Issuu on Google+

DRAFT ** NOT FOR CIRCULATION ** DRAFT

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT


Information is power. Information empowers. The Brooklyn Community Foundation aims to improve lives and strengthen communities. We are a partner to residents, businesses, community organizations and civic leaders, working with them to make the Brooklyn we all love even better. In addition to seeking out and garnering support for the best non-profit programs and new ideas in our borough, we invest in projects that generate essential information, to make Brooklyn’s 2.5 million residents more aware of key issues and challenges across the borough’s 71 distinct neighborhoods. The Center for the Study of Brooklyn has been our information and research collaborator in this pursuit, gathering critical data, examining it closely, and sharing it broadly as an essential tool for informed decision making. Brooklyn Trends is the first-ever in-depth view of the civic health of our borough and its 18 Community Districts; it is an incredibly valuable new resource for Brooklynites to measure quality of life in the place they call home. As we analyze the indicators of Brooklyn’s civic health, we begin to identify trends that are shaping our borough’s growth and development. Brooklyn Trends not only illuminates the Foundation’s work, but also empowers Brooklynites to take on local challenges and create positive change from the ground up. We encourage you to utilize the nine Brooklyn Trends reports to their fullest, and work together with your neighbors, colleagues and friends in both the non-profit and business communities, looking Brooklyn’s challenges in the eye, smiling with pleasure at our accomplishments, and most importantly, being a force for good so that Brooklyn Trends keep moving in a positive direction.


Brooklyn Trends

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT INDICATORS IN THIS REPORT Voting Campaign Donations Contact with Local Government 311 Requests-For-Service Census Response Rates Charitable Contributions Membership in Civic Organizations and Unions Religious Attendance and Affiliation Volunteering Employment at a Non-profit Employment in Local Government Barriers to Community Engagement

Cover Photograph: nayrb7, Flickr

Willingness to Improve Neighborhoods

Brooklyn Trends

Civic Engagement Report


BROOKLYN NEIGHBORHOODS BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CD) GREENPOINT

CD 1

NORTH SIDE SOUTH SIDE

EAST WILLIAMSBURG

WILLIAMSBURG

VINEGAR HILL DUMBO FULTON FERRY BROOKLYN HEIGHTS

CD 2 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

BUSHWICK

CD 3

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN CLINTON HILL

CD 4

COBBLE HILL FORT GREENE BEDFORD BOERUM STUYVESANT HILL OCEAN HIGHLAND CARROLL GARDENS HILL PARK PROSPECT HEIGHTS RED BROADWAY WEEKSVILLE HOOK GOWANUS JUNCTION PARK CROWN HEIGHTS NORTH SLOPE BROWNSVILLE CROWN HEIGHTS SOUTH WINGATE

CD 6

CD 16

CD 9

CD 7

RUGBY PROSPECT LEFFERTS GARDENS

PROSPECT PARK SOUTH KENSINGTON

BAY RIDGE

CD 10 FORT HAMILTON

DYKER HEIGHTS

DITMAS PARK

CD 17

CD 18

EAST FLATBUSH

MIDWOOD

NEW LOTS

CD 5 SPRING CREEK

STARRETT CITY

CANARSIE

CD 14

CD 12

EAST NEW YORK

REMSEN VILLAGE

FLATBUSH

BOROUGH PARK

CITY LINE

CD 8

WINDSOR TERRACE SUNSET PARK

CYPRESS HILLS

PAERDEGAT BASIN

FLATLANDS

GEORGETOWN MANHATTAN TERRACE

CD 11 BENSONHURST

MILL BASIN MARINE PARK

MADISON

BERGEN BEACH MILL ISLAND

BATH BEACH HOMECREST GRAVESEND

CD 13 SEA GATE

CD 15

GERRITSEN BEACH

SHEEPSHEAD BAY BRIGHTON BEACH

MANHATTAN BEACH

CONEY ISLAND

Data Source: NYC Department of City Planning (2011).1

CD 1: East Williamsburg, Greenpoint, North Side, South Side, Williamsburg

CD 10: Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Fort Hamilton

CD 2: Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn, DUMBO, Fulton Ferry, Fort Greene, Vinegar Hill

CD 12: Borough Park, Kensington

CD 3: Bedford Stuyvesant CD 4: Bushwick CD 5: City Line, Cypress Hills, East New York, Highland Park, New Lots, Spring Creek, Starrett City CD 6: Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Gowanus, Park Slope, Red Hook CD 7: Sunset Park, Windsor Terrace CD 8: Crown Heights North, Prospect Heights, Weeksville CD 9: Crown Heights South, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Wingate

1

CD 11: CD Bath Beach, Bensonhurst CD 4 1 CD 7

CD 10

CD 13

CD 16

CD 11

CD 14

CD 17

CD 3 CD 6 CD 9 CD 12 CD 14: Ditmas Park, Flatbush, Manhattan Terrace,CD 15 Midwood, Prospect Park South

CD 18

CD 2

CD 5

CD 8

CD 13: Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Sea Gate

CD 15: Gerritsen Beach, Gravesend, Homecrest, Madison, Manhattan Beach, Sheepshead Bay CD 16: Broadway Junction, Brownsville, Ocean Hill CD 17: East Flatbush, Rugby, Remsen Village CD 18: Bergen Beach, Canarsie, Flatlands, Georgetown, Marine Park, Mill Basin, Mill Island, Paerdegat Basin Total: 71 neighborhoods

Brooklyn Trends


Our Civic Engagement “Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the…life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes.”2

Civic Engagement Report

We often undercount civic engagement by invoking narrow definitions such as running for public office or voting. In this Civic Engagement Report we’ve widened our lens to include a broader set of indicators, considering for example, civic engagement through faith-based organizations and employment in the non-profit sector. Expanding the traditional definition of civic engagement gives us a more accurate picture of the myriad ways to do good work for and with our neighbors, right here in Brooklyn.

Photograph: Groundswell Community Mural Project and Make the Road by Walking

Brooklynites engage in both formal and informal civic arenas, and many seem endowed with a strong sense of wanting to give back to their communities. They feel responsible for helping their neighbors who are in need, just as they may have been helped at one time or another. From the singular act of voting, to committing to a lifetime of work advancing social and economic justice, opportunities for civic engagement in Brooklyn are abundant and vary greatly.

