11) 23.0% 51.7% 7.8 20.0%
11 Unionport/Soundview (B09) 29.2% 48.5% 5.8
▼ moderate risk ▼ 16.3%
12 Central Harlem (M10) 16.8% 49.3% 7.1 16.6%
13 Williamsbridge (B12) 19.3% 45.1% 7.1 14.7%
14 Bushwick (K04) 26.1% 42.4% 4.9
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
15 Bedford Stuyvesant (K03) 17.0% 34.8% 8.5
16 Lower East Side (M03) 26.6% 38.3% 4.7
17 East Flatbush (K17) 13.3% 43.4% 7.0 Adults without a High School Degree
18 Sunset Park (K07) 42.8% 22.0% 2.9
19 Washington Heights (M12) 27.2% 37.7% 3.6
20 Jackson Heights (Q03) 27.8% 32.2% 4.4
21 Midtown Business Dist. (M05) 4.3% 26.9% 12.5
22 The Rockaways (Q14) 22.0% 34.7% 5.1
23 Crown Heights North (K08) 15.1% 44.9% 4.6 25.3%
24 Pelham Parkway (B11) 22.4% 36.6% 4.0 24.0%
25 Manhattanville (M09) 19.3% 39.2% 4.2
26 Elmhurst/Corona (Q04) 26.9% 29.9% 3.7 20.8%
27 Jamaica/St. Albans (Q12) 17.0% 31.4% 5.9 18.5%
▼ moderate low risk ▼ 18.6%
28 Riverdale (B08) 18.9% 39.4% 2.7 16.7%
29 St. George (S01) 16.7% 32.9% 4.3
30 Throgs Neck (B10) 15.2% 40.6% 2.9
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
31 Crown Heights South (K09) 12.6% 31.3% 5.6
32 Astoria (Q01) 14.3% 26.0% 5.9
33 Howard Beach (Q10) 22.6% 23.1% 3.3 Violent Felony Rate
34 Coney Island (K13) 14.8% 30.6% 3.5
35 Woodhaven (Q09) 23.9% 22.2% 2.7
36 Flatbush/Midwood (K14) 20.2% 22.3% 3.0 5.3
37 Bensonhurst (K11) 24.7% 18.5% 2.0
38 Canarsie (K18) 11.2% 29.3% 3.3 4.4 4.5
39 Flushing (Q07) 25.3% 16.3% 1.9
40 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02) 9.3% 26.4% 4.0
3.8
41 Chelsea/Clinton (M04) 4.3% 26.9% 5.3
42 Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05) 13.9% 26.3% 2.0
43 Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01) 16.7% 14.7% 3.8
44 Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02) 17.8% 20.0% 1.8 1.9
1.8
45 Queens Village (Q13) 12.4% 23.3% 2.6
▼ lowest risk ▼
46 Bay Ridge (K10) 18.7% 15.1% 1.9 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
47 Sheepshead Bay (K15) 16.2% 17.4% 2.0
48 Borough Park (K12) 22.1% 8.2% 2.0
49 Park Slope (K06) 8.9% 17.8% 2.6
50 South Beach (S02) 11.0% 18.9% 1.5
51 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08) 13.2% 14.1% 1.7
52 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06) 4.1% 21.5% 1.9
53 Greenwich Village (M02) 4.2% 12.0% 3.6
54 Bayside (Q11) 12.4% 11.7% 1.0
55 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06) 7.3% 16.4% 1.0
56 Upper West Side (M07) 3.9% 15.8% 2.0
57 Battery Park/Tribeca (M01) 4.2% 12.0% 2.2
58 Tottenville (S03) 6.5% 13.8% 0.8
59 Upper East Side (M08) 3.1% 13.3% 1.1

