Indicators within Transportation

• Race & Commuting Time

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of blacks and whites whose commute to work is an hour or more.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Long commutes have been linked to compromised physical and mental health and lower life satisfaction. In the US, racial and ethnic minorities, lower-wage and lower-skill workers, and people who live in high-poverty communities typically have longer commutes.

  What Did We Find?
  A similar percentage of black New Yorkers had commutes that were more than one hour as in the baseline year (21.4%, compared to 21.1%), while whites saw a slight decrease (12.8%, down from 13.8%). This year, Asians surpassed blacks as the most likely to have commutes that were more than one hour (24.0%, up from 19.4% in the baseline year), while Hispanics fell in the middle (18.2%, up from 15.0%). There were also large disparities between foreign-born (24.9%) and US-born (15.5%) New Yorkers, as well as between those with disabilities (36.4%) and those without disabilities (17.7%). Queens residents were most likely to have long commutes (25.6%), compared to the Bronx (20.3%), Staten Island (18.6%), Brooklyn (17.0%), and Manhattan (6.5%).
• Disability & Subway Accessibility

  What is Measured?
  Percentage of subway stations that are not wheelchair accessible.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Reliable transportation is critical to the independence, quality of life, and livelihood of people with physical disabilities. Barriers to public transportation are far too common, and in NYC an overwhelming majority of subway stations are not wheelchair accessible.

  What Did We Find?
  The vast majority of subway stations within NYC (80.1%) were not accessible to people in wheelchairs as of October 5, 2017. The opening of the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan and the Arthur Kill Station, which replaced the Atlantic and Nassau Stations on Staten Island, brought the total number of stations to 493; 472 stations in the NYC subway system and 21 in the Staten Island Railroad. However, only 93 stations in the NYC subway system, and 5 Staten Island Railroad stations were wheelchair accessible. We also note that 13 stations are usually accessible but were inaccessible at the time of data collection due to construction or repairs.
• Disability & Taxi Accessibility

  What is Measured?
  Percentage of taxis that are not wheelchair accessible.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Access to adequate transportation has major implications for people’s quality of life. Taxis are important to the mobility of people with physical disabilities, especially where public transit systems have barriers to accessibility. In NYC, only a small percentage of taxis are wheelchair accessible.

  What Did We Find?
  The vast majority of both yellow medallion taxis and Boro (or green) taxis were not wheelchair accessible in FY 2017 (83.2%), although this represented a small decrease from baseline (91.2%). Out of the 13,587 yellow taxis, 1,860 were wheelchair accessible, a total of 13.7%. There were many fewer Boro taxis (6,313), but 1,485 were wheelchair accessible, almost one in four (23.5%). In total, then, 86.3% of yellow taxis and 76.5% of Boro taxis were not accessible to people in wheelchairs, an improvement from baseline, when 95.8% of yellow taxis and 82.5% of Boro taxis were not accessible, but still representing the vast majority across types.
• Location & Bike Lanes

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of non-Manhattan and Manhattan census tracts without bicycle lanes.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Biking is a good source of exercise and has both environmental and health benefits. Designated bike lanes on roadways can improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. In NYC, most bicycle lanes are concentrated in higher-income areas, with the greatest concentration in Manhattan.

  What Did We Find?
  The percentages of census tracts without bicycle lanes decreased from baseline both in Manhattan (43.0%, down from 51.4%) and outside Manhattan (8.3%, down from 11.1%). However, not all bicycle lanes are the same in terms of use and safety: there are bicycle lanes on city streets and in green areas such as parks. Looking only at streets—where they are most essential for safety and commuting—the vast majority (86.1%) of census tracts in Manhattan compared to 53.4% of census tracts outside Manhattan had on-street bicycle lanes.

  What’s Happening?
  Designated bike lanes are an important safety feature for both cyclists and pedestrians in the city, yet they continue to be more present in Manhattan than in other boroughs. The City is making efforts to increase their use: OneNYC set goals to expand the City’s bike network, and in 2015, the City installed over 58 miles of bike lanes, including 12 miles of protected lanes. Additionally, the Vision Zero Action Plan released in 2014 outlined initiatives that the Mayor’s Office and a number of City agencies are undertaking to reduce death and serious injury on our streets, which included several bicycle lane projects in all five boroughs.
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  Increasing access to public transit for underserved neighborhoods and groups continues to be a challenge in a large city with aging infrastructure. Some policy initiatives outlined here are related to transportation broadly while others speak directly to the disparities measured by specific indicators within this topic. The City has set a number of goals for improving public transit service, and the following policies are all expansions or improvements on existing plans toward these goals.

