Indicators within Homelessness

• Race & Homelessness

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between blacks’ and whites’ single adult shelter use rate.

  What’s the Backstory?
  The shrinking availability of affordable housing and growing poverty levels have led to increased homelessness in the US in recent decades. Blacks have disproportionately low access to quality housing and employment and disproportionately higher rates of homelessness than whites.

  What Did We Find?
  The number of single adults in NYC shelters decreased from 34,498 people at baseline to 26,767, but the disparity in homelessness rates between blacks and whites slightly widened. The rate among blacks (826.548 per 100,000) was nearly eight times the rate among whites (106.629), nearly three times the rate among Hispanics (285.647), and more than 62 times the rate among Asians (13.342). When broken down by age group, the single adult shelter use rate was highest among those 45-64 years of age (572.193), followed by 30-44 (427.328), 18-29 (327.599), and 65 and older (124.830). *Data were available only for the first two quarters of FY2016, so results should be interpreted with caution.
• Child Homelessness Status & School Attendance

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the absenteeism rates for homeless and non-homeless children.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Homeless children are more likely to have cognitive and mental health problems than those who have stable housing, and to miss school or drop out. Homeless children in the US miss substantially more days of school than their peers who have housing, in large part because of family transience.

  What Did We Find?
  The average daily absenteeism rate among children residing in shelters (17.3%) was more than double that of children in the general population (8.3%). This disparity was slightly larger than at baseline when the rate among homeless children was 16.1% and the general population absenteeism rate was 8.3%. The percentage of families placed in the shelter system based on their youngest child’s school address decreased from the baseline year, from 52.9% to 50.4%, which could account for greater difficulty in getting to school and increased absenteeism.
• Age & Homelessness

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the shelter use rates for children and adults.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Homelessness is destabilizing for children and adults and can have detrimental short and long-term effects. Children are a large proportion of NYC shelter users and are more likely to have cognitive, social and behavioral problems than their peers in stable housing.

  What Did We Find?
  Across the shelter system, the rate of shelter use for children (2,009.163 per 100,000) was more than twice that of adults (900.530 across three shelter types: families with children, adult families, and single adults). Rates for both age groups decreased from baseline (by 317.974 for children and by 212.062 for adults), and there was negligible change in the disparity. Among children, 44.5% were five years of age or younger, 41.9% were six to 13 years of age, and 13.6% were 14 to 17 years of age. Among adults, 34.4% were 18 to 29 years of age, 33.8% were 30 to 44 years of age, 28.9% were 45 to 64 years of age, and 2.9% were 65 or older, across all three shelter types. *Data were available only for the first two quarters of FY2016, so results should be interpreted with caution.
• Age & Length of Shelter Stay

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the average length of stay in shelters for families with children and single adults.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Conditions and regulations in shelters may interrupt family routines and infringe on the privacy of children and parents. These challenges, exacerbated by the stressors of poverty, are physically and mentally taxing. Over the long term, these stressors also erode the number and quality of relationships family members are able to maintain.

  What Did We Find?
  In FY 2017, the average length of stay in shelters for families with children decreased to 414 days from 430 days at baseline, and the average length of stay for single adults increased from 329 to 383. These changes resulted in a smaller disparity between the two groups and a moderate change in score. There was a large disparity in shelter return rates between families who had been placed in subsidized housing and those who had been placed in unsubsidized housing: 1.3% of families with children placed in subsidized housing returned to the shelter system within a year, compared to 20.9% of families placed in unsubsidized housing.
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  Homelessness is one of the most urgent challenges facing NYC, and has been rising steadily over the past several decades. Despite the recent peak in homelessness, Mayor de Blasio’s administration has made significant overall progress since 2014 in housing families who were previously in shelters. The majority of initiatives targeting homelessness address this issue broadly, at the topic level, because they do not target specific demographics of homeless individuals.

