Justice

in New York City

Many people equate justice exclusively with the workings of the criminal justice system. While it encompasses this, it means much more. Disadvantaged populations experience justice when they feel empowered and engaged in the systems that govern and protect them. This means having a voice in civic affairs and political processes. It also means feeling—and being—safe and secure, with recourse to pursue justice when/if a crime is committed against you.

Our indicators under the theme, Justice explore how disadvantaged groups experience significant disparities in the topic areas of Safety & Victimization, Fairness of the Justice System, Political Power, and Civic Engagement.

You can see a snapshot of the indicators averaged in this theme in the chart to your right and then visit the sections below for more detail and additional findings.

Read our recent blogs about Justice…

Safety and Victimization

Disadvantaged populations are entitled to the same equal protections under the law that their more advantaged counterparts enjoy. Foremost among them is the right to safety. Unfortunately rates of safety and victimization are informed by factors like race and ethnicity, foster care status, and LGTBQ status. Rates of violent victimization as well as rates of family-related homicide show large disparities between racial and ethnic groups. Foster care children experience disproportionately higher rates of abuse than non-foster care children. Hate crimes, motivated by religion, race, and sexual orientation, continue to claim victims across NYC. To understand Safety and Victimization as a function of inequality we used four indicators:
  • Race & Violent Victimization
  • Race & Domestic Violence Homicide
  • Foster Care Status & Child Abuse/Neglect
  • Hate Crime Victimization
Look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then explore each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.

Indicators within Safety and Victimization

  • Race & Violent Victimization

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between blacks’ and whites’ violent crime victimization rates.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Victims of violent crimes may experience trauma or physical injury, as well as problems in relationships, health, finances, work or school, and other areas of their lives. In the US, blacks and Hispanics are the victims of violent crime at higher rates than whites.

    What Did We Find?
    Despite a decrease in the violent victimization rate for blacks, racial and ethnic disparities in violent victimization rates remain sizeable and persistent, as rates among whites have also decreased. Blacks (738.699 per 100,000) continued to be more than four times more likely to be victims of violent crimes, which include murder, rape, robbery, and felonious assault, than whites (174.621). The rates for Hispanics (508.861) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (284.933) were also much higher than the rate for whites. There were small increases in victimization rates from the baseline year for Hispanics (from 496.323) and Asians (from 274.088), while the rates for blacks and whites decreased (from 753.838 and 179.986, respectively).

  • Race & Domestic Violence Homicide

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between blacks’ and whites’ family-related homicide rates.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Violence by intimate partners and other family members is a serious problem in the US and beyond, and can cause serious injury and even death. Nationally, blacks are much more likely than whites to be victims of domestic violence, including violence leading to homicide.

    What Did We Find?
    Although the total number of family-related homicides decreased from baseline (from 63 to 49), blacks continued to account for more than half of all victims (from 35 to 25). Overall, blacks had a considerably higher family-related homicide victimization rate (1.330 per 100,000) than Hispanics (0.644), Asians (0.418), or whites (0.109). Additionally, more than half (26) of family-related homicides in the current year involved an intimate partner. Looking by location, the Bronx had the highest family-related homicide victimization rate (1.099 per 100,000), followed by Queens (0.599), Manhattan (0.426), Staten Island (0.421), and Brooklyn (0.379).

  • Foster Care Status & Child Abuse/Neglect

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the child abuse and neglect rates for children in and out of family foster care.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Child abuse and neglect have serious, lasting, and even fatal consequences, with hundreds of thousands of victims annually in the US. Maltreatment can lead to foster-care placement, though children in foster care are more likely than those out of foster care to be victimized.

    What Did We Find?
    On average, there were 8,966 children in foster care in the current year. Children in family foster care were somewhat more likely than children in the community to experience abuse and/or neglect this year, with 7.6 incidents per 100,000 days in family foster care, compared to 5.3 for children out of foster care. These data decreased from baseline, when children in the foster care system were less likely to experience abuse and/or neglect (4.0, compared to 4.8 for children out of foster care). Citywide, there were 34,854 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect.