2


How do we fare when we look at traditional measures of civic engagement such as voting and campaign donations?3

Although the percentage of Brooklynites voting in presidential elections is increasing, we are still well below the national averages for the last three elections, which were 63.0% in 2008, 60.6% in 2004 and 54.2% in 2000.7 Midterm election turnout was low for eligible Brooklyn voters, reaching only 26.1% for the November 2010 election.8 Differences among Brooklyn neighborhoods are evident in voter registration and actual voting. Only 63.0% of eligible residents are registered to vote in Community District 4 (Bushwick),9 while Community District 5 (East New York among other neighborhoods) has 104.8% of its eligible residents registered.10 [See Map 1] Brooklynites overwhelmingly choose Democrat (71.6%) as their party affiliation, followed by Republican (9.2%), Independent (2.1%), and then with less than 1.0% each, Conservative, Working Families and Green.11 16.2% of registered Brooklynites select no party affiliation.12 [See Map 2]13

of eligible Brooklynites are registered voters4, 5 & 6

80.0% Registered Voters

50.4% Voted in 2008 Presidential Election 47.4% Voted in 2004 Presidential Election 44.7% Voted in 2000 Presidential Election

Looking at the 2008 presidential election, a high point for voter turnout nationwide, voting patterns vary widely in the borough. In Community District 11 (Bensonhurst and Bath Beach), only 32.3% of eligible voters voted in the election, the borough’s lowest turn out by Community District.14 The highest participation rate (67.6%) was in Community District 3 (Bedford Stuyvesant).15 [See Map 3]

MAP 1:

MAP 2:

Percent of Brooklyn Citizens Age 18 and Above Registered to Vote (2011)*

Democrat and Republican Party Affiliation for Brooklynites Registered To Vote by Election District (2011)* Democrats

Under 75.0%

Republicans

96.2 %

1 Dot = 100 Registered Voters

75.1%–85.0%

Over 95.0%

63.0%

70.7 %

85.1%–95.0%

102.9 % 79.5 %

67.1% 66.9%

83.8% 81.6%

104.8%

93.7% 81.2% 91.5%

65.4%

75.6% 66.5% 76.3%

74.5%

Data Source: New York State Board of Elections (2011) * Voter registration percentages may be inflated (to over 100% in some cases) as voters are considered active until they have not voted in two major elections.

3

Data Source: New York State Board of Elections (2011) * Election District boundries not shown, Community District boundries are for reference only

Brooklyn Trends


MAP 3:

MAP 4:

Percent of Brooklyn Citizens Age 18 and Above Who Voted in the 2008 Presidential Election

Percent of Brooklyn Adults with Non-Citizen Status (2008-2010)

Under 40.0%

Under 10.0%

40.1%–50.0%

10.1%–20.0%

58.1%

50.1%–60.0%

16.3 %

20.1%–30.0%

Over 60.0%

Over 30.0%

43.4%

57.8%

31.2%

10.6% 14.5%

67.6% 61.6%

48.9%

9.0% 40.8%

18.3%

54.2%

41.3%

39.9%

64.9% 47.9%

52.8%

28.9%

17.9%

14.2% 25.6%

32.3% 42.7%

14.8%

15.0%

39.1%

Data Source: Center for Urban Research (2008)

Data Source: 2008-2010 American Community Survey

But here’s the thing about voting—it only reflects the voices and concerns of those who are able to, and do, participate. Although demographic data about voters are not available for Kings County (Brooklyn), voters often tend to have higher levels of education and income, and are older. Given the demographics of those who are actually voting, particular interests may be overrepresented, while other interests might be overlooked. Furthermore, disenfranchised Brooklynites (for example, those adults who are not eligible to vote due to non-citizen status, which is 20.5% of Brooklynites,16 or because they are in prison or on parole for a felony conviction) are often from neighborhoods where there is less access to services such as quality healthcare or education, or more concerns about public safety. [See Map 4]17 These distressed communities in Brooklyn need more voices engaged in the political process, not fewer. Let’s consider campaign donations as another traditional proxy for civic engagement. For the 2009 New York City elections (which included races for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council), campaign donations varied substantially by Brooklyn neighborhood. For example, within the 11201 ZIP code, which aligns with the neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown Brooklyn, total donations exceeded $1 million (or $22.50 per person), while the second highest donations ($597,103 or $9.48 per person) came from ZIP code 11215, which includes the neighborhoods of Gowanus and Park Slope.18 Starrett City and Spring Creek (ZIP code 11239) had the lowest total donations—$12,515 (or $0.86 per person).19 If there is a correlation between financial support and whether a Civic Engagement Report

19.1%

24.9% 21.6%

53.7%

44.6%

18.1%

25.1%

55.5%

Brooklynite Party Affiliations20

71.6% Democrat

9.2% Republican

4


MAP 5:

MAP 6:

Campaign Donations for New York City Elections by Brooklyn ZIP Code (2009)

Brooklyn City Council Districts

Under $75,000 $75,000.01– $300,000 $300,000.01– $500,000 $500,000.01– $1,000,000 Over $1,000,000

Community Districts City Council Districts

$60,506

Highest Donations ZIP Code 11201

CD1

$226,396

34

$52,818 $86,007 $1,074,507

33

$70,791

$239,500 $73,560 $160,836

$232,776

2nd Highest Donations ZIP Code 11215

$73,737

$92,354

$82,991

$597,103

$34,434

$72,973

$134,042

Lowest Donations ZIP Code 11239

CD5

40

38 CD7

CD14

42 CD17 45

$250,080 $416,619

$252,784 $388,166 $87,541

37 41 CD16

CD9

39

$12,515

$85,252 $97,003

CD4

36 CD8

$59,437

$95,340

CD3

CD6

$38,729

$64,566 $22,453

CD2 35

43

$242,713

44

CD18 48

$214,206

$83,501

CD12

CD10 $338,094

50

$428,435

46

CD11 47

$254,318

CD13

CD15

$51,878

Data Source: NYC Campaign Finance Board (2009)

Data Source: NYC Department of City Planning (2010)

particular candidate is elected, these statistics may indicate inequities in representation of certain Brooklyn populations and their respective interests. [See Map 5]21

CD 1

CD 4

CD 7

CD 10

CD 13

CD 2

CD 5

CD 8

CD 11

CD 14

CD 3

CD 6

CD 9

CD 12

CD 15

Civic engagement through local governmentanother traditional measure.

5

Photograph: Tom Arthur from Orange, CA, USA

In addition to the representation of Brooklynites by federal and state government, there are local political structures where policymaking, legislating and budgeting occur. Four locally-based and formal mechanisms for civic engagement are the Brooklyn Delegation of the New York City Council, the Brooklyn Borough President’s Office, Brooklyn’s eighteen Community Boards and Brooklyn’s NYPD Community Councils. While there is little in the way of quantitative data on this formal local civic engagement, we have included a few indicators that reflect the degree to which Brooklynites reach out to their local elected officials. According to the New York City Feedback Citywide Customer Survey, 40.6% of Brooklynites contacted a city government agency or representative in the last 12 months (compared to 34.3% of Manhattanites, 38.5% of Bronx dwellers, 37.6% of Queens’ residents and 40.1% of Staten Islanders).22 The New York City Social Indicators Survey, last conducted in 2004 by Columbia University’s Social Indicators Survey Center, tells us that 11.5% of Brooklynites contacted a local elected official regarding a need or a problem.23 Other indicators, including calls to City Council Members, and 311 requests-for-service, are discussed later in the Civic Engagement Report.

