ALICE New York

ALICE
ASSET LIMITED, INCOME CONSTRAINED, EMPLOYED
Fall 2016
STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

UnitedWayALICE.org/NewYork
THE UNITED WAYS OF NEW YORK

Allegany County United Way
Chenango United Way
Tioga United Way
Tri-County United Way
United Way for Cortland County
United Way of Broome County
United Way of Buffalo & Erie County
United Way of Cattaraugus County
United Way of Cayuga County
United Way of Central New York
United Way of Columbia & Greene Counties
United Way of Delaware & Otsego Counties
United Way of Fulton County
United Way of Genesee County
United Way of Greater Niagara
United Way of Greater Oneida County
United Way of Greater Oswego County
United Way of Greater Rochester
United Way of Livingston County
United Way of Long Island
United Way of Montgomery County
United Way of New York City
United Way of Northern Chautauqua County
United Way of Northern New York

United Way of Northern Yates County
United Way of Ontario County
United Way of Orleans County
United Way of Rockland County
United Way of Rome & Western Oneida County
United Way of Schuyler County
United Way of Seneca County
United Way of Sidney
United Way of Southern Chautauqua County
United Way of Sullivan County
United Way of the Adirondack Region
United Way of the Dutchess-Orange Region
United Way of the Greater Capital Region
United Way of the Southern Tier
United Way of the Tonawandas
United Way of the Valley and Greater Utica Area
United Way of Tompkins County
United Way of Ulster County
United Way of Wayne County
United Way of Westchester & Putnam
United Way of Wyoming County
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
United Way ALICE Project New York State Coordinator
Mary A. Shaheen
United Way of New York State
New York State Corporate Investor

Special thanks to KeyBank for helping bring the message of ALICE to the State of New York.
NATIONAL ALICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

The following companies are major funders and supporters of the United Way ALICE Project.
Aetna Foundation | AT&T | Atlantic Health System | Deloitte | Entergy | Johnson & Johnson
KeyBank | Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation | OneMain Financial
Thrivent Financial Foundation | UPS | U.S. Venture
Note: In addition to the corporate sponsorships, this Report was made possible by the United Ways noted above in bold.
LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY

Dear New Yorkers:
Steering Committee
John Bernardi
United Way of the
Adirondack Region
Who is ALICE? You already know ALICE. We see ALICE every day hard workers who keep
New Yorks economy running, but who arent always sure that they can put food on their tables.
Each day ALICE stands at cash registers, fixes our cars, serves us in restaurants and retail
stores, and cares for our children and our elderly.
Bonnie DeVinney
United Way of
Greater Rochester
ALICE stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. We have produced this report
to give an identity and voice to the people who work hard, often at more than one job, yet still
struggle to make ends meet, whose wages are not sufficient to sustain them and their families,
and who are one small emergency away from a major financial crisis.
Reg Foster
United Way of
New York State
What this report shows us is startling that 44 percent of all New Yorkers are ALICE or live
below the Federal Poverty Level. This means they are not earning enough to get by based
on a Household Survival Budget that uses conservative estimates of monthly expenses for
housing, child care, food, transportation, health care and taxes.
The report shows us that ALICE lives in every part of our state, from our biggest cities to our
most rural areas. The cost of living varies widely in New York, and the report tells us what a
survival budget is in every area of the state. It provides data at a county level to help us all
understand our local communities. The report also tells us whether ALICE is a young person
struggling in their first job, a family choosing between paying food or rent, or an elderly person
on a fixed income.
We want to go deeper than counting the number of ALICE families and individuals. The report
helps us to understand ALICE, but it also points to how we can help. There is information on the
types of jobs ALICE has. It shows the pain points in the budget, the places that are the biggest
challenge for ALICE, like rent or child care costs.
Recent federal data indicates that, after a tough recession, things may finally be improving.
Poverty levels are dropping and income is rising. Here in New York, we have seen steps to
raise the minimum wage, provide family leave, and tackle poverty in a systemic way in some
of our poorest communities. What is less clear is if these positive changes will simply move
households above the Federal Poverty Level, but not above the ALICE survival threshold.
By investing in ALICE, we are investing in ourselves. Stability in the lives of workers is positive
for the companies that employ them and the overall economy. ALICE is working hard, and we
need to identify solutions that make it easier for ALICE to become more financially secure.
United Ways across New York work year round to help people we call ALICE. Please join our
efforts. Share information about ALICE, and please connect with your local United Way to learn
how you can help create more opportunities for ALICE.
Sincerely,
Reg Foster
President & CEO, United Way
of New York State
Brian Hassett
President & CEO, United Way of the Greater Capital
Region and Chair of the Membership Advisory
Committee for United Way of New York State
Nicole Gallant
United Way of
New York City
Brian Hassett
United Way
of the Greater
Capital Region
Tory Irgang
United Way
of Southern
Chautauqua County
Frank Lazarski
United Way of
Central New York
Michael Weiner
United Way of Buffalo
& Erie County
THE UNITED WAY ALICE PROJECT

The United Way ALICE Project provides a framework, language, and tools to measure and understand the
struggles of the growing number of households in our communities that do not earn enough to afford basic
necessities, a population called ALICE. This research initiative partners with state United Way organizations,
such as United Way of New York State, to deliver research-based reports that can stimulate meaningful
discussion, attract new partners, and ultimately inform strategies that affect positive change.
Based on the overwhelming success of this research in identifying and articulating the needs of this vulnerable
population, the United Way ALICE Project has grown from a pilot in Morris County, New Jersey in 2009, to the
entire state of New Jersey in 2012, and now to the national level with 15 states participating in the United Way
ALICE Project.
More than one-third of households in the United States either live in poverty or are ALICE. United Way of New
York State is proud to join the some 450 United Ways from the participating states to better understand the
struggles of ALICE. The result is that ALICE is rapidly becoming part of the common vernacular, appearing in
grant applications, in the media, and in public forums discussing financial hardship in communities across the
country.
Together, United Ways, government agencies, nonprofits, and corporations have the opportunity to evaluate
the current solutions and discover innovative approaches to give ALICE a voice, and to create changes that
improve life for ALICE and the wider community.
To access reports from all states, visit UnitedWayALICE.org
States with United Way ALICE Reports
Oregon
North Dakota
Montana
Washington
Minnesota
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Idaho
Wyoming
Michigan
Iowa
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Illinois Indiana
Utah
Colorado
California
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Arizona
Arkansas
Ohio
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Louisiana
Alaska
North
Carolina
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
District of
Columbia
South
Carolina
Florida
Mississippi
New Jersey (2012)

Hawaii
iii
Pennsylvania
West
Virginia
Virginia
Kentucky
New Mexico
Texas
New York
First Cohort (2014)

Second Cohort (2015-16)
Third Cohort (2016-17)
THE ALICE RESEARCH TEAM

The United Way ALICE Project provides high-quality, research-based analysis to foster a better understanding
of who is struggling in our communities. To produce the United Way ALICE Report for New York, a team of
researchers collaborated with a Research Advisory Committee, composed of 17 representatives from across
the state, who advised and contributed to our United Way ALICE Report. This collaborative model, practiced in
each state, ensures each United Way ALICE Report presents unbiased data that is replicable, easily updated
on a regular basis, and sensitive to local context. Working closely with United Ways, the United Way ALICE
Project seeks to equip communities with information to create innovative solutions.
Lead Researcher
Stephanie Hoopes, Ph.D. is the lead researcher and director of the United Way ALICE Project.
Dr. Hoopes work focuses on the political economy of the United States and specifically on the circumstances
of low-income households. Her research has garnered both state and national media attention. She began the
United Way ALICE Project as a pilot study of the low-income community in affluent Morris County, New Jersey
in 2009, and has overseen its expansion into a broad-based initiative to more accurately measure financial
hardship in states across the country. In 2015, Dr. Hoopes joined the staff at United Way of Northern New
Jersey in order to grow this work in new and innovative ways as more and more states become involved.
Dr. Hoopes was an assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), Rutgers
University-Newark, from 2011 to 2015, and director of Rutgers-Newarks New Jersey DataBank, which makes
data available to citizens and policymakers on current issues in 20 policy areas, from 2011 to 2012. SPAA
continues to support the United Way ALICE Project with access to research resources.
Dr. Hoopes has a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics, a masters degree from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a bachelors degree from Wellesley College.
Research Support Team

Andrew Abrahamson
Helen McGinnis
Dan Treglia, Ph.D.
ALICE Research Advisory Committee for New York

Sue Books, Ed.D.
State University of New York at
New Paltz
Katharine H. Briar-Lawson, Ph.D.
University at Albany, State
University of New York
Lisa Caswell, L.C.S.W.
Day Care Council of New York
Joseph Czajka
Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress
Stephanie Gendell, Esq.
Citizens Committee for Children
Jeffrey Guillot, M.A.
Millennial Strategies
A. Brian Leander, Ph.D.

Adelphi University
Mary McLean-Scanlon, M.A.
Finger Lakes Community College
Pascale Mevs, M.A.
CenterState Corporation for
Economic Opportunity
Joshua Simons, M.P.A.

State University of New York at
New Paltz
Joseph Stefko, Ph.D.
Center for Governmental Research
Caroline Taggart, M.P.H.
Via Evaluation
Guillermo Montes, Ph.D.

Childrens Institute
Kara Ulasewicz Travis, M.A.

Bassett Healthcare Network
James Parrott, Ph.D.

Fiscal Policy Institute
David Voegele, M.S.

Early Care and Learning Council
Debra Richardson
Cornell Cooperative Extension
of Oneida County
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION7
I. WHO IS STRUGGLING IN NEW YORK?12
Measure 1 The ALICE Threshold
II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK?39

Measure 2 The Household Budget: Survival vs. Stability
III. WHERE DOES ALICE WORK? HOW MUCH DOES ALICE EARN AND SAVE?53
IV. HOW MUCH INCOME AND ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED TO REACH THE ALICE THRESHOLD?68
Measure 3 The ALICE Income Assessment
V. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN NEW YORK?76
Measure 4 The Economic Viability Dashboard
VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME86

CONCLUSION114
APPENDIX A INCOME INEQUALITY IN NEW YORK135
APPENDIX B THE ALICE THRESHOLD: METHODOLOGY136
APPENDIX C THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES139
APPENDIX D THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES142
APPENDIX E THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES146
APPENDIX F THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARD: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES149
APPENDIX G HOUSING DATA BY COUNTY152
APPENDIX H KEY FACTS AND ALICE STATISTICS FOR NEW YORK MUNICIPALITIES154
ALICE IN NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1
APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME211

APPENDIX J ALICE COUNTY PAGES213
BIBLIOGRAPHY278
vi
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Household Income, New York, 201414
Figure 2. Households by Income, New York, 2007 to 201415
Figure 3. Households by Income, New York Regions, 201416
Figure 4. Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County, New York, 201417
Figure 5. Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County Subdivision, New York, 201418
Figure 6. Distribution of Households below the ALICE Threshold across County Subdivisions, New York, 201419
Figure 7. Households below the ALICE Threshold, Largest Cities and Towns in New York, 201420
Figure 8. Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, NYC and Surrounding Counties, 201421
Figure 9. Households below the ALICE Threshold by Age, New York Regions, 201424
Figure 10. Households by Race/Ethnicity and Income, New York Regions, 201426
Figure 11. Hispanic, Black, and Asian Households by Income, New York Regions, 201427
Figure 12. Household Types by Income, New York, 201430
Figure 13. Families with Children by Income, New York Regions, 201431
Figure 14. Education Attainment and Median Annual Earnings, New York, 201434
Figure 15. Median Annual Earnings by Education and Gender, New York, 201435
Figure 16. Veterans by Age, New York, 201438
Figure 17. Household Survival Budget, New York Average, 201440
Figure 18. Household Survival Budget, New York Regions, 201445
Figure 19. Average Household Stability Budget vs. Household Survival Budget, New York, 201446
Figure 20. Household Budget Comparison, Family of Four, New York, 201451
Figure 21. Employment and GDP by Industry, New York, 201454
Figure 22. Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, New York, 201456
Figure 23. Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, New York Metropolitan Areas, 201456
vii
Figure 24. Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, New York, 2007 to 201457
Figure 25. Occupations by Employment and Wage, New York, 2014 58

Figure 26. Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Gender and Median Earnings, New York, 2014 59
Figure 27. Earnings by Number of Households and Aggregate Total, New York, 2014 59
Figure 28. Sources of Income, by Number of Households, New York, 2007 to 2014 60
Figure 29. Households by Wealth, New York, 2011 61
Figure 30. Household Assets, New York, 2014 64
Figure 31. Use of Alternative Financial Products by Banking Status, New York, 2011 66
Figure 32. Categories of Income and Assistance for Households below the ALICE Threshold, New York, 2014 70
Figure 33. Comparing Basic Need with Public and Nonprofit Spending by Category (Excluding Health Care and
Miscellaneous Expenses), New York, 2014 72
Figure 34. Total Public and Nonprofit Assistance per Household below the ALICE Threshold, New York, 2014 75
Figure 35. Economic Viability Dashboard, Number of Good Scores, New York, 2014 78
Figure 36. Economic Viability Dashboard, New York, 2014 78
Figure 37. Economic Viability Dashboard, New York, 2007 to 2014 84
Figure 38. Consequences of Households Living below the ALICE Threshold in New York 86
Figure 39. NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index for New York Metro Areas, 2014 88
Figure 40. Renters below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, New York, 2014 90
Figure 41. Percent of Workers Commuting Outside Home County, New York, 2014 102
Figure 42. Population Growth, New York, 2000 to 2030 115
Figure 43. Population Inflows and Outflows, New York, 2014 120
Figure 44. Median Earnings and Unemployment by Race and Ethnicity, New York, 2014 123
Figure 45. Projected Occupational Demand by Wage, Education, and Work Experience, New York, 2014 to 2024 127
Figure 46. Occupations by Number of Jobs and Technology, New York, 2014 130
Figure 47. New York Voters by Annual Income, 2014 Gubernatorial Election 132
Figure 48. Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Strategies to Assist Families below the ALICE Threshold 133
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Across New York, 44 percent of households struggled to afford basic household necessities in 2014.
WHO IS ALICE?
With the cost of living higher than what most people earn, ALICE families an acronym for Asset Limited,
Income Constrained, Employed have income above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), but not high enough to
afford a basic household budget that includes housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care. ALICE
households live in every county in New York urban, suburban, and rural and they include women and men,
young and old, and all races and ethnicities.
WHO IS STRUGGLING?
While the Federal Poverty Level reports that 15 percent of New York households face financial hardship, an
additional 29 percent (2.1 million households) qualify as ALICE. The picture changes by region: In New York
City, 20 percent are in poverty and another 31 percent are ALICE; in the counties surrounding NYC, 8 percent
are in poverty and another 28 percent are ALICE; and in in the Rest of State (everything north and west of NYC
and its surrounding counties), 14 percent are in poverty and another 28 percent are ALICE.
Bronx
Kings (Brooklyn)
New York (Manhattan)
Queens
Richmond (Staten Island)
Dutchess
Nassau
Orange
Putnam
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
All Remaining Counties
UNITED WAY ALICE REPORT NEW YORK
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN

NEW YORK?
Low wage jobs dominate the local economy: More than 55 percent of all jobs in New York pay less than $20
per hour, with more than half of those paying between $10 and $15 per hour ($15 per hour full time = $30,000
per year). The percent of jobs paying less than $20 per hour ranges greatly across the state, from 48 percent
in the NYC metropolitan area to more than 65 percent in the metro areas of Elmira, Kingston, Glens Falls,
Binghamton, and Utica-Rome. These jobs especially service jobs that pay wages below $20 per hour and
require a high school education or less will grow far faster than higher-wage jobs over the next decade.
The basic cost of living outpaces wages: The cost of basic household expenses in New York is more than
most of the states jobs can support. The average annual Household Survival Budget for a New York family of four
(two adults with one infant and one preschooler) is $62,472 more than double the U.S. family poverty level of
$23,850. Costs range across the state, with housing more expensive in NYC and its surrounding counties than in
the Rest of State, but transportation costs are lower due to the availability of public transportation.
Economic conditions worsened for ALICE households from 2007 to 2014: The Economic Viability
Dashboard shows that conditions worsened through the Great Recession on three indices Housing
Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community Resources in each county in New York. Conditions started to
improve from 2010 to 2014 especially job opportunities in NYC and its surrounding counties but have not
even returned to 2007 levels in most parts of the state. Finding both housing affordability and job opportunities
in the same location remains a challenge for ALICE households.
Public and private assistance helps, but doesnt provide financial stability: The income of ALICE and
poverty-level households in New York is supplemented with $83.2 billion in government, nonprofit, and health
care resources. If distributed evenly and allocated according to the need, that assistance would be enough
to bring ALICE and poverty-level households to the ALICE Threshold. However, government spending is
increasingly composed of health care spending, which consists of services and cannot be transferred to meet
other needs such as housing or child care. As a result, the gaps in other areas are significant, including 34
percent in housing and 47 percent in child care. Health care is the only budget area where spending exceeds
basic needs.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES, AND WHAT WOULD

IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC SITUATION FOR ALICE
HOUSEHOLDS?
Consequences: When ALICE households cannot make ends meet, they are forced to make difficult choices
such as forgoing health care, accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance. These savings threaten
their health, safety, and future and they reduce productivity and raise insurance premiums and taxes for
everyone. The costs are high for both ALICE families and the wider community.
Long-term change: While short-term strategies can make conditions less severe, only structural economic
changes will significantly improve the prospects for ALICE and enable hardworking households to support
themselves. Strengthening the New York economy and meeting ALICEs challenges are linked: Improvement
for one would directly benefit the other. The ALICE tools can help policymakers, community leaders, and
business leaders to better understand the number and variety of households facing financial hardship and to
create more effective and lasting change.
GLOSSARY
ALICE is an acronym that stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, comprising
households with income above the Federal Poverty Level but below the basic cost of living.
The Household Survival Budget calculates the actual costs of basic necessities (housing, child care,
food, health care, and transportation) in New York adjusted for different counties and household types.
The ALICE Threshold is the average level of income that a household needs to afford the basics defined by
the Household Survival Budget for each county in New York. (Please note that unless otherwise noted in this
Report, households earning less than the ALICE Threshold include both ALICE and poverty-level households.)
The Household Stability Budget is greater than the basic Household Survival Budget and reflects
the cost for household necessities at a modest but sustainable level. It adds a savings category, and is
adjusted for different counties and household types.
The ALICE Income Assessment is the calculation of all sources of income, resources, and assistance for
ALICE and poverty-level households. Even with assistance, the Assessment reveals a shortfall, or Unfilled
Gap, between what these households bring in and what is needed for them to reach the ALICE Threshold.
The Economic Viability Dashboard is comprised of three Indices that evaluate the economic conditions
that matter most to ALICE households Housing Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community
Resources. A Dashboard is provided for each county in the state.
Consequences of Households Living below the ALICE Threshold in New York

Impact on ALICE
Impact on Community
HOUSING
Live in substandard
housing
Health and safety risks; increased maintenance

costs; inconvenience
Increased health care costs; worker stressed, late,

and/or absent from job less productive
Move farther away

from job
Longer commute; costs increase; severe weather can

affect commuter safety; less time for other activities
More traffic on road; workers late to job; absenteeism

due to severe weather can affect community access
to local businesses and amenities; increased cost
of urban sprawl including infrastructure and services
such as roads, public transit, sewage, etc.
Homeless
Disruption to job, family, school, etc.
Costs for homeless shelters, foster care system,

health care
CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION

Substandard child
care
Safety and learning risks; health risks; children

less likely to be school-ready, read at grade level,
graduate from high school; limited future employment
opportunity
Future need for education and social services; less

productive worker
No child care
One parent cannot work; forgoing immediate income

and future promotions
Future need for education and social services
Substandard public
education
Learning risks; limited earning potential/ mobility;

limited career opportunity
Stressed parents; lower-skilled workforce; future

need for social services
Less healthy
Poor health; obesity
Less productive worker/student; increased future

demand for health care
Not enough
Poor daily functioning
Even less productive; increased future need for social

services and health care
Old car
Unreliable transportation; risk of accidents; increased

maintenance costs
Worker stressed, late, and/or absent from job less

productive
No insurance/
registration
Risk of fine; accident liability; risk of license being

revoked
Higher insurance premiums; unsafe vehicles on the

road
Long commute
Costs increase; severe weather can affect commuter

safety; less time for other activities
More traffic on road; workers late to job; increased

demand for road maintenance and services
No car
Limited employment opportunities and access to

health care/child care
Reduced economic productivity; higher taxes for

specialized public transportation; greater stress on
emergency vehicles
Underinsured
Delaying or skipping preventative health care; more

out-of-pocket expense; substandard or no mental
health coverage;
Workers report to job sick; spread illness; less

productive; absenteeism; increased workplace issues
due to untreated mental illness
No insurance
Forgoing preventative health care; use of emergency

room for non-emergency care
Higher premiums for all to fill the gap; more

expensive health costs; risk of health crises
Low wages
Longer work hours; pressure on other family

members to work (drop out of school); no savings;
use of high-interest payday loans
Worker stressed, late, and/or absent from job less

productive; higher taxes to fill the gap
No wages
Cost of looking for work and finding social services;

risk of depression
Less productive society; higher taxes to fill the gap
Minimal savings
Mental stress; crises; risk taking; use costly

alternative financial systems to bridge gaps
More workers facing crises; unstable workforce;

community disruption
No savings
Crises spiral quickly, leading to homelessness,

hunger, illness
Costs for homeless shelters, foster care system,

emergency health care
FOOD
TRANSPORTATION
INCOME
SAVINGS
Suggested reference: United Way ALICE Report New York, 2016
HEALTH CARE
Population: 19,746,227 | Number of Counties: 62 | Number of Households: 7,289,792

Median Household Income (state average): $58,878 (national average: $53,657)
Unemployment Rate (state average): 7.3% (national average: 7.2%)
Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.51 (national average: 0.48)
How many households are struggling?

ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained,
Employed, are households that earn more than the U.S.
poverty level but less than the basic cost of living for the
state (the ALICE Threshold, or AT). Combined, the number of
poverty and ALICE households (44 percent) equals the total
New York population struggling to afford basic needs.
The total annual income of poverty-level and

ALICE households in New York in 2014 was
$85.6 billion, which includes wages and Social
Security. This is only 50 percent of the amount
needed just to reach the ALICE Threshold
of $169.4 billion statewide. Government and
nonprofit assistance totals $83.2 billion, but that
still leaves an Unfilled Gap to achieve the most
basic need in many areas, including 34 percent
for housing and 47 percent for child care. Only
health care spending exceeds basic needs.
Poverty
29%
56%
ALICE
Above AT
$50,000
47% Gap
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
34% Gap
47% Gap
$25,000
21% Gap
13% Gap
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Housing
Minimum Need
Child
Care
Food Transportation Taxes
ALICE Income
Government &
Nonprofit Assistance
What does it cost to afford the basic necessities?

This bare-minimum Household Survival Budget does not allow for any savings, leaving a
household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Affording only a very modest living in each
community, this budget is still significantly more than the U.S. poverty level of $11,670 for a
single adult and $23,850 for a family of four.
Monthly Costs New York Average 2014

2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
SINGLE ADULT
Housing
PERCENT CHANGE,
20072014
$668
$919
17%
$-
$1,363
9%
Food
$202
$612
20%
Transportation
$330
$653
11%
Health Care
$141
$564
56%
Miscellaneous
$163
$473
19%
Taxes
$291
$622
35%
$1,795
$5,206
19%
$21,540
$62,472
19%
$10.77
$31.24
19%
Child Care
Monthly Total
ANNUAL TOTAL
Hourly Wage
15%
Income Assessment for New York

Spending (in millions)
AT-A-GLANCE: NEW YORK
2014 Point-in-Time Data
Note: Percent increases are an average of the increases in each category for a single-adult and a four-person family.
Source: See Appendix C
New York Counties, 2014

COUNTY
Albany
TOTAL HH
% ALICE &
POVERTY
124,716
38%
New York Counties, 2014

COUNTY
Niagara
TOTAL HH
% ALICE &
POVERTY
86,907
40%
Allegany
18,407
47%
Oneida
90,583
44%
Bronx
492,481
71%
Onondaga
185,474
39%
Broome
78,810
42%
Ontario
43,581
37%
Cattaraugus
30,735
45%
Orange
124,587
41%
Cayuga
31,290
38%
Orleans
15,894
45%
Chautauqua
52,916
47%
Oswego
45,646
45%
Chemung
34,617
40%
Otsego
23,798
46%
Chenango
19,560
45%
Putnam
34,234
33%
Clinton
31,426
41%
Queens
785,985
50%
Columbia
25,095
39%
Rensselaer
63,289
38%
Richmond (Staten
Island)
164,971
42%
Rockland
98,873
42%
Saratoga
90,964
28%
Schenectady
56,255
44%
Cortland
18,045
46%
Delaware
19,370
44%
Dutchess
104,190
39%
Erie
383,657
41%
Essex
15,571
38%
Franklin
19,131
44%
Fulton
22,440
45%
Genesee
23,967
35%
Greene
18,102
44%
Hamilton
1,639
47%
Herkimer
26,583
46%
Jefferson
43,516
46%
Kings (Brooklyn)
942,402
56%
Lewis
10,726
38%
Livingston
25,334
39%
Madison
25,932
43%
Monroe
298,271
42%
Montgomery
19,655
48%
Nassau
440,168
31%
New York
(Manhattan)
762,228
35%
Schoharie
12,739
40%
Schuyler
7,759
35%
Seneca
13,485
42%
St. Lawrence
40,286
52%
Steuben
41,046
40%
Suffolk
493,287
39%
Sullivan
27,524
46%
Tioga
20,178
36%
Tompkins
38,120
52%
Ulster
69,522
45%
Warren
26,193
41%
Washington
24,165
45%
Wayne
35,577
47%
Westchester
342,557
34%
Wyoming
15,691
38%
Yates
9,642
39%
Sources: 2014 Point-in-Time Data: American Community Survey, 2014. ALICE Demographics: American Community Survey, 2014,
and the ALICE Threshold, 2014. Income Assessment: Office of Management and Budget, 2015; Department of Treasury, 2016;
American Community Survey, 2014; National Association of State Budget Officers, 2015; NCCS Data Web Report Builder, 2012; see
Appendix E. Budget: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS); Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and New York State Department of Taxation and Finance; New York State
Office of Children & Family Services, 2014.
Population: 19,746,227 | Number of Counties: 62 | Number of Households: 7,289,792

Median Household Income (state average): $58,878 (national average: $53,657)
Unemployment Rate (state average): 7.3% (national average: 7.2%)
Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.51 (national average: 0.48)
INTRODUCTION
New York is known for a wide range of landmarks and landscapes, from Wall Street financial
institutions and Broadway theater to the rural beauty of upstate New York, with its apple and
dairy farms and tourist destinations. New York serves as a national and international center
for a range of industries including fashion, literature, music, finance, and nanotechnology.
It hosts the most Fortune 500 companies of any state corporations including Verizon and
many of the countrys largest financial institutions: JPMorgan Chase & Co., MetLife Insurance
and Financial Service Provider, and Citigroup Inc.
Yet despite New Yorks status as both a financial and cultural hub and home to vast natural
resources, the state also contains sharp disparities in wealth and income. What is often
overlooked is the growing number of households that earn above the Federal Poverty Level
(FPL) but are unable to afford the states cost of living.
Traditional measures hide the reality that 44 percent of households in New York
struggle to support themselves. Because income is distributed unequally in New York,
there is both great wealth and significant economic hardship. That inequality increased by
22 percent from 1979 to 2014; now, the top 20 percent of New Yorks population earns 54
percent of all income earned in the state, while the bottom quintile earns only 3 percent, the
greatest difference of any state (see Appendix A).
Defying many
stereotypes, ALICE
households are
working households,
composed of
women and men,
young and old,
of all races and
ethnicities, and
they live in every
county in New York
urban, suburban,
and rural.
In 2014, New Yorks poverty rate was 15 percent, the same as the U.S. average, and the
median annual household income was $58,878, above the U.S. median of $53,657. Yet the
states overall economic situation is more complex, with large variations across New York and
across industries. In many regards, New York has recovered from the Great Recession; its $1.2
trillion GDP in 2014 was well above the 2007 level. New York had a more extreme employment
trajectory worse than the rest of the U.S. during and after the Great Recession, but recently
it has moved toward the national average, with 6.43 percent* unemployment in 2014 (near the
national rate of 6.2 percent). However, most of the job growth has occurred in New York City,
while other regions of the state have experienced declines.
None of the economic measures traditionally used to calculate the financial status of New
Yorks households, such as the FPL, consider the actual cost of living in each county in New
York or the wage rate of jobs in the state. For that reason, those indices do not fully capture
the number of households facing economic hardship across New Yorks 62 counties.
The term ALICE describes a household that is Asset Limited, Income Constrained,
Employed. ALICE is a household with income above the FPL but below a basic survival
threshold, defined here as the ALICE Threshold. Defying many stereotypes, ALICE
households are working households, composed of women and men, young and old, of all
races and ethnicities, and they live in every county in New York urban, suburban, and rural.
This United Way ALICE Report for New York provides better measures and language
to describe the sector of New Yorks population that struggles to afford basic household
necessities. It presents a more accurate picture of the economic reality in the state, especially
regarding the number of households that are severely economically challenged.
*Note: This is the New York state average unemployment rate for 2014 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Executive
Summary and Appendix J, the New York County Pages, use the 2014 state average unemployment rate from the American
Community Survey, which was 7.2 percent, and the national average of 7.3 percent.
The Report asks whether conditions have improved since the Great Recession, and whether
families have been able to work their way above the ALICE Threshold. It includes a toolbox
of ALICE measures that provide greater understanding of how and why so many families are
still struggling financially. Some of the challenges New York faces are unique, while others are
trends that have been unfolding nationally for at least three decades.
This Report is about far more than poverty; it reveals profound changes in the
structure of New Yorks communities and jobs. It documents the increase in the basic cost
of living, the decrease in the availability of jobs that can support household necessities, and
the shortage of housing that workers in the majority of the states jobs can afford.
The findings are stark: The impact of the Great Recession was even greater than first realized,
and for many New Yorkers, conditions have not improved in the four years since the technical
end of the Recession in 2010. In 2007, 41 percent of New York households had income below
the ALICE Threshold; that share increased to 43 percent in 2010 and to 44 percent in 2014.
In contrast, the official U.S. poverty rate in New York reports that in 2014, only 15 percent, or
1,105,653 households, were struggling. But the FPL was developed in 1965; its methodology
has remained largely unchanged despite changes in the cost of living over time; and it is not
adjusted to reflect cost of living differences across the country.
The ALICE measures show how many households in the state are struggling, and they
provide the new language needed to discuss this segment of our community and the
economic challenges that so many residents face. In New York, there are 2.1 million
ALICE households that have income above the FPL but below the ALICE Threshold. When
combined with households below the poverty level, in total, 3.2 million households in
New York struggled to support themselves in 2014.
This Report is
about far more
than poverty; it
reveals profound
changes in the
structure of
New Yorks
communities
and jobs.
ALICE households are working households; they hold jobs, pay taxes, and provide services
that are vital to the New York economy, in a variety of positions such as retail salespeople,
office clerks, food preparers, customer service representatives, and home health aides. The
core issue is that these jobs do not pay enough to afford the basics of housing, child care,
food, transportation, and health care. Moreover, the growth of low-skilled jobs is projected to
outpace that of medium- and high-skilled jobs into the next decade. At the same time, the cost
of basic household necessities continues to rise. Given these projections, ALICE households
will continue to make up a significant percentage of households in the state.
REPORT OVERVIEW
Section I presents the ALICE Threshold: a realistic measure for income inadequacy in New
York that takes into account the current cost of basic necessities and geographic variation.
In New York there are 3,232,792 households 44 percent of the states total with income
below the realistic cost of basic necessities; 1,105,653 of those households are living below
the FPL, and another 2,127,139 are ALICE households.
In NYC (3.1 million households) which includes the five boroughs (or counties) of the
Bronx, Brooklyn (Kings County), Manhattan (New York County), Queens, and Staten
Island (Richmond County) 20 percent of households are in poverty and another 31
percent are ALICE.
Who is struggling in New York?
In the counties surrounding NYC (1.6 million households) Dutchess, Nassau, Orange,
Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester 8 percent of households are in poverty
and another 28 percent are ALICE.
In the Rest of State (2.5 million households) which includes all counties outside NYC
and its surrounding counties 14 percent of households are in poverty and another 28
percent are ALICE.
This section provides a statistical picture of ALICE household demographics, including
geography, age, race/ethnicity, gender, family type, disability, education, military service, and
immigrant status. Except for a few notable exceptions, ALICE households generally reflect
the demographics of the overall state population.
How costly is it to live in New York?

Section II details the average minimum costs for households in New York to simply survive not
to save or otherwise get ahead. It is well known that the cost of living in New York outpaces
the states low average wages. The annual Household Survival Budget quantifies the costs of
the five basic essentials of housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care. Using the
thriftiest official standards, including those used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the average annual
Household Survival Budget for a New York family of four (two adults with one infant and one
preschooler) is $62,472, and for a single adult it is $21,540. These numbers vary by county, but
all highlight the inadequacy of the 2014 U.S. poverty designation of $23,850 for a family and
$11,670 for a single adult as an economic survival standard in New York.
With 55 percent of
jobs in New York
paying less than
$20 per hour, it
is not surprising
that so many
households fall
below the ALICE
Threshold.
The same is true in the states three regions. The annual Household Survival Budget for a
family of four is $64,092 in NYC, $78,720 in the counties surrounding NYC, and $60,036
in the Rest of State. For a single adult, it is $27,288 in NYC, $25,476 in the counties
surrounding NYC, and $20,412 in the Rest of State.
The Household Survival Budget is the basis for the ALICE Threshold, which redefines
the basic economic survival standard for New York households. Section II also details a
Household Stability Budget, which reaches beyond survival to budget for savings and
stability at a modest level. Even at this level, the Household Stability Budget is almost double
the Household Survival Budget for a family of four in New York.
Where does ALICE work? How much does ALICE earn and save?
Section III examines where members of ALICE households work, as well as the amount and
types of assets these households have been able to accumulate. With 55 percent of jobs
in New York paying less than $20 per hour, it is not surprising that so many households fall
below the ALICE Threshold. In addition, the housing and stock market crash associated with
the Great Recession, as well as high unemployment, took a toll on household savings in New
York. More than 33 percent of New York households are asset poor, and 45 percent do not
have sufficient liquid net worth to subsist at the FPL for three months without income.
How much income and assistance are necessary to reach

the ALICE Threshold?
Section IV examines how much income is needed to enable New York households to afford
the Household Survival Budget. This section also compares that level of income to how
much households actually earn as well as the amount of public and private assistance
they receive. The ALICE Income Assessment estimates that the income of ALICE and
poverty-level households in New York is supplemented with $83.2 billion in government,

nonprofit, and health care resources. If distributed evenly, that assistance would be enough to
bring all households to the ALICE Threshold. However, government spending is increasingly
composed of health care spending, which consists of services and cannot be transferred to
meet other budget needs. This leaves significant gaps in some areas, including a 34 percent
gap in housing and a 47 percent gap in child care. Health care is the only budget area where
spending exceeds basic needs.
What are the economic conditions for ALICE households in

New York?
What are the consequences of insufficient household income?

Section VI focuses on how households survive without sufficient income and assets to
meet the ALICE Threshold. It outlines the difficult choices ALICE households face, such
as forgoing preventative health care, accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance.
These choices threaten their health, safety, and future, and have consequences for their
wider communities as well.
Conclusion
The Report concludes by outlining the structural issues that pose the greatest challenges to
ALICE households going forward. These include changes in the age and diversity of New
Yorks population; job prospects for New Yorkers; and ALICEs leverage at the ballot box. This
section also identifies a range of general strategies that would reduce the number of New
York households living below the ALICE Threshold.
Both housing
affordability and
job opportunities
worsened during
the Great Recession.
Conditions have
not improved for
housing, but job
opportunities
started to
improve in 2010
especially in
NYC and the
surrounding
counties though
they have not yet
even returned to
2007 levels.
10
Section V presents the Economic Viability Dashboard, a measure of the conditions that
New Yorks ALICE households actually face. The Dashboard compares three indices
Housing Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community Resources across the states
62 counties. Both housing affordability and job opportunities worsened during the Great
Recession. Conditions have not improved for housing, but job opportunities started to
improve in 2010 especially in NYC and the surrounding counties though they have not yet
even returned to 2007 levels. Community resources fluctuated but ultimately improved over
the period. Given this economic landscape, it remains difficult for many ALICE households in
New York to find both affordable housing and job opportunities in the same county, especially
in NYC and its surrounding counties.
DATA PARAMETERS
Because New York

is economically,
racially, ethnically,
and geographically
diverse, state
averages mask
significant
differences
between counties
and even within
counties, between
municipalities.
11
The ALICE measures presented in this Report are calculated for each county. Because
New York is economically, racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse, state
averages mask significant differences between counties and even within counties,
between municipalities. For example, the percent of households below the ALICE
Threshold ranges from 28 percent in Saratoga County to 71 percent in Bronx County.
The ALICE measures are calculated for 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014 in order to
compare the beginning and the end of the economic downturn known as the Great
Recession and any progress made in the four years since the technical end of the
Recession. The 2014 results will also serve as an important baseline from which to
measure both the continuing recovery and the impact of the Affordable Care Act in the
years ahead.
This Report examines issues surrounding ALICE households from different angles,
trying to draw the clearest picture with the range of data available. The Report uses
data from a variety of sources, including the American Community Survey, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor
(BLS), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Child Care Aware (formerly NACCRRA),
and these agencies New York state counterparts. State, county, and municipal data
is used to provide different lenses on ALICE households. The data are estimates;
some are geographic averages, others are 1-, 3-, or 5-year averages depending on
population size. Starting in 2014, 3-year averages are no longer produced by the
American Community Survey, so data for all communities with populations of less than
65,000 will be 5-year averages.
I. WHO IS STRUGGLING IN
NEW YORK?
Measure 1 The ALICE Threshold
AT A GLANCE: SECTION I
ALICE Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed defined: Despite being
employed, many households earning more than the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) still
cannot afford housing, child care, food, transportation and health care.
In New York, there are 2.1 million ALICE households, while another 1.1 million
households live below the poverty level. In total, 44 percent of New York households
earn below the ALICE Threshold.
Households with income below the ALICE Threshold including both ALICE
households and those living in poverty make up between 28 and 71 percent of
households in every county in New York.
There are almost

2 million families
with children in
New York, and 44
percent of them
(864,499) have
income below the
ALICE Threshold.
The racial and ethnic makeup of ALICE households varies as the makeup of the
overall population varies across the state.
More than one-third (36 percent) of senior households in New York qualify as ALICE,
more than double the 14 percent of senior households in poverty.
There are almost 2 million families with children in New York, and 44 percent of them
(864,499) have income below the ALICE Threshold.
Reflecting the changing household composition across the country, other households
single and cohabiting households younger than 65 with no children under 18 account
for 46 percent of the states households with income below the ALICE Threshold.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the federal poverty rate in New York increased through
the Great Recession and beyond, from 13 percent in 2007 to 15 percent, or 1.1 million of the
states 7.3 million households, in 2014. However, the continued demand for public and private
assistance over the four years following the technical end of the Recession suggests that
many more of the states households still struggle to support themselves.
The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is no longer a realistic measure of financial hardship in
households across each county in the U.S. Developed in 1965, the FPL no longer reflects the
actual cost of basic household necessities. Its methodology has not been updated since 1974
to accommodate changes in the cost of living over time, nor is it adjusted to reflect cost-ofliving differences across the country.
12
Several demographic groups in New York are more likely to fall into the ALICE
population, including women, LGBT people, people of color, those with lower levels
of education, those with a disability, undocumented or unskilled immigrants, younger
veterans, ex-offenders, and immigrants facing language barriers.
The lack
of accurate
information about
the number of
people who are
poor distorts the
identification
of problems
related to poverty,
misguides policy
solutions, and
raises questions
of equality,
transparency,
and fairness.
There have been extensive critiques of the FPL and arguments for better poverty measures
(OBrien and Pedulla, 2010; Uchitelle, 2001). The official poverty level is so understated that
many government and nonprofit agencies use multiples of the FPL to determine eligibility for
assistance programs. For example, New Yorks Lifeline Assistance uses 135 percent of the
FPL to determine eligibility for affordable wireless service. Both the New York Summer Food
Service Program and the New York School Breakfast and Lunch Program use 185 percent
of the FPL (New York State Department of Public Service, 2016; Benefits.Gov, 2016). Even
federal programs such as Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) use
multiples of the FPL to determine eligibility across the country (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2014; Roberts, Povich and Mather, 2012).
Recognizing the shortcomings of the FPL, the U.S. Census Bureau developed an alternative
metric, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which is based on expenditures reported
in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) and adjusted
for geographic differences in the cost of housing. The SPM was meant to capture more of
New Yorks struggling households, but because it is not based on the actual cost of basic
goods, it remains similar to the official FPL: New Yorks 2013 SPM 3-year average was 17.5
percent, while the FPL 3-year poverty estimate was 16 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014;
Short, 2013).
Despite its shortcomings, the FPL has provided a standard measure over time to determine
how many people in the U.S. are living in deep poverty. The needs and challenges that these
people face are severe, and they require substantial community assistance. The definition of
poverty, however, is vague, often has moral connotations, and can be inappropriately and
inaccurately associated only with the unemployed. To clarify the economic challenges
that working households face, this Report measures what it actually costs to live in
each county in New York; calculates how many households earn below that level; and
offers an enhanced set of tools to describe the impact of financial hardship on them
and on their communities.
This is not merely an academic issue, but a practical one. The lack of accurate information
about the number of people who are poor distorts the identification of problems related
to poverty, misguides policy solutions, and raises questions of equality, transparency, and
fairness. Using the FPL may also over-report the number of households facing financial
hardship in areas with a low cost of living and under-report the number in areas with a high
cost of living. For example, the Geography of Poverty project at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) finds that nearly 84 percent of persistent-poverty counties are located in
the South (USDA, May 2015), a region of the country with a lower cost of living. By the same
token, there may be just as many households struggling in other regions where the cost of
living is higher, but they are often not counted in the official numbers. The ALICE Threshold,
which takes into account the relative cost of living at the local level, enables more meaningful
comparisons across the country.
INTRODUCING ALICE
Many individuals and families in New York do not earn enough to afford the five basic
household necessities of housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care. Even
though many are working, their income does not cover the cost of living in the state, and they
often require public assistance to survive.
13
Until recently, this group of people was loosely referred to as the working poor, or technically
defined as the population in the lowest two income quintiles. The term ALICE Asset
Limited, Income Constrained, Employed more clearly defines this population as households
with income above the official FPL but below a newly defined basic survival income level.
ALICE households are as diverse as the general population, composed of women and men;
young and old; of all races and ethnicities; living in rural, urban, and suburban areas.
THE ALICE THRESHOLD