  One of the key policy initiatives at the Transportation topic level is Select Bus Service (SBS), a type of bus rapid transit. SBS is a critical means of transportation, particularly in the outer boroughs that are underserved by subway stations and where buses may run slowly along congested corridors. Additionally, all buses are wheelchair accessible, while many other modes of transportation are not. Most SBS buses feature off-board fare collection, all-door boarding, and dedicated bus lanes, all of which have the potential to reduce time spent in transit, as well as commuting time. In 2016 and 2017, five new SBS routes were implemented, including the B46 on Utica Avenue (the busiest route in Brooklyn), the Q70 (also known as the “LaGuardia Link”), and the Bx6, which serves bus stops with high ridership and transfers to the subway and MetroNorth in the Bronx. The Bx6 is also the first route to include median bus stops, which has further increased the speed of commuters’ rides. Two busy corridors in Manhattan, M23 and M79, also became SBS routes. Twenty-one additional routes are proposed for implementation between now and 2027.

  The subject of the first indicator in this topic, race and commuting time, has been in the spotlight for much of 2017 as the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has been plagued with transit delays that have made the longest commutes in the country even longer. In July 2017, NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer released a report that highlighted how these delays have disproportionately affected certain groups: residents of outer boroughs experienced worse subway service than those living in Manhattan, and residents of lower income areas were more likely to experience significant delays and face consequences when arriving late to work. The MTA has introduced several initiatives to both address the causes of these delays and communicate more effectively with the public when delays happen. The impact of these initiatives on the commuting time of racial and ethnic minorities may be reflected in later years.

  Recent capital projects for new and existing subway stations have contributed to some positive change in the disability and subway accessibility indicator. As part of an agreement with disability advocates from 1994, the MTA has been working toward making 100 “key” subway stations ADA-compliant by 2020. In addition, the new subway stations for the Second Avenue Subway and Hudson Yards are fully accessible. Even with these improvements, however, NYC continues to lag far behind other U.S. cities in reaching 100% accessibility. In April 2017, two class-action lawsuits were filed against the MTA for the lack of subway accessibility for individuals with physical disabilities. In addition, disability advocates have challenged the lack of elevators in recent renovations of subway stations in Brooklyn and planned renovations in Queens.

  Following the 2013 settlement of a class action lawsuit, the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) has been implementing its plan to make at least 50% of all NYC taxis wheelchair accessible by 2020. This progress is reflected in the disability and taxi accessibility indicator. In 2014, TLC also created the Taxi Improvement Fund, which provides financial incentives for drivers of accessible taxis. These drivers receive an extra 50 cents for every trip, regardless of whether the passenger uses a wheelchair, and an extra payment for picking up passengers through the Accessible Dispatch Program. Accessible taxis are heavier and have lower gas mileage, so these incentives are an important component of the City’s effort to increase the availability of accessible taxis.

  The location and bicycle lanes indicator may be affected by the recent expansion of the bike network citywide. The NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) was projected to add at least 75 miles of bike lanes in 2016. Eighteen of these miles are fully protected, which is a priority of the Vision Zero Action Plan to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on NYC streets. Bike lanes are still concentrated in Manhattan, however, and in many cases they are not fully protected and, thus, are easy to ignore by motorists. Starting in 2017, DOT committed to adding 10 miles of protected bike lanes every year. DOT has also designated “priority bicycle districts” in 10 Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods where there are both high rates of cyclist deaths and serious injuries and low levels of bicycle network coverage. The agency aims to install or improve 75 miles of bike lanes in these neighborhoods by 2022.

Indicators within Essential Needs & Services

• Race & Hot/Cold Running Water

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of Hispanic and Asian households that do not have hot and cold running water at home.

  What’s the Backstory?
  A lack of safe drinking water and water for washing are two primary features of substandard housing, and can contribute to the spread of infectious disease. Water supply type has also been connected to mortality from heart disease. In the US, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in poor-quality housing.