Brooklyn Trends


The Brooklyn Delegation of the New York City Council Brooklyn is represented by the sixteen members of the Brooklyn Delegation. All of the 51 members of the New York City Council serve on various committees and “monitor the operation and performance of city agencies, make land use decisions and have sole responsibility for approving the city’s budget. Council Members also legislate on a wide range of issues.”24 Of Brooklyn’s sixteen City Council Members, four are women and more than half were born and/or raised in Brooklyn.25 The current geographic boundaries of Brooklyn’s sixteen City Council Districts (numbered 33 to 48) include demographic differences and disparities with respect to race and ethnicity, language ability, income, health, employment, etc. There are plans to redraw these boundaries as a part of redistricting before the 2013 elections.26 [See Map 6]27

CouncilStat 2009 Top Categories of Concern30 Housing and Buildings

27%

Transportation

12%

Brooklynites often reach out to their City Council representatives to voice their concerns. CouncilStat is a technology that City Council Members use to compile and “compare and analyze constituent issues within and across districts.”28 [See Graph 1]29 City Council Members use these data to “improve the Council’s response to community needs and assist with developing a legislative agenda and budget priorities that address these issues.”31

Finance

8%

Opportunities for civic engagement by Brooklyn residents via the New York City Council range from volunteering with constituency outreach initiatives to testifying in support of (or against) legislative proposals during formal public hearings at City Hall.

GRAPH 1: New York City Council’s CouncilStat Concerns from Brooklynites by Type (2009) 27%

12% 8%

7%

7% 5%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

Ec on

om y/ J

ob s

5%

Data Source: New York City Council (2009)

Civic Engagement Report

6


The Office of the Brooklyn Borough President The role of the Brooklyn Borough President’s Office is to identify and advocate for changes needed in public policy, services and budgeting, and to serve as a liaison between Brooklyn constituents and citywide government agencies. Specific duties include recommending budget priorities for the borough, reviewing major land use decisions, and chairing the Borough Service Cabinet (which includes the District Managers of Brooklyn’s Community Boards and representatives of various City Agencies) and Borough Board (made up of the Brooklyn Delegation of the City Council and the borough’s Community Board Chairs). The Borough President’s Office is also responsible for nominating and appointing members to citywide panels and commissions, as well as the approximately 900 members of Brooklyn’s eighteen Community Boards.32

Community Boards in Brooklyn

Photograph: Ad Meskens, Wiki Commons

Another formal political structure in Brooklyn with publicly accessible forums for civic engagement is the Community Board. The approximately 50 members of each of Brooklyn’s eighteen Community Boards (there are 59 Community Boards in New York City) are nominated by City Council Members and appointed by the Borough President. Brooklyn’s Community Boards address the needs of their respective communities in an advisory capacity. Monthly meetings allow for constituencies in each Community District to voice their opinions on matters ranging from land use and zoning, to the City budget and municipal services. Board members must reside, work or possess a specific interest in the community they represent.33 Community Boards may also initiate a community planning process for their districts under section 197-a of the New York City Charter. Three Brooklyn Community Boards (1, 6 and 7) have produced four 197-a plans. Community Board 6 developed Brooklyn’s first 197-a plan, called Red Hook: A Plan for Community Regeneration, which was adopted in September, 1996.34 Community Board 1 produced the Williamsburg Waterfront Plan and the Greenpoint Plan, which were both adopted in January 2002, and the New Connections/New Opportunities Sunset Park Plan by Community Board 7 was adopted in December, 2009.35

Brooklyn NYPD Precinct Community Councils Another example of a formal forum for civic engagement in Brooklyn is that of the NYPD Precinct Community Council. The 26 Precinct Community Councils in Brooklyn meet monthly and are venues for residents to voice concerns to their local police precinct representatives.36 Precinct Community Councils are described in greater detail in the Public Safety Report of Brooklyn Trends.

311 provides Brooklynites with an additional way to request local services.

Perhaps an unconventional measure of civic engagement, 311 (the web- and telephone-based government information and non-emergency service center for New York City) requests-forservice provide some insight into what Brooklynites are hoping

7

Brooklyn Trends


to see improved about their communities.37 In Fiscal Year 2011 (July 2010 to June 2011), 494,918 requests–for–service were made by Brooklynites to 311.38 Two agencies ranked highest for the number of requests: the New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) at 18.1%, and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) at 17.9%.39 Two-thirds of the 311 service requests to the NYC DOT were concerning either street conditions (29,651) or a faulty street light (29,672).40 Most of the 311 requests directed to the NYPD were categorized as quality-of-life requests-forservice and included complaints regarding non-emergency situations (for example noise, graffiti, public drinking, illegal fireworks and illegal parking).41 [See Map 7]

A government-led effort with opportunities to engage civically, the Census helps us get a sense of what’s going on in Brooklyn.

The goal of the Census enumeration is to accurately count Brooklyn’s population and document basic demographic information. From the Census, for example, we learn what languages Brooklynites speak and where they were born, how much education they have had and how old they are, how much money they make and what type of jobs they have. Census workers, as well as Brooklynites who take the time to complete the Census questionnaire, are helping to make available vital information that will translate into the resources we may need as a community. In addition to Census data allowing us to better inform our local, state and federal governments about needed services and resources, Census enumeration also impacts the representation that Brooklynites receive in the United States House of Representatives.

The most common single complaint to 311 in Brooklyn was noise42

9.8%

MAP 7: 311 Requests-for-Service Rate per 100 Brooklyn Population and Counts (Fiscal Year 2011)

Under 14 29,930

14.1–17 .0 17.1–20.0

20,885

Over 20.0

20,179

Counts on map represent total Requests-for-Service per Community District

22,269

30,378 19,868 13,978

16,833

18,871

30,688

27,974 29,047

27,712

20,727

30,606 27,271 27,274

11,667 Data Source: NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (FY 2011)

Civic Engagement Report

8


Perhaps the most important feature of the Census is that the resulting data are publicly accessible—this means the Census enumeration can help us here in Brooklyn help ourselves. In fact, the bulk of Brooklyn Trends would not be possible without Census data, and the funding and good work of many community-based organizations and researchers in Brooklyn would be substantially impacted. For example, the Center for the Study of Brooklyn has worked with many Brooklyn-based organizations to provide Census-based data analysis in support of their work. For a link to examples of recent customized reports that use Census data, please visit the Brooklyn Community Foundation’s website at www.brooklyncommunityfoundation.org. Given the influence of Census data on public policy, programming and funding decisions that impact Brooklyn, it is important to note that the response rate in Brooklyn to the Census (especially in certain neighborhoods) is often not as high as it could and should be. Anecdotally, we know that the reasons Brooklyn residents do not respond to the Census questionnaire range from general feelings of disenfranchisement and/or distrust of the government to specific fears of some undocumented immigrants that they might be deported. Low response rates and undercounting as a part of the Census process have been raised as concerns by the New York City Department of City Planning and other interested parties in New York and Brooklyn. These groups claim that the data we and the government use to make critical political, social and economic decisions are only as good as the quantity and quality of responses to the Census questionnaire, and so therefore Brooklyn is often under-resourced and underrepresented due to a low

MAP 8:

MAP 9:

U.S. Census Brooklyn Mail Response Rates (2010)