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 17

Notes on Methodology,
Indicator Definitions,
and Sources
In the inaugural year of the Community Risk Ranking publication (2015), Indicator
we ranked community districts from lowest risk (# 1) to highest risk (#59).
Starting with the 2016 edition of the Community Risk Ranking, we felt it more
Definitions,
appropriate to label the highest risk community district as #1 and lowest risk Notes, and
as #59. On Keeping Track Online (data.cccnewyork.org), home to our online
data visualization tools, users can compare Community Risk Rankings for all
Sources
A detailed description and source infor-
59 community districts back to 2009 and more deeply explore the data for mation for the indicators included in the
every indicator across multiple years and specific demographic groups. CCC Community Risk Ranking is grouped
by domain. Indicators that are presented
as rates per population are calculated
using population data from the U.S. Census
Indicator Criteria Bureau’s American Community Survey
1-Year Estimates, unless otherwise stated.
Best efforts were made to collect data from
CCC based the following indicator criteria on best practices for composite roughly the same time period in order to
provide a “snapshot” of risks to child well-
well-being index construction, combined with CCC’s institutional knowledge of
being at a given point in time. Data presented
the unique issues impacting child well-being in New York City. See references for in this report are primarily from calendar year
more information on other well-being indices that informed our work. 2016. For some indicators, data are aggre-
gated to create averages over multiple years.
Such instances are noted below. Educational
• Data must be from a reliable source outcome data are for the 2016 school year,
rather than calendar year 2015, and data for
• Data must be reliable and comparable at the NYC community district, borough, families entering homeless shelters is for
fiscal year 2017. This year, we used a new
and city levels data source for the violent felony rate which
includes location information and aggregat-
• Data should be available on an annual basis with a reasonable assumption ing rates by community district rather than
police precincts.
that it will be available (and comparable) in the future

• Indicators should include measurements of well-being for children, families, To explore these
and other indicators
and the communities in which they live
of child well-being
in New York City, visit
• All stages of child and youth development should be represented, as well as data.cccnewyork.org.
the conditions that may affect children and youth in those various stages

• Indicators should be easily understandable and replicable

• Indicators should be normalized, i.e. data should be presented as

percentages, rates, etc. which take into account variations in population
sizes across geographies

• Disaggregation of indicators by racial/ethnic group at the citywide level is pre-

ferred for further citywide analysis, but not a mandatory condition for selection

• Comparability to states, other large U.S. cities, and the nation is preferred for
further comparison purposes, but not a mandatory condition for selection