  What Did We Find?
  There were large racial and ethnic disparities in New Yorkers’ access to running water at home. Blacks (0.328%) surpassed Hispanics (0.311%) as the group most likely to not have hot and cold running water, while whites (0.106%) surpassed Asians (0.118%) as the least likely to not have hot and cold running water. The percentages increased for blacks (from 0.322% in the baseline year), but decreased for whites (from 0.323%), Hispanics (from 0.378%) and Asians (from 0.250%). There were also income-based disparities in the current year: individuals living at or below the poverty line were more likely to not have hot and cold running water (0.406%) than those living above the poverty line (0.167%).
• Race & Internet Access

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of blacks and Asians who do not have high-speed Internet at home.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Internet access not only provides information but contributes to employment opportunities, education, social interaction, and personal development. In the US, blacks and Hispanics, and people residing in low-income households are less likely to have high-speed Internet than whites or those with higher incomes.

  What Did We Find?
  The percentage of people without high-speed Internet at home decreased from baseline for all racial and ethnic groups. In the current year, 17.5% of blacks did not have Internet access, down from 21.2% in the baseline year, compared to 8.7% of Asians, whose rate was down from 11.3%. The rate among whites fell from 16.3% in the baseline year to 13.1%. In the current year, Hispanics were the most likely not to have high-speed Internet at home (18.4%), almost no change from baseline (18.5%). Access also varied by income: 24.3% of those making less than $30,000 did not have high-speed Internet, compared to 2.9% of those making more than $150,000.
• Immigration Status & Stove/Range

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of foreign-born and US-born households that do not have a stove or range at home.

  What’s the Backstory?
  The ability to cook at home allows individuals and families greater control over their diet and helps them to manage their food budgets. Households without a stove or range have fewer options for home cooking, which may reduce options for healthy eating and time spent with family.

  What Did We Find?
  Immigrant households (0.560%) were more likely than those of US-born New Yorkers (0.392%) not to have a stove or range. In the current year, both groups saw decreases from baseline when 0.721% of foreign born households and 0.509% of US-born households did not have a stove or range at home. Within immigrant households, lack of access was higher among non-citizens (0.667%) than among naturalized citizens (0.474%). There were also large racial and ethnic disparities: 0.815% of Asian households lacked a stove or range, compared to 0.491% of white households, 0.354% of Hispanic households, and 0.320% of black households.
• Location & Hospital Quality

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the average composite scores on mortality rates for selected procedures in non-Manhattan and Manhattan hospitals.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Access to a high-quality hospital may mean the difference between life and death in an emergency. The Inpatient Quality Indicators include inpatient mortality rates for certain procedures, the outcomes of which are indicators of quality of care that vary among hospitals.

  What Did We Find?
  In the current year, hospitals in Manhattan and outside Manhattan had the same average score on the Inpatient Quality Indicators’ mortality rates for selected procedures (1.01 for both locations; note that lower scores are indicative of lower mortality). The average score for Manhattan hospitals increased from 0.96 in the baseline year, and the average score for non-Manhattan hospitals decreased from 1.02. However, scores varied by borough. In the current year, Queens and Staten Island hospitals both had lower average scores than Manhattan hospitals (0.99 and 0.98, respectively), demonstrating lower mortality, while Bronx and Brooklyn hospitals had higher average scores (both 1.02), demonstrating higher mortality.
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  Of the policy initiatives under the umbrella of the Essential Needs and Services topic, one addresses access to these services broadly by identifying issues with housing quality, while another relates specifically to hospital quality. In addition, a place-based expansion of Internet access in public housing developments may impact racial and ethnic inequalities in access.

  One initiative that may have a broader impact in this area is the Tenant Support Unit (TSU), which was created in July 2015 to identify housing quality issues, including lack of heat or hot water and homes in need of repair. In February 2016, Mayor de Blasio announced that the TSU had resolved 1,000 cases since the initiative began. The TSU conducts proactive outreach to neighborhoods in all five boroughs, and Mayor de Blasio recently announced an additional $1 million in funding for this outreach. The neighborhoods targeted include Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, Crown Heights, Harlem, Jamaica, Mariners Harbor, Port Richmond, Tremont, and Williamsbridge, all of which have large Hispanic and black populations and some of which have higher-than-average foreign-born populations. This targeted outreach may help to address general disparities in access to basic services.

  While the increase in the location and hospital quality indicator resulted in a perfect score this year, recent efforts by NYC Health + Hospitals may continue to improve hospital quality across NYC. At the end of 2016, Health + Hospitals conducted community engagement as part of their effort to transform the department. They held nine events across all five boroughs to ask community members how they can improve healthcare and neighborhood health outcomes. In 2017, they released the Future of Health Care in New York City report which summarizes the findings from this process. As the department uses these findings to inform their strategies moving forward, it is possible that the scores for Inpatient Quality Indicators (which measure the quality of healthcare received at hospitals) may improve in all five boroughs.