In New York, where the cost of living is high, it is especially important to have a current
and realistic standard that reflects the true cost of economic survival and compares it to
household incomes across each county. The ALICE Threshold is a realistic standard
developed from the Household Survival Budget, a measure that estimates the minimal cost
of the five basic household necessities housing, child care, food, transportation, and health
care. Based on calculations from the American Community Survey and the ALICE
Threshold, 3.2 million households in New York 44 percent are either in poverty or
qualify as ALICE (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Household Income, New York, 2014
Poverty
1,105,653 Households
15%
29%
56%
ALICE
Above ALICE Threshold

Based on the Household Survival Budget and average household size, the ALICE Threshold
is calculated in each county for two sets of households: those headed by someone younger
than 65 years old and those headed by someone 65 years and older. Because the basic cost
of living varies across the state, the ALICE Threshold for New York households headed by
someone under 65 years old ranges from $40,000 to $75,000 per year. For older households,
the ALICE Threshold ranges from $30,000 to $50,000 per year. The methodology for the
ALICE Threshold is presented in Appendix B; the ALICE Threshold for each county is listed in
Appendix J, the ALICE County Pages.
ALICE OVER TIME

The impact of the Great Recession on New Yorks economy dramatically shaped household
demographics, and that trend continued in the four years following the technical end of the
downturn, 2010 to 2014.
Throughout the 2007-2014 period, the total number of households in New York grew from
7.1 million in 2007 to 7.2 million in 2010 to 7.3 million in 2014, a 3 percent increase (Figure
2). With the growth in population, the number of households that are struggling to meet their
basic needs has grown even more:
In New York,
where the cost
of living is high,
it is especially
important to have
a current and
realistic standard
that reflects
the true cost of
economic survival
and compares it to
household incomes
across each
county.
14
Source: American Community Survey, 2014, and the ALICE Threshold, 2014
Poverty: The number of households increased steadily from 922,992 households in

2007 to 1.1 million households in 2014, an 18 percent increase.
ALICE: The number of ALICE households increased from 2007 to 2010, then fluctuated,
ending at 2,127,139 households in 2014 a net increase of 8 percent from 2007 to 2014.
Above ALICE Threshold: The number of households above the ALICE Threshold
moved in the opposite direction, falling from 2007 to 2010, then fluctuating and reaching
4.1 million households in 2014. As a percentage of total households, the number fell by
4 percent from 2007 to 2014.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7,350
7,300
59%
57%
57%
56%
7,250
7,200
7,150
29%
28%
29%
13%
14%
15%
15%
2007
2010
2012
2014
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
7,100
7,050
7,000
Total NY Households (in thousands)
Percent of Households
Figure 2.
Households by Income, New York, 2007 to 2014
Total Households
Household income
is fluid, and ALICE
households may
be alternately in
poverty or more
financially secure
at different points
during the year.
These statistics dont fully capture fluidity; beneath the static numbers, households are moving
above and below the ALICE Threshold over time as economic and personal circumstances
change. The U.S. Census reports that from January 2009 to December 2011, 31.6 percent of the
U.S. population was in poverty for at least two months. By comparison, the national poverty rate
for 2010 was 15 percent (Edwards, 2014). Household income is fluid, and ALICE households
may be alternately in poverty or more financially secure at different points during the year.
WHERE DOES ALICE LIVE?

ALICE lives across New York, in every county and every town. Contrary to some stereotypes,
ALICE families live in rural, urban, and suburban areas.
ALICE by Region
New York varies greatly by region particularly New York City, the counties surrounding the
city, and the Rest of State (used here to include everything outside NYC and its surrounding
counties). This section examines the income levels of the states 7.3 million households
across these three regions. While the percent of households in poverty ranges greatly, the
percent of ALICE households is virtually the same across the three regions.
15
New York City, which includes the 5 boroughs (or counties) of the Bronx, Brooklyn (Kings
County), Manhattan (New York County), Queens, and Staten Island (Richmond County), is
the largest region in terms of population but the smallest in geography. Of the citys 3.1 million
households, 20 percent are in poverty, another 31 percent are ALICE, and 49 percent have
income above the ALICE Threshold.
By contrast, the counties immediately surrounding NYC Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam,
Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester counties make up the smallest region by population (1.6
million households). This is a higher-income region than NYC: The poverty rate here is less
than half of that in NYC at 8 percent; the percent of ALICE households is exactly the same at 28
percent; and the percent of households above the ALICE Threshold is much higher at 64 percent.
The Rest of State covers a much larger area than the other two regions but has a moderate
population, especially considering its geographic size. This region encompasses both vast
rural areas and metro areas including Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Of the
regions 2.5 million households, 14 percent are in poverty, another 28 percent are ALICE, and
58 percent have income above the ALICE Threshold.
Even within each

region, there is
variation between
counties in terms
of both population
size and the share
of poverty and
ALICE households.
Figure 3.
Households by Income, New York Regions, 2014
3,500,000
Households
3,000,000
2,500,000
Above AT
49%
2,000,000
58%
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
31%
64%
20%
28%
ALICE
Poverty
28%
8%
14%
Even within each region, there is variation between counties in terms of both population size
and the share of poverty and ALICE households. Figure 4 shows that households living below
the ALICE Threshold constitute a significant percentage of households in all New York counties:
Below the ALICE Threshold (including households in poverty): Percentages range
from 28 percent in Saratoga County to 71 percent in Bronx County.
Poverty: Percentages range from 5 percent in Putnam County to 31 percent in Bronx County.
ALICE: Percentages range from 19 percent in New York County (Manhattan) to 40
percent in Bronx County.
16
Figure 4.
Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County, New York, 2014
Syracuse
Saratoga
County
28%
Buffalo
Albany
Percent Households below ALICE Threshold

28%
Bronx County
71%
71%
Manhattan
Another measure of economic conditions in a county is the persistence of economic hardship

over time. Two of New Yorks 62 counties Bronx and Kings (Brooklyn) counties are
persistent-poverty counties, where 20 percent or more of the population has lived in poverty
over the last 30 years (USDA, May 2015).
ALICE Breakdown within Counties

ALICE and poverty
households live in
every area across
the state.
ALICE and poverty households live in every area across the state. Because New York has
large geographic areas with sparsely populated towns and cities where it can be difficult
to get accurate data, the distribution of ALICE and poverty households in the states towns
and cities is shown instead on a map of county subdivisions (Figure 5). County subdivisions
include towns and cities as well as their surrounding areas, to provide a more complete view
of local variation in household income.
County subdivisions with the lowest percentage of households below the ALICE Threshold
are shaded lightest blue on the map in Figure 5; those with the highest percentage are
shaded darkest blue. Full data for cities and towns is in Appendix H, and the percent of
households below the ALICE Threshold in each municipality is included in the ALICE County
Pages (Appendix J).
17
Figure 5.
Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County Subdivision,
New York, 2014
Syracuse
Buffalo
Albany
Percent HH below ALICE Threshold
7%
Only 16 county
subdivisions
have fewer than
20 percent of
households with
income below the
ALICE Threshold,
and most have 30
to 50 percent.
Manhattan
78%
Note: For areas with small populations, the American Community Survey estimates of household income are often based on 5-year
averages, making these ALICE estimates less precise than the county-level estimates.
18
Of New Yorks 935 county subdivisions, 84 percent have more than 30 percent of
households living on an income below the ALICE Threshold. Only 16 county subdivisions
have fewer than 20 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold, and most
have 30 to 50 percent (Figure 6).
Figure 6.
Distribution of Households below the ALICE Threshold across County
Subdivisions, New York, 2014
County Subdivisions
400
350
300
250
200
35%
150
34%
100
50
0
16%
13%
2%
Less than 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50+
Percent of Households below ALICE Threshold

There are 3,760

military households
near Fort Drum
that are included
in the ALICE
demographics; of
those, 15 percent
are in poverty and
51 percent
are ALICE.
19
Other anomalies exist within counties. There is a large Amish community comprising 75
percent of the population of the city of Leon in Cattaraugus County. This populations income
and housing costs may be different than those outlined in the Household Survival Budget
for the modern economy. Of the 352 households in Leon, 22 percent have income below the
FPL, and 27 percent are ALICE (American Community Survey, 2014; Watkins and Nichols,
2014; Cattaraugus County Health Department, 2015).
There are also several military bases in New York. Though the ALICE demographics do not
include people living in group quarters, such as barracks, those living in housing near military
bases are counted. The largest military base in New York is Fort Drum in Jefferson County,
with almost 20,000 soldiers. There are 3,760 military households near Fort Drum that are
included in the ALICE demographics; of those, 15 percent are in poverty and 51 percent are
ALICE (American Community Survey, 2014; Fort Drum, 2016).
Another way to measure the ALICE population is to look at New Yorks largest cities as U.S.
Census Places (incorporated areas with local governments). Of the 15 cities with more
than 20,000 households, all have more than 35 percent of households with income below
the ALICE Threshold, and 5 have more than 60 percent: Buffalo, Rochester, Schenectady,
Syracuse, and Utica (Figure 7).
Figure 7.
Households below the ALICE Threshold, Largest Cities and Towns in
New York, 2014
Largest Cities and
Towns (above 20,000
Households)
New York City
Number of Households
Percent of Households The neighborhoods

below ALICE Threshold with the highest
3,148,067
52%
Buffalo
110,070
60%
Rochester
83,944
69%
Yonkers
74,187
45%
Syracuse
54,712
60%
Albany
41,262
52%
Cheektowaga
34,471
43%
New Rochelle
27,841
40%
Tonawanda
25,694
35%
Mount Vernon
24,538
55%
Schenectady
24,127
63%
Utica
23,828
61%
Irondequoit
22,315
39%
White Plains
22,033
36%
Niagara Falls
21,300
57%
percentage of
households with
income below the
ALICE Threshold
are in the Bronx
Morris Heights,
Fordham South,
and Mount Hope
with 85 percent,
and Hunts Point,
Longwood, and
Melrose with
87 percent.
Source: U.S. Census Place, American Community Survey, 2014, and the ALICE Threshold, 2014
20
For additional insight into income levels in and near NYC, Public Use Microdata Areas
(PUMAs) offer another way to break down large urban areas. PUMAs are non-overlapping
areas that partition each state into zones of about 100,000 residents each. PUMA data
shows income variation within the 5 boroughs and also between the city and the surrounding
counties (Figure 8). The neighborhoods with the highest percentage of households with
income below the ALICE Threshold are in the Bronx Morris Heights, Fordham South, and
Mount Hope with 85 percent, and Hunts Point, Longwood, and Melrose with 87 percent.
In very close proximity are the areas with the lowest percent in Manhattan, in the closest
counties to the north of the city, and in northern areas of Long Island (American Community
Survey, 2014).
Figure 8.
Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, NYC and
Surrounding Counties, 2014
41
46
51 47
45
48
52 53
50
54
56
55 82
57
60
3
9
5
63
6
10
11
62
79
81
12
31
28
30
29
40
23
39
37
35
36
38
Percent HH below ALICE Threshold
87%
88
89
34 33
18
19
85
87
20
21
93
27
95
32
22
2
26
86
13
14
21
83
90
84
61
20%
49
17
43
16
64
59
44
91
65
92
67 66
69
68 74 70
71 94
75
73
77 78
76
72
80
58
15
42
24
25
Dutchess County (North & East)
Dutchess County (Southwest)
Orange County (Northeast) Greater Newburgh City
Orange County (Northwest)
Orange County (Southeast)
Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA)

for NYC and Surrounding Counties
52
NYC-Manhattan Community District 9Hamilton Heights,

Manhattanville & West Harlem
53
NYC-Manhattan Community District 10Central Harlem
54
NYC-Manhattan Community District 11East Harlem
55
NYC-Manhattan Community District 8Upper East Side

NYC-Manhattan Community District 7Upper West Side & West
Side
Rockland County (North)New City & Congers
56
Rockland County (South)Orangetown, Clarkstown (South) &

Ramapo (Southeast) Towns
57
NYC-Manhattan Community District 4 & 5Chelsea, Clinton &

Midtown Business District
Rockland County (West) Spring Valley, Suffern Villages & Monsey
Putnam County
58
NYC-Manhattan Community District 6Murray Hill, Gramercy &

Stuyvesant Town
10
Westchester County (Northwest)
59
11
Westchester County (Northeast)
NYC-Manhattan Community District 3Chinatown & Lower East

Side
12
Westchester County (Southeast)
60
NYC-Manhattan Community District 1 & 2Battery Park City,

Greenwich Village & Soho
13
Westchester County (Central) White Plains City
14
Westchester County (Southwest)Yonkers City
61
NYC-Staten Island Community District 3Tottenville, Great Kills &

Annadale
15
Westchester County (South Central) New Rochelle & Mount

Vernon Cities
62
NYC-Staten Island Community District 2New Springville & South

Beach
16
Nassau County (Northwest)North Hempstead Town (North)
63
NYC-Staten Island Community District 1Port Richmond, Stapleton

& Mariner's Harbor
17
Nassau County (Northeast)Oyster Bay Town (North) & Glen Cove

City
64
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 1Greenpoint & Williamsburg
65
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 4Bushwick
66
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 3Bedford-Stuyvesant
18
Nassau County (East Central) Oyster Bay Town (Central)
19
Nassau County (West Central) North Hempstead Town (South)
20
Nassau County (West Central) Hempstead Town (Northwest)
67
21
Nassau County (Central)Hempstead Town (North Central)

Meadowbrook Corridor
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 2Brooklyn Heights & Fort

Greene
68
22
Nassau County (Central)Hempstead Town (Northeast)
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 6Park Slope, Carroll Gardens

& Red Hook
23
Nassau County (Southeast)Oyster Bay Town (South)
69
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 8Crown Heights North &

Prospect Heights
24
Nassau County (Central)Hempstead Town (East Central)
70
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 16Brownsville & Ocean Hill
25
Nassau County (South Central)Hempstead Town (Southeast)
71
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 5East New York & Starrett City
26
Nassau County (West Central) Hempstead Town (West Central)
72
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 18Canarsie & Flatlands
27
Nassau County (Southwest)Hempstead Town (Southwest) & Long

Beach City
73
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 17East Flatbush, Farragut &

Rugby
28
Suffolk County (Northwest) Huntington Town (North)
29
Suffolk County (Northwest) Huntington Town (South)
74
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 9Crown Heights South,

Prospect Lefferts & Wingate
30
Suffolk County (Northwest) Smithtown Town
75
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 7Sunset Park & Windsor

Terrace
31
Suffolk County (North Central)Brookhaven Town (North)
76
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 10Bay Ridge & Dyker Heights
32
Suffolk County (East)
33
Suffolk County (South Central) Brookhaven Town (South)
77
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 12Borough Park, Kensington &

Ocean Parkway
34
Suffolk County (Central) Brookhaven Town (Central)
78
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 14Flatbush & Midwood
35
Suffolk County (Central) Brookhaven Town (West Central)
79
36
Suffolk County (Central) Islip Town (East)
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 15Sheepshead Bay, Gerritsen

Beach & Homecrest
37
Suffolk County (Central) Islip Town (Northwest)
80
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 11Bensonhurst & Bath Beach
38
Suffolk County (Southwest)Islip Town (South)
81
NYC-Brooklyn Community District 13Brighton Beach & Coney

Island
39
Suffolk County (Southwest)Babylon Town (Southeast)
82
NYC-Queens Community District 1Astoria & Long Island City
40
Suffolk County (West Central)Babylon Town (Northwest)
41
NYC-Bronx Community District 8Riverdale, Fieldston &

Kingsbridge
83
NYC-Queens Community District 3Jackson Heights & North

Corona
NYC-Bronx Community District 12Wakefield, Williamsbridge &

Woodlawn
84
42
NYC-Queens Community District 7Flushing, Murray Hill &

Whitestone
NYC-Bronx Community District 10Co-op City, Pelham Bay &

Schuylerville
85
43
NYC-Queens Community District 11Bayside, Douglaston & Little

Neck
NYC-Bronx Community District 11Pelham Parkway, Morris Park

& Laconia
86
44
NYC-Queens Community District 13Queens Village, Cambria

Heights & Rosedale
NYC-Bronx Community District 3 & 6Belmont, Crotona Park East

& East Tremont
87
45
NYC-Queens Community District 8Briarwood, Fresh Meadows &

Hillcrest
88
NYC-Queens Community District 4Elmhurst & South Corona
46
NYC-Bronx Community District 7Bedford Park, Fordham North &

Norwood
89
NYC-Queens Community District 6Forest Hills & Rego Park
90
NYC-Queens Community District 2Sunnyside & Woodside
91
NYC-Queens Community District 5Ridgewood, Glendale & Middle

Village
92
NYC-Queens Community District 9Richmond Hill & Woodhaven
93
NYC-Queens Community District 12Jamaica, Hollis & St. Albans
94
NYC-Queens Community District 10Howard Beach & Ozone Park
95
NYC-Queens Community District 14Far Rockaway, Breezy Point