Percentage Point Change in U.S. Census Brooklyn Mail Response Rates 2000 to 2010

Under 50.0% Under 50.0% 50.1%–55.0%50.1%–55.0%

Hard to Count Areas Hard to Count Areas Under -8.0% Under -8.0%

55.1%–60.0% 55.1%–60.0% 60.1%–65.0% 60.1%–65.0%

-7.9%–0.0%-7.9%–0.0% 0.1%–10.0% 0.1%–10.0%

Over 65.0%Over 65.0% No Population No Population

10.1%–40.0% 10.1%–40.0% Over 40.0%Over 40.0% No Population No Population

Hard to Count Hard to(2000 Countand Areas Data Source: U.S. Areas Census Bureau 2010)

Under 50.0% Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010)

Under 50.0%

50.1%–55.0%

50.1%–55.0%

Under -8.0%

Under -8.0%

55.1%–60.0%

55.1%–60.0%

-7.9%–0.0%

-7.9%–0.0%

60.1%–65.0%

60.1%–65.0%

0.1%–10.0%

0.1%–10.0%

Over 65.0%

Over 65.0%

10.1%–40.0%

10.1%–40.0%

9

Brooklyn Trends


Logo for 2010 United States Census

response rate and undercounting. This being said, the Census mail response rate in Brooklyn did increase from 2000 (54.0%) to 2010 (58.0%).43 [See Map 8] Likewise, several “Hard to Count” neighborhoods, which can be considered to align with the “distressed communities” referenced previously in this Report, had much improved response rates.44 [See Map 9] One issue that exacerbates underrepresentation is the practice of counting incarcerated individuals in the district in which they are incarcerated, not where they and their families live. This is a well-debated issue in New York City and Brooklyn, because services and resources needed for the neighborhoods where these Brooklyn residents lived (and where they will likely return) may be underestimated.

Brooklyn’s Census mail response rate (58.0%) was relatively low compared to the national mail response rate (74.0%) in 2010.45

Giving Our Money and Time to Causes We Believe In

Based on 2006 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, Brooklynites give more to charities as a percentage of their income than residents of New York City’s other four boroughs, with low-income Brooklynites giving the most as a percentage of their income.

58% vs. 74% Brooklyn

Nation

As Graph 2 shows, those with the lowest incomes in Brooklyn (under $10,000 annually) gave 10.4% of their yearly income to charities (organizations with 501(c)(3) status).46 As we climb up the income brackets in Brooklyn, charitable contributions as a percentage of income continue to decline, with the exception of the highest bracket ($200,000 and above), whose households on average gave 5.6% of their income.47

GRAPH 2: Percent of Annual Income Given to Charities in Brooklyn by Income Level & by NYC Borough (2006) Brooklyn, By Income Level

By NYC Borough

10.4%

7.9% 6.2% 5.6% 4.6%

4.3% 3.6%

3.2%

81 ,5 $2 nd

$2 , en s

Is St at en

Q

ue

n ha tt a

2.7%

2 48

98 2, 0 $1

$2 ,7 88 x M an

B ro n

$4 yn kl ro o B

U

,2 46

3.0%

nd er $1 0, $1 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 –$ 25 ,0 $2 0 0 5, 0 0 1– $5 0, 0 $5 0 0 0, 0 0 1– $7 5, $7 0 0 5, 0 0 0 1– $1 0 $1 0, 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 1– $2 0 M 0, or 0 e 0 Th 0 an $2 0 0, 0 0 0

3.5%

la

4.3%

Average dollar amount given per tax return Data Source: Internal Revenue Service via National Center for Charitable Statistics (2006)

Civic Engagement Report

10


MAP 10:

TABLE 1:

Contributions as a Percentage of After-Tax Income and Average Amount Given Per Tax Return (2008)

Brooklyn Charitable Giving by ZIP code (2008)

Under 1.5%

1.0% ($373)

1.6%–2.5%

3.2% ($1,147)

2.6%–3.5%

1.3% 3.7% ($299) ($920)

Over 3.5% 2.5% ($2,324)

2.3% ($874)

1.7% ($1,029)

1.6% ($966)

2.2% ($551)

2.4% 2.1% ($933) ($691)

1.8% ($1,208)

2.4% ($889)

1.2% ($276)

3.1% ($943)

2.6% ($738)

9.7% ($3,017) 2.0% ($1,007) 1.8% ($807)

7.0% 6.6% ($3,246) ($2,509)

1.5% ($488)

6.4% ($2,830)

2.9% ($793)

3.6% ($968)

1.2% ($327)

Highest % of Income Contributions ZIP Code 11219

Lowest % of Income Contributions ZIP Code 11222

2.9% ($858)

3.5% ($1,086)

3.2% ($1,349)

1.9% ($770)

Data Source: Internal Revenue Service (2008)

2.2% ($535)

ZIP CODE CODE ZIP 11219 11219

NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD BOROUGH PARK PARK BOROUGH

CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRIBUTIONS AS A A PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE AS OF AFTER-TAX AFTER-TAX OF INCOME INCOME 9.7% 9.7%

11210 11210

FLATBUSH/MIDWOOD FLATBUSH/MIDWOOD

9.3% 9.3%

11230 11230

FLATBUSH/MIDWOOD FLATBUSH/MIDWOOD

7.0% 7.0%

$3,246 $3,246

11204 11204

BOROUGH PARK/BENSONHURST PARK/BENSONHURST 6.6% 6.6% BOROUGH

$2,509 $2,509

11223 11223

GRAVESEND GRAVESEND

$2,830 $2,830

3.5% ($1,188)

$4,365 $4,365

2.9% ($1,347)

ZIP Codes with Lowest Contributions as a Percentage of After-Tax Income CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRIBUTIONS AS A A PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE AS OF AFTER-TAX AFTER-TAX OF INCOME INCOME

ZIP CODE CODE ZIP 11214 11214

NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD BATH BEACH/BENSONHURST BEACH/BENSONHURST BATH

1.5% 1.5%

AVERAGE AVERAGE AMOUNT GIVEN GIVEN AMOUNT PER TAX TAX RETURN RETURN PER $488 $488

11237 11237

BUSHWICK BUSHWICK

1.3% 1.3%

$299 $299

11220 11220

SUNSET PARK PARK SUNSET

1.2% 1.2%

$276 $276

11232 11232

SUNSET PARK PARK SUNSET

1.2% 1.2%

$327 $327

11222 11222

GREENPOINT GREENPOINT

1.0% 1.0%

$373 $373

Data Source: Internal Revenue Service (2008)