  Many programs and initiatives aim to reduce homelessness by getting homeless individuals and families into permanent homes or keeping tenants in their existing homes through emergency rental assistance, housing subsidies, and legal assistance. For example, in 2016, 6,000 families were housed through the City’s Living in Communities (LINC) and CityFEPS rental assistance programs, while 2,353 rent subsidies were employed as part of an effort to prevent homelessness between 2015 and 2017 (through LINC, CityFEPS, the Special Exit and Prevention Supplement, and tenant-based rental assistance). Between 2014 and 2017, the City provided eviction-prevention and other legal services to more than 34,000 households and 100,000 individuals, and the number of tenants in Housing Court with representation increased from 1% in 2013 to 27%. And in early 2017, the City announced a five-year plan to expand this initiative and fund universal access to legal services for tenants facing eviction.

  A number of new or proposed statewide programs could help more NYC families stay in their homes over the coming years. For example, a class-action settlement brought by Legal Aid and Hughes Hubbard and Reed regarding the amount given to NYS Family Eviction Prevention Supplement recipients is currently under review at the NYS Supreme Court. The suit was brought against New York State due to the growing gap between rental supplement allowances and the cost of housing. If approved, the settlement would significantly increase rent supplements for individuals and families on the brink of homelessness.

  Starting in 2016, the City also increased its efforts to connect homeless individuals on the street with housing and services. Launched in March 2016, Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement Street Action Teams (HOME-STAT), the City’s street homeless outreach initiative, connects homeless individuals to permanent housing or transitional housing options. Working across agencies, the program includes outreach services on the streets and in subways and hospitals. As part of this initiative, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased outreach staff in the subways fivefold (from 20 to 111 as of February 2017), the New York City Police Department Crisis Outreach and Support Unit increased outreach staff as well, and the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS) partnered with public hospitals and the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) to serve the street homeless population. HOME-STAT had helped 748 individuals transition off the streets as of February 2017.

  With respect to more targeted initiatives, a change made by DHS may influence the disparity measured in child homelessness status and school attendance in future. Prior to November 2016, NYC parents seeking shelter spots for their families needed to bring their children with them to the initial intake interview conducted by DHS in the South Bronx, time that students would need to spend out of school. As of November 2016, DHS no longer requires children to be present at these interviews; this change may in future years eliminate some cases of absenteeism among homeless children.

Indicators within Affordability of Housing

• Race & Severe Rent Burden

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of Asian and white renters who spend more than 50% of their income on rent.

  What’s the Backstory?
  In the US, more than 8.5 million people face severe rent burden, which means they spend more than half of their income on rent. In NYC, almost three in 10 renters are severely rent burdened, and this disproportionately affects Hispanics and Asians.

  What Did We Find?
  Severe rent burden refers to spending more than 50% of household income on rent. Hispanics (30.9%) and Asians (30.3%) were the most likely to be severely rent burdened, followed by blacks (26.3%) and whites (22.7%), and there was negligible change in the disparity between Asians and whites from baseline. Severe rent burden also varied according to disability and citizenship status: people with a disability were more likely to be severely rent burdened (35.7%), compared to people without a disability (26.5%), and people born outside the US were more likely to be severely rent burdened (29.6%) than those born in the US (26.2%), although the difference was small.
• Race & Homeownership

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of Hispanics and whites who are homeowners.

  What’s the Backstory?
  In addition to its economic benefits, homeownership affects health, education, community involvement, and neighborhood stability. In the US and in NYC, whites have historically been more likely to own homes than racial and ethnic minorities.

  What Did We Find?
  This year Asians (52.6%) surpassed whites (42.6%) as the most likely to be homeowners, although Hispanics (16.9%) remained the least likely. Homeownership among blacks (34.9%) was higher than among Hispanics, but lower than among Asians and whites. Homeownership rates also varied by educational attainment and nativity. Individuals with less than a high school diploma were less likely to be homeowners (28.1%) than those with a high school diploma (38.1%). Interestingly, those with some college experience (37.9%) or a bachelor’s degree and above (37.8%) fell between the two. People born in the US (36.1%) were slightly more likely to own a home than those born outside the US (33.6%).
• Race & Home Purchase Loan Denial

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the home purchase loan denial rates for black and white applicants.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Homeownership has a host of benefits to individuals, families, and communities. Racial and ethnic minorities in the US are disproportionately likely to be denied home-mortgage loans, with denial rates among blacks and Hispanics more than twice those of whites.