& Broad Channel
47
NYC-Bronx Community District 5Morris Heights, Fordham South

& Mount Hope
48
NYC-Bronx Community District 4Concourse, Highbridge & Mount

Eden
49
NYC-Bronx Community District 9Castle Hill, Clason Point &

Parkchester
50
NYC-Bronx Community District 1 & 2Hunts Point, Longwood &

Melrose
51
NYC-Manhattan Community District 12Washington Heights,

Inwood & Marble Hill
22
Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA)

for NYC and Surrounding Counties
ALICE DEMOGRAPHICS
There are young
and old ALICE
households, those
with children, and
those with a family
member who has
a disability. They
vary in educational
level attained, as
well as in race
and ethnicity. They
live in cities, in
suburbs, and in
rural areas.
ALICE households vary in size and makeup; there is no typical configuration. In fact,
contrary to some stereotypes, the composition of ALICE households mirrors that of
the general population. There are young and old ALICE households, those with children,
and those with a family member who has a disability. They vary in educational level attained,
as well as in race and ethnicity. They live in cities, in suburbs, and in rural areas.
These households move above and below the ALICE Threshold over time. For instance,
a young ALICE household may capitalize on their education and move above the ALICE
Threshold. An older ALICE household may experience a health emergency, lose a job, or
suffer a natural disaster and slip into poverty.
While the demographic characteristics of households in poverty as measured by the FPL are
well known from U.S. Census reports, the demographic characteristics of ALICE households
are not as well known. This section provides an overview of the demographics of New Yorks
ALICE households and compares them to households in poverty as well as to the total
population.
Except for a few notable exceptions, ALICE households generally reflect the demographics
of the overall population. Differences are most striking for those groups who traditionally have
the lowest wages: women; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people; people
of color; recent immigrants who are undocumented, unskilled, or in limited English-speaking
households (all household members 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with
English); people with low levels of education; people with a disability; formerly incarcerated
people; and younger veterans. County statistics for race/ethnicity and age are presented in
Appendix B.
Age
There are ALICE households in every age bracket in New York (Figure 9). Within each
age bracket, the number of ALICE households and households in poverty generally
reflects their proportion of the overall state population. Where they differ, the youngest are
overrepresented in poverty and the oldest overrepresented in the ALICE population. There
are also key differences by region.
23
800
90%
88
Under 25
18%
19%
22%
25 to 44
Years
45 to 64
Years
65 Years
and Over
28%
62%
60%
800
700
600
59%
69%
442
432
42%
40%
10%
0%
90%
80%
28%
20
Under 25
100
10%
7%
7%
25 to 44
Years
45 to 64
Years
65 Years
and Over
1,200
1,033
23%
57%
727
32%
63%
1,000
57%
800
651
50%
40%
30%
20%
26%
45%
10%
0%
400
200
34%
24%
30%
70%
60%
500
300
30%
20%
600
200
744
70%
50%
678
400
38%
10%
80%
39%
32%
26%
30%
0%
1,000
31%
40%
20%
1,200
39%
93
Under 25
Poverty
25%
34%
17%
12%
9%
25 to 44
Years
45 to 64
Years
65 Years
and Over
ALICE
Above AT
600
400
200
0
Total Households
24
50%
49%
56%
70%
60%
1,196
1,186
31%
Total Househols (thousands)
100%
80%
Percent of Households in Age Group
100%
90%
1,400
100%
Figure 9.
Households below the ALICE Threshold by Age, New York Regions, 2014
The youngest New York age group (under 25) is also the smallest, ranging from 1 percent of
households in the counties surrounding NYC to 4 percent in the Rest of State. They are the
group most likely to be in poverty, and they also have high shares of ALICE households. As
the states households get older, a smaller percentage of them are in poverty. Middle-aged
households (25 to 64 years old) are also the least likely to be ALICE households. Senior
households (65 years and older) are less likely to be in poverty but have the highest share of
ALICE households.
The exception to these trends is older households in NYC. Instead of poverty rates falling
steadily with age, they drop for households headed by someone 24 to 44 years old but then
gradually increase again with age, so that 22 percent of senior households in NYC live in
poverty and 39 percent are ALICE.
The comparatively low rate of senior households in poverty (14 percent statewide) provides
evidence that government benefits, including Social Security, are effective at reducing poverty
among seniors (Haskins, 2011). But the fact that 36 percent of senior households qualify as
ALICE highlights the reality that these same benefits are often not at a level that enables
financial stability. This is especially true in a state like New York where the cost of living is
high and many senior households continue to work, some by choice and others because of
low income. In New Yorks 65- to 74-year-old age group, 27 percent are in the labor force, as
are 7 percent of those 75 years of age and over (American Community Survey, 2014).
Earning enough
income to
reach the
ALICE Threshold
is especially
challenging for
young households
in New York, as
illustrated by the
high numbers
of younger
households
below the ALICE
Threshold.
Earning enough income to reach the ALICE Threshold is especially challenging for young
households in New York, as illustrated by the high numbers of younger households below the
ALICE Threshold. The same is true in many parts of the country, and the response has typically
been a decrease in the number of households headed by someone under the age of 25 as
young workers move back in with their parents or find roommates to save money. In fact, from
2007 to 2014, the number of New Yorks households headed by someone under 25 decreased
by 12 percent (Vespa, Lewis and Kreider, 2013; American Community Survey, 2014).
Race/Ethnicity
The overall racial and ethnic composition of New York households follows the pattern of most
of the United States, with White households in the majority in all income categories. By region,
White households are in the majority in the Rest of State and the counties surrounding NYC,
but NYC, the most diverse city in the nation, has a very different composition (Figure 10).
In the Rest of State, 88 percent of households are headed by someone who is White (White
alone, not Hispanic or Latino, U.S. Census classification), as are 85 percent of ALICE
households and 75 percent of households in poverty.
In the counties surrounding NYC, 72 percent of households are headed by someone who is
White, as are 65 percent of ALICE households and 64 percent of households in poverty.
In NYC, however, racial and ethnic diversity is much greater and only 39 percent of
households are headed by someone who is White (White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, U.S.
Census classification), as are 28 percent of ALICE households and 25 percent of households
in poverty.
While households of color are over-represented as a percentage of New Yorks ALICE and
poverty households, overall, the race and ethnicity of ALICE and poverty households fairly
closely mirrors that of the state population. The states households of color with reported
income data Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are shown in greater detail in Figure 11.
25
Figure 10.
Households by Race/Ethnicity and Income, New York Regions, 2014
Households (in thousands)
2,500
2,000
42%
1,500
62%
Above AT
ALICE
1,000
68%
37%
Below
$15,000/year
68%
28%
500
22%
0
11%
White
21%
26%
Asian,
Black, &
Hispanic
White
54%
6%
37%
Asian,
Black, &
Hispanic
9%
11%
White
Asian,
Black, &
Hispanic
36%
37%
27%
While households
of color are
over-represented
as a percentage
of New Yorks
ALICE and poverty
households,
overall, the race
and ethnicity of
ALICE and poverty
households fairly
closely mirrors
that of the state
population.
Note: Because race and ethnicity are overlapping categories and New York is a state with a large percentage of people of color, the
totals for each income category do not add up to 100 percent exactly. This data is for households; because household size varies for
different racial/ethnic groups, population percentages may differ from household percentages. Native Americans account for only 0.15
percent of households; there is insufficient data to accurately calculate their household income status.
Note: Because household poverty data is not available for the American Community Surveys Race/Ethnicity categories, annual
income below $15,000 is used as a proxy.
26
Figure 11.
Hispanic, Black, and Asian Households by Income, New York Regions, 2014
900
800
700
600

42%
500
400
300
41%
36%
200
100
0
36%
23%
22%
Hispanic
Black
53%
32%
15%
Asian
250
200
150
49%
38%
100
50
0
42%
9%
Hispanic
50%
73%
12%
22%
Black
Asian
5%
180
160
32%
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
36%
37%
27%
Hispanic
Below $15,000/year
39%
29%
51%
29%
20%
Black
Asian
ALICE
Above AT
Note: Because household poverty data is not available for the American Community Surveys Race/Ethnicity categories, annual
income below $15,000 is used as a proxy.
27
New York is one of the most diverse states in the country, with people of color accounting
for 37 percent of all households. However, the size of the population of color varies greatly
between neighborhoods, counties, and regions of New York. According to a Penn State
University study, the New York City metropolitan statistical area was the fifth most diverse
metro area in the country in 2010, while the Glens Falls metro area in Warren County was the
fourth least diverse (Lee, Iceland, & Sharp, 2012).
The first White residents of present-day New York were the Dutch, who settled in Albany and
New Amsterdam (now New York City). As early as 1698, two-thirds of the 18,000 residents
of what would become New York State lived in or around present-day New York City, and
more than 18 languages were spoken (Glaeser, 2005). The Dutch were quickly followed
by German, English, and Scottish immigrants; today, the states White population includes
Italian, Irish, Polish, and many other European ethnicities. In addition, residents of any race
can also be ethnically Hispanic, and 9 percent of the White population in New York identifies
as Hispanic (American Community Survey, 2014; Pew Research Center, 2014).
Hispanics surpassed Blacks in 2003 to become New Yorks largest population of color,
accounting for 15 percent of the total population and ranging from less than 1.5 percent in
Hamilton, Lewis, Allegany, Tioga, Schuyler, and Steuben counties to 58 percent in Bronx
County. New York has the fourth-largest Hispanic population in the country and the ninthlargest proportion of Hispanic people, but 93 percent of the Hispanic population lives in NYC
and its surrounding counties; only 3.2 percent of the Rest of State is Hispanic (American
Community Survey, 2014).
New York is
one of the most
diverse states in
the country, with
people of color
accounting for
37 percent of all
households.
Hispanics first immigrated in 1859, when cigar factories brought Cuban migrants to NYC.
Puerto Ricans and Dominicans came to New York in large numbers after World War II,
followed by another influx of Cuban migrants during the 1959-1962 Cuban revolution.
Mexicans only started immigrating to New York in large numbers in the 1990s. Immigration
continues for all of these groups, and increased in the 2000s. Today, 62 percent of the states
Hispanic residents are native-born. Of those who are foreign-born, the largest share 13
percent are from Mexico, followed by immigrants from Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Colombia, and
El Salvador (Migration Policy Institute, 2014; PBS, 2013; Kelley, 2015; Badillo, 2009).
Blacks entered New York in waves, initially brought as slaves until the state abolished slavery
in 1827. The Great Migration of Blacks from southern states to northern and western cities led
to a doubling of New Yorks black population roughly every two decades between 1910 and
1970. More recent increases have come from migration of foreign-born Blacks, changing the
composition of a population that had been primarily African-American. Foreign-born Blacks
made up 28 percent of the overall Black population of the NYC metropolitan statistical area in
2013 (American Community Survey, 2014; McCabe, 2011; Gibson and Jung, 2002; Gambino,
Trevelyan, and Fitzwater, 2014).
Asian households make up 9 percent of New Yorks total population, but the size of the Asian
population varies greatly between regions and counties, from 2 percent in the Rest of State
to 12 percent in NYC and up to 24 percent in Queens County. Asians are the fastest-growing
group in New York, accounting for 87 percent of the growth in the states population between
2000 and 2014. Until 1965, few Asians were able to migrate to the U.S., but following
the Immigration and Nationality Act, waves of immigrants came to New York from China,
India, the Philippines, and Korea, with more recent growth in populations from Burma (or
Myanmar), Bangladesh, and Pakistan. New Yorks Asian population is now aging, with the
28
Black households are the second-largest population of color, accounting for just under 15
percent of the states total population. The proportion of Black households ranges from 6.6
percent in the Rest of State to 32 percent in Kings (Brooklyn) County.
number of those over 65 having tripled since 2000. In some low-income areas like Flushing,
Chinatown, and Bayside in NYC that are dominated by immigrants, Asians make up more
than 40 percent of the population (American Community Survey, 2014; DiNapoli, 2016).
While ALICE
households come
in all sizes and
demographic
configurations,
two of the most
common types
are seniors and
households with
children.
Native Americans had lived in what is now New York for millennia before the arrival of
Europeans, and the original five tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy formed a democracy
that predated the U.S. Constitution. Over time they were moved to reservations, and then
encouraged to assimilate and move to cities. Today, only 0.15 percent of New Yorkers are
Native American, and fewer live on reservations. Most New Yorkers who identify as Native
American live in western New York, where the 8,000-member Seneca Nation of Indians is the
regions fifth-largest employer. In Central New York, the 1,000-member Oneida Indian Nation
is the regions single largest employer (Independence Hall Association, 2016; American
Community Survey, 2014; Watkins and Nichols, 2014; New York State Education Department,
2013; New York University, 2012; Cattaraugus County Health Department, 2015).
People of Some Other Race (Census classification) account for 2.7 percent of the New
York population; those who identify as Two or More Races represent 0.7 percent (American
Household Type
While ALICE households come in all sizes and demographic configurations, two of the most
common types are seniors and households with children. Yet in a reflection of changing family
structures across the country, there are now many more types of households as well, and
these other households now make up the largest share of households with income below
the ALICE Threshold in New York, at 46 percent. These households include families with at
least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, but with no children under the age
of 18; single adults younger than 65; or people who share a housing unit with non-relatives
for example, boarders or roommates. Across the country, these households single or
cohabiting, without children under 18 increased between 1970 and 2012: The share of
households made up of married couples with children under 18 decreased by half, from 40
percent to 20 percent, while the proportion of single-adult households increased from 17
percent to 27 percent (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).
After these single or cohabiting households, seniors (27 percent) and families with children
(27 percent) still make up significant numbers of New York households below the ALICE
Threshold (Figure 12). This is not surprising as these demographics are associated with
higher costs, especially in health care for seniors and child care for families with children.
Senior ALICE households were discussed earlier in this section; ALICE families with children
are examined further below.
29
Figure 12.
Household Types by Income, New York, 2014
4,000,000
3,557,936
3,500,000
Households
3,000,000
2,500,000
58%
1,961,255
2,000,000
1,770,601
1,500,000
1,000,000
56%
ALICE
Poverty
50%
29%
23%
500,000
0
Above AT
13%
21%
Single & Cohabiting

(No Children <18)
Families with
Children
36%
14%
65 and Over
By region, the income levels of single or cohabiting households do not vary as greatly as
do other household types. Following the pattern of overall households by region, single or
cohabiting households are less likely to be in poverty in the counties surrounding NYC, but
only slightly more likely in NYC and the Rest of State. In addition, the percent of single or
cohabiting ALICE households remains similar across regions, ranging from 26 to 28 percent.
Families with Children

The economic status of Americas families with children under the age of 18 has declined
since 2007. Of New Yorks 1.96 million families with children, 44 percent (864,499) have
income below the ALICE Threshold. While married-parent families with children far outnumber
single-parent families, a higher proportion of children in single-parent families live below
the ALICE Threshold. Family make-up differs greatly by region, with far more single-parent
families in NYC than in the Rest of State, but the proportions in poverty and ALICE remain
fairly constant across the regions (Figure 13). Because discussions of low-income families
often focus on single parents, it is important to note that the lines between married-couple
and single-parent households are often blurred. Nationally, only 37 percent of single-parent
homes have one parent as the sole adult in the household. In 11 percent of single-parent
homes, the parent has a cohabiting partner; in 52 percent, another adult age 18 or older lives
in the home (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).
Because
discussions of
low-income
families often
focus on single
parents, it is
important to note
that the lines
between marriedcouple and singleparent households
are often blurred.
30
Figure 13.
Families with Children by Income, New York Regions, 2014
600,000
500,000


below ALICE Threshold
(BAT): 55%
400,000
81% BAT
300,000
200,000
69% BAT
100,000
0
39% BAT
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Married
Single
Female-Headed
22% BAT
(BAT): 32%
74% BAT
57% BAT
Married
Single
Female-Headed
19% BAT
Single
Male-Headed

(BAT): 40%
79% BAT
63% BAT
Married
Poverty
Single
Female-Headed
ALICE
31
Single
Male-Headed
Above AT
Single
Male-Headed
Not surprisingly, the most expensive household budget is for a household with young children,
due not only to these households larger size but also to the cost of child care, preschool, and
after-school care (discussed further in Section II). The biggest factors determining the economic
stability of a household with children are the number of wage earners, the gender of the wage
earners, the number of children, and the cost of child care for children of different ages.
Married-Couple Families with Children
With two income earners, married couples with children have greater means to
provide a higher household income than households with one adult. For this reason,
72 percent of married-couple families with children in New York have income above
the ALICE Threshold. However, because they are such a large demographic group,
married-couple families with children still account for 31 percent of families with
children who live in poverty and 51 percent of ALICE families with children.
By region, married couples with children are more likely to struggle financially in NYC,
where 16 percent are in poverty and 23 percent are ALICE, compared to the Rest
of State, where 7 percent are in poverty and 13 percent are ALICE, or the counties
surrounding NYC, where 6 percent are in poverty and 17 percent are ALICE.
Nationally, married-couple families experienced a 33 percent increase in
unemployment for at least one parent during the Great Recession. A subset of this
group, families who owned their own homes, faced an even greater challenge:
Between 2005 and 2011, the number of households with children (under 18) that
owned a home fell by 15 percent (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).
Single Female-Headed Families with Children
Families headed by single women with children account for 27 percent of all New
York families with children but 48 percent of the states households with children
below the ALICE Threshold. They are much more likely to struggle financially, making
up 60 percent of the states families with children in poverty and 37 percent of
families with children who are ALICE.
Not surprisingly,
the most expensive
household budget
is for a household
with young children,
due not only to
these households
larger size but also
to the cost of
child care,
preschool, and
after-school care.
Single female-headed families are often highlighted as the most typical low-income
household. With only one wage earner, it is not surprising that single-parent families
are over-represented among ALICE households. For women, this is compounded
by the fact that in New York, they still earn significantly less than men, as detailed
below in Figure 15. Yet it is important to note that in New York, single female-headed
families account for only 12 percent of all households below the ALICE Threshold and
18 percent of all working-age households below the ALICE Threshold. Many other
types of households also struggle to afford basic necessities.
Using a different calculation, the Working Poor Families Project (WPFP) estimated
that in 2012, 42 percent of low-income working families in New York were headed by
women, as were 39 percent nationally. However, the WPFP population of households
is much smaller because it does not include households with unemployed workers
or those with a disability (as the ALICE Threshold does), which may overstate the
prominence of single female-headed families (Rudowitz, Artiga, and Arguello, 2014).
32
Regionally, single female-headed families are more prevalent in NYC, accounting for
33 percent of all families with children there compared to only 16 percent of families in
the counties surrounding NYC and 28 percent in the Rest of State. They are more likely
than other families to struggle financially in all three regions: Half are in poverty in NYC
and in the Rest of State, as are 31 percent in the counties surrounding NYC. And they
are even more likely to be ALICE in those surrounding counties (42 percent), with more
average rates in NYC (30 percent) and the Rest of State (31 percent).
Single Male-Headed Families with Children

The number of households headed by single men with children is a growing group in
New York and across the country. While most single-parent families are still headed
by mothers, single-father families account for 8 percent of all New York families with
children and 11 percent of families with income below the ALICE Threshold. Although
they are less common than single female-headed families, single male-headed
families face similar challenges, with only one wage earner responsible for child care.
In fact, when looking at parent types by income tier in New York, 64 percent of all
single-male-headed families with children have income below the ALICE Threshold.
ADDITIONAL RISK FACTORS FOR BEING ALICE

The persistence of
the gender wage
gap helps explain
why female-headed
households are
disproportionately
likely to live in
poverty or to
be ALICE.
Demographic groups that are especially vulnerable to underemployment, unemployment,

and lower earning power are more likely than other groups to be in poverty or to be ALICE. In
addition to the challenges faced by people of color discussed earlier in this section, four other
demographic factors make a household more likely to fall into the ALICE population: being
female, being LGBT, having low levels of education, and living with a disability. Groups with
more than one of these factors such as younger combat veterans, formerly incarcerated
people, or undocumented, unskilled, or limited English-speaking recent immigrants are
even more likely to fall below the ALICE Threshold.
Women
Although women make up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, receive more college and
graduate degrees than men, and are the equal or primary breadwinner in four out of ten
families, they continue to earn significantly less than men in comparable jobs.
According to the BLS Current Population Survey, womens median earnings are lower than
mens in nearly all occupations. In 2014, female full-time workers still made only 78 cents on
each dollar earned by men, a gap of 22 percent. In addition, male-dominated occupations tend
to pay more than female-dominated occupations at similar skill levels. Despite many changes
to the economy, these disparities remain persistent features of the U.S. labor market (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2015; Hegewisch and Ellis, 2015). The persistence of the gender wage gap
helps explain why female-headed households are disproportionately likely to live in poverty or to
be ALICE.
Older women are also more likely to be poor: Recent data reveals that nationally, among
people aged 65 and older, 64 percent more women than men are poor (Hess and Romn,
2016). In New York, senior women are more likely to live longer and to be in poverty. Of those
65 years and older, there were 24 percent more women than men in 2014, yet 50 percent
more women than men were in poverty 11 percent of women compared to 8 percent of men
(American Community Survey, 2014).
People with Lower Levels of Education

Income continues to be highly correlated with education. In New York, 27 percent of the
population 25 years and older have only a high school diploma, and 25 percent have some
college education or an associates degree, but only 20 percent have a bachelors degree
and 15 percent have a graduate or professional degree, despite the fact that median earnings
increase significantly for those with higher levels of education (Figure 14).
33
Figure 14.
Education Attainment and Median Annual Earnings, New York, 2014
$80,000
$70,858
3,500,000
3,000,000
$60,000
$53,280
2,500,000
2,000,000
$50,000
$40,000
$36,359
1,500,000
1,000,000
$30,000
$29,501
$20,071
$20,000
500,000
0
$70,000
Median Earnings
Population 25 Years and Older
4,000,000
$10,000
Some
Less than High School
College or
Graduate
High
Associate
School
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate
or
Professional
Degree
$0
Source: American Community Survey, 2014
ALICE households are more likely to have less education than households above the ALICE
Threshold, but higher education alone is no longer a reliable predictor of a self-sufficient
income. Many demographic factors impact a households ability to meet the ALICE Threshold.
For example, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, economically
disadvantaged students, students with limited English proficiency, and students with
disabilities all have graduation rates below the state and national averages for all students.
In New York in 2013, the public high school graduation rate was 77 percent for all students
but significantly lower for economically disadvantaged students (68 percent), those with
disabilities (48 percent), and those with limited English proficiency (44 percent) (Stetser and
Stillwell, 2014). It is not surprising that these same groups also earn lower wages later in life.
ALICE households
are more likely
to have less
education than
households
above the ALICE
Threshold, but
higher education
alone is no longer
a reliable predictor
of a self-sufficient
income.
Within New York and across all states, there is also a striking difference in earnings between
men and women at all educational levels (Figure 15). Men in New York earn at least 19
percent more than women across all educational levels and as much as 42 percent
more for those with less than a high school diploma (American Community Survey,
2014). This, in part, helps explain why so many of New Yorks single female-headed
households have incomes below the ALICE Threshold.
34
Those residents with the least education are more likely to have earnings below the
ALICE Threshold. Yet with the increasing cost of education over the last decade, college
has become unaffordable for many and a huge source of debt for others. Despite the fact that
New York colleges and universities received more than $386 million in federal Pell Grants in
2014, 61 percent of New Yorks Class of 2014 still graduated with an average of $27,822 in
student debt (National Priorities Project, 2015; Project on Student Debt, 2015).
Figure 15.
Median Annual Earnings by Education and Gender, New York, 2014
Median Annual Earnings
$90,000
19% Gap
$80,000
$70,000
31% Gap
$60,000
$50,000
35% Gap
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
41% Gap
42% Gap
$10,000
$0
Less than High High School Some College