It’s good to know that we’re giving relatively more than other boroughs here in Brooklyn as Graph 2 illustrates, but are Brooklynites’ dollars going to support philanthropic efforts in Brooklyn? Few data exist to explore this important question about individual giving. We can look at IRS data from tax year 2008 to tell us more about individual giving.49 In 2008, Brooklynites itemized over $1.2 billion in charitable contributions, but there are wide variations in individual charitable giving by Brooklyn ZIP code.50 Map 10 shows the average percentage of after-tax income given by residents in each ZIP code, as well as the average dollar amount contributed.51 Residents filing taxes in ZIP code 11222 (Greenpoint)52 on average contributed the lowest percentage of income (1.0% or $373 per tax return), although not the lowest dollar amount, which was ZIP code 11220 (Sunset Park) with $276 per tax return.53 ZIP code 11219 (Borough Park) had the highest percentage of income given (9.7% or $3,017 per tax return) and the highest dollar amount was ZIP code 11210 (Flatbush/Midwood) with $4,365 per tax return.54 We also know that between 2009 and 2012, the Brooklyn Community Foundation, the largest public foundation based in Brooklyn, directed over $18 million to Brooklyn non-profits.55 The Brooklyn Community Foundation is the first foundation created exclusively to cultivate giving and service to Brooklyn’s communities. Brooklyn is the only borough with its own community foundation, and hundreds of Brooklyn households have made donations to the Foundation’s five community funds for education, human services, community development, the arts and the environment since its creation in 2009.56

11

6.4% 6.4%

AVERAGE AVERAGE AMOUNT GIVEN GIVEN AMOUNT PER TAX TAX RETURN RETURN PER $3,017 $3,017

2.8% ($691)

9.3% ($4,365)

1.7% ($499)

2.6% ($653)

ZIP Codes with Highest Contributions as a Percentage of After-Tax Income

Brooklynites who itemize

charitable contributions on their IRS tax forms gave an average of $4,246 (or 4.6% of their income) annually in 2006— the highest percentage of income compared to the other boroughs.48

4.6%

Charitable Contributions

Total Annual Income

1,651 Brooklyn non-profits (reporting to the IRS for tax year 2009) received nearly $2 billion ($1,694,591,780) in annual contributions, gifts and grants.57

Brooklyn Trends


Organizing ourselves into civically engaged groups is something we’re good at here in Brooklyn.

From neighborhood block associations to grassroots initiatives sponsored by community-based organizations, from unions to tenant associations, and from cooperative boards to advisory boards, Brooklynites are joiners! Many of these groups are often not registered as 501(c)(3) organizations included in IRS data, but they do provide important opportunities for civic engagement, and enhance community development efforts in Brooklyn’s neighborhoods. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), there are approximately 400 “bonding social capital” organizations in Brooklyn.58 These organizations, according to the NCCS, consist of neighborhood and block associations, recreation and sports clubs, youth development clubs, garden clubs, and other community service organizations.59 Also interesting to note, 25.9% of the Brooklyn workforce is unionized—72.0% of those in unions are employed by the public sector, and 15.8% by the private.60

34.7% of Brooklyn adults report attending a religious service at least once a week61 and approximately 63.0% of Brooklyn’s population is affiliated with a religious congregation.62

63.0% Affiliated with a religious congregation

34.7% Attend a religious service weekly

Photograph: Michael Premo, Flickr

Places of worship, faith-based at their core and often not included in narrower definitions, should also be considered as forums for civic engagement in Brooklyn. Places of worship in Brooklyn run soup kitchens and homeless shelters. They sponsor healthawareness campaigns and clothing drives. And quite simply, they provide a space for relationship-building and information sharing among Brooklynites hailing from different communities and backgrounds in the borough and beyond.

There are approximately 400 “bonding social capital” organizations in Brooklyn.

Civic Engagement Report

12


Whether we Brooklynites have joined these groups for camaraderie, or to advance an urgent social justice cause, the fortified social networks and enhanced understanding of one another that come out of our civic engagement via these groups is foundational to building a better Brooklyn.

Volunteering may not be the best gauge of how much we civically engage.

Community service through volunteering is generally a straightforward indicator of how civically engaged residents are. In 2010, 18.5% of New York Metropolitan Statistical Area residents volunteered, versus 26.3% for the nation.63 The top two arenas for volunteer work in New York City were educational organizations (29.9%), followed by religious organizations (29.0%).64 Given the relatively low percentage of volunteering in New York City, we might presume similarly low numbers in Brooklyn. In the absence of Brooklyn volunteer rate data, perhaps it is helpful to take a look at another avenue—employment—for engaging civically, so we don’t get the wrong impression about Brooklynites’ interest in giving back.

Nearly 10% of Brooklyn’s workforce has chosen a job that aims to improve their neighbors’ quality of life — a profound measure of civic engagement.

What better measure of individual commitment to empowering New York City and Brooklyn communities than the over 100,000 Brooklynites who have dedicated their careers to the greater good via employment at a non-profit organization? [See Map 11]66 For some Brooklynites, working in the non-profit versus the for-profit sector might mean a lower salary. However, the median wage for full-time non-profit work ($42,994) is actually higher than the full-time median wage for all for-profit jobs held by Brooklynites ($35,448).67 Of the Brooklyn workers who are employed by non-profits, 62.6% are women and 37.4% are men.68 Whites as a racial/ethnic category have the highest representation in the non-profit workforce (48.1%), followed by Blacks (30.8%), Latinos (12.6%) and Asians (7.2%).69 U.S. born Brooklynites make up 65.0% of the non-profit workforce in Brooklyn, which means 35.0% of the non-profit sector is made up of immigrants—a great testament to civic engagement in their new country.70 There are just over 3,000 active non-profits in Brooklyn.71 [See Map 12]72 These non-profits range from small and unsung community-based organizations that provide vital niche services to substantially larger (and often nationally renowned) institutions that employ hundreds of people. These non-profits provide abundant opportunities to participate in work that benefits the greater good, allowing Brooklynites to substantively engage in their communities. The Brooklyn Community Foundation, through its partnership of donors, non-profit groups and civic leaders, connects Brooklynites with great ways to do good right in their 13

100,148 Brooklynites (9.1% of Brooklyn’s labor force) work at a non-profit, and 50.8% of these people work at non-profits in Brooklyn.65

Contact information and website links to the largest 1,000 active Brooklyn non-profit organizations can be found in the Center for the Study of Brooklyn’s Brooklyn Organizations Directory via a link at www.brooklyncommunityfoundation.org. Brooklyn Trends


own borough. By investing in and supporting local volunteerism through their “Do Good Right Here Volunteer Initiative,” anchored at www.DoGoodRightHere.org, the Foundation builds additional capacity for Brooklyn’s non-profit community to expand their programs and services to help meet the needs of more Brooklynites. “Do Good Right Here” also complements the Brooklyn Community Foundation’s extensive grantmaking to Brooklyn community-based organizations.

The two most commonly cited barriers to community engagement for Brooklynites in 2008 were:75

61% 41% Lack of Time

Within the context of civic engagement via one’s livelihood, it’s also important to consider the even greater percentage (11.9% or 129,910) of Brooklyn’s labor force who serve the public through employment in local government.73 [See Map 13] From sanitation workers to public school teachers, parks and recreation employees to firefighters and police, and nurses to social workers, the work of these government employees allows our city to function and thrive.

Lack of Knowledge of Existing Groups or Opportunities

For those of us who don’t civically engage, why don’t we when there appears to be so much opportunity?