  • Hate Crime Victimization

    What is Measured?
    Rate of hate crime victimization citywide.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Hate crimes are motivated by bias against characteristics of the victim such as race or sexual orientation. These acts are considered especially pernicious because they not only harm victims, but send a message of intolerance and intimidation to the group to which they belong.

    What Did We Find?
    There were 369 hate crimes committed in NYC, compared to 308 citywide in the baseline year. The number of reported hate crimes was highest in Brooklyn (139), followed by Manhattan (127), and Queens (70), while there were fewer hate crimes reported in the Bronx (22) and Staten Island (11). Across New York State, religiously-motivated hate crimes were most common (52.0%), followed by anti-race/ethnicity/national origin hate crimes (25.6%), and anti-LGBT hate crimes (20.6%). Within religiously-motivated hate crimes, anti-Jewish hate crimes were most common, accounting for 40.5% of all reported hate crimes. Within race/ethnicity, anti-black hate crimes accounted for one-eighth (12.5%) of the total hate crimes. Anti-gender (0.8%), anti-age (0.8%), and anti-disability (0.2%) crimes accounted for the remainder of hate crimes.

  • Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

    Although we have seen negative change within the Safety and Victimization topic this year, there have been a number of efforts that aim to address the disparities we highlight here that may contribute to future changes in disparities. Work in this area has been varied, including intervention programs, policy recommendations to increase safety and reduce victimization, and other government actions targeted to specific disadvantaged groups.

    Among the broader interventions that aim to improve safety and reduce victimization are “credible messenger” violence reduction programs, which connect young people to advocates who have gone through similar experiences and, therefore, may be more likely to impact thinking and behavior. A number of credible messenger programs have been launched in NYC in recent years, including the City’s Cure Violence initiative, for which there is some evidence of positive effects: between 2014 and 2016, young men in NYC neighborhoods with Cure Violence programs adopted attitudes less supportive of violence. Other credible messenger programs, such as Arches, a program of the NYC Department of Probation and the NYC Young Men’s Initiative, have also begun, along with the establishment of the Credible Messenger Justice Center, which provides training and support for credible messengers and advocates for expanding the practice even further. Although none of these credible messenger programs specifically aim to reduce disparities in violence, given the large racial disparities that exist in victimization rates, they may nonetheless contribute to future changes in disparities captured in our race and violent victimization indicator.

    STEPS to End Family Violence is another youth-focused intervention program, but with a specific focus on domestic violence, it relates more to our race and domestic violence homicide indicator. STEPS works to address domestic violence among youth through a number of different programs. Its ongoing Relationship Abuse Prevention Program, for example, provides programming in several NYC high schools to prevent teen dating violence; the court-mandated, 6-month Teen Accountability Program, in turn, works with teenage boys with charges related to intimate partner or family violence.
    Also related to the race and domestic violence homicide indicator, in 2017 the City launched a Domestic Violence Task Force (DVTF), for which ISLG provided management and support. The DVTF undertook an intensive review of the City’s current programs, policies, and practices to prevent, reduce, and respond to domestic violence, and at the end of the review developed a series of recommended policy actions that included increasing housing protection for domestic violence victims and implementing more targeted risk assessment tools for domestic violence offenders.

    Issues related to another Safety and Victimization indicator— foster care status and child abuse/neglect—have received much public attention in recent years, and several initiatives may contribute to changes in disparities. To prevent new cases of abuse and neglect, the NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) has continued to provide oversight and training to foster care providers, as well as to prioritize maintaining family connections, a documented strategy to produce better outcomes for children. Among foster care placements in fiscal year (FY) 2017, for example, rates of siblings placed in the same home and with relatives increased from FY 2016. It should be noted that this is an area where increased attention may have the somewhat paradoxical effect of increasing reports of abuse and neglect—which could, in turn, increase reported disparities. Through more accurate reporting, however, this could potentially produce better outcomes. For example, a 2016 ACS Child Safety Alert protocol defined the responsibilities of foster care provider agencies and foster parents with the express intention of prompting a heightened level of scrutiny of abuse or neglect of children in foster care; so although this type of change could increase maltreatment reports, it may be not be reflecting new cases, but instead cases that had previously been uncaptured.