School
Graduate
or Associate
Degree
Female
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
Professional
Degree
Male
People with a Disability
The national
median income for
households where
one adult is living
with a disability
is generally 60
percent less than
for those without
disabilities.
Households with a member who is living with a disability are more likely than other
households to be in poverty or to be ALICE. These households often have both increased
health care expenses and reduced earning power. The national median income for
households where one adult is living with a disability is generally 60 percent less than for
those without disabilities (American Community Survey, 2006 and 2013).
The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that 36 percent of Americans under
age 50 have been disabled at least temporarily, and 9 percent have a chronic and severe
disability. The economic consequences of disability are profound: 79 percent of Americans
with a disability experience a decline in earnings, 35 percent have lower after-tax income,
and 24 percent have a lower housing value. The economic hardship experienced by the
chronically and severely disabled is often more than twice as great as that of the average
household (Meyer and Mok, 2013). In addition, those with a disability are more likely to live
in severely substandard conditions and pay more than one-half of their household income for
rent (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), March 2011).
New Yorks numbers fit with these national findings. Notably, New York residents with a
disability are far less likely to be employed: Only 21 percent of working-age residents (1864
years old) with a disability are employed, compared to 59 percent of those with no disability.
And for those who are working, they earn less. The median annual earnings for a New York
resident with a disability are $22,957, compared to $34,441 for a worker without a disability
(American Community Survey, 2014).
A total of 2,020,411 adults in New York have a lasting physical, mental, or emotional disability
that impedes them from being independent or able to work. Approximately 24 percent of New
York residents aged 16 and over with a severe disability live in poverty, compared with 14.3
percent of all residents in that age group. Disability is generally disproportionately associated
with age; in New York, 35 percent of residents 65 years or older are living with a disability,
more than double the 13 percent average for all ages (American Community Survey, 2014).
35
The LGBT Community

According to Gallup surveys conducted in 2012, the percentage of New York adults who identify
as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) is 3.8 percent, slightly above the nationwide
average of 3.5 percent (Gates and Newport, 2013). Though there is less data available about
LGBT workers, they are likely to be economically disadvantaged. Despite having more education
than the general population, LGBT workers often earn less than their heterosexual counterparts,
experience greater unemployment, and are more likely to live in extreme poverty (earning
$10,000 annually or less) (Harrison, Grant and Herman, 2012; Burns, 2013; Harris, 2015).
Most same-sex households live in cities in New York, but conditions vary across the state.
According to the Human Rights Campaigns Municipal Equality Index, NYC, Rochester, and
Yonkers earned the highest scores (100 out of 100) on measures of inclusivity for LGBT
residents and workers, and Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo were also high scorers (92 out
of 100), while smaller cities such as Brookhaven and Northwest Harbor earned much lower
scores (44 and 62 respectively) (Human Rights Campaign, 2015).
Undocumented, Unskilled, and Limited English-Speaking

Recent Immigrants
Related to race and ethnicity is immigration, with Hispanics, Asians, and Africans making up
the majority of New Yorks 4,465,415 immigrants. In terms of place of birth, 49 percent of the
states immigrants were born in Latin America; 28.3 percent were born in Asia; 16.5 were born
in Europe; and 4.3 were born in Africa (Migration Policy Institute, 2013; Maciag, 2014).
Immigrant groups vary widely in language, education, age, and skills. Nationally, immigrants
are only slightly more likely to be in poverty or to be ALICE than non-immigrants.
However, for some subsets of immigrant groups such as non-citizens; more recent,
less-skilled, or unskilled immigrants; and those who are in limited English-speaking
households (where no one in the household age 14 or older speaks English only or
speaks English very well) the likelihood increases (Suro, Wilson and Singer, 2012;
American Community Survey, 2014).
Immigrant groups
vary widely
in language,
education,
age, and skills.
Nationally,
immigrants are
only slightly more
likely to be in
poverty or to be
ALICE than
non-immigrants.
Recent immigrants in general earn less than longer-term residents. The median annual income
for foreign-born New York residents who entered the state since 2010 is $42,079, while the
median income for foreign-born residents who came to New York before 2000 is $51,813.
In terms of education attainment, foreign-born residents living in New York are less likely than
residents born in New York to graduate from high school (74 percent compared to 81 percent
for residents born in-state). Yet in college, they achieve at almost the same rate as residents
born in-state (17 percent have a bachelors degree, compared to 19 percent for those born
in-state), and they receive almost as many graduate degrees (12 percent, compared to 15
percent for residents born in-state) (American Community Survey, 2014).
36
Refugees make up a small subset of immigrants to New York, Since 1980, 3,000 to 5,000
refugees per year have resettled in the state. Of the 4,085 who resettled in 2014, half were
from Burma and Bhutan, one-quarter were from the Democratic Republic of Congo and
Somalia, and the rest were from Iraq and Afghanistan. The proportion of refugees resettling
in the Rest of State has grown over time from 76 percent in 2006 to 96 percent in 2014, with
particularly high resettlement in the greater Buffalo, Rochester, and Utica areas in 2014.
These immigrants face a unique set of challenges in reaching financial stability, including
poor health from previous inadequate medical care, exposure to torture or terrorism, as well
as poverty, and language barriers (New York Bureau of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance
(BRIA), 2015; NYS Health Foundation, 2016).
Across income and educational levels, the data on immigrants reinforces the point that
ALICE households are working and are an essential part of the economy. Immigrant-owned
businesses contributed at least $229 billion to the New York economy in 2014. Immigrants
comprised 23 percent of the states population and 27 percent of the states workforce in
2013 (American Immigration Council, 2015).
However, some immigrant groups face language and citizenship barriers that keep them
from jobs, higher wages, and resources (Suro, Wilson and Singer, 2012). The Pew Research
Center estimates that there were 750,000 unauthorized immigrants in New York, or roughly
4 percent of the states population, in 2012. Elementary and secondary students with an
unauthorized immigrant parent account for 5.5 percent of school children, and unauthorized
adult immigrants account for 6 percent of the states workforce (Passel, Cohn, and Rohai,
2014). This group of immigrants is often paid off the books; they are not formally recognized
and therefore have few or no labor protections (such as minimum wage or safety regulations)
and little or no access to the public safety net (discussed further in the Conclusion).
According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in general, state and local
governments carry most of the cost of providing a range of public services to unauthorized
immigrants particularly services related to education, health care, and law enforcement.
Because these governments provide these services to all residents in their jurisdiction, the
amount spent on services to unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the
total. The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments,
however, do not offset the total cost of services that they receive, and federal aid programs do
not fully cover the costs that state and local governments incur (Merrell, 2007).
Unemployed
veterans are most
at risk of being in
poverty or living in
ALICE households,
especially
when they have
exhausted their
temporary health
benefits and
unemployment
benefits.
37
Research by the U.S. Census Bureau has found that English-speaking ability among
immigrants influences their employment status, ability to find full-time employment, and
earning levels, regardless of the particular language spoken at home. Those with the highest
level of spoken English have the highest earnings, which approach the earnings of Englishonly speakers (Day and Shin, 2005). The American Community Survey reports more than
158 different foreign languages spoken in New York, with Spanish being the most common
at 6 percent. Of New York households, 8 percent are limited English-speaking households
(American Community Survey, 2010 and 2014).
Veterans
As of 2014, there were 773,063 veterans living in New York. Unemployed veterans are
most at risk of being in poverty or living in ALICE households, especially when they have
exhausted their temporary health benefits and unemployment benefits. Younger veterans,
in particular, embody a trifecta of factors that make them more likely to be ALICE: They are
dealing with the complex physical, social, and emotional consequences of military service;
they are more likely to have less education and training than veterans of other service
periods; and they are more likely to have a disability than older veterans.
Unemployment is a major challenge for younger veterans. Seventy-four percent of New
Yorks veterans are in the labor force (including those looking for work); of those, 6.6 percent
were unemployed in 2014. But while 93 percent of New York veterans are 35 years or older
(Figure 16), the most recent and youngest 51,022 veterans aged 18 to 34 years are
most likely to be unemployed or in struggling ALICE households. While state-level data
is not available, at the national level, veterans aged 18-34 years are twice as likely as their
older counterparts to be unemployed. Within the young age group, the very youngest those
aged 18 to 24 years are the most likely to be unemployed, with 16 percent unemployed in
2014 (American Community Survey, 2014; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).
There were 2,399 homeless New York veterans in 2014, down 59 percent from 5,879 in 2011
(American Community Survey, 2014; HUD, October 2014; HUD, November 2015).
Figure 16.
Veterans by Age, New York, 2014
Number of
Veterans
(New York)
Percent of Total
Veterans
(New York)
Percent of
Veterans
Unemployed
(U.S.)
18 to 34 years
51,022
7%
9%
35 to 54 years
154,613
20%
5%
55 to 64 years
129,875
17%
5%
65 years and over
437,553
57%
4%
Age
Source: American Community Survey, 2014; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014
Ex-Offenders
New Yorks incarceration rate of 265 per 100,000 adults is below the national average of 392
per 100,000 adults (National Institute of Corrections, 2014). However, the incarceration rate
for Black working-age men in New York was 5.3 percent in 2010 almost double the national
average of 3 percent (Pawasarat and Quinn, 2013; National Institute of Corrections, 2014;
The Sentencing Project, 2007).
People with past

convictions in
New York and
across the country
are more likely to
be unemployed or
to work in
low-wage jobs.
People with past convictions in New York and across the country are more likely to be
unemployed or to work in low-wage jobs. Research has documented that ex-offenders are
confronted by an array of barriers that significantly impede their ability to find work and
otherwise reintegrate into their communities, including low levels of education, lack of skills
and experience due to time out of the labor force, employer reluctance to hire ex-offenders,
questions about past convictions on initial job applications, problems obtaining subsidized
housing, and substance abuse issues.
A range of studies has found that ex-offenders have employment rates between 9.7 and
23 percent lower than those of non-offenders; in 2008, those reductions lowered the total
male employment rate in the U.S. by 1.5 to 1.7 percentage points. When ex-offenders do
find employment, it tends to be in low-wage service jobs often held by ALICE workers, in
industries including construction, food service, hotel/hospitality, landscaping/lawn care,
manufacturing, telemarketing, temporary employment, and warehousing (Leshnick, Geckeler,
Wiegand, Nicholson, and Foley, 2012; Schmitt and Warner, 2010).
38
The root causes of higher unemployment of veterans from recent deployments are uncertain,
but a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago suggests a number of possibilities.
First, wartime deployments often result in physical or psychological trauma that affects the
ability of new veterans to find work. Second, deployed veterans receive combat-specific
training that is often not transferable to the civilian labor market. Finally, new veterans are
typically younger and less educated than average workers two factors that predispose
job-seekers to higher unemployment rates (Faberman and Foster, 2013; Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2015).
II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE

IN NEW YORK?
Measure 2 The Household Budget: Survival vs. Stability
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION II
The Household Survival Budget
The Household Survival Budget estimates the minimum required for each of the
five basic household necessities needed to live and work in the modern economy:
housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care.
The average annual Household Survival Budget for a four-person family living in New
York is $62,472 more than double the U.S. poverty level of $23,850 per year for the
same size family.
The Household Survival Budget for a family translates to an hourly wage of $31.24 for
one parent (or $15.62 per hour each, if two parents work).
The cost of
basic household
necessities
increased in
New York from
2007 to 2014,
despite low
inflation during the
Great Recession.
The average annual Household Survival Budget for a single adult in New York is
$21,540, which translates to an hourly wage of $10.77.
Child care represents a New York familys greatest expense at $1,363 for registered
home-based care. (Licensed and accredited child care, used in the Household Stability
Budget, is even more expensive at an average of $1,755 per month for two children.)
The Household Stability Budget
The Household Stability Budget measures how much income is needed to support
and sustain an economically viable household, including both a 10 percent savings
plan and the cost of a smartphone.
The average annual Household Stability Budget is $116,268 for a family of four,
nearly double the Household Survival Budget.
To afford the Household Stability Budget for a two-parent family, each parent must
earn $29.07 per hour or one parent must earn $58.14 per hour.
The cost of basic household necessities increased in New York from 2007 to 2014, despite
low inflation during the Great Recession. As a result, 44 percent of households in New York
are challenged to afford the basic necessities. This section presents the Household Survival
Budget, a realistic measure estimating what it costs to afford the five basic household
necessities: housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care.
39
THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET

The Household Survival Budget follows the original intent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
as a standard for temporary sustainability (Blank, 2008). This budget identifies the minimum
cost option for each of the five basic household items needed to live and work in todays
economy. Figure 17 shows a statewide average Household Survival Budget for New York in
two variations, one for a single adult and the other for a family with two adults, a preschooler,
and an infant. A Household Survival Budget for each county in New York is presented in
Appendix J, and additional family variations are available at:
http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice.
The average annual Household Survival Budget for a four-person family living in New York is
$62,472, an increase of 19 percent from the start of the Great Recession in 2007. That increase
was driven primarily by a 56 percent increase in the cost of health care and a 20 percent
increase in the cost of food. The rate of inflation over the same period was 14 percent.
The Household Survival Budget for a family translates to an hourly wage of $31.24, 40
hours per week for 50 weeks per year for one parent (or $15.62 per hour each, if two
parents work).
The annual Household Survival Budget for a single adult is $21,540, an increase of 16
percent since 2007. The single-adult budget translates to an hourly wage of $10.77.
As a frame of reference, it is worth noting that the Household Survival Budget is lower than
most current measures, including the MIT Living Wage Calculator, the Economic Policy
Institutes Family Budget Calculator, and the Center for Womens Welfares Self-Sufficiency
Standard (MIT, 2015; Economic Policy Institute, 2015; Pearce, 2014). These are compared
with both the Household Survival and Household Stability budgets later in this section.
The average
annual Household
Survival Budget
for a four-person
family living
in New York is
$62,472, an
increase of 19
percent from the
start of the Great
Recession in 2007.
Figure 17.
Household Survival Budget, New York Average, 2014
New York Average 2014
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
SINGLE ADULT
2007 2014
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
Child Care
$668
$919
17%
$-
$1,363
9%
Food
$202
$612
20%
Transportation
$330
$653
11%
Health Care
$141
$564
56%
Miscellaneous
$163
$473
19%
Taxes
$291
$622
35%
$1,795
$5,206
19%
$21,540
$62,472
19%
$10.77
$31.24
19%
Monthly Total
ANNUAL TOTAL
Hourly Wage
Source: See Appendix C
40
Monthly Costs
In comparison to the annual Household Survival Budget, the U.S. poverty level was $23,850
per year for a family of four and $11,670 per year for a single adult in 2014. In that same year,
the New York median family income was $71,115 per year, and the median household income
was $58,878.
Increases in budget costs occurred primarily from 2007 to 2010 but continued through 2014.
The 17 percent increase in housing is particularly surprising because it happened during a
downturn in the housing market and was higher than the 14 percent national rate of inflation.
However, it is understandable when seen against the backdrop of the foreclosure crisis
that occurred at the top and middle of the housing market during the Great Recession. As
foreclosed homeowners moved into lower-end housing, there was increased demand for an
already limited housing supply, and housing prices rose accordingly.
The Household Survival Budget varies across New York counties. The basic essentials are
least expensive in Allegany, Chautauqua, and Chenango counties for a family at $55,944, and
in Wyoming County for a single adult at $18,216. They are most expensive in Suffolk County
both for a family at $90,324 and for a single adult at $28,176. For each countys Survival
Budget, see Appendix J.
Housing
The cost of housing for the Household Survival Budget is based on the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) Fair Market Rent (FMR) for an efficiency apartment
for a single adult and a two-bedroom apartment for a family. The cost includes utilities but not
telephone service, and it does not include a security deposit.
To put these costs

in national context,
the National Low
Income Housing
Coalition (NLIHC)
reports that New
York was the fourth
most expensive
state in the country
for housing
in 2014.
Housing costs vary by county in New York. Rental housing is least expensive for a
two-bedroom apartment in Allegany, Chautauqua, and Chenango counties at $637 per
month and for an efficiency apartment in Wyoming County at $445. Rental housing is most
expensive for a two-bedroom apartment in Nassau and Suffolk counties at $1,613 per month
and for an efficiency apartment in Putnam and Rockland counties and the NYC boroughs at
$1,163. To put these costs in national context, the National Low Income Housing Coalition
(NLIHC) reports that New York was the fourth most expensive state in the country for housing
in 2014 (NLIHC, 2015).
In the Household Survival Budget, housing for a family accounts for 18 percent of the
budget, which is well below HUDs affordability guidelines of 30 percent (HUD, 2013). For
a single adult, however, an efficiency apartment accounts for 37 percent of the Household
Survival Budget, well above the threshold at which the renter would be considered housing
burdened. The availability of affordable housing units is addressed in Section V.
Child Care
In New York, income inadequacy rates are higher for households with children at least in
part because of the cost of child care. The Household Survival Budget includes the cost of
registered home-based child care at an average rate of $1,363 per month ($706 per month
for an infant and $657 for a 4-year old).
41
While home-based child care sites in New York are required to be registered with the state
and are regulated for minimum quality program requirements, the quality of care that they
provide may vary between locations. However, licensed and accredited child care centers,
with more highly regulated standards of quality care, are significantly more expensive, with an
average cost of $1,755 per month ($943 per month for an infant and $812 for a 4-year-old).
Child care costs in New York are compiled by the New York State Office of Children & Family
Services (New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 2014).
Costs vary across counties: The least expensive home-based child care for two children, an
infant and a preschooler, is found in rural Rest of State counties at $1,208 per month, and
the most expensive home-based child care is in Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, and
Westchester counties at $2,188 per month.
Child care for two children accounts for 26 percent of the familys budget, their greatest
expense. The cost of child care in New York increased by 9 percent through the Great
Recession from 2007 to 2014. These increases have made child care costs prohibitive for
many ALICE families, not just in New York but nationwide. For example, a recent study from
the Oregon Child Care Research Partnership found that it was 24 percent harder (measured
by increase in prices combined with decrease in income) for a family to purchase care in
2012 than in 2004, and 33 percent harder for single parents (Weber, 2015).
Child care for two