  Finally, policy initiatives aimed at increasing Internet access in New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) public housing developments may help to address disparities in race and Internet access over time. NYC is participating in the federal ConnectHome initiative, which is bringing high-speed broadband service to five NYCHA developments in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. In December 2016, Mayor de Blasio announced another component of the initiative that will provide 5,000 tablet computers to Bronx NYCHA families with children under 19 years of age. The NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications has committed to funding two years of data plans for the tablets. The tablets also come with applications that can help connect families to services such as 311 and the New York Public Library.

Indicators within Parks & Recreation

• Income & Access to Parks

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of residents in the bottom and top income groups who do not live within a 5-minute walk of a park.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Access to parks and their services has economic, health, environmental, and social benefits. People who have park access exercise more, which affects physical and mental health. In the US, people with lower income have less access to parks.

  What Did We Find?
  People with an annual income below $30,000 were more likely not to live within a 5-minute walk from a park (18.6%, down from 19.4% in the baseline year) than people with an annual income above $150,000 (15.3%, down from 16.2%). People in the relatively low-income ranges making $30,000-$50,000 or $50,000-$70,000 were the most likely not to have a park nearby (27.9% and 27.2%, respectively). There were also racial and ethnic disparities in access, with Asians most likely to lack access to a park (30.2%), followed by Hispanics (22.7%), whites (21.8%), and blacks (21.0%).
• Disability & Playground Accessibility

  What is Measured?
  Percentage of playgrounds not accessible to children with physical disabilities.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Play is critical to a child’s social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development, and playgrounds provide affordable, meaningful opportunities for physical and social activity. Many playgrounds have limited accessibility and often isolate children who have a disability.

  What Did We Find?
  Out of the 1,247 playgrounds citywide, 355 (28.5%) were not accessible to children with physical disabilities, while 892 (71.5%) were fully or partially accessible, representing an increase in access: in the baseline year, 450 out of 1,256 playgrounds citywide (35.8%) were not accessible while 806 (64.2%) were fully or partially accessible. Partially accessible playgrounds require transfer platforms and ground level play features at minimum, while those at the highest levels of accessibility require ramped play equipment and universally accessible swings. There was considerable variation in accessibility by borough: more than two in five (42.2%) of the playgrounds in the Bronx were not accessible, compared to less than a quarter in Manhattan (23.8%) and Queens (24.9%). Brooklyn (25.8%) and Staten Island (30.2%) fell in the middle.
• Disability & Recreation Center Accessibility

  What is Measured?
  Percentage of City recreation centers not accessible to individuals with physical disabilities.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Recreation benefits individuals and communities, resulting in better health and stronger neighborhoods and providing a free or low-cost way to take part in games, sports, and other activities. People with disabilities may be excluded from the benefits some recreation centers provide due to inaccessibility.

  What Did We Find?
  Recreation centers include NYC Parks’ standard recreation centers, as well as field houses, which offer more limited facilities and programming, and community centers, which are operated by community-based organizations through an agreement with NYC Parks. Citywide, 14 out of 52 City recreation centers (26.9%) were not accessible to individuals with a physical disability, while 38 recreation centers (73.1%) were fully accessible. Both the total number of recreation centers and the number that were inaccessible increased from the baseline year, when 10 out of 49 City recreation centers (20.4%) were not accessible. In the current year, four out of 10 facilities in the Bronx, two out of nine in Brooklyn, two out of 15 in Manhattan, three out of 11 in Queens, and three out of seven in Staten Island were inaccessible.
• Location & Access to Senior Centers

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the number of senior centers per 100,000 people 75 and older outside and within Manhattan.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Senior centers play an important role in the lives of many older adults, particularly those with lower incomes and fewer independent resources. Senior centers provide services, activities, and sometimes meals, and proximity to one is associated with ease of access and frequency of participation.

  What Did We Find?
  The number of senior centers per 100,000 people aged 75 and older decreased somewhat from baseline in Manhattan (58.021, down from 59.185), and remained the same outside Manhattan (from 49.593 to 49.679), resulting in only negligible change in the disparity. Rates varied across the outer boroughs: in Brooklyn, there were 57.178 senior centers per 100,000 people aged 75 and older, compared to 63.700 in the Bronx, 37.797 in Queens, and 36.902 in Staten Island. Daily attendance rates for senior centers (including social clubs) also varied by borough: they were 123 in Manhattan, 85 in the Bronx, 98 in Brooklyn, 118 in Queens, and 101 in Staten Island.
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  There are a number of policy initiatives that aim to increase access to parks and recreation facilities around the city. Some of the initiatives target parks in certain neighborhoods and encourage community engagement, which may help to address disparities in Parks and Recreation overall. These initiatives may also indirectly impact at least one of the two accessibility indicators in this topic. While these initiatives are ongoing, recent recommendations from the NYC Comptroller may also contribute to better access to senior centers in the future.