    Finally, a number of targeted policies focus on hate crime victimization. In February 2017, New York State announced a $25 million grant program that will begin in FY 2018 to increase security and prevent hate crimes in schools, community centers, and day care centers that are considered to be at risk due to their belief system or mission. Additionally, the New York State Police created a task force to combat hate crimes and anti-Semitism in response to threats and vandalism targeting Jewish community centers in late 2016 and early 2017, as well as an increase in reported hate crimes in New York State targeting Muslims in 2016. The July 2017 issue of Narrowing the Gap outlined the difficult role of law enforcement in the prevention and prosecution of hate crimes and reporting issues that lead to gaps in the data. As with the previous indicator, it should be noted that an increase in reporting—which would result in a negative change to our indicator—may suggest more accurate identification of cases, not only an increase in the number of crimes.

Fairness of the Justice System

Implicit/explicit bias plays a role in most people’s decision-making processes. While the justice system is structured to eliminate bias, wide-ranging discretionary powers extended to justice system officials can result in bias. This is especially true when looking at race or ethnicity. Misdemeanor arrest rates and jail admission rates reflect marked disparities between black and white populations. A natural corollary to this is trust in police which also shows gaps between blacks and whites, as well as for Muslims, who may feel themselves unfairly targeted. To understand Fairness of the Justice System as a function of inequality we used four indicators:
  • Race & Misdemeanor Arrest
  • Race & Trust in Police
  • Race & Jail Admissions
  • Religion & Trust in Police
Take a look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then look at each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.

Indicators within Fairness of the Justice System

  • Race & Misdemeanor Arrest

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between blacks’ and whites’ misdemeanor arrest rates.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Regardless of innocence or guilt, a misdemeanor arrest can have considerable negative repercussions, including loss of employment, child custody, and housing. In the US, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately arrested for misdemeanors, for which police have greater discretion in responding than they do for felonies.

    What Did We Find?
    Substantial racial and ethnic disparities persisted in misdemeanor arrests. Blacks, who have the highest misdemeanor arrest rates (1,613.513 per 100,000), were more than four times more likely to be arrested than whites (349.942) and five times more likely than Asians/Pacific Islanders (320.789). The misdemeanor arrest rate for Hispanics was also very high (937.652), yet considerably lower than the rate for blacks. Rates decreased from baseline for all racial and ethnic groups, although the disparity persisted.

  • Race & Trust in Police

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the percentages of blacks and whites who would not be comfortable asking the police for help.

    What’s the Backstory?
    If people are not comfortable asking the police for help, it suggests a fundamental distrust of law enforcement that weakens police legitimacy and jeopardizes public safety. In the US, racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to trust law enforcement than whites.

    What Did We Find?
    Despite numerous NYPD efforts to address them, stark racial and ethnic differences exist in trust in police. In fact, blacks were more than three times more likely than whites to distrust the police. Distrust increased from baseline across racial and ethnic groups, and one in three blacks (33.5%, up from 26.4%) and one in four Hispanics (25.3%, up from 20.2%) said they would not be comfortable seeking help from a police officer, compared to 9.9% of whites (up from 8.1%), and 17% of Asians (up from 14.5%). There were also differences by sexual orientation: individuals who identified as lesbian/gay/bisexual (28.5%) were considerably more likely to feel uncomfortable seeking help from the police than individuals identifying as heterosexual (19.0%).

  • Race & Jail Admissions

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between blacks’ and whites’ jail admissions’ rates.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Incarceration has serious negative consequences for individuals, families, and communities. Although the majority of people in the US are white, most people in the country’s jails and prisons are racial or ethnic minorities, and blacks have the highest jail admission and incarceration rates.