children accounts
for 26 percent of
the familys budget,
their greatest
expense.
Food
The original U.S. poverty level was based in part on the 1962 Economy Food Plan, which
recognized food as a most basic element of economic well-being. The food budget for the
Household Survival Budget is based on the U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) Thrifty
Food Plan, in keeping with the purpose of the overall budget to show the minimal budget
amount possible for each category. The Thrifty Food Plan is also the basis for Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits.
Like the original Economy Food Plan, the Thrifty Food Plan was designed to meet the
nutritional requirements of a healthy diet, but it includes foods that need a lot of home
preparation time with little waste, plus skill in both buying and preparing food. The cost of the
Thrifty Food Plan takes into account regional variation across the country but not localized
variation, which can be even greater, especially for fruits and vegetables (Hanson, 2008;
Leibtag, Ephraim, and Kumcu, 2011).
Within the Household Survival Budget, the cost of food in New York is $612 per month for a
family of two adults and two young children and $202 per month for a single adult (USDA,
2014). The cost of food increased in New York by a surprisingly large 20 percent from 2007
to 2014, much higher than the 14 percent rate of inflation. The original FPL was based on
the premise that food accounts for one-third of a household budget, so that a total household
budget was the cost of food multiplied by three. Yet with the large increases in the cost of other
parts of the household budget, food now accounts for only 12 percent of the Household Survival
Budget for a family and 11 percent for a single adult in New York. Because the methodology
of the FPL has not evolved in tandem with changing lifestyles and work demands, the FPL
significantly underestimates the cost of even the most minimal household budget today.
The fourth item in the Household Survival Budget is transportation, a prerequisite for most
employment in New York. The average cost of transportation by car is several times greater
than by public transport. According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, a New York family
pays an average of $653 per month for gasoline, motor oil, and other vehicle expenses.
By comparison, the average cost for public transportation is only $72 per month, but public
transportation is not widely available in most counties. The Household Survival Budget in
Figure 17 shows state average transportation costs adjusted for household size. Actual
county costs are shown in Appendix J.
Transportation costs represent 13 percent of the average Household Survival Budget for
a family and 18 percent for a single adult. These costs are lower than in other budgets for
households with incomes similar to ALICE. The Housing and Transportation Affordability
42
Transportation
Index finds that for low-income New York households, transportation costs take up more than
9 percent of the household budget in NYC, and up to 30 percent in more rural parts of the
Rest of State (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2015).
Public transportation is typically the cheapest form of transportation, but it is only available in parts
of New York. Where it is available, it can significantly reduce the cost of the Household Survival
Budget for many families. In the counties outside of New Yorks major metropolitan areas, fewer
than 8 percent of workers use public transportation, so most of these workers must have a car
to get to their jobs. The Household Survival Budget reflects the cost of using a car, which is a
significant additional expense for ALICE households (American Community Survey, 2014).
Health Care
The fifth item in the Household Survival Budget is health care costs. The health care
budget includes the nominal out-of-pocket health care spending indicated in the Consumer
Expenditure Survey. In 2014, the average health care cost in New York was $141 per month
for a single adult (8 percent of the budget) and $564 per month for a family (11 percent of the
budget), which represents an increase of 56 percent from 2007 to 2014. Since it does not
include health insurance, such a low health care budget is not realistic in New York, especially
if any household member has a serious illness or a medical emergency.
Public
transportation
is typically the
cheapest form of
transportation, but
it is only available
in parts of
New York.
ALICE does not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford the Silver Plan (depending on eligibility
for subsidies) or even the premiums for the high-deductible Bronze Marketplace Plan
through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For this reason, the cost of the shared responsibility
payment the penalty for not having coverage is added to the current out-of-pocket health
care spending. The penalty for 2014 is the higher of these: 1 percent of household income,
yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze Plan sold through the Marketplace,
or $95 per adult and $47.50 per child under 18, for a maximum of $285 (U.S. Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2016).
Seniors have many additional health care costs beyond those covered by Medicare. The
Household Survival Budget does not cover these additional necessities, many of which can
be a prohibitive additional budget expense for ALICE families. For example, according to the
John Hancock 2013 Cost of Care Survey, poor health can add additional costs in New York,
with wide geographic variation across the state. Costs for adult day care range from $1,890
per month in the Bronx to $3,990 in Manhattan; costs for assisted living range from $2,400
per month in Middletown to $7,060 in Manhattan (John Hancock, 2013).
Taxes
While not typically considered essential to survival, taxes are nonetheless a legal requirement
of earning income in New York, even for low-income households. Taxes represent 16 percent of
the average Household Survival Budget for a single adult and only 12 percent for a family with
credits and exemptions. A single adult in New York earning $21,540 per year pays on average
$291 per month (or $3,492 annually) in federal and state taxes, and a family earning $62,472 per
year, benefiting from the federal Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit, pays
approximately $622 per month (or $7,464 annually). These rates include standard federal and
state deductions and exemptions. The tax budget line item increased on average 35 percent from
2007 to 2014 (an increase of 20 percent for a single adult and 51 percent for a family of 4). The
bulk of this increase can be explained by the fact that as the basic household budget increased,
the income needed to cover it increased, and higher income results in a larger tax bill.
43
Increases in the actual tax rates were modest, driven primarily by federal taxes (income payroll
deduction taxes for Social Security and Medicare) and by New York taxes for those earning more
than $40,000. From 2007 to 2014, federal taxes increased by 9 percent for a family of 4 and
decreased by 11 percent for a single adult. New York state income taxes, which account for a
quarter of a households taxes, remained flat from 2007 to 2014 for those earning under $40,000,
but rates rose for those earning more than $40,000, and the income brackets increased slightly
for all from 2012 to 2014. The net result was that from 2007 to 2014, New York state taxes for a
single adult increased by 8 percent and for a family of 4 increased by 7 percent. NYC tax rates
remained flat over the period (Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, 2007, 2010 and 2014). For tax details, see Appendix C.
Two additional tax considerations are also relevant for many ALICE households: the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) and sales tax. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a benefit
for working individuals with low to moderate incomes, is not included in the tax calculation
because the gross income threshold for EITC is below the ALICE Threshold: $49,186 vs.
$62,472 for a family of four and $14,590 vs. $21,540 for a working adult. However, many
ALICE households at the lower end of the income scale are eligible for EITC (IRS, 2014).
The IRS estimates that the federal EITC helped more than 1.8 million families in New York in
2014, reaching 83 percent of those eligible. In addition, between 2011 and 2013 the federal
EITC and the Child Tax Credit lifted 597,000 New York taxpayers and their households out of
poverty, including 307,000 children. The New York EITC is 30 percent and the NYC EITC is 5
percent of the federal credit (Internal Revenue Service, 2014; Tax Policy Center, 2015; Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2013; New York State Department of Taxation and Finance,
2015; Internal Revenue Service, 2013).
In terms of sales tax, there is none on most items in the Basic Household Survival Budget
(housing, food, child care, and health care). However, ALICE pays the state sales tax on goods
outside the budget. Clothing and footwear under $110 are exempt from New York City and New
York State Sales Tax. Purchases above $110 are subject to a 4.5 percent NYC Sales Tax and a
4 percent New York State Sales Tax. In addition, most counties levy a sales tax ranging from 3
percent to 4.88 percent (NYC Department of Finance, 2016; Sales Tax Handbook, 2016).
Between 2011 and

2013 the federal
EITC and the Child
Tax Credit lifted
597,000 New York
taxpayers and their
households out of
poverty, including
307,000 children.
Because the Household Survival Budget is based on the cost of renting, there is no property tax in
the tax portion of the budget. Property taxes are passed on to renters in the form of higher rents.
And property taxes can be an issue for ALICE homeowners, as discussed further in Chapter VI.
Household Survival Budget by Region

The cost of living varies across New York; the Household Survival Budget for a family of
four ranges from $78,720 in the counties surrounding NYC to $64,092 in NYC to $60,036
in the Rest of State. The biggest differences regionally are for housing, child care, and
transportation. Housing is most expensive in NYC and the surrounding counties; child care is
most expensive in the surrounding counties; and transportation is most expensive in the Rest
of State, where public transportation is generally not available.
44
In every state in the U.S., at least some low- or middle-income groups pay more of their
income in state and local taxes than do wealthy families. According to the Tax Inequality Index
from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), New York has the 41st most unfair
state and local tax system in the country. The states comparatively high state and local sales
tax rates, as well as the cigarette tax rate, are regressive and impact middle- and low-income
residents more than the wealthiest residents (New York State Department of Taxation and
Finance, 2014; ITEP, 2013).
Figure 18.
Household Survival Budget, New York Regions, 2014
SINGLE
ADULT
TWO
ADULTS,
TWO
CHILDREN
SINGLE
ADULT
TWO
ADULTS,
TWO
CHILDREN
SINGLE
ADULT
TWO
ADULTS,
TWO
CHILDREN
Monthly Costs
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
$1,019
$1,439
$569
$795
$-
$1,354
$-
$2,027
$-
$1,271
Food
$202
$612
$202
$612
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
$207
$389
$369
$738
Health Care
$131
$525
$131
$525
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$207
$486
$193
$596
$155
$455
Taxes
$463
$751
$371
$972
$263
$559
$2,274
$5,341
$2,123
$6,560
$1,701
$5,003
$27,288
$64,092
$25,476
$78,720
$20,412
$60,036
$13.64
$32.05
$12.74
$39.36
$10.21
$30.02
Child Care
Monthly Total
ANNUAL TOTAL
Hourly Wage
Source: See Appendix D
What is Missing from the Household Survival Budget?

This budget also
does not allow
for any savings,
leaving a family
vulnerable to
any unexpected
expense, such as
a costly car repair,
natural disaster, or
health issue.
45
The Household Survival Budget is a bare-minimum budget, not a get-ahead budget. The
small Miscellaneous category, 10 percent of all costs, covers overflow from the five basic
categories. It could be used for essentials such as toiletries, diapers, cleaning supplies, or
work clothes. With changes in technology over the last decade, phone usage has shifted
so dramatically that the Miscellaneous category could also have to cover the cost of a
smartphone, which many people use in place of a home landline. According to the Pew
Research Center, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of U.S. adults owned a smartphone in
2014, up from 35 percent in 2011. Nearly half (46 percent) of smartphone owners say their
smartphone is something they couldnt live without. Yet at the same time, this added
expense has presented new challenges. Almost one-quarter (23 percent) of Pew survey
respondents report that they have canceled or suspended their smartphone service at some
point because of cost (Pew Research Center, 2015).
The Miscellaneous category is not enough to purchase cable service or cover automotive or
appliance repairs. It does not allow for dinner at a restaurant, tickets to the movies, or travel.
There is no room in the Household Survival Budget for a financial indulgence such as holiday
gifts or a new television something that many households take for granted. This budget
also does not allow for any savings, leaving a family vulnerable to any unexpected expense,
such as a costly car repair, natural disaster, or health issue. For this reason, a household on
a Household Survival Budget is described as just surviving. The consequences of this for
households and the wider community are discussed in Section VI.
THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET

Reaching beyond the Household Survival Budget, the Household Stability Budget is a
measure of how much income is needed to support and sustain an economically viable
household. The Stability Budget represents the basic household items necessary for a
household to participate in the modern economy in a sustainable manner over time. In
New York, the Household Stability Budget is $116,268 per year for a family of four nearly
double the Household Survival Budget (Figure 19). That comparison highlights yet again how
minimal the expenses are in the Household Survival Budget.
The Stability
Budget represents
the basic
household items
necessary for a
household to
participate in the
modern economy
in a sustainable
manner over time.
Figure 19.
Average Household Stability Budget vs. Household Survival Budget,
New York, 2014
New York Average - 2014
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT, 1 PRESCHOOLER
Survival
Stability
Percent Difference
Housing
$919
$1,201
31%
$1,363
$1,755
29%
Food
$612
$1,159
89%
Transportation
$653
$1,119
71%
Health Care
Child Care
$564
$996
77%
Cell Phone
N/A
$99
N/A
Savings
N/A
$633
N/A
Miscellaneous
$473
$633
34%
Taxes
$622
$2,094
237%
$5,206
$9,689
86%
$62,472
$116,268
86%
$31.24
$58.14
86%
Monthly Total
ANNUAL TOTAL
Hourly Wage
Source: See Appendix D
The spending amounts in the Household Stability Budget are those that can be maintained
over time. Better quality housing that is safer and needs fewer repairs is represented in the
median rent for single adults and single parents and in ownership of a moderate house with
a mortgage. Child care has been upgraded to licensed and accredited care, where quality is
fully regulated. Food is elevated to the USDAs Moderate Food Plan, which provides more
variety than the Thrifty Food Plan and requires less skill and time for shopping and cooking,
plus one meal out per month, which is realistic for a working family. For transportation, the
Stability Budget includes leasing a car, which allows drivers to more easily maintain a basic
level of safety and reliability. For health care, the budget adds in health insurance and is
46
Monthly Costs
represented by the cost of an employer-sponsored health plan. The Miscellaneous category

represents 10 percent of the five basic necessities; it does not include a contingency for
taxes, as in the Household Survival Budget.
Because most jobs now require access to the internet and a smartphone, this years
Household Stability Budget includes the cost of a cell phone. These are necessary for work
schedules, changes in start time or location, access to work support services, and customer
follow-up. The least expensive option has been selected from Consumer Reports 2014 plan
comparison. Full details and sources are listed in Appendix D, as are the Household Stability
Budget figures for a single adult.
Because savings are a crucial component of self-sufficiency, the Household Stability Budget
also includes a 10 percent savings category. Savings of $633 per month for a family is
probably enough to invest in education and retirement, while $196 per month for a single
adult might be enough to cover the monthly payments on a student loan or build toward the
down payment on a house. However, in many cases, the reality is that savings are used for
an emergency and never accumulated for further investment.
The Household Stability Budget for a New York family with two children is moderate in what
it includes, yet it still totals $116,268 per year. This is almost double both the Household
Survival Budget of $62,472 and the New York median household income of $58,878 per
year. To afford the Household Stability Budget for a two-parent family, each parent must earn
$29.07 per hour or one parent must earn $58.14 per hour.
Because savings
are a crucial
component of
self-sufficiency,
the Household
Stability Budget
also includes a 10
percent savings
category.
The Household Stability Budget for a single adult totals $35,388 per year, significantly higher
than the Household Survival Budget and just below the New York median earnings for a
single adult of $37,460. To afford the Household Stability Budget, a single adult must earn
$17.69 per hour.
Regionally, the cost of the Stability Budget also varies across the state, ranging from $147,684
for a family of four in NYC to $145,896 in the counties surrounding NYC to $108,960 in the
Rest of State. The biggest differences regionally are for housing, child care, and transportation.
Housing is most expensive in NYC; child care is most expensive in the counties surrounding
NYC followed closely by NYC; and transportation is least expensive in NYC and in the portions
of the counties surrounding NYC where public transportation is available.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUDGETS

How do the Household Survival and Stability Budgets compare with other measures? The
Household Survival Budget is designed to measure the absolute minimum required to live
and work in the modern economy, and thus in all cases relies on the most conservative
estimate; it is not sustainable over time. It is the lowest of all family budget measures
except the FPL. The FPL is not based on the actual cost of basic household goods in a
specific county. As discussed earlier, the FPL is based on three times the cost of a minimally
adequate diet in the 1960s, with adjustments for inflation; for a family of two adults and two
children, the FPL totaled $23,850 in 2014.
47
The Self-Sufficiency Standard (SSS), which applies only to NYC, aims to provide a slightly
higher standard of living, presenting an accurate and nuanced measure of how much income
a family of a certain composition living in a certain place must earn to meet their basic needs
at a minimally adequate level. As such, the SSS selects the lowest costs to cover basic
necessities that ensure self-sufficiency, accounting for availability of goods and services in a
particular region. This adds greater costs for adequate housing and child care, more nutritious
food, and less risky transportation and health care (Pearce, 2014).
The MIT Living Wage Calculator and the Economic Policy Institutes (EPI) Family Budget
Calculator are each also slightly more expensive than the Household Survival Budget,
but both are limiting and would be difficult to sustain for long periods of time (MIT, 2016;
Economic Policy Institute, 2014).
To put all of these budgets in perspective, the Household Stability Budget estimates the cost
for the range of household items at the level needed to support and sustain an economically
viable household and it is significantly higher than all other measures and New Yorks
median family income (Figure 20).
Looking at the different budgets for a family of four in Queens County provides an example.
Comparing the Household Survival Budget and the Self-Sufficiency Standard for this
household, the Survival Budget assumes lower costs in all categories:
Housing: Both reflect HUDs 40th rent percentile for a two-bedroom apartment, which
includes all utilities whether paid by the landlord/owner or by the renter. The SSS
estimates the cost of housing so that adults and children have separate bedrooms, with up
to two adults or children per room. For housing in Queens County (and each county and
sub-county area of NYC), the SSS uses the median gross rent ratios by county calculated
from the U.S. Census Bureaus 2012 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.
Child Care: The Survival Budget reflects the cost of home-based child care for an
infant and a 4-year-old: the SSS calculates a weighted average of home-based and
center-based child care for an infant and a preschooler in full-time care, and school-age
children in part-time care.
Food: The Survival Budget reflects the cost for the USDAs Thrifty Food Plan; the SSS
reports the USDAs slightly higher Low-Cost Food Plan that provides more resources to
maintain adequate nutrition over the longer term.
Transportation: The budgets each use a minimum threshold for public transportation:
The Survival Budget uses 8 percent of commuters, and the SSS uses 7 percent. Queens
County, where more than half of residents commute by public transportation, is well
above both thresholds. The Survival Budget cost is based on the Consumer Expenditure
Survey, and the SSS uses the cost of a 30-day Unlimited Ride MetroCard from the NYC
Metropolitan Transit Authority.
The MIT Living

Wage Calculator
and the Economic
Policy Institutes
(EPI) Family Budget
Calculator are each
also slightly more
expensive than the
Household Survival
Budget, but both
are limiting and
would be difficult
to sustain for long
periods of time.
Health Care: The Survival Budget reflects the cost of out-of-pocket health care expenses
and the ACA penalty but not any costs of health insurance; the SSS reports the cost of
employer-sponsored health insurance and out-of-pocket health care expenses.
Taxes: Both plans incorporate the range of federal and state income and payroll taxes and
the credits for which families are eligible (Child Care and Child Tax Credits). Since taxes
are based on the budget, the higher the overall budget amounts, the higher the taxes.
The result is that the Self-Sufficiency Standard is 34 percent higher than the Survival Budget
for a family of four in Queens County (Pearce, 2014).
Comparing the Household Survival Budget and the MIT Living Wage Calculator for a family
of four in Queens County, the Survival Budget assumes lower costs in all categories: One
caveat to this comparison is that the only data available for the Living Wage Calculator is
2015, and all other budgets are 2014 numbers.
48
Miscellaneous: Both plans have a modest additional category of 10 percent.
Housing: The Survival Budget reflects HUDs 40th rent percentile for a two-bedroom
apartment, which includes all utilities whether paid by the landlord/owner or by the renter.
MIT also uses HUDs parameters but adds additional utilities to HUDs rent estimates.
Child Care: The Survival Budget reflects the cost of home-based child care for an
infant and a 4-year-old. MIT selects the lowest-cost child care option available (which is
usually home-based care), but for a 4-year-old and a school-age child, whose costs are
generally lower.
Food: The Survival Budget reflects the cost for the USDAs Thrifty Food Plan for a
family; MIT reports the USDAs slightly more generous Low-Cost Food Plan for a family.
Transportation: The two budgets are similar in terms of operating costs for a car, but
the Survival Budget uses a minimum threshold for public transportation of 8 percent
of commuters and reflects the cost reported by the Consumer Expenditure Survey
for Queens County, which far exceeds that threshold. MIT transportation reflects the
operating costs for a car, as well as the cost of vehicle financing and insurance.
Health Care: The Survival Budget reflects the cost of out-of-pocket health care
expenses and the ACA penalty; MIT instead reports the cost of employer-sponsored
health insurance, medical services and supplies, and prescription drugs.
Miscellaneous: Both plans have a modest additional category. In the Survival Budget,
it is 10 percent of the budget for cost overruns; in MITs budget, it is a category for
essential clothing and household expenses.
The cost of
licensed and
accredited child
care centers
used by EPI is
significantly higher
than the
Survival Budgets
home-based
child care.
Taxes: The methodology in the two plans is similar for Taxes, but since taxes are based
on the budget, the higher the overall budget amounts, the higher the taxes.
The result is that the MIT Living Wage Calculator allows slightly more cushion for households,
and the total is 23 percent higher than the Survival Budget for a family of four in Queens
County (Glasmeier and Nadeau, 2015, 2015.
Comparing the Household Survival Budget and the EPIs Family Budget Calculator for Queens
County for a family of four, the Survival Budget assumes lower costs in most categories:
Housing: The Survival Budget reflects HUDs 40th rent percentile for a two-bedroom
apartment, which includes all utilities whether paid by the landlord/owner or by the renter.
EPI also uses HUDs parameters but adds additional utilities to HUDs rent estimates.
Child Care: The cost of licensed and accredited child care centers used by EPI is
significantly higher than the Survival Budgets home-based child care. This is despite
the fact that EPI budgets for slightly older children a young child (4-years-old) and
a child (9-years-old) whose care costs are considerably lower than the Household
Survival Budgets calculations for an infant and a preschooler.
Food: The Survival Budget reflects the cost for the USDAs Thrifty Food Plan for a
family, while the Family Budget Calculator uses the USDAs Low-Cost Food Plan for the
sum of the cost for each person in the family.
49
Transportation: The two budgets are similar in terms of operating costs for a car, but
the Survival Budget uses a minimum threshold for public transportation of 8 percent
of commuters and reflects the cost reported by the Consumer Expenditure Survey
for Queens County, which far exceeds that threshold. EPI does not have a public
transportation option, so the cost in Queens reflects the operating costs for a car, as well
as fixed costs such as depreciation, lease payments, insurance, registration and license
fees, and personal property taxes.
Health Care: The Survival Budget reflects the cost of out-of-pocket health care
expenses and the ACA penalty; the Family Budget Calculator reports the cost based on
the least expensive Bronze Plan.
Miscellaneous: The Survival Budget allocates 10 percent for cost overruns, but
the Family Budget Calculator also includes costs for apparel, personal care, and
household supplies.
Taxes: The methodology in the two plans is similar for Taxes, but since taxes are based
on the budget, the higher the overall budget amounts, the higher the taxes.
The result is that the Family Budget Calculator allows more cushion for households, and
the total is 54 percent higher than the Survival Budget for a family of four in Queens County
(Economic Policy Institute, 2014).
The trends in budget comparisons are similar in other parts of the state. In fact, in all
counties, the ALICE Household Survival Budget remains the least expensive after the
FPL, and the ALICE Stability Budget remains the most expensive. For example, Figure
20 compares the Household Survival Budget in Erie County to the MIT Living Wage
Calculator and to the EPI Family Budget for the Buffalo/Niagara Falls metro area. Figure 20
also compares the Household Survival Budget in Monroe County to the MIT Living Wage
Calculator and to the EPI Family Budget for the Rochester metro area. (The Self-Sufficiency
budgets are only available for New York City).
In fact, in all
counties, the ALICE
Household Survival
Budget remains
the least expensive
after the FPL, and
the ALICE
Stability Budget
remains the
most expensive.
50
While the Household Survival Budget provides the lowest estimate of a households needs,
the Household Stability Budget approximates a sustainable but still modest budget and is
therefore higher than the other scales measured here. It includes a 30-year mortgage for a
three-bedroom house, licensed and accredited child care, the USDAs Moderate Food Plan
(and two meals out per month), leasing a car, employer-sponsored health care, the cost of
a cell phone, and savings. At an annual budget of $144,504 for a family with two working
adults and two children in Queens County, the Stability Budget exceeds the Self Sufficiency
Standard by 69 percent, EPIs Family Budget Calculator by 46 percent, and the MIT Living
Wage Calculator by 83 percent.
Figure 20.
Household Budget Comparison, Family of Four, New York, 2014
QUEENS COUNTY
FPL
$23,850/year
MIT
$79,061/year
1481
SSS
$85,749/year
1554
EPI
$98,722/year
1440
ALICE Stability
$144,504/year
173
1,354 612
1,514
2,011
Housing
782 583 1,061 1,073 1,277
2,346
$2,000
1,168 849 957
99
736 736
$6,000
$8,000
$4,000
Child Care
Cell Phone
1,040
224
780 592522 1,402
2,071
2044
$0
856 785
47
1
44
1
1440
52
5
45
401
2
ALICE Survival
$59,484/year
Food
Savings
Transportation
Miscellaneous
2,661
$10,000
$12,000
Health Care
Taxes
ERIE COUNTY
MIT
$69,394/year
768
EPI
$77,843/year
710
ALICE Stability
$113,904/year
$0
Housing
1,438
1,514
2,011
856
592
785
948
782 608 808 721 847

99
915
1,921
1,157
1,177
1,005
617 627
1,974
$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000
Child Care
Cell Phone
51
612 738 573
46
710
47
1
44
1
ALICE Survival
$61,548/year
FPL
$23,850/year
Food
Savings
Transportation
Miscellaneous
Health Care
Taxes
MONROE COUNTY
FPL
$23,850/year
MIT
$79,061/year
867
EPI
$81,106/year
834
ALICE Stability
$115,764/year
963
612 738 573
1,514
2,011
856
785
643
961
782 608 830
781
913
99
$0
Housing
1,438
48
4
834
47
1
44
1
ALICE Survival
$63,864/year
1,921
1,157
1,177
1,005
632 632
2,061
$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000
Child Care
Cell Phone
Food
Savings
Transportation
Miscellaneous
Health Care
Taxes
52
Source: ALICE Household Survival Budget, 2014; Pearce, 2014; MIT Living Wage Calculator, 2016; Economic Policy Institutes
Family Budget Calculator, 2014
III. WHERE DOES ALICE WORK?