  What Did We Find?
  A higher number of whites (21,589) than blacks (4,730) applied for home purchase loans, yet the denial rate was higher for black applicants (16.0%) than it was for white applicants (10.3%); the rates for Hispanics (14.9%) and Asians (12.5%) fell between the two. While the disparity between blacks and whites was slightly larger this year, the denial rate decreased somewhat across all racial groups from baseline. Residents in the Bronx and Queens had the smallest disparities in denial rates between black and white applicants (17.6% vs. 13.0%, and 12.6% vs. 11.1%, respectively). The greatest inequalities were found in Manhattan (17.2% vs. 8.9% for blacks and whites, respectively), Staten Island (15.9% vs. 8.1%), and Brooklyn (18.7% vs. 11.6%).
• Sexual Orientation & Homeownership

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of lesbian/gay/bisexual and heterosexual individuals who are homeowners.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Homeownership affects quality of life, including improved health and education and increased civic participation and neighborhood stability. Gay and lesbian couples are less likely to be homeowners than married heterosexual couples are, although they are more likely than unmarried heterosexual couples are.

  What Did We Find?
  People who identified as heterosexual were more likely to be homeowners (36.2%) than people who identified as LGB (26.6%). While the rate for LGB individuals remained relatively unchanged from baseline, the rate for heterosexual individuals decreased slightly, from 38.7% to 36.2%. Accordingly, the slight decrease in the disparity between the two groups was due to worsening outcomes for the more advantaged group, and not because there has been positive change for either group. Homeownership rates varied by family structure as well: single parents were less likely to be homeowners (15.3%) than those in two-parent households (34.9%). There were also differences based on criminal record: people with a criminal record were less likely to be homeowners (22.2%) than people without a record (36.2%).
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  Affordable housing remains a key focus of Mayor de Blasio’s administration. Although many City efforts impact affordability for low-income New Yorkers generally, they may also impact specific racial and ethnic groups indirectly. In 2014, Mayor de Blasio launched his Housing New York plan to preserve and create more affordable housing, with a primary goal of building or preserving 20,000 affordable housing units within ten years. This plan, while ambitious, received criticism for focusing more on low-income households than very and extremely low-income households, who are at greater risk of homelessness. In July 2017, Mayor de Blasio adjusted the terms of Housing New York by adding an additional $1.9 billion in order to redistribute the plan so that very and extremely low-income households will receive a greater share of the overall units. By the middle of 2016, the City had set an affordable housing record with the financing of the most affordable homes since 1989 (23,284).

  Also in 2016, the City Council adopted its new Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) policy and Zoning for Quality and Affordability text amendment. Over the following year, the City Council approved 4,700 new affordable homes under MIH, at least 1,600 of which are required to remain permanently affordable. Additionally, early that year the City updated its electronic housing lottery application on NYC Housing Connect to include six new languages: Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Russian, and Spanish. The previous version was only available in English, potentially excluding many New Yorkers who are English language learners from accessing affordable housing in NYC.

  More targeted initiatives include recent developments related to homeownership, which may have beneficial impacts on the race and homeownership indicator in future years. In July 2017, Enterprise awarded the City $1.65 million in funds to support the formation and expansion of Community Land Trusts (CLTs) in NYC, typically neighborhood-based nonprofits that own the land on which affordable housing can be built and sold to buyers that meet certain income criteria. The CLT retains ownership of the land in order to preserve its affordability over the long term, and they can sell the homes to people who may not have previously had the financial means to become homeowners. Funds have been awarded to four existing or nascent CLTs: Interboro CLT, Cooper Square CLT, East Harlem/El Barrio CLT, and the New York Community Land Initiative. This is the first City-sponsored CLT support initiative in NYC, and the program’s success could lead to the expansion of a tool for affordable homeownership. In fact, the newly formed Interboro CLT recently received an additional $1 million from Citi Community Development and in October 2017 became NYC’s first citywide CLT. That funding will go towards Interboro’s first 250 permanently affordable units. While CLTs do not target housing for tenants based on race or ethnicity, several of the neighborhood-based CLTs are located in neighborhoods with high concentrations of non-white residents. Furthermore, racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership are linked to disparities in financial access and wealth, so making homeownership more accessible for low-income New Yorkers could contribute to decreased racial and ethnic disparities as well.