According to the Citizens Committee for New York City, the two most commonly cited barriers to community engagement for Brooklynites in 2008 were lack of time (61.0%) and lack of knowledge of existing groups or opportunities (41.0%).74 Although local data for Brooklyn aren’t available, we know that nationally people work more hours on average annually than ever before. People in the United States work on average 8.1 weeks longer than those in the Dutch workforce, 7.4 weeks longer than Germans and 6.6

MAP 11:

MAP 12:

Percent of Brooklyn Labor Force Working for Non-Profit Organizations (2008-2010)

Location of Organizations in the Center for the Study of Brooklyn’s Brooklyn Organizations Directory (2012)*

Brooklyn

9.1%

Bronx

9.8%

Manhattan

12.4%

Queens

7.6%

Staten island

8.7%

8.9%

5.9%

14.5% 9.6% 13.9%

Under 6.0%

9.8%

6.1%–9.0% 9.1%–12.0% Over 12.0%

7.1%

11.1%

5.3%

7.5%

7.5% 15.1%

12.2%

9.9%

8.7% 3.6% 6.8%

6.1% Data Source: 2008-2010 American Community Survey

Civic Engagement Report

*This map does not include all Brooklyn-based organizations and institutions, only those included in the 2012 Brooklyn Organizations Directory. Data Source: Center for the Study of Brooklyn (2012)

14


MAP 13: Percent of Brooklyn Labor Force Working for Local Government (2008-2010)

Brooklyn

11.9%

Bronx

13.3%

Manhattan

5.9%

Queens

10.3%

Staten island

16.2%

8.4%

10.8%

10.0% 15.4% 11.2%

13.6%

Under 9.0%

18.1%

9.1%–12.0% 12.1%–15.0%

14.1%

14.7% 17.3%

7.6%

Over 15.0% 6.2%

10.6%

10.7%

17.4%

6.9% 11.2%

10.8%

Data Source: 2008-2010 American Community Survey

Photograph: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Gina M. De Jesus

weeks longer than the French, so it is no wonder that many of us feel as though we lack the time to civically engage.76 Factors such as language, citizenship status and incarceration/felony convictions have also been suggested as barriers to engagement. Despite these obstacles, at least half of those Brooklynites surveyed by the Citizens Committee for New York City expressed a

willingness to get involved in improving their neighborhoods in three ways: voting in local elections (51.0%), talking to neighbors about neighborhood issues (52.0%) and sharing information and resources with neighbors (56.0%).77

The Immigrant Factor

Many Brooklyn immigrants are engaged civically through employment in the non-profit and government sectors, their places of worship, and via volunteer opportunities with community-based organizations and neighborhood associations. Community networks provide support and on-going resources for new immigrants upon their arrival to Brooklyn. However, undocumented immigrants may tend not to engage as overtly as other Brooklynites or those immigrants with citizenship status, especially given fears of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and deportation. If there is a lack of engagement by undocumented immigrants in formal and informal civic arenas, this may be of concern as this population might have a more urgent need for services and advocacy than others. In order to encourage the engagement of undocumented immigrants in the 2010 Census enumeration, the Census Bureau emphasized in its materials that it is illegal for the Bureau to share identifying information with other government agencies (such as the INS), but the results of

15

Brooklyn Trends


Photograph: Kathryn Kirk, Office of the Brooklyn Borough President

these assurances remain to be seen. Despite the sensitivity of many community-based organizations to the specific challenges faced by undocumented immigrants in Brooklyn, more efforts could be made to reach out to and mobilize these groups so they have a better understanding of their rights, and so that they may safely civically engage in their new communities.

Where do we go from here?

Given the current climate of civic engagement in Brooklyn, is progress being made? For those of us who would like to enhance our civic engagement, how can we make sustained, positive change and promote a better quality of life for our fellow Brooklynites? This Civic Engagement Report, along with the eight additional Brooklyn Trends reports, and the Center for the Study of Brooklyn’s Brooklyn Neighborhood Reports, are vital resources for Brooklynites to use in building a better Brooklyn. The information provided in these reports supports data-driven policy, programming and funding decisions that impact the borough. These reports fortify the valiant and effective work of many non-profit organizations and give all of us pause to better understand the direction in which the borough is going.

Photograph: bicyclesonly, Flickr

Most importantly, we hope that what we learn from Brooklyn Trends and the Brooklyn Neighborhood Reports will inspire us all to Do Good Right Here in Brooklyn.

Civic Engagement Report

16


Endnotes The Center for the Study of Brooklyn acknowledges that the number of Brooklyn neighborhoods, their names and boundaries vary from source to source. We’ve used the New York City Department of City Planning’s (NYC DCP) New York: A City of Neighborhoods Citywide Index Map from 2011 as the source for the neighborhoods listed in Brooklyn Trends. New York City Department of City Planning (NYC DCP) (2011). New York: A City of Neighborhoods Citywide Index Map. Retrieved from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neighbor/neigh.shtml. 1

Ehrlich, Thomas, Ed. (2000). Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. New York: Oryx Press. 2

Statistical and Methodological Considerations: Please note that data based on samples are subject to margins of error that due to space and aesthetic considerations are not included in Brooklyn Trends. Indicators that present year-to-year change have not been tested for statistical significance. In order to improve the validity of the data presented in Brooklyn Trends, the Center for the Study of Brooklyn often uses 3-Year Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and, where relevant, averages three years of data for each indicator from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s (NYC DOHMH) Community Health Survey (CHS). For any questions about how indicators were derived, data interpretation, margins of error or statistical significance, please contact the Center for the Study of Brooklyn. 3

New York State Board of Elections (2011). Voter Enrollment by Election District Kings County, April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.elections. ny.gov/2011EnrollmentED.html. Voter registration percentages include only active voters as reported by the New York State Board of Elections and may be inflated (to over 100% in some cases) as voters are considered active until they have not voted in two major elections. Rates calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn using population estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. In the case where indicators are derived from the United States (U.S.) Census Bureau data sets (referred to as U.S. Census 2000, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2006-2008 or 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, and 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates), the data sets were retrieved from the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota: http://usa.ipums.org/usa. Unless otherwise noted, all Census data sets are from the Minnesota Population Center. The full citation for all Census data is: Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek (2011). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2011. In all following endnotes when Census data are referenced, only the year(s) is (are) given. 4

Data Source for Voted in 2008 Presidential Election: Center for Urban Research, John Mollenkopf, Director. Rates calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn using population estimates from the 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 5

New York State Board of Elections (2012). President and Vice President Election Returns, Nov 7 2000 and President and Vice President Election Returns, Nov 2 2004. Retrieved from http://www.elections. 6

17

ny.gov/2000ElectionResults.html and http://www.elections.ny.gov/2004ElectionResults.html; Rates calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn using population estimates from the U.S. Census 2000 and 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Center for the Study of the American Electorate, American University (2012). African-Americans, Anger, Fear and Youth Propel Turnout to Highest Level Since 1960. Retrieved from http://www.american.edu/spa/ cdem/csae.cfm . 7

New York State Board of Elections (2012). Lt. Governor Election Returns November 2, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ny.gov/2010ElectionResults.html. Rates calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn using population estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 8

When referring to a statistic for a particular Community District or ZIP code within the text of the report, we do not always include all the neighborhoods in a Community District or ZIP code for space considerations. Please use the Brooklyn Neighborhoods by Community District (CD) map as a reference for all neighborhoods in a particular Community District. A Brooklyn Neighborhoods by ZIP Code map is available from the Center for the Study of Brooklyn upon request. 9

Data Source for Sentence and Map 1: New York State Board of Elections (2011). Voter Enrollment by Election District Kings County, April 2011. Retrieved from http:// www.elections.ny.gov/2011EnrollmentED.html. Rates calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn using population estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Voter registration percentages include only active voters as reported by the New York State Board of Elections and may be inflated (to over 100% in some cases) as voters are considered active until they have not voted in two major elections. 10

New York State Board of Elections (2011). Voter Enrollment by County, Kings County, April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ny.gov/EnrollmentCounty.html. 11

Ibid.