18 CCC Community Risk Ranking

Economic
Conditions
Child Poverty Rate
The share of children who live in households
with incomes below the federal poverty level.
At the heart of understanding the economic
conditions faced by New York City’s children
and families is whether children live in
households with enough resources to provide
the basic necessities. While not a perfect
metric, the poverty rate as measured by the
federal poverty level provides a reliable and
consistent indicator of income adequacy.
Child poverty rates are available through
the Census Bureau at a variety of geographic
levels and disaggregated by racial and
ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates (2016), Summary Table S1701.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Median Income for Families with Children
The median annual income for families
with children. Median income provides
another reliable and consistent measure
of family resources. This measure includes
the income of every resident in a household
over the age of 15, and is considered a reliable
indicator of a household’s economic condi-
tion. Median incomes are available through
the Census Bureau at a variety of geographic
levels and disaggregated by racial and
ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates (2012-2016), Summary Table S1903.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Parental Employment Instability
The share of children living in households
where neither the householder nor a spouse
worked full-time in the last year. In a vast
majority of cases, this refers to the child’s
parents. The parental employment instability
measure adds yet another layer to our under-
standing of the economic conditions faced
by families with children. Even if they earned
a reasonable income, families with unstable
employment situations may face additional
economic stressors, such as the need to find
additional (supplemental or new) employ-
ment and the lack of stabilizing benefits like
employer-provided health insurance and
sick leave. Information on parental employ-
ment status is available through the Census
Bureau at a variety of geographic levels and
disaggregated by racial and ethnic groups.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2016),
Public Use Microdata Sample File.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Health
Infant Mortality Rate
The number of babies who died within one
year of birth per 1,000 babies born in that
year. The infant mortality rate is widely
used as a proxy for the overall health and
well-being of a given geographic area. High
infant mortality rates often signal problems
in healthcare provision and access, while low
infant mortality rates suggest that quality
medical care is both available and accessed
by residents of a given area. Local infant
mortality rates for New York City are available
through the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene. Because of small
numbers of events in some geographies,
3-year averages are used. Infant mortality
data can be disaggregated by racial and eth-
nic groups. Nationally, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention provides statistics at
the state and local levels on infant mortality
rates. Source: New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Summary of Vital
Statistics, 3-year data averages (2014-2016).
Low Birth Weight Babies
The share of babies born weighing less than
2,500 grams. This indicator quantifies a major
risk factor that is measurable at birth. Like
the infant mortality rate, this measure may
reflect the quality and accessibility to medical
(especially prenatal) care for a particular
population. It also indicates how many babies
may be at risk for other medical problems
both during infancy and throughout their
development. Local statistics on low birth
weight babies for New York City are available
through the New York City Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene and can be
disaggregated by racial and ethnic groups.
Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention provides statistics at the state
and local levels on the prevalence of low birth
weight babies. Source: New York City Depart-
ment of Health and Mental Hygiene, Summary
of Vital Statistics (2016).
Children without Health Insurance
The share of children who do not have health
insurance. This indicator provides a reason-
able estimation of how many children do not
have affordable access to health care. Since
2008, health insurance coverage has been
reported by the Census Bureau at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates (2016), Summary Table B27001.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Housing
Severe Rent Burden
The share of households that spend more
than 50 percent of their annual income on
rent. While imperfect, this measure provides
an estimate of housing affordability within
communities. Households that spend more
than half of their income on rent may be at
risk of losing their housing because it is (or
may become) unaffordable. Data on housing
costs and household income come from the
Census Bureau and are available at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates (2016), Summary Table B25070.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Rental Overcrowding
The share of occupied rental housing units
that have more than one person per room.
This indicator provides an approximation of
the living conditions in a community’s rental
housing. Crowded conditions with little room
for privacy may create stress for families
and children. Rental overcrowding may also
suggest greater housing instability, as families
settle for housing that is not sufficient for
their needs or double up with other families
to afford housing costs. Data on housing
conditions and occupancy come from the
Census Bureau and are available at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates (2016), Summary Table B25014.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Families Entering Homeless Shelters
The number of families entering Depart-
ment of Homeless Services family shelters
per 1,000 households. Another measure of
housing instability, this indicator tells us how
many families have actually lost their homes
and entered an emergency shelter. The New