  At the federal level, a recent civil rights lawsuit may have a future impact on the race and home purchase loan denial indicator. In January 2017, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York settled a federal civil rights lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase for discriminatory mortgage lending practices, specifically for charging different fees and rates based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. Chase has created a settlement fund of $53 million dollars to compensate the estimated 50,000 black and Hispanic borrowers who were affected. The high-profile nature of this case could have the effect of discouraging other discriminatory lending practices and contribute to positive change in the future.

Indicators within Quality of Housing

• Race & Overcrowding

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of Hispanic and white renter households that have more than 1.5 people per room.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Overcrowding reflects economic disparities and can affect mental health and child development and increase the transmission of infectious disease. In the US, the rate of overcrowding is disproportionately high among racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Hispanics.

  What Did We Find?
  Households were considered severely overcrowded when they had more than 1.5 residents per room. By this measure, 4.8% of renter households were severely overcrowded, a slightly higher rate than at baseline. The severe overcrowding rate for Hispanics decreased from 6.6% at baseline to 5.9%, while the rate for whites increased from 1.4% to 2.3%, leading to a decrease in the disparity between the two. The severe overcrowding rate for Asians was the same as Hispanics (5.9%), while blacks fell between the other racial and ethnic groups with a rate of 3.0%.
• Income & Heat/Hot Water

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who have had problems with heat or hot water in the past year.

  What’s the Backstory?
  In addition to increasing health risks, insufficient heat and hot water can affect mental health as well as children’s development and academic performance. People with lower incomes are more likely to have low-quality housing and problems with heat and hot water than people with higher incomes.

  What Did We Find?
  The percentage of people making less than $30,000 per year who reported having had a problem with their heat or hot water (16.5%) greatly decreased from baseline (24.0%). On the other hand, the rate increased slightly for people making more than $150,000 per year (from 12.5% to 15.2%), resulting in a large decrease in the disparity between the two groups. The likelihood of having heat and hot water problems varied by race and ethnicity as well: Hispanics (21.8%) and blacks (19.9%) were more likely to report having had a problem than whites (13.5%) and Asians (10.6%).
• Income & Vermin Infestation

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who have had problems with vermin in the past year.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Insects and rodents are often present in poor-quality housing, which affects residents’ health and well-being and is more common among people with lower income than those with higher income. Vermin are also associated with asthma and allergies, and can transmit disease.

  What Did We Find?
  The disparity for vermin infestation according to income persisted: 37.1% of those making less than $30,000 a year reported having had a problem with vermin, compared to 17.5% of those making more than $150,000. Although rates decreased significantly for both the bottom and top income groups, those making more than $150,000 saw a greater decrease, resulting in a widening disparity compared to baseline. The likelihood of vermin infestation varied by race as well: blacks (38.9%), Hispanics (32.8%), and Asians (30.3%) were more likely to have had problems with vermin than whites (25.9%).
• Public Housing & Murder

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the murder rates in NYCHA housing developments and in the rest of NYC.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Violent crime affects more than just victims; exposure to violence has serious mental and even physical repercussions. Violent crime in US public housing developments occurs more than in otherwise similar urban areas, and in NYC the murder rate is higher in public housing than it is in the remainder of the city.

  What Did We Find?
  There was negligible change in murder rates within and outside of NYCHA housing developments from the baseline year. In total, 14.3% of murders citywide occurred within NYCHA developments, and the murder rate within NYCHA (12.103 per 100,000) remained more than three times the rate in the rest of NYC (3.525). As for shootings, 19.0% were located within NYCHA, and the shooting rate within NYCHA (47.910 per 100,000) was more than four times higher than the rate outside of NYCHA (9.925 per 100,000).
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  Due to the affordability crisis in NYC, more attention is usually given to affordability of housing than to quality of housing. However, there are several recent initiatives that aim to improve or maintain housing quality in NYC, and these may have contributed to change both at the topic and indicator level.