  The Community Parks Initiative (CPI) was launched in 2014 to invest in under-resourced public parks in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty. The CPI zones that have been targeted for this investment cover more than 60% of the lowest-income census tracts in the city. Some parks are receiving targeted physical improvements, including repairs to benches, fences, and play equipment, while others are undergoing a full redesign and reconstruction process. For the parks receiving this capital investment, the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) is holding public meetings to gain input from community members and encourage them to help care for the parks. Another Parks initiative, Parks Without Borders, seeks to make existing NYC parks more accessible and welcoming through physical improvements. In winter 2015-2016, Parks launched an online platform through which New Yorkers could submit comments about desired improvements to their local parks. Of the nearly 700 parks for which people made suggestions, the City selected eight parks to receive capital improvements such as more accessible entrances, new seating areas, and changes in fence materials. While these programs focus on improving existing parks rather than building new ones, this public engagement may improve community members’ awareness of improved, safe, and accessible park facilities in their neighborhoods.

  CPI’s more targeted improvements include the addition of accessible swings in playgrounds, which may have contributed to the positive change found in disability and playground accessibility. Accessibility for children with physical disabilities is not a requirement for Parks playgrounds, however, as evidenced by the four new playgrounds opened last year that were not accessible. The lack of change in the disability and recreation center accessibility reflects the need for targeted renovations in order to ensure accessibility for children and adults with disabilities.

  Finally, in March 2017 the NYC Comptroller released a report that outlined a plan for better serving senior citizens and included a map that confirms the inequality identified in the location and access to senior centers indicator. Specifically, this map showed the number of residents aged 65 and older by community district as well as the location of senior centers. The report concluded that there are a number of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island in which there are relatively high numbers of senior citizens but few senior centers. These findings, if used to inform the development of new senior centers in future, can help to contribute to greater equality in this indicator.

Indicators within Arts & Culture

• Income & Funding for the Arts

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of organizations receiving City funding for the arts that are located in the bottom and top income areas.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Access to the arts improves people’s quality of life, fosters children’s development, and benefits communities in numerous ways. Racial and ethnic minorities report that at times they don’t attend cultural events and establishments because they cannot get there easily, yet funding tends to be concentrated in wealthy areas.

  What Did We Find?
  The NYC Department of Cultural Affairs awarded $33,337,746 to 861 arts organizations in the current year. Among organizations with physical mailing addresses (e.g., no PO boxes) located in census tracts with available income data, 74 (8.7%) were located in the bottom 20% median income census tracts, while 492 (58.2%) were located in the top 20%. These results show slight improvement from baseline, when 7.3% of funded organizations were in the bottom 20% census tracts and 55.2% were in the top 20%. In the current year, the majority of funded organizations were located in Manhattan (63.9%) followed distantly by Brooklyn (21.5%), Queens (8.0%), the Bronx (4.1%), and Staten Island (2.6%).
• Location & Senior Access to the Arts

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the numbers of artist placements per 100,000 people 75 and older outside and within Manhattan.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Mental and physical activity and socialization are key to adults maintaining cognitive functioning as they age. For older adults, participating in arts activities can provide opportunities for all three, and having a dedicated artist-in-residence can increase the likelihood of participation in the arts.

  What Did We Find?
  The NYC Department for the Aging has a program to place artists in senior centers throughout NYC, currently called SU-CASA (which evolved from Seniors Partnering with Artists Citywide). From baseline, the number of artist placements in Manhattan rose from 14 to 27, while outside Manhattan it rose from 36 to 124. Accordingly, the placement rate per 100,000 people 75 and older within Manhattan rose from 13.364 in the baseline year to 24.866 in the current year, while the placement rate outside Manhattan rose from 9.446 to 31.591, a higher rate than within Manhattan. Among non-Manhattan boroughs, the placement rate was 27.488 in Queens, 30.192 in Staten Island, 34.167 in Brooklyn, and 35.238 in the Bronx. In the baseline year, the placement rate was 7.779 in Queens, 9.236 in Brooklyn, 10.659 in Staten Island, and 12.712 in the Bronx.
• Location & Public Library Availability

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of New York Public Library and non-NYPL branches open six days a week.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Most people in the US say they or someone in their household has used a public library not only for books and DVDs, but to use the Internet, computers, and printers. Public funding for libraries is necessary to sustain or increase operating hours, which in turn support increases in visitation and circulation.