York City Department of Homeless Services
tracks homeless families by origin, as well as
by racial and ethnic group. Data on entries
to homeless shelters for other geographies
outside of New York City may be available
from other local agencies, although compara-
bility may be an issue. Source: New York City
Department of Homeless Services,
unpublished data for Fiscal Year 2017).
Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc. 19
Education
Early Education Enrollment
The share of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled
in early education programs (may include
public or private pre-school or nursery
school or child care programs). Research
suggests that early education is critical
to a child’s long-term academic success.
Educational enrollment data come from the
Census Bureau and are available at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, Public Use Microdata Sample File.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Elementary and Middle School
Reading and Math Test Pass Rate
The share of public school children in grades
3 through 8 who pass New York State reading
(English Language Arts or ELA) and math
tests. Results of the state standardized
reading and math tests, released annually by
the New York City Department of Education
(DOE), provide a performance benchmark
for public elementary and middle school stu-
dents that can be compared across geogra-
phies and demographic groups and over time.
CCC used school-level results to aggregate
data to the community-district level. New
York City’s elementary and middle school test
results are comparable to other New York
State geographies. Nationally, elementary
and middle school test results are available
through individual school districts as well as
the National Assessment of Educational Prog-
ress (NAEP), although comparability may be
limited. Source: New York City Department of
Education, New York State English Language
Arts & Mathematics Tests Grades 3-8 School-
Level Results (SY2016). https://infohub.nyced.
org/reports-and-policies/citywide-informa-
tion-and-data/test-results.
High School Graduation Rate
The percentage of the cohort of public school
students who entered 9th grade in a given
year that graduated within four years (as of
June). The high school graduation rate pro-
vides a benchmark for public school students
that is comparable across geographies and
demographic groups and over time, both
within New York City and in other parts of
the country. High school graduation rates
for city public school students are reported
annually by the New York City Department
of Education. CCC used school-level results
to aggregate data to the community-district
level. In some years, certain community
districts had no public high schools; in
these cases, borough graduation rates were
used. New York City’s graduation results are
comparable to other New York State geog-
raphies. Nationally, graduation results are
available through individual school districts
as well as the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), although comparability
may be limited. Source: New York City
20 CCC Community Risk Ranking
Department of Education, Cohort Graduation
Outcomes (SY2016). https://infohub.nyced.
org/reports-and-policies/citywide-informa-
tion-and-data/graduation-results.
Youth
Teen Birth Rate
The number of babies born to teenage girls
(ages 15 to 19) per 1,000 teenage girls. Teen-
age pregnancy and births present risks for
both mother and baby and also can reflect
the presence of other risky behavior in teens,
like unprotected sexual activity. The number
of teen births are reported by the New
York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene through its Vital Statistics program,
and CCC uses population data from the
American Community Survey to calculate the
rate per 1,000 teenage girls. Nationally, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
provides statistics at the state and local
levels on teen births. Source: New York City
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
Summary of Vital Statistics (2014-2016) & U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey
1-Year Estimates (2016), Summary Table
B01001. http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Teen Idleness
The share of teenagers (ages 16 to 19) who
are not in school and not in the labor force.
These teens are sometimes called “discon-
nected youth,” referring to a disconnection in
the transition from education to career that
should occur during this critical time. Data on
educational enrollment and labor force par-
ticipation are reported by the Census Bureau
and are available at a variety of geographic
levels and disaggregated by racial and
ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
(2016), Public Use Microdata Sample File.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Youth Unemployment
The share of young adults (ages 20 to 24)
who are unemployed (in the labor force
but not working). This indicator provides
additional information about the critical
stage where youth transition to be self-suf-
ficient and productive adults. Young adults
must secure employment in order to
become financially self-sufficient and also
to build skills that will lay the groundwork
for successful professional careers. A high
youth unemployment rate signals trouble
for both young adults and the teens that will
soon be entering the labor market. Data on
labor force participation are reported by the
Census Bureau and are available at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates (2012-2016), Summary Table S2301.
http://factfinder. census.gov/.
Family &
Community
Children in Single-Parent Families
The share of children living in families headed
by a single parent. We exclude children who
live with neither parent or in non-family
households. This indicator is common among
child well-being indices, as research suggests
that children growing up in single-parent
families may face elevated levels of risk. Single
parents may be stressed by the economic
hardship of raising a family on a single income
or the time constraints of balancing work,
family, and other commitments. Data on
family structure are reported by the Census
Bureau and are available at a variety of geo-
graphic levels and disaggregated by racial and
ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(2012-2016), Summary Table B09002 &
B09018. http://factfinder. census.gov/.
Adults Without a High School Degree
The share of adults ages 25 and older
who have less than a high school diploma
or equivalent degree. This indicator was
previously referred to as Adult Educational
Attainment, but the name has been changed
to provide greater clarity. This indicator
serves as a proxy for human capital available
in the community. Community members who
have achieved academic and professional
success can have significant influence on
the children in their community. Data on
educational attainment are reported by the
Census Bureau and are available at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates (2016), Summary Table C15002.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Violent Felony Rate
The number of violent felony crimes reported
per 1,000 residents. Children need safe
communities in which to play and engage
with the world around them. Children living
in communities plagued with high crime
rates may have limited places to play outside
and may even face safety risks as they travel
from home to school. Violent felony crime
includes murder, robbery, rape and felony
assault. Crimes are reported by location by
the New York City Police Department and CCC
aggregated these data to community district
boundaries. For this reason, only reports with
location data were included, which excludes
rape data since NYPD does not provide
geocoded locations for rape and sex crime
offenses to further protect victim identities.
In prior years, we used arrest data reported
by police precinct and converted these data
to community district boundaries using a
population weighting formula. Crime data are
available nationally from the FBI’s Uniform
Crime Reporting system, as well as from
local law enforcement agencies, although
comparability may be an issue. Source:
New York City Police Department,
Historic Complaint Data accessed via
New York City Open Data (2016). https://data.
cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD-Com-
plaint-Data-Historic/qgea-i56i/data
Composite
Index
Construction
CCC’s Community Risk Ranking ranks com-
munities based on risk within six domains
of child well-being and overall using a
composite index of 18 indicators, as well
as indices for each of the six domains. The
methodology for the construction of the
indices is described below. The 18 indicators
are grouped within six domains of well-being,
with three indicators in each domain. Indica-
tors in the risk ranking are first standardized
using Linear Scaling Technique (LST), which
calculates the difference between the value
of a given Community District and that of the
lowest value Community District, and divides
this number by the difference between the
highest value Community District and the
lowest value Community District:
Value-Min/Max-Min
Standardized values are then adjusted so
that they are all scaled from low to high with
regard to increasing risks to well-being. The
standardized and scaled values are then
averaged within their domains using equal
weighting to produce domain indices for each
Community District. The domains indices are
averaged using equal weighting to produce
an overall index of risk to well-being for each
Community District. Community Districts are
then ranked based on their domain index and
overall index values to identify the highest
and lowest levels of risk. Community Districts
are also placed into one of five risk level cat-
egories, for each domain and overall, using
equal intervals of the raw index scores.
References
Below is a list of the well-being indi-
ces reviewed, followed by a list of other
resources referenced in the development
of the CCC Community Risk Ranking.
Well-being Indices:
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Index
(2012-2014). http:// www.aecf.org/work/
kids-count/.
Colorado Children’s Campaign, Colorado
Child Well-being Index (2012-2014). http://
www.coloradokids.org/data/kidscount/
well-being_index.html.
Foundation for Child Development, National
and State Child Well-being Index (2004-
2013). http://fcd-us. org/our-work/previ-
ous-initiatives/ child-well-being-index-cwi.
Gallup Healthways, Well-Being Index
(2008-2014). http://info. healthways.com/
wellbeingindex.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Better Life Index (2011-
2014). http:// www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/.
Unicef, Child Well-being in Rich Countries
(April 2013). http:// www.unicef.org/policy-
analysis/index_68637.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, SIPP Child Well-being
Index (working, May 2012). https://www.cen-
sus.gov/ hhes/socdemo/children/data/sipp/
Child_Well_Being_Index-FINAL.pdf.
Decode Inc., Youthful Cities (2014).
http://www.youthfulcities.com/.
Other References and Resources:
Aryeh, A. (2009). Indicators of children’s
well-being: Theory and practice in a
multi-cultural perspective. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Brown, B., & Moore, K. (2003). Child and
Youth Well-Being: The Social Indicators Field.
In Handbook of Applied Developmental
Science (Vol. 1, pp. 437-467). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Land, K., Lamb, V., & Mustillo, S. (2001). Child
and Youth WellBeing in the United States,
1975- 1998: Some Findings from a New Index.
Social Indicators Research, 56(3), 241-318.
Land, K. (2012). The well-being of America’s
children: developing and improving the child
and youth well-being index. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Lippman, L. (2007). Indicators and Indices of
Child Well-Being: A Brief American History.
Social Indicators Research, 83(1), 39-53.
Salzman, J. (2003). Methodological Choices
Encountered in the Construction of Compos-
ite Indices of Economic and Social Well Being.
Center for the Study of Living Standard
14 Wall Street, Suite 4E
New York, NY 10005
(212) 673-1800
www.cccnewyork.org
 Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
New York, NY
Permit No. 2883
14 Wall Street, Suite 4E
New York, NY 10005
(212) 673-1800
www.cccnewyork.org

CITIZENS ’ COMMIT TEE FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK

Community Risk Ranking

Child Well-being in New York City’s 59 Community Districts