HOW MUCH DOES ALICE EARN
AND SAVE?
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION III

Both the Great Recession and the reshaping of the U.S. economy over the last 35
years have had an impact on the economy in New York.
In 2014, the unemployment rate in New York was 6.4 percent*, near the national rate
of 6.2 percent and the underemployment rate was 12.4 percent, slightly below the
national rate of 13.8 percent.
In New York, 55 percent of jobs pay less than $20 per hour, with 51 percent of those
paying between $10 and $15 per hour.
A full-time job that pays $15 per hour grosses $30,000 per year, which is less than
half of the Household Survival Budget for a family of four in New York.
More than any

demographic
feature, ALICE
households are
defined by their
jobs and their
savings accounts.
There are more than 310,540 retail salespersons jobs in New York, paying on
average of $10.32 per hour. This salary falls short of meeting the family Household
Survival Budget by more than $41,000 per year.
In 2011, 33 percent of New Yorks households had less than $4,632 in savings or
other assets.
From 2007 to 2012, housing values dropped by 16 percent in New York, and many
homeowners who could not keep up with mortgage payments were forced to sell their
homes at a loss.
Many households in New York do not use basic banking services. In 2011, 45 percent of
New Yorks households with an annual income below $50,000 had used an Alternative
Financial Product (AFP) such as non-bank money orders or non-bank check cashing.
*New York state average unemployment rate for 2014 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Note that Appendix J, the
New York County Pages, uses the 2014 New York state average unemployment rate from the American Community Survey,
which was 7.3 percent, and the national average of 7.2 percent.
More than any demographic feature, ALICE households are defined by their jobs and their
savings accounts. The ability to afford household needs is a function of income, but ALICE
workers have low-paying jobs. Similarly, the ability to be financially stable is a function of
savings, but ALICE households have few or no assets and little opportunity to amass liquid
assets. As a consequence, these households are more likely to use costly alternative financial
services and to risk losing their housing in the event of an unforeseen emergency or health
issue. This section examines the declining job opportunities and savings trends for ALICE
households in New York.
53
Changes in the labor market over the past 35 years, including labor-saving technological
advances, the decline of manufacturing, growth of the service sector, increased globalization,
declining unionization, and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, have
reshaped the U.S. economy. Most notably, middle-wage, middle-skill jobs have declined while
lower-paying service occupation levels have grown (Autor, 2010; National Employment Law
Project, 2014). These changes have greatly impacted the New York economy.
Changes in employment and the labor force from 2009 to 2014 were uneven across New
York and across industries. New York City and the surrounding counties experienced strong
employment growth over the five-year period, while more than half of the Rest of State
experienced job losses. NYC was the only region that experienced growth in its labor force,
with the labor force declining in all the other regions of the state. The leisure and hospitality
industry and the education and health services industry experienced the strongest growth
across the state. Manufacturing continued decades of decline overall, but there were
increases in manufacturing jobs in parts of the Rest of State, especially Western New York
and the Capital Region (Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, 2015).
Often, evaluation of a state economy focuses primarily on the amount of investment in given
industries and their contribution to the states Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet these factors
do not always match what an industry contributes to employment or wages (Figure 21). For
example, in New York, the largest industry in terms of contribution to GDP is financial activities,
but in contribution to employment, this industry ranks sixth out of 9 statewide. Conversely,
several industries including education and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities;
and government carry more weight as employers than their financial contribution to GDP
would indicate (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2016; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Economic Analysis, 2014).
Changes in
employment and
the labor force
from 2009 to 2014
were uneven across
New York and
across industries.
Figure 21.
Employment and GDP by Industry, New York, 2014
Percent of Total
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
n
ati
o
Employment %
GDP %
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014
54
Inf
o
rm
on
cti
ns
tru
Co
Fi
Ac nanc
tiv ial
itie
s
Ma
nu
fac
tur
ing
He Edu
alt ca
h S tio
Tra
erv n &
de
ice
,T
s
ran
sp
o
& U rtati
tili on,
tie
s
Go
ve
rnm
en
t
Bu Pro
sin fe
es ssi
s S on
erv al &
ice
s
Le
Ho isu
sp re
ita &
lity
0%
In many regards, New York has recovered from the Great Recession. While the state lost 3
percent of its GDP between 2007 and 2008, it rebounded by 2010 and has improved steadily
since, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2014 (Federal Reserve, 2016).
The size of the labor force did not dip in New York during the Great Recession as it did in
some states. However, the labor participation rate the proportion of working-age individuals
who are in the labor force has fallen steadily from its high of 68.8 percent in 1989 to 61
percent in 2014. That decline reflects both the states aging population and the difficulty that
workers have had finding desirable jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a; HUD, 2006;
Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, 2015).
New York had a more extreme employment trajectory than the rest of the U.S. during and
after the Great Recession, but recently it has moved toward the national average. The states
recent historical low unemployment rate was 3.2 percent in 1999. In 2010, unemployment
rose to 10.9 percent, and then dropped to 6.4 percent in 2014, near the national rate of 6.2
percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). These changes
to New Yorks economy have had a significant downward effect on both the income and the
assets of ALICE households.
Changes in
New Yorks
economy over
the last several
decades have
reduced the job
opportunities for
ALICE households.
The state now
faces an economy
dominated by
low-paying jobs.
55
New York City accounts for 43 percent of the states labor force and 60 percent of the states
jobs, and in many ways is a unique economy, bigger than those of many states. Unlike most
of the rest of the state, NYC and the surrounding counties exhibited strong gains in both
employment and total wages over the course of the economic expansion. Several unique
features account for this: First, the labor participation rate has always been significantly
lower in NYC; it was only 59 percent in 1989. But unlike other regions in the state and the
rest of the country, it has increased over time, reaching 60.8 percent in 2014 similar to the
state average, for the first time in decades (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). Second, the
financial activities and information industries the two major employment sectors with large
wage increases (more than 25 percent from 2009 to 2014) are concentrated in NYC. Third,
the two industries with the largest declines in employment manufacturing and government
are primarily located outside the city (Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, 2015).
INCOME CONSTRAINED
One of the defining characteristics of ALICE households is that they are Income Constrained.
Changes in New Yorks economy over the last several decades have reduced the job opportunities
for ALICE households. The state now faces an economy dominated by low-paying jobs. In
New York, 55 percent of jobs pay less than $20 per hour, with more than half of those
paying between $10 and $15 per hour (Figure 22). A full-time job that pays $15 per hour
grosses $30,000 per year, which is less than half of the Household Survival Budget for
a family of four in New York. Another 33 percent of jobs pay between $20 and $40 per hour,
with half of those paying between $20 and $30 per hour. Only 9 percent of jobs pay between
$40 and $60 per hour; 3.1 percent pay between $60 and $80 per hour, and another 0.8
percent pay above $80 per hour (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).
Number of Jobs (in thousands)
Figure 22.
Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, New York, 2014
Over the last
several decades,
New York industries
have experienced
broad-based
changes including
a structural shift in
the manufacturing
sector and a
scaling back of the
government sector.
6,000
55%
5,000
4,000
$15$20
33%
3,000
$10$15
$30$40
Less than
$10
$20$30
Less than $20
$20$40
2,000
1,000
0
9%
$40$60
3.1%
0.8%
$60$80
Above $80
Just as the Household Survival Budget varies by region across the state, so do the wages of jobs
in metropolitan areas across the state (Figure 23). The percent of jobs paying less than $20 per
hour is much lower in NYC (48 percent) than in Elmira (76 percent) (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2014). Interestingly, the areas with larger numbers of jobs (gold markers in Figure 23) have lower
percentages of low-paying jobs. However, in absolute terms, NYC has 2.6 million jobs that pay
less than $20 per hour, more than half (55 percent) of all the states jobs that pay less than $20
per hour.
ira
m
El
a
e
lk
eykoer
us psi gh an oy hac
al lls est
fo
or ins
f
f
c
f
Y
t
b
r
r
u
R
a
u a h
S
la
ee bu Al -T I
ans
B a F oc Syr
ew P
gh
ule
hk ew
r
dy
tic
a
N
e
R
in
a
g
t
G
a
s
U
g
B
u N
hi
ct
as
ia
W
Po
N
N
ne
e
h
Sc
n
to
s
ng
lls
Fa
to
am
om
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Over the last several decades, New York industries have experienced broad-based changes
including a structural shift in the manufacturing sector and a scaling back of the government
sector. From 2007 to 2014, the total number of jobs increased from 8.4 million to 8.8 million,
and the percent of jobs paying less than $20 per hour fell from 59 percent to 55 percent (Figure
24). Some low-paying jobs disappeared while others experienced slight wage increases. These
figures have not been adjusted for inflation, which was about 14 percent over the period. Taking
inflation into account, the percent difference would be slightly less across the board.
56
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
Total Number of Jobs

(in thousands)
Percent of Jobs less

than $20/hour
Figure 23.
Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, New York Metropolitan Areas, 2014
Number of Jobs
(in thousands)
Figure 24.
Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, New York, 2007 to 2014
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
19%
Change
4%
Change
Less than $10 $10$15
33%
Change
$15$20
2007
18%
Change
$20$30
48%
Change
$30$40
2007: 8.4 Million Jobs

2014: 8.8 Million Jobs
60%
Change
36%
Change
$40$60 Above $60
2014
Growth in financial activities, the information industry, and business and professional services
accounts for most of the states growth in higher-wage jobs, and most of those jobs are
concentrated in NYC and the surrounding counties.
Across the state from 2007 to 2014, the number of jobs varied across the 13 major
metropolitan areas:
Service sector
jobs have become
an essential
and dominant
component of
New Yorks economy,
with occupations
employing the
largest number
of workers now
concentrated in
this sector.
57
Five experienced a reduction in total jobs (Binghamton, Utica-Rome, Elmira, Kingston,

and Albany-Schenectady-Troy).
Three remained flat (Syracuse, Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, and Rochester).
The rest experienced an overall increase in the number of jobs: by 3 percent in BuffaloNiagara Falls, Nassau-Suffolk Metropolitan Division, and Glens Falls; by 9 percent in
New York-White Plains-Wayne-NJ Metropolitan Division; and by 17 percent in Ithaca
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007 and 2014; Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, 2015).
At the same time, the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that relative to
1979, the national economy has lost about one-third of its capacity to generate good jobs
those that pay at least $37,000 per year and offer employer-provided health insurance and an
employer-sponsored retirement plan (Schmitt and Jones, 2012).
Service sector jobs have become an essential and dominant component of New Yorks
economy, with occupations employing the largest number of workers now concentrated in
this sector. Two hallmarks of the service sector economy are that these jobs pay low wages
and workers must be physically on-site; cashiers, nurses aides, and security guards cannot
telecommute or be outsourced. Of the top 20 largest occupations in terms of number of jobs
(Figure 25), all require the worker to be there in person, yet only 14 percent of the jobs
stemming from just 3 of the 20 occupations pay enough to support the average New York
family Household Survival Budget at more than $31.24 per hour. This means that New Yorks
economy is dependent on jobs that pay wages so low that workers cannot afford to live near
their jobs even though most are required to work on-site.
Low-paid, service-sector workers cannot afford the Household Survival Budget. For example,
the most common occupation in New York is in retail sales; there are more than 310,540 retail
salespersons jobs in the state, paying on average $10.32 per hour, or $20,640 full-time year
round. These jobs fall short of meeting the family Household Survival Budget by more
than $41,000 per year.
Figure 25.
Occupations by Employment and Wage, New York, 2014
Occupation
Number of Jobs
Median Hourly Wage
Retail Salespersons
310,540
$10.32
Office Clerks
207,560
$14.11
Janitors and Cleaners
194,820
$13.44
Secretaries and Administrative

Assistants
193,460
$17.94
Cashiers
191,470
$9.16
Registered Nurses
169,560
$36.50
Food Prep, Including Fast Food
157,570
$8.94
Waiters and Waitresses
151,270
$9.28
Customer Service Representatives
150,070
$17.04
Home Health Aides
146,550
$10.37
General and Operations Managers
146,050
$57.27
Personal Care Aides
142,220
$10.98
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
122,360
$10.51
Teacher Assistants
118,970
$13.26
Bookkeeping and Auditing Clerks
114,770
$19.00
First-Line Supervisors of
Administrative Support Workers
114,490
$28.38
Security Guards
105,290
$14.42
Nursing Assistants
101,030
$15.87
Laborers and Movers, Hand
98,770
$12.42
Accountants and Auditors
97,620
$37.52
Jobs paying less

than $20 per hour
are more likely to
be part time. With
women working
more part-time
jobs, their income
is correspondingly
lower than that
of their male
counterparts.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Wage Survey All Industries Combined, 2014
Of the working age population, 54 percent of men (3,503,801) and 42 percent of women
(2,792,770) work full time (defined as more than 35 hours per week, 50 to 52 weeks per
year). However, 23 percent of men and 29 percent of women work part time. In addition, 22
percent of men and 29 percent of women are not working, including both the unemployed and
people not looking for work (Figure 26). Jobs paying less than $20 per hour are more likely to
be part time. With women working more part-time jobs, their income is correspondingly lower
than that of their male counterparts (American Community Survey, 2014).
58
In addition to those who were unemployed in New York in 2014 (6.4 percent), there are
many residents who are underemployed people who are employed part time for economic
reasons or who have stopped looking for work but would like to work (12.4 percent) (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2014; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).
Workforce
Age 16 64 Years Old
Figure 26.
Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Gender and Median Earnings, New York, 2014
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
6,440,810
6,665,323
23%
Not Working
29%
Not Working
$35,991
4,000,000
Did Not Work
$23,363
Part Time
3,000,000
2,000,000
$71,468
1,000,000
0
Male
Full Time
$53,568
Female
Shifts in Sources of Income

Both the number
of New York
households with
earnings and the
amount of those
earnings dipped
slightly during
the Recession.
The most important source of income for ALICE families is earnings. Both the number of New
York households with earnings and the amount of those earnings dipped slightly during the
Recession. The amount of earnings has recovered better than has the number of households
with earnings; some households are still struggling, while others are better off.
The number of New York households earning a wage or salary income in 2007 was 5.38
million; that number remained flat until 2010, then increased by 1 percent from 2010 to 2014
to 5.43 million, making New York one of the few states that has surpassed its 2007 level
(Figure 27). The aggregate amount of earnings for all workers in New York increased by even
more: Starting at $453 billion in 2007, it increased by 2 percent from 2007 to 2010 and then
by 12 percent from 2010 to 2014, to reach $515 billion. Given the large number of low-wage
jobs in the state, this growth suggests that many at the higher end received most of these
gains (American Community Survey, 2014).
5,964
5,464
4,964
4,464
3,964
3,464
2,964
2,464
1,964
1,464
964
2007
2010
Households with Earnings

59
2012
2014
Aggregate Earnings
$572
$522
$472
$422
$372
$322
$272
$222
$172
$122
$72
Aggregate Income (in billions)
Figure 27.
Earnings by Number of Households and Aggregate Total, New York, 2014
The sources of income for New York households shifted during the period from 2007 to 2014,
which shows that the economy impacted different families in different ways (Figure 28). The
toughest economic years were during the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2010, when most of
the changes occurred (shown in Figure 28 in darkest blue). Most of the trends have slowed,
and a few reversed beginning in 2012, but none have returned to pre-2007 levels.
The number of households with self-employment income decreased by 4 percent from 2007
to 2010 and then by another 2 percent from 2010 to 2014. Interest, dividend, and rental
income decreased by 13 percent during the Great Recession and then by another 2 percent
over the next four years (American Community Survey, 2014).
Over the entire time period, the impact of the aging population was evident, resulting in
a 1 percent increase in the number of households receiving retirement income and an 11
percent increase in households receiving Social Security income. New York had 46 percent of
workers participating in employment-based retirement plans in 2013, the same as the national
average (Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), 2016).
The number of
households with
self-employment
income decreased
by 4 percent from
2007 to 2010 and
then by another 2
percent from 2010
to 2014.
Figure 28.
Sources of Income, by Number of Households, New York, 2007 to 2014
2,500,000
Households
2,000,000
11%
Change
-15%
Change
1%
Change
1,500,000
65%
Change
-6%
Change
1,000,000
500,000
0
Social Interest or Retirement