  What Did We Find?
  Currently, all branches of the New York Public Library (NYPL), Brooklyn Public Library (BPL), and Queens Borough Public Library (QPL) are open at least six days a week. In the baseline year, 100% of NYPL branches were open at least six days a week, while 65% of BPL branches and 33% of QPL branches were open at least six days a week. Some disparities remain, however: in the current year, the average weekly scheduled open hours were highest for NYPL branches (50.0), followed by BPL branches (49.3) and QPL branches (44.8). Very few libraries are open seven days a week: 8% of NYPL branches, 8% of BPL branches, 3% of QPL branches, and 25% of NYPL research libraries are open daily.
• Parental Education & Children’s Arts Participation

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of children whose parents have the least and most education who do not participate in arts activities.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Arts programs and education can enhance children’s academic, intellectual, social, behavioral, and emotional development. In the US, higher educational attainment may lead to more participation in the arts, and children whose parents had arts education are more likely to participate in arts activities.

  What Did We Find?
  Children of parents with less than a high school diploma were considerably more likely not to participate in arts activities in or out of school (36.8%) than those of parents with a professional or graduate degree (17.8%). Both the lowest and the highest education groups saw a decrease from baseline, when 41.9% of children whose parents have less than a high school diploma and 25.3% of children whose parents have a professional degree did not participate in arts activities. Among other education levels, 23.2% of children whose parents have a high school diploma, 22.7% of children whose parents attended technical or vocational school, and 9.1% of children whose parents graduated from a 4-year college did not participate in arts activities. There were also disparities by immigrant status: non-participation rates were higher for children of foreign-born parents (24.5%) compared to US-born parents (16.6%).
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  The four indicators in this topic may be affected by current and planned policy initiatives. The recent cultural plan from the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA) has the potential to impact both the Arts and Culture topic as whole and one of the indicators directly. Recent policy change and sustained funding have allowed the two location-based indicators to reach scores of 100. In addition, programs from the NYC Department of Education (DOE) are helping to increase children’s access to the arts broadly.

  In July 2017, Mayor de Blasio and DCLA released CreateNYC, the first comprehensive cultural plan for NYC. The plan aims to increase the diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility of NYC arts and culture through a set of strategies that include investing in historically underserved neighborhoods, increasing language access, ensuring accessibility for individuals with disabilities, and diversifying the cultural workforce. All of these strategies respond to inequalities identified through DCLA’s public engagement process. One of the actions that DCLA has committed to implementing in the first year of the initiative is directly related to the income and funding for the arts indicator. Namely, DCLA has committed to providing more grants to cultural organizations in low-income communities. As this strategy is implemented, it may contribute to more positive change in this indicator.

  Two of the indicators in this topic, location and senior access to the arts and location and public library availability achieved scores of 100, both the result of specific policy changes. With renewed funding from the City Council, DCLA has continued to place artists at senior centers through the SU-CASA program. The program has expanded to 153 residencies and continues to serve all 51 Council districts. In addition, all branches of the New York Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and Queens Borough Public Library have remained open six days per week after the fiscal year (FY) 2017 City budget included funding for the three library systems that allowed them to keep in place the expanded hours that the Brooklyn and Queens systems initiated last year. There is also an ongoing, multi-year campaign to push Mayor de Blasio and the City Council to increase funding for much-needed capital improvements in all three library systems. A report from May 2017 highlighted the branches in most need of repairs, and also demonstrated the benefits that previous investments have had, including increases in the number of visits, program attendance, and circulation.

  Children’s participation in the arts, which is the subject of the fourth indicator in this topic, is also the focus of the August 2017 issue of Narrowing the Gap. The issue highlights a number of initiatives aimed at increasing arts education in NYC schools. The DOE Turnaround Arts program is working in four schools in Central Brooklyn to support the development of rigorous, effective, and integrated arts programming over the course of a three-year partnership. DOE also provides grants for schools to partner with local cultural organizations and increase arts participation among disadvantaged students, including English Language Learners and students with disabilities. In addition, ProjectArt provides afterschool arts programming in public libraries, with classes strategically located in neighborhoods without sufficient arts education resources.