    What Did We Find?
    Although incarceration rates are falling, racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration rates remain a serious problem. Blacks were eight times more likely to be admitted to NYC jails (1,693.531 per 100,000) than whites (208.654). Blacks were also twice as likely as Hispanics (797.119), and over 17 times more likely than Asians/Pacific Islanders (96.919) to be jailed. Blacks’ rates did decrease from baseline, however (from 2,067.319), and the same was true for Hispanics (from 968.061), and whites (from 241.442), although they increased slightly for Asians/Pacific Islanders (from 94.916). Men are by far more likely to be admitted to jail than women: in the current year, 55,331 (91.0%) admissions were men while 5,491 (9.0%) were women.

  • Religion & Trust in Police

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the percentages of Muslim and Jewish individuals who would not be comfortable asking the police for help.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Since the 2001 terror attacks, the NYPD, City government officials and federal law enforcement have made numerous efforts to build relationships with the Muslim community. However, studies suggest that trust in police among Muslim-Americans has remained limited locally and nationally.

    What Did We Find?
    Trust in police differs among religious groups, although the particularly large gap between Jewish and Muslim residents noted in the baseline year narrowed considerably in the current year. Of those reporting a religious affiliation, the data show decreased distrust in police among Jewish (6.8%, down from 8.8%) and Muslim respondents (10.3%, down from 19.0%) from the baseline year. Police distrust increased from baseline for other religious groups: one in six Protestant (17.3%, up from 16.5%), and one in five Catholic respondents (19.4%, up from 15.1%) said that they would not be comfortable seeking help from a police officer. It also increased for atheists (25.5%, up from 20.2%).

  • Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

    Initiatives to increase fairness across the justice system include policy changes to reduce arrests and jail admissions and to increase trust in police, which may affect disadvantaged groups who are more likely to be justice-system involved.

    In 2017, for example, the NYS Senate introduced two bills that aim to reduce misdemeanor arrests and incarceration. The first would decriminalize subway turnstile jumping, which currently can be prosecuted as theft of services at the discretion of law enforcement and which evidence shows is differentially enforced across racial and ethnic groups. The second would reduce sentences for other misdemeanors. Given the overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal justice system, both of these bills, if passed, have the potential to contribute to a reduction in disparities in race and misdemeanor arrest and race and jail admissions.

    In addition to these state bills, Mayor de Blasio’s April 2017 announcement of the eventual closure of Rikers Island and a plan to reduce the jail population has the potential to reduce both overall admissions and racial and ethnic disparities, as reflected in race and jail admissions. The 10-year plan, released in June 2017, outlines steps to reduce the average daily jail population through changes in arrest, bail, and sentencing, as well as to build smaller jails, ultimately enabling a shutdown of jail facilities on Rikers. The plan is largely aligned with the recommendations in the April 2017 report released by the Independent Commission on Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform, which was staffed in part by ISLG and for which ISLG’s Executive Director Michael Jacobson chaired a subcommittee.

    In May 2015, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) piloted the Neighborhood Coordination Officers program, in which officers work closely with communities to address local issues and improve trust in police, in four precincts. Although the program does not target specific racial, ethnic, or religious groups, it has the potential to contribute toward increased equality in race and trust in police and religion and trust in police, as the disadvantaged groups represented by these indicators tend to have less trust in police and are overrepresented in these precincts. In August 2016, the program was expanded to 48 precincts, covering a majority (51%) of NYC precincts and 100% of housing commands. NYPD Commissioner O’Neill had been acknowledged for piloting and expanding the community policing program as NYPD Chief of Department before succeeding William Bratton as Commissioner in 2016.

    Finally, in December 2016, NYPD issued a policy change that allows police officers to wear religious turbans and beards. The Muslim Officers Society and the Sikh Officers Association had been advocating for this change, claiming that the prohibitions had prevented the NYPD from diversifying its ranks in accordance with stated goals. This rule change may encourage individuals to join the force who previously may not have because they could not adhere to religious traditions and police force requirements simultaneously. This change in policy toward increased inclusivity may help to diversify the police force, increase the level of trust in police among Muslims, and contribute to additional future score changes in religion and trust in police.