  Several new developments related to housing health hazards aim to improve issues related to heat/hot water and vermin for all New Yorkers, and, if such issues disproportionately impact low-income households, could contribute to change in income and heat/hot water and income and vermin infestation. Regarding the former, a bill was introduced by Councilmember Ritchie Torres in December 2016 that would require the owners of buildings with multiple units to install devices that automatically report and record hourly temperatures, which would keep landlords accountable and could potentially have the effect of reducing heat issues for tenants.

  Although income and vermin infestation saw a negative change in score this year, reported problems with vermin decreased overall. There are several programs directly or indirectly targeting vermin which, if continued, could contribute to continued reductions in reported cases and potentially decreased disparities. DOHMH’s Rodent Reservoir Analysis program, in effect since 2014, maps out areas with the most rat issues so the City can be more targeted in its efforts. In 2015, the City announced an increase of more than 700% in funding for the program – from $400,000 to $2.9 million. Additionally, a death in spring 2017 due to Leptospirosis (a disease caused by rat urine) has brought vermin infestations into the spotlight, bringing renewed public attention to this issue. Among the changes currently under consideration is the Asthma-Free Homes bill, originally introduced in 2014 and currently under review with the City Council Health Committee, would require landlords to manage vermin and mold in a timely manner and would penalize those who do not.

  There are also several new housing maintenance initiatives that may play a role in improving housing quality for low-income New Yorkers and as a result, could contribute to reduced disparities in income and vermin infestation if continued. For example, in 2016 DOHMH and the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) launched Healthy Homes Training, a program that trains architects, developers, property owners, and general contractors in healthy building practices for HPD-financed affordable housing in terms of integrated pest management, smoke free housing, and active design. In May 2016, HPD released a set of design guidelines for new affordable housing construction, which could improve the quality of future housing stock rented to low-income New Yorkers and reduce the likelihood of homes falling into disrepair or hazardous conditions. Also in 2016, the City replaced 49 roofs in public housing developments in efforts to reduce tenants’ exposure to pests and mold.

  In another effort to improve housing quality, in May 2017, HPD, the NYC Housing Development Corporation, and NYS Homes and Community Renewal partnered with Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) NYC to release a tool called the Integrated Physical Needs Assessment to evaluate multifamily properties according to health, energy, and physical quality. This new tool combines separate existing tools for evaluating energy use and housing conditions in order to make housing assessments more efficient and cost-effective for property owners, which could make it more likely that future building repair needs will be addressed in a timely manner.

  Finally, the Mayor’s Action Plan for Neighborhood Safety (MAP) was launched in 2014 with the express goal of improving safety in and around 15 NYCHA housing developments. Work conducted under MAP has included addressing physical conditions, engaging communities, and expanding programming and workforce development. The City is monitoring both crime and a number of specific indicators, and to date has noted decreased crime in the targeted developments. As this work continues, it may contribute to increased positive change in public housing and murder.

Indicators within Neighborhood

• Race & Neighborhood Family Friendliness

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of blacks and whites who think their neighborhood is not a good place to raise a family.

  What’s the Backstory?
  A neighborhood’s family friendliness can have a positive impact on a family’s functioning and resiliency. Further, the social cohesion of a neighborhood, which is closely related to family friendliness, is associated with better mental well-being and self-reported physical health.

  What Did We Find?
  The disparity between blacks and whites who think their neighborhood is not a good place to raise a family decreased slightly from baseline. The rate for blacks decreased from 30.5% to 25.9%, while the rate for whites remained largely the same. Asians had the lowest rate (12.8%) after whites (11.5%), followed by Hispanics (30.1%). Across the five boroughs, residents of the Bronx were most likely to disagree that their neighborhood was family friendly (33.1%), followed by residents of Brooklyn (24.1%), Manhattan (14.4%), Queens (13.9%), and Staten Island (13.3%).
• Income & Trust in Neighbors

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who think their neighbors are not willing to help one another.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Trust among neighbors reflects social cohesion, which is more often found in high-income than low-income neighborhoods. Stronger relationships within a community are associated with better physical and mental health and with lower levels of violence and crime.