12

Data Source for Map 2: New York State Board of Elections (2011). Voter Enrollment by Election District Kings County, April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.elections. ny.gov/2011EnrollmentED.html. 13

Center for Urban Research, John Mollenkopf, Director. Rates calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn using population estimates from the 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 14

Data Source for Sentence and Map 3: Ibid.

15

2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 16

Data Source for Map 4: 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 17

New York City Campaign Finance Board (2010). 2009 Citywide Election Campaign Contributions [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.nyccfb.info/searchabledb/. Donations per person were calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn based on ZIP code population estimates from the U.S. Census 2000. Brooklyn ZIP code campaign contribution totals are estimates only and are based on the New York City Campaign Finance Board’s classification of donations by city and ZIP code. No at18

Brooklyn Trends


tempt to verify actual addresses was made by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn. The total for Brooklyn campaign contributions includes donations with unverifiable or nonexistent ZIP codes. Ibid.

DCP) (2012). Community-Based Planning: The 197-a Plan. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ community_planning/197a.shtml. Ibid.

35

19

New York State Board of Elections (2011). Voter Enrollment by County, Kings County, April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.elections.ny.gov/EnrollmentCounty.html. 20

Data Source for Map 5: New York City Campaign Finance Board (2010). 2009 Citywide Election Campaign Contributions [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www. nyccfb.info/searchabledb/ . Donations per person were calculated by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn based on ZIP code population estimates from the U.S. Census 2000. Brooklyn ZIP code campaign contribution totals are estimates only and are based on the New York City Campaign Finance Board’s classification of donations by city and ZIP code. No attempt to verify actual addresses was made by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn. The total for Brooklyn campaign contributions includes donations with unverifiable or nonexistent ZIP codes. 21

New York City Mayor’s Office of Operations (2010). New York City Feedback Citywide Customer Survey [Data File]. Available from New York City Mayor’s Office of Operations. 22

Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University School of Social Work (2009). New York City Social Indicators Survey, 2004 [Data File]. Available from Social Indicators Survey Center. 23

New York City Council (2012). About the Council. Retrieved from http://council.nyc.gov/html/about/about. shtml. 24

New York City Police Department (NYPD) (2012). NYPD Precincts-Transit Districts-Housing PSAs. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/precincts.shtml#td 36

According to the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (NYC DOITT), 311 receives two types of calls: Inquiries and Requests-for-Service. Inquiries result in information being provided to the caller by either the 311 operator or through a referral to another city agency or service provider. Requests-for-Service, on the other hand, result in information being collected by 311 that is then forwarded electronically to the appropriate agency for action. 37

New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (NYC DOITT) (2012). 311 Local Law 47 Reports Database, FY 2011. Retrieved from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/ops/ll47/html/ll47_reports/ll47_reports.shtml. 38

Ibid. Percentages by city agency were calculated after removing 17,333 “literature requests” to the New York City Department of Sanitation, which the Center for the Study of Brooklyn thought more apropos of a 311 information request rather than a request-for-service. 39

Ibid.

40

Data Source for Sentence and Map 7: Ibid.

41

Ibid.

42

Data Source for Sentence and Map 8: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). U.S. Decennial Census Response Rates 2000 and 2010 [Data File]. Retrieved from http://2010.census. gov/cgi-bin/staterates.cgi. In addition to responding to the initial Census mailing, residents can fill out a “Be Counted” form with a Census worker, by telephone or by internet. Data from these “Be Counted” forms of submission could not be found by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn, and so therefore were not included in this report. 43

New York City Council (2012). All New York City Council Members. Retrieved from http://council.nyc.gov/html/ members/members.shtml. 25

New York City Council (2012). New York City Council Districting Commission. Retrieved from http://www. council.nyc.gov/html/districting/nycdistricting.shtml. 26

Data Source for Map 6: New York City Department of City Planning (NYC DCP) (2011). City Council Districts Shapefile Version 12B. Retrieved from http://www.nyc. gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/dwndistricts.shtml. 27

New York City Council (2012). CouncilStat. Retrieved from http://council.nyc.gov/html/stat/stat.shtml. 28

Data Source for Graph 1: New York City Council (2012). CouncilStat Reporting Brooklyn Cumulative Report, 2009. Retrieved from http://council.nyc.gov/html/stat/Data/ bk_2009.pdf. 29

Ibid.

30

New York City Council (2012). CouncilStat. Retrieved from http://council.nyc.gov/html/stat/stat.shtml. 31

Brooklyn Borough President’s Office (2012). Borough Hall. Retrieved from http://www.brooklyn-usa.org/pages/faq.htm. 32

Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit (2012). About Community Boards. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/ cau/html/cb/about.shtml. Community Districts delineate the jurisdiction of the local Community Board. 33

New York City Department of City Planning (NYC

34

Civic Engagement Report

Data Source for Sentence and Map 9: Ibid. 2010 Hard to Count areas are defined by the Census Bureau based upon “hard to count scores” that summarize the attributes of each census tract in terms of enumeration difficulty. Scores were derived by combining non-response rates for the 1990 and 2000 enumerations with 12 other variables, including: renter occupied units, language isolation, unemployment, poverty, public assistance recipients, no high school diploma, recent movers, multifamily housing, vacant housing units, crowded housing, non-husband-wife households and no telephone in the home. The Hard to Count areas shown in Brooklyn Trends maps were created by combining ZIP codes in which the majority of census tracts were deemed Hard to Count by the Census Bureau. 44

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). U.S. Decennial Census Response Rates 2000 and 2010 [Data File]. Retrieved from http://2010.census.gov/cgi-bin/staterates.cgi. 45

Data Source for Sentence and Graph 2: Internal Revenue Service (2012). Charitable Giving by Households that Itemize Deductions (AGI and Itemized Contributions Summary by ZIP Code, 2006) [Data File]. Retrieved from 46

18


Ibid.

Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University School of Social Work (2009). New York City Social Indicators Survey, 2004 [Data File]. Available from Social Indicators Survey Center.

Ibid.