Political Power

An empowered and engaged citizenry makes for a healthy democracy. Perceptions of one’s political power can influence the stability of society overall. Electing diverse representatives who can speak to issues impacted by race, gender, disability status, or sexual orientation can increase engagement levels of these disadvantaged populations. When an individual feels like he/she can influence government decisions, they are more likely to cooperate with those decisions. Voting has historically been the method by which members of minority groups affect change. Therefore, accessibility issues loom large when discussing equality of opportunity. To understand Political Power as a function of inequality we used four indicators:
  • Race & Representation in Government
  • Disability & Voting Access
  • Gender & Representation in Government
  • Education & Political Empowerment
Look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then go to each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.

Indicators within Political Power

  • Race & Representation in Government

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the percentages of blacks and whites who think the government is not racially and ethnically diverse.

    What’s the Backstory?
    The US is becoming increasingly racially and ethnically diverse. It is important that the government reflect this diversity and that people see their own group represented. However, most elected officials nationwide are white, while racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented.

    What Did We Find?
    Racial and ethnic differences were observed in respondents’ perceptions about whether the government is racially and ethnically diverse: 42.1% of blacks, 36.5% of Hispanics, 36.2% of Asians, and 25.0% of whites reported that they “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree” that the NYC government represents the racial and ethnic diversity of the population. The percentages of respondents who disagreed were higher than baseline for blacks (36.1% at baseline), Hispanics (29.3%), and Asians (25.0%), and slightly lower for whites (28.4%).

  • Disability & Voting Access

    What is Measured?
    Percentage of polling sites in the most recent election with barriers to accessibility.

    What’s the Backstory?
    People with disabilities have lower rates of voter registration than people without disabilities. Registered voters who have disabilities also have lower rates of turnout for elections. Some of that low turnout is associated with challenges reaching polling places as well as barriers at those sites.

    What Did We Find?
    In the 2016 general election, 50 out of 64 sites visited had barriers to accessibility, including inadequate ramps (21.9%), inadequate signage (25.0%), narrow entryways/pathways (45.3%), and insufficient space to access ballot marking devices (31.3%). Only 14 sites (21.9%) had no barriers. Sites were less accessible than baseline, during the 2014 election (69.4%). Perhaps related to these barriers, in ISLG’s 2017 public survey, 83.1% of people with a physical disability said that they did not think they could influence government decision making, compared to 53.0% of those without a physical disability.

  • Gender & Representation in Government

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the percentages of female and male elected government officials.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Women make up about half of the US population but are typically a minority in its legislative institutions. While gender diversity in legislatures improves citizens’ perception of those organizations’ legitimacy, men hold a substantially larger share of elected offices nationally than women.

    What Did We Find?
    There was only negligible change in the gender disparity among elected officials since our baseline review. Out of 163 elected local government officials, only 31.9% were women, while 68.1% were men. These officials include the Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate, City Council members, Assembly members, district attorneys, borough presidents, State Senators, and US Representatives from NYC congressional districts. The disparity was more pronounced at the city level, where a little more than one in four (27.4%) elected officials was a woman, compared to a little more than one in three (35.2%) city representatives in the NYS Legislature.

  • Education & Political Empowerment

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the perceived inability to influence government decision making for people with the lowest and highest educational levels.

    What’s the Backstory?
    For a democracy to function well, its citizens must feel that they have a voice. In the racially, culturally, and economically diverse society we live in, education is a common thread that brings diverse groups together and allows them to form more informed opinions about political processes in the city and nationally.

    What Did We Find?
    Of those with less than a high school diploma, 60.1% agreed that they don’t have any say about what the government does, compared to 44.5% of those with a professional/graduate degree; agreement was 59.1% among those with a high school diploma, 63.1% among those with a technical/vocational degree, and 51.8% among those with a 4-year college degree. The percentages were lower than the baseline year, though the difference was larger for those with less than a high school diploma (70.6% at baseline) than among those with a professional/graduate degree (47.2%), which led to a decrease in the disparity. These numbers also varied by income: 52.7% of those making less than $30,000 compared to 41.9% of those making more than $150,000 felt they did not have a say.

  • Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

    While we did not see progress across all of the indicators in this topic, there were several policies in place during the past year that aimed to increase representation in government, political empowerment, and voting among disadvantaged groups. It’s possible that the effects of these policies will start to emerge in our data over time.

    For example, to address the lack of gender representation in the City Council, which is reflected in the gender and representation in government indicator, outgoing City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito co-created the 21 in ’21 initiative. The initiative aims to create a pipeline of qualified and diverse women to be candidates for open City Council seats in 2021. Despite stark gender imbalance among City Councilmembers, nearly half (24 of 50 as of October 2017) of Councilmembers’ chiefs of staff—the highest ranking aides—are women. City Councilmember chief of staff positions and other top aide roles are beginning to create a pool of future City Council candidates, which is starting to change the face of local politics as more women enter office.

    Organizations across the country are working to increase female representation in government as well. Training and networking organizations, including VoteRunLead, Ignite, She Should Run, and Running Start, work to encourage and prepare women to run for elected office. Political Action Committees, such as Emily’s List and the National Organization for Women, in turn, provide support and funding for women running for elected office, especially women of color.

    Finally, local and national policies are targeting voting access for people with disabilities, which may contribute to change in the disability and voting access indicator over time. At the local level, the NYC Board of Elections website offers a permanent absentee ballot application for individuals with permanent disabilities. At the national level, in turn, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 required that, starting in 2008, all polling places be equipped with at least one ballot-marking device accessible to individuals with disabilities; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires all poll sites to be accessible. Unfortunately, the policies do not always translate into practice on the ground. The Center for Independence of the Disabled, which conducts an annual survey of accessibility conditions at NYC polling sites, has consistently found that the majority of the sites surveyed each year still have barriers to accessibility. As changes continue to be implemented in accordance with the law, however, those changes may contribute to changes in this indicator.

Civic Engagement

Feeling invested in a community is what we mean by civic engagement. Living in a NYC neighborhood does not automatically translate into feeling you are part of and building a community. Attending public meetings, turning out to vote, volunteering, and living in a district with participatory budgeting are all key indicators of civic engagement. These indicators are informed by race and income, but also by neighborhood. To understand Civic Engagement as a function of inequality, we used four indicators:
  • Race & Public Meeting Attendance
  • Income & Voter Turnout
  • Immigration Status & Volunteering
  • Location & Participatory Budgeting
Take a look at the chart to your right for an overall picture of this topic, and then look at each indicator and the scores in context for more detail and additional findings.

Indicators within Civic Engagement

  • Race & Public Meeting Attendance

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the percentages of Asians and blacks attending public meetings.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Attending public meetings is one way for people to become better informed about their communities and to participate in local decision making. Recent data shows that blacks in NYC have the highest public meeting attendance rate and Asians have the lowest.

    What Did We Find?
    Differences between racial and ethnic groups were found in the likelihood of attending one or more public meetings since the baseline year: 8.5% of blacks, 7.8% of whites, 2.0% of Hispanics, and 5.4% of Asians reported attendance. Equality between black and Asian respondents improved dramatically from the baseline year when blacks were more than four times more likely to attend public meetings (7.3%) than Asians (1.6%). While attendance increased for both groups, the much larger increase among Asians led to a large increase in score. Differences in attendance by race and ethnicity may also relate to immigration status: a higher percentage of those born in the US (7.0%) reported attending public meetings than those born outside the US (4.5%). *Updated data were not available at the time of final collection, so the data here reflect last year’s findings.

  • Income & Voter Turnout

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the voter turnout rates in the bottom and top income areas.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Voting is the primary route through which citizens make their voices heard in government, and low turnout rates decrease political influence among disadvantaged groups. Nationally, people with lower incomes are less likely to vote than those with higher incomes.