  What Did We Find?
  Respondents in the lowest income group reported lower levels of trust in their neighbors than respondents in the highest income group: 31.8% of those with incomes below $30,000, compared to 11.2% of those making more than $150,000, felt their neighbors were not willing to help one another. Rates remained similar to baseline, when 32.5% of those in the bottom income group, and 10.4% of those in the top, reported feeling that their neighbors were not willing to help each other. Trust in neighbors also varied by race: 31.2% of Hispanics, 24.8% of blacks, 18.3% of Asians, and 13.0% of whites reported that they did not think their neighbors were willing to help one another.
• Income & Neighborhood Family Friendliness

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the percentages of people in the bottom and top income groups who think their neighborhood is not a good place to raise a family.

  What’s the Backstory?
  A neighborhood’s family-friendliness can have a positive impact on a family’s functioning and resiliency. Further, the social cohesion of a neighborhood, which is closely related to family-friendliness, is associated with better mental well-being and self-reported physical health.

  What Did We Find?
  The percentage of people who disagree that their neighborhood is a good place to raise a family decreased for people making less than $30,000 (from 32.1% to 29.5%), but decreased much more for people making more than $150,000 (from 14.5% to 5.1%), resulting in a larger disparity. Perceptions of family friendliness also varied by religion: Jewish respondents were least likely to disagree that their neighborhood was family friendly (7.2%), while Muslims (19.9%), Atheists (20.9%), Protestants (21.9%), Catholics (23.1%), and respondents with other religious beliefs (24.3%) were considerably more likely to disagree.
• Sexual Orientation & Housing Stability

  What is Measured?
  Ratio between the mean years spent at their current address for lesbian/gay/bisexual and heterosexual individuals.

  What’s the Backstory?
  Housing stability, reflected in part by longevity in a home, contributes to family well-being and neighborhood social cohesion. In the US, the concentration of gay and lesbian couples in an area over time increases housing values, suggesting that this population improves communities; however they may have shorter housing tenures than their heterosexual counterparts.

  What Did We Find?
  This year, there was a moderate increase from baseline in the disparity between the average number of years that people who identified as heterosexual (13.27) and people identifying as LGB (9.51) had lived at their current address. However, the mean years increased for both groups from baseline. Among racial and ethnic groups, whites had the longest average tenure (15.07), which was only slightly longer than blacks (13.23), followed by Hispanics (11.82) and Asians (9.52).
• Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

  Since many of the indicators in the Neighborhood topic look at perceptions of the places where people live, we cannot draw conclusions about what specific initiatives, policies, or conditions directly contribute to those responses. In general, concentrations of low- or high-income households in specific neighborhoods may explain the low score for perceptions of neighborhood family friendliness across income groups, since low-income families are more likely to report their neighborhood has insufficient opportunities for their children.

  That said, a number of 2016 initiatives aimed at increasing amenities and social cohesion may indirectly influence the perception of family-friendliness in neighborhoods across NYC. In January 2016, HPD and the City and Design Trust for Public Space released the first set of comprehensive guidelines for the design of retail and ground-floor uses in affordable housing developments. The goal for these guidelines is to create a range of neighborhood amenities that are well-designed and serve the communities living around them.

  In April 2016, NYC Small Business Services (SBS) launched Neighborhood 360° to conduct Commercial District Needs Assessments (CDNA) in partnership with community-based nonprofits in neighborhoods throughout NYC. The assessments aim to identify opportunities for neighborhood revitalization through physical upgrades, strategic support for local businesses, public programming, and quality of life improvements. Neighborhood 360° grants, funded by the City, Citi Community Development, and LISC, will then go towards the implementation of these strategies. CDNAs have been completed in Downtown Flushing, Downtown Staten Island, East Harlem, East New York, Inwood, and Jerome Avenue. These neighborhoods collectively received $8.34 million in grant funding to realize projects developed as part of the CDNA process. The program also hires and assigns Neighborhood 360° fellows in each participating neighborhood to provide community-development support throughout the process. SBS is currently seeking local partners for the next round of CDNAs in Bushwick, Coney Island, Corona, and Longwood/Crotona Park East. Since several of the Neighborhood 360° neighborhoods, such as East New York, East Harlem, and Longwood/Crotona Park East, are low income and have high minority populations, the program could have contribute to improvements in the income and neighborhood family friendliness and race and neighborhood family friendliness indicators over time.