62

The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/tablewiz/cg.php. 47

48

2008 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data are not comparable with Graph 2’s 2006 IRS data because the IRS excluded key variables from their data set post 2006. 2006 data are included in this report because they demonstrate important differences in charitable contributions by income level and borough, while the 2008 data are included because they are the most recent data available by ZIP code. 49

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (2012). Statistics of Income: Individual Income Tax Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items by State, ZIP Code and Size of Adjusted Gross Income, New York, Tax Year 2008. Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---IndividualIncome-Tax-Statistics---Free-ZIP-Code-data-(SOI). 2008 IRS data include only charitable contributions for those who filed itemized tax returns, and therefore do not include all charitable contributions that Brooklyn residents made in 2008. 50

Data Source for Map 10 and Table 1: Ibid. ZIP Codes 11202 and 11247 are not included on the map (but are included in the calculations) because they are Post Office (PO) Boxes as designated by the United States Postal Service, and are point locations, so therefore cannot be mapped with ZIP code polygons. The data for these ZIP Codes are: 11202 (2.9% or $1,079) and 11247 (4.2% or $1,357). 51

Please note neighborhood boundaries do not align with ZIP code boundaries. See endnote 9 for more information. 52

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (2012). Statistics of Income: Individual Income Tax Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items by State, ZIP Code and Size of Adjusted Gross Income, New York, Tax Year 2008. Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Income-Tax-Statistics---Free-ZIP-Code-data-(SOI).

61

The Association of Religious Data Archives (ARDA) (2012). Religious Congregations and Membership Survey, 2000, Kings County Membership Report [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/ reports/counties/36047_2000.asp. Corporation for National and Community Service (2012). Volunteering in New York, NY 2010. Retrieved from http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/NY/NewYork. Brooklyn-specific data not available. 63

Ibid.

64

2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 65

66

Data Source for Map 11: Ibid.

Ibid. All monetary figures are recalculated into 2010 dollars by the Center for the Study of Brooklyn to adjust for inflation using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ formula that is recommended by the U.S. Census Bureau. 67

2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 68

69

Ibid. Ibid.

70

Internal Revenue Service (2012). Exempt Organizations Business Master File (2012 Mar); The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics. Retrieved from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/tablewiz/bmf.php. “Active” means that an organization has filed at least one IRS 990 tax form since 2008. 71

53

Ibid.

54

Brooklyn Community Foundation (2012).

55

Ibid.

56

The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics (2012). NCCS Core Public File (Public Charities, FY 2009): 501(c)(3) Public Charities: Revenue Sources by County. Retrieved from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/. 57

Internal Revenue Service (2012). Exempt Organizations Business Master File (2012 Mar); The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Bonding Social Capital Organizations by ZIP Code [Data Base]. Retrieved from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/ geoSearch.php?drillGeo=3&q=36047. 58

Ibid.

59

Data Source for Map 12: Center for the Study of Brooklyn (2012). 2012 Brooklyn Organizations Directory. 72

Data Source for Sentence and Map 13: 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 73

Citizens Committee for New York City (CCNYC) (2008). Speak Out New York. New York: CCNYC. Please note that this study was not based on a random sample of Brooklyn residents, and over one-fifth (21.4%) of survey respondents in 2008 were leaders or active members of a neighborhood, civic or block association. The original report can be referenced for an explanation of methodology. 74

Ibid.

75

The Conference Board (2012). Total Economy Database™, Output, Labor and Productivity Country Details, 1950-2011, January 2012 [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/. Analysis based on a 40-hour work week. 76

Citizens Committee for New York City (CCNYC) (2008). Speak Out New York. New York: CCNYC. 77

Milkman, R. & Braslow, L. (2010). The State of the Unions: A Profile of 2009-2010 Union Membership in New York City, New York State, and the USA (September 2010). New York, NY: The Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies; Center for Urban Research; and New York City Labor Market Information Service, CUNY. 60

19

Brooklyn Trends


Acknowledgements Brooklyn Community Foundation

With guidance from and editing by

Brooklyn College Faculty, Staff, Students and Administration, especially:

Board of Directors

Civic Engagement Report Advisors

Alan H. Fishman, Chairman

Ken Estey (Working Group Leader)

Hildy Simmons, Vice Chairman

Gary Braithwaite

Martin M. Baumrind

Pamela Brown-Laurenceau

Robert Catell

Yvonne Graham

Rohit M. Desai

Nicole Hosten-Haas

Donald Elliott

Jerome Krase

Office of the Brooklyn Borough President

Edward F. Gentner, Jr., Esq.

Stuart Leffler

Marty Markowitz and Staff

Ralph Herzka

Harry Schiffman

Malcolm MacKay

Barbara Winslow

Brooklyn Delegation of the New York City Council

Richard W. Moore

Andrew Zolli

Brooklyn’s 18 Community Boards

Maria Fiorini Ramirez Constance R. Roosevelt

And special thanks to:

Michael Sherman

Center for the Study of Brooklyn Advisory Board

Claire Silberman Rev. Emma Jordan Simpson Staff Marilyn G. Gelber, President Michael J. Burke Anna French Diane John Stuart Post Liane Stegmaier Alex Villari Toya Williford Brooklyn Trends is written, edited and produced by

Center for the Study of Brooklyn Gretchen Maneval Director Lorna Mason Senior Research Associate Kira Krenichyn Senior Research Associate

Willard Archie Brooklyn College Alumnus Joan Bartolomeo Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation

Karen Gould, President Brooklyn College William Tramontano, Provost Brooklyn College Kimberly Phillips, Dean School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Brooklyn College

Graphic Design Team Tipton and Maglione, Inc.

Sponsors Brooklyn Community Foundation Brooklyn College

Data Sources

Marilyn Gelber Brooklyn Community Foundation

Due to space considerations, abbre-

Kimberly George Greater Brooklyn Health Coalition

each graph or map in the

Christobal Jacques Brooklyn District Public Health Office, NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene

source citations are included in the

Melissa Lee Coalition for the Improvement of Bedford-Stuyvesant

data available from all data sources

Stuart P. Leffler Con Edison Jerrold Mirotznik Brooklyn College Mohammad Razvi Council of Peoples Organization Sarah Shannon Heart of Brooklyn

Edward Morlock Research Associate

viated data sources are listed under

of

Reports Brooklyn Trends. Complete data

Report. For Brooklyn Trends, the Center for the Study of Brooklyn used the most recent endnotes of each

January 1, 2012. In the case of U.S. Census Bureau data, the 20082010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Integrated Public Use Microdata are most often used as of

instead of one year data as they allow for greater validity, particularly for neighborhood-level data.

For Reports, the Center uses trend data as far back as 1990, and geographic comparisons with New York City, New York State and the Nation are also made. each of the

Christina Pisano Research Associate Steven Jacobs Research Assistant

Your Ideas are Welcome! We welcome your feedback on the content and design of this first Brooklyn Trends! Please do contact us immediately if you find any errors in the data, visuals, text, sources, etc. so that we can share the relevant changes right away: Brooklyn Community Foundation, 45 Main Street, Suite 409, Brooklyn, NY 11201 • www.BrooklynCommunityFoundation.org Twitter @DoGoodBklyn | Facebook.com/DoGoodBklyn • info@brooklyncommunityfoundation.org | 347-750-2310 Published November, 2012. ©2012 Brooklyn Community Foundation. Civic Engagement Report

20


Civic Engagement Report