    What Did We Find?
    Voter turnout increased overall between the 2014 and 2016 elections, as is expected in a presidential election year. Although there was a small decrease in the disparity, differences persisted in voting patterns in poor versus rich areas: 40.8% of registered voters in the bottom 20% median income census tracts voted in the 2016 election (up from 17.7%), compared to 51.4% of those in the top 20% (up from 24.2%). We also found differences in the 2016 voter turnout rates by racial and ethnic composition with voting most likely among registered voters in majority black census tracts and least likely in majority white census tracts. Findings showed that 53.3% of registered voters in majority black, 44.7% in majority Asian, 42.8% in majority Hispanic, and 40.1% in majority white census tracts voted in the 2016 election.

  • Immigration Status & Volunteering

    What is Measured?
    Ratio between the percentages of foreign-born and US-born individuals who volunteer.

    What’s the Backstory?
    In addition to the work accomplished through voluntary community service, volunteering may increase life satisfaction, social capital, and access to resources. In the US, immigrants may face more barriers to volunteering and other civic engagement than non-immigrants.

    What Did We Find?
    US-born New Yorkers were nearly three times more likely to report volunteering (19.3%) than foreign-born individuals (6.5%). The percentage of foreign-born individuals who volunteer decreased from 7.6% at the baseline. At the same time, there was an increase among US-born individuals who volunteer (from 15.2%), resulting in a larger disparity in volunteering rates between the two groups. There were also notable differences by race and ethnicity. Hispanics and Asians, groups that tend to have higher foreign-born populations, were less likely to volunteer (6.8% of Hispanics and 8.3% of Asians) than blacks (12.8%) and whites (21.8%). *Updated data were not available at the time of final collection, so the data here reflect last year’s findings.

  • Location & Participatory Budgeting

    What is Measured?
    Percentage of city council districts not engaged in participatory budgeting.

    What’s the Backstory?
    Participatory budgeting allows community members to decide how to spend government funds. They also typically engage a more diverse body of participants than the general election does, particularly as they allow all district residents over the age of 11 (including non-citizens) to vote.

    What Did We Find?
    During the 2016-17 participatory budgeting cycle (Cycle 6), 31 out of 51 city council districts engaged in participatory budgeting, decreasing the percentage of non-participating council districts from 52.9% to 39.2%. Participation in participatory budgeting also expanded: approximately 102,800 people voted in Cycle 6, more than twice as many as voted at baseline in Cycle 4 (51,362). Additionally, allocated funds increased: together, participating districts allocated $40 million for locally-developed capital projects, up from $32 million at baseline.

  • Scores in Context: Local Initiatives

    Targeted policies to increase civic engagement have the potential to reduce disparities, particularly when focused on specific disadvantaged groups. In recent years, the City Council has taken actions to increase access to public meetings, as well as to participatory budgeting. The City has also made an effort to streamline access to volunteering options, although we note some potential unintended consequences that may result below.

    In 2013, the City Council passed Local Law 103, requiring NYC departments, boards, and commissions to webcast public meetings. Since then, implementation has been monitored by the City’s Commission on Public Information and Communication. Because allowing virtual participation increases access to these meetings for individuals who might otherwise be unable or unlikely to participate, this shift in policy may contribute to changes in the disparities highlighted by the race and public meeting attendance indicator. Awareness of this mode of attendance is increasing, so it is possible that it may have played a role in the increase in attendance we saw this year.

    In 2017, in turn, the City Council began allowing online participation in the participatory budgeting process for the first time—through the Idea Collection Map—and added a resources page to its website to help volunteers increase participation and turn ideas into actions. These changes are likely to increase participation in the budgeting process in participating districts, but they also have the potential to increase the demand for participatory budgeting in districts not currently participating. This may contribute to changes in disparities in the location and participatory budgeting indicator.

    Finally, public agencies and nonprofit organizations that offer formal volunteer programs typically use some type of application process to screen new volunteers, which may involve formal background checks. To streamline the screening process, NYC Service offers Go Pass, a program for city agencies and other organizations that allows volunteers to apply using the results from a single background check on an ongoing basis. While Go Pass and other formal screening processes allow organizations to meet certain security needs, they may also deter people with undocumented status from formal participation in volunteer programs. This may contribute to increased disparities, as reflected in the immigration status and volunteering indicator.