Security Dividends
2007
2010
SNAP
2012
SelfEmployment
26%
Change
27%
Change
SSI
TANF/GA
2014
The impact of the financial downturn on households was also evident in the striking increase
in the number of New York households receiving income from government sources other
than Social Security. While not all ALICE households qualified for government support
between 2007 and 2014, many that became unemployed during this period of extensive job
loss across the state began receiving government assistance for the first time. The number
of households receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or General
Assistance (GA), programs that provide income support to adults without dependents,
increased by 27 percent. However, at the same time that the need for TANF assistance
has increased, the level of benefit has fallen to $789 per family, a 6 percent decrease from
2007 to 2014. The number of households receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
increased by 26 percent; SSI includes welfare payments for low-income people who are 65
and older and for people of any age who are blind or disabled. At the same time, the number
of households receiving SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) increased by 65 percent. Yet as
with TANF, the benefit level per family has decreased, a 23 percent drop from 2007 to 2014
(American Community Survey, 2007 and 2014; Stanley, Floyd, & Hill, 2016; Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2014; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2015).
60
ASSET LIMITED
The second defining feature of ALICE households is their lack of assets. Without assets and
with low incomes, ALICE households are especially vulnerable to unexpected emergencies
or even small fluctuations in income, and they risk economic instability in the future because
they lack the means to invest in education, home ownership, or a retirement account. Without
savings, it is impossible for a household to become economically independent. The lack
of assets also increases ALICE households costs, such as alternative financing fees and
high interest rates, which limit efforts to build more assets (Barr and Blank, 2009; Rothwell
and Goren, 2011). Nationally, the average wealth of the lower-income half of American
households was $11,000 in 2013 50 percent less than the average wealth of the lowerincome half of households in 1989. About a quarter of those families had zero or negative
net worth (Yellen, 2014).
Given the
mismatch
between the cost
of living and the
preponderance
of low-wage jobs,
accumulating
assets is difficult
in New York.
Given the mismatch between the cost of living and the preponderance of low-wage jobs,
accumulating assets is difficult in New York. In 2012, 33 percent of New York households
were considered to be asset poor, defined by CFED as not having enough net worth to
subsist at the poverty level for three months without income. In other words, an asset poor
family of three in that year had less than $4,632 in savings or other assets. The percentage
of households without sufficient liquid assets was even higher, at 45 percent. Liquid assets
include cash or a savings account, but not a vehicle or home (CFED, 2012) (Figure 29). A
2014 national survey by the Federal Reserve found that 47 percent of all respondents and
two-thirds of respondents with a household income under $40,000 either could not cover an
emergency expense costing $400 or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money
(Federal Reserve, 2015).
Many more households would be considered asset poor if the criterion were an
inability to subsist without income for three months at the ALICE Threshold instead of
at the outdated Federal Poverty Level. The Pew Research Center reports that almost half
of Americans 48 percent of survey respondents state that they often do not have enough
money to make ends meet (Pew Research Center, 2012).
Figure 29.
Households by Wealth, New York, 2011
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
45%
33%
10%
5%
0%
Asset Poor
Source: Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2011
61
Liquid Asset Poor
Types of Assets
Almost by definition, people with less income have fewer assets, but they also have different
types of assets. Households with income in the lowest quintile are less likely than households
in the highest income quintile to have assets of any kind, to have a regular checking account,
or to own a motor vehicle. They are only half as likely to have interest-earning assets at
financial institutions or to own a business or a home. They are also far less likely to own
stocks or mutual funds, or to have an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or a 401(k) savings
plan (U.S. Census, 2011).
After a bank account, the most common assets are vehicles, homes, and investments.
Data on wealth and assets at the state level is limited, but the American Community Survey
provides some basic figures.
Almost by
definition, people
with less income
have fewer assets,
but they also have
different types
of assets.
Vehicles
Seventy percent of households in New York own a vehicle; most own two or three
(Figure 30). Vehicle is a very broad category in the American Community Survey
that includes cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and trucks below one-ton capacity
that are kept at home and used for non-business purposes; dismantled or immobile
vehicles are not included. Nationally, the most commonly held type of non-financial
asset in 2014 was a vehicle. Between 2010 and 2013, the share of families owning
a vehicle declined slightly from 86.7 percent to 86.3 percent. In 2013, 31 percent of
families had a vehicle loan (Bricker et al., September 2014). While cars offer benefits
beyond their cash value, they are not an effective means of accumulating wealth
because the value of a car normally decreases over time.
While public transportation is available in many urban areas, in many parts of New York
owning a car is essential for work, yet many ALICE households need to borrow money
in order to buy a vehicle. From 1999 to 2012, the auto debt per capita in New York
more than doubled to $2,870, the 11th-highest level in the country (Bankrate, 2014).
However, there is a robust national market in other kinds of subprime vehicle loans.
Buy Here Pay Here loans account for 14 percent of the used-car loan market
nationally, and banks, credit unions, and especially wholly owned finance subsidiaries
of car manufacturers are also making subprime loans to customers. In fact, in 2014,
28 percent of new car loans and 57 percent of used car loans were subprime. In the
current low-interest banking market, the average rate for a prime loan in 2014 was
5 percent, while the average subprime rate was far more attractive to lenders at 20
percent. That difference means that customers with fair credit spend about six times
more to finance a vehicle than those with excellent credit, which equates to $6,176 in
additional interest payments over the life of a $20,000, five-year loan (Kiernan, 2016;
Jones, 2014).
62
Nationally, low-income families are twice as likely to have a vehicle loan as all
families. Many workers cannot qualify for traditional loans and resort to non-traditional
financing such as car title loans. Most vehicle title borrowers take out multiple loans
(80 percent) and have high default rates; one-third of borrowers experience a default,
and one in five loans result in the repossession of the borrowers vehicle. With
little regulation on car title loans in New York, there is significant high-cost car title
lending in the state; industry sales are over $30 billion, the third-highest level in the
country (Center for Responsible Lending, 2014; Zabritski, 2015; Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, 2016).
Home Ownership
Housing wealth
is the most
important source of
wealth for all but
those at the very
top, accounting
nationally for 60
percent of assets
for the lowerwealth half of
all homeowning
families in 2013.
The next most common asset in New York is a home, an asset that has traditionally
provided financial stability. In 2014, 53 percent of New York households owned
their homes, although nearly two-thirds of those had a mortgage. Interestingly, 37
percent of the states households with income below the ALICE Threshold owned
their homes. Yet the number of homeowners in New York has fallen over the last
decade. The overall rate of homeownership peaked in 2005 at 56 percent, and fell to
53 percent in 2014, one of the lowest rates in the country. Many who sold their homes
lost money, with some owing more than the sale price. In addition, homeownership
rates vary dramatically across the state and even within NYCs five boroughs, ranging
from 68 percent in 2014 in Richmond County (Staten Island) to 18 percent in the
Bronx the second-lowest rate of any county in the U.S. (Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis, 2015; Willis, Austensen, Moriarty, Rosoff, & Sanders, 2016).
For those New York households that stretched to buy a home in the mid-2000s, the
drop in the housing market caused serious problems. Low incomes and declining
home values made it financially difficult for many ALICE homeowners to maintain their
homes. In addition, with a contracted housing stock and increased demand, some
residents who wanted to buy a home but did not have funds for a down payment or
could not qualify for a mortgage turned to risky and expensive lease or rent-to-own
options. In fact, 3 percent of the total population and 8 percent of unbanked households
in New York have used a rent-to-own financial product (FDIC, 2013).
From 2007 to 2012, housing values dropped by 16 percent in New York, according
to the Federal Reserves House Price Index. This decline, combined with
unemployment, underemployment, and reduced wages, meant that many households
could not keep up their mortgage payments. New York reported 3,670 completed
foreclosures between 2012 and 2014. The foreclosure inventory remains high, and
the 2014 rate in New York was 4.3 percent, significantly higher than the national
average of 1.7 percent. Housing prices have started to recover but with great
variation across the state; in the Rest of State, most have not even returned to their
2007 levels (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2016; CoreLogic, June 2014).
Housing wealth is the most important source of wealth for all but those at the very
top, accounting nationally for 60 percent of assets for the lower-wealth half of all
homeowning families in 2013. These families overall wealth is significantly affected
by changes in home prices, and even moreso for those who are highly leveraged.
From 2007 to 2013, homeowners in the bottom half of households by wealth reported
a drop of 61 percent in their home equity. However, on balance, homeownership
remains an effective means of producing wealth, though slightly less so for lowerincome households and households of color (Herbert, McCue, and Sanchez-Moyano,
2013; Yellen, 2014).
63
Figure 30.
Household Assets, New York, 2014
80%
70%
60%
50%
3+ Vehicles
2 Vehicles
With
Mortgage
40%
30%
20%
1 Vehicle
10%
0%
Vehicle
No
Mortgage
Home
Interest, Dividends,
or Rental Income
Investments
Declining Assets
The assets of an ALICE household are especially vulnerable when workers lose their jobs.
According to The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project, during unemployment,
a common strategy is to draw down retirement accounts. Penalties are charged for early
withdrawals and retirement savings are diminished, putting future financial stability at risk
(Boguslaw, Thomas, Sullivan, Meschede, Chaganti, and Shapiro, 2013). This will have an impact
on those who retire before their assets can be replenished, as discussed in the Conclusion.
Data on wealth at the state level is limited, but the national information available suggests that
New York fits within national trends of a decline in wealth for low-income households. From
1983 to 2010, middle-wealth families across the country experienced a 13 percent increase
in wealth, compared to a 120 percent increase for the highest-wealth families. At the other
end of the spectrum, the lowest-wealth families those in the bottom 20 percent saw their
wealth fall below zero, meaning that their average debts exceeded their assets (McKernan,
Ratcliffe, Steuerle, and Zhang, 2013).
From 1983
to 2010,
middle-wealth
families across
the country
experienced a 13
percent increase in
wealth, compared
to a 120 percent
increase for the
highest-wealth
families.
64
Investments that produce income, such as stocks or rental properties, are a less common
asset; in 2014, only 21 percent of New York households had this type of investment (see
black bar in Figure 30). While the American Community Survey does not report the value
of investments, nationally, the bottom half of households by wealth owned only 2 percent
of the countrys stocks in 2013. The number of New York households receiving interest,
dividend income, or net rental income decreased by 15 percent through the Great
Recession, a clear consequence of the stock market crash. This large reduction fits with
the national trend of reduced assets for households of all income types. The recovery
has not helped these investments: In the four years following the end of the Recession,
the number of households in New York receiving interest, dividend income, or net rental
income decreased yet again, by 7 percent. When combined with an emergency, the
loss of these assets forced many households below the ALICE Threshold (American
Community Survey, 2007, 2012, and 2014; Yellen, 2014).
According to the Urban Institute, the racial wealth gap was even larger. The collapse of the labor,
housing, and stock markets beginning in 2007 impacted the wealth holdings of all socio-economic
groups nationally, but in percentage terms, the declines were greater for disadvantaged groups
as defined by race/ethnicity, education, pre-Recession income, and household wealth (Pfeffer,
Danziger, and Schoeni, 2013; McKernan, Ratcliffe, Steuerle, and Zhang, 2013).
A drop in wealth is also the reason many households fall below the ALICE Threshold.
Drawing on financial assets that can be liquidated or leveraged, such as savings accounts,
retirement accounts, home equity, and stocks, is often the first step households take to
cope with unemployment. When these reserves are used up, financial instability increases
(Boguslaw et al., 2013).
Alternative Financial Products

The biggest group
of AFP users is
people with income
between $30,000
and $50,000.
Once assets have been depleted, the cost of staying financially afloat increases for ALICE
households. Generally, access to credit can provide a valuable source of financial stability, and
in some cases does as much to reduce hardship as tripling family income (Mayer and Jencks,
1989; Barr and Blank, 2008). Just having a bank account lowers financial delinquency and
increases credit scores (Shtauber, 2013). But many New York households do not use basic
banking services. Because the banking needs of low- to moderate-income individuals and
small businesses are often not filled by community banks and credit unions, they frequently
use local networks and Alternative Financial Products (AFP) establishments, especially for
small financial transactions (Flores, 2012; Servon and Castro-Cosio, 2015). According to the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 8.5 percent of households in New York
are unbanked, and 19.6 percent are underbanked (i.e., households that have a mainstream
account, but one so basic that there is still a need for alternative and often costly financial
services for basic transaction and credit needs) (FDIC, 2013).
Informal lending groups range from loans from friends and family to rotating savings and
credit associations to loan sharks. For the over-16-year-old population in the U.S., the World
Bank estimates that in 2011, six percent of the population participated in an informal lending
group and 17 percent borrowed from family and friends. Studies of low-income families show
that as many as 40 percent borrow or lend informally (Morduch, Ogden, and Schneider, 2014;
Servon and Castro-Cosio, 2015).
AFPs provide a range of services including non-bank check cashing, non-bank money orders,
non-bank remittances, payday lending, pawnshops, rent-to-own agreements, and tax refund
anticipation loans. In 2011, 45 percent of New York households with an annual income
below $50,000 had used an AFP, and they accounted for 53 percent of the states AFP
users. In contrast, that figure was only 31 percent for households with an annual income
above $75,000 (FDIC, 2013). The biggest group of AFP users is people with income between
$30,000 and $50,000. They represent a large demographic, and they have enough money to
make financial transactions but not enough to qualify for higher-end financial services (FDIC,
2014). Groups with even lower income are more disproportionately represented among AFP
users, with use increasing as income declines.
65
The most commonly used AFPs in New York are non-bank money orders, with 34 percent of
all households and 57 percent of unbanked households having used a non-bank money order
in 2011. The next most commonly used AFP is non-bank check cashing, used by 13 percent of
all households and 48 percent of unbanked households. Non-bank remittances are used by 8
percent of all households and 16 percent of unbanked households. The use of other AFPs by the
total population is 5 percent or less. However, unbanked households make use of a range of other
AFPs: 13 percent have used pawnshops, 8 percent have used rent-to-own agreements, and 7
percent have used refund anticipation loans. Despite the fact that payday loans have been illegal
in New York since 1976, 1 percent of households have used them (FDIC, 2013) (Figure 31).
Figure 31.
Use of Alternative Financial Products by Banking Status, New York, 2011
60%
57%
50%
Households:
Total: 7.7 million
Unbanked: 740,000
48%
40%
34%
30%
20%
16%
13%
13%
8%
10%
8%
4%
3%
3%
7%
ip
Lo atio
an n
s
w
n
O
o-
nt
ic
t-t
en
R
ef
un
R No
em nitt Ba
an nk
ce
Pa
w
n
Sh
op
s
on No
ey n-B
O an
rd k
er
C
he N
ck o
C n-B
as a
hi nk
ng
0%
Unbanked
Two tax-related AFPs are Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) and Refund Anticipation Checks
(RACs), which charge fees for advancing funds against tax returns and tax preparation, at
rates estimated at more than 260 percent annual percentage rate (APR). According to IRS
data, 94 percent of taxpayers who applied for a RAL and 84 percent who applied for a RAC in
2011 were low-income (Civil Justice, Inc, and Maryland CASH Campaign, 2013). RALs have
declined since becoming federally regulated in 2012, but RAC use continues to rise.
A newly emerging AFP is the payroll card, a debit card that was used to pay wages to an
estimated 5.8 million workers nationally in 2013, and that is expected to double in use by
2017. Payroll cards deliver wages electronically with cost savings for employers and, in
some cases, convenience and lower expenses for workers. However, virtually all payroll card
programs charge fees. In New York, the Attorney General found that payroll cards presented
significant challenges for many workers, particularly low-wage workers and those with limited
financial and literacy skills. In many cases the fees associated with these cards have been
excessive, reducing take-home pay for the lowest-paid workers and those without internet
access, who, for example, can be charged a fee just to call to learn their account balance.
Industry regulation in New York is starting to curb excessive practices (New York State
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, 2014; Saunders, 2015; Young, 2016).
Overall, few
assets and a
weak credit record
mean that many
ALICE families
are vulnerable to
predatory lending
practices.
Access to Credit
Overall, few assets and a weak credit record mean that many ALICE families are vulnerable
to predatory lending practices. This was especially true during the housing boom, which in
part led to many of the foreclosures in New York (McKernan, Ratcliffe, and Shank, 2011).
66
All Households
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013
New York had one of the highest rates of credit users with prime credit in 2014, at 53 percent.
But more than 47 percent of the states credit users and more who might need access to
credit still used subprime rates (CFED, 2016).
Rent-toown housing
agreements are
another way to
access credit
when traditional
financial products
are not available.
67
High-interest, unsecured debt from credit cards can be a useful short-term alternative to even
higher-cost borrowing or the failure to pay mortgage, rent, and utility bills. For example, the
cost of restoring discontinued utilities is often greater than the interest rate on a credit card.
Another option is rent-to-own stores, which are lightly regulated in New York and which fill
an important need by allowing families to access furniture, electronics, major appliances,
computers, tires, and other products. Their use has proliferated both over the Internet and
through 287 local businesses in New York with annual revenues of $217 million (Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, 2016; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016).
Rent-to-own housing agreements are another way to access credit when traditional financial
products are not available. Usage in New York is lower than the national average (3.5 percent
vs. 4.6 percent), and the highest usage rates are among the least financially stable New
Yorkers: the unemployed (6.8 percent vs. 3 percent among the employed) and the disabled
(9.2 percent vs. 3.9 percent among those not disabled). People between 25 and 34 years old
used rent-to-own agreements most out of all age groups, and people with college degrees (1.4
percent) and those making more than $50,000 per year (less than 1.7 percent) were the least
likely to use them. People living farther from NYC were much more likely to use rent-to-own
agreements than residents of NYC and the surrounding counties (9.5 percent in the Rest of
state compared to 2.5 percent in the city and the surrounding counties) (FDIC, 2013).
IV. HOW MUCH INCOME AND

ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED TO
REACH THE ALICE THRESHOLD?
Measure 3 The ALICE Income Assessment
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION IV
In New York in 2014, the total needed to ensure that all poverty and ALICE
households had income at the ALICE Threshold was $169.4 billion.
The income of all New York households below the ALICE Threshold totaled $85.6
billion just 50.5 percent of total need.
In 2014, public and private spending excluding health care on New York households
below the ALICE Threshold, which includes families in poverty, provided an additional
$28.2 billion. This assistance left gaps to achieve the most basic financial need in many
areas, including a 34 percent gap for housing and a 47 percent gap for child care. (This
is a financial assessment of public and private assistance; additional analysis would be
required to assess quality, safety or efficiency.)
Public and private spending on health care totaled $55 billion, or 66 percent of all
spending on households below the ALICE Threshold in 2014. While in aggregate
this was enough to meet the health care expenses of these households, many
households required more than the average and most households received far less
than the average. For households living below the ALICE Threshold in New York, the
average expenditure by federal, state, and local government and nonprofit sources in
2014 was $8,716 per household, plus another $17,025 in health care spending.
The persistence
of low wages,
underemployment,
periods of
unemployment,
and loss of
employersponsored benefits
have led to
financial insecurity
for a large share of
ALICE households.
ALICE and poverty-level households in New York received an aggregate $5.3 billion
to reduce their taxes through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 2014, for an
average of $3,035 per eligible household.
Forty-four percent of New York households do not have enough income to reach the ALICE
Threshold for financial security. But how far below the ALICE Threshold are their earnings?
How much does the government spend in an attempt to help fill the gap? And is it enough to
enable all households to meet their basic needs?
The persistence of low wages, underemployment, periods of unemployment, and loss of
employer-sponsored benefits have led to financial insecurity for a large share of ALICE
households. As a result, many working ALICE households have turned to government
supports and services, often for the first time, to feed their families, secure health insurance,
pay rent, or meet other basic needs (Boguslaw et al., 2013).
68
Without public and nonprofit spending, ALICE households in New York would face great
hardship, with many more qualified as living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
A wide range of families have used public and private assistance. The Pew Charitable
Trusts Economic Mobility Project, a national survey of working-age families from 1999 to
2012, found that families facing unemployment and other financial hardship during the Great
Recession turned to government, nonprofit, and private institutional resources as a safety net.
More than two of every three families interviewed drew on one or more of these institutional
resources, receiving help in categories as varied as income, food, health care, education and
training, housing and utility assistance, and counseling. The lot of many of these families has
not improved; for example, Feeding America reports seeing more regular clients (Boguslaw,
et al., 2013; Feeding America, August 2014).
Recent national studies have quantified the cost of public services that support low-wage
workers, specifically at big box retail chain stores and fast food restaurants, finding that
in 2011, more than half 56 percent of combined state and federal spending on public
assistance went to working families (Allegretto et al., 2013; Dube and Jacobs, 2004; Wider
Opportunities for Women (WOW), 2011; Jacobs, Perry, and MacGillvary, 2016). But the total
cost of public and nonprofit assistance for struggling households had not been tallied for a
state until the first ALICE Report for New Jersey in 2012 (Hoopes Halpin, 2012).
The ALICE Income Assessment provides a tool to measure these resources for poverty and
ALICE households. This tool is critical to understanding the financial dynamics and needs of
poverty and ALICE households, especially those who are working. Because funds are allocated
differently for different programs (some based on the FPL or multiples of it, others using local
cost budgets), it is not possible to separate spending on ALICE from spending on those in
poverty. In fact, some programs that are focused on those in poverty, such as Medicaid, end up
supporting other low-income individuals as well (Finkelstein, Hendren, and Luttmer, 2015).
THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENT

The total income of
poverty-level and
ALICE households
in New York in
2014 was $85.6
billion, which
includes wages
and Social Security.
This is only 50.5
percent of the
amount needed
just to reach the
ALICE Threshold
of $169.4 billion
statewide.
69
The ALICE Income Assessment measures how much income households need to reach the
ALICE Threshold (the bare minimum needed to live and work in the modern economy, not
necessarily an objectively healthy or safe level). Then it compares the Threshold to how much
households actually earn and how much public and nonprofit assistance is provided to help
them meet their basic needs. The Assessment totals the income needed to reach the ALICE
Threshold (see the Household Survival Budget in Section II), then compares that to earned
income as well as government and nonprofit assistance. (This is a financial assessment of
public and private assistance; additional analysis would be required to assess quality, safety
or efficiency.)
Public assistance used in this analysis includes only programs that are directed specifically
at low-income families and individuals; it does not include programs such as neighborhood
policing or New York Citys newly adopted Pre-K for All program, which are provided to all
households regardless of income. In addition, the Assessment includes only programs that
directly help ALICE families meet the basic Household Survival Budget, such as TANF and
Medicaid; it does not include programs that assist low-income families in broader ways, such
as college subsidies.
Categories of Income and Assistance

The total income of poverty-level and ALICE households in New York in 2014 was $85.6 billion,
which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 50.5 percent of the amount needed just
to reach the ALICE Threshold of $169.4 billion statewide. Government and nonprofit assistance
to New York households below the ALICE Threshold which includes households in poverty
provided $28.2 billion, and health care assistance provided another $55 billion. Without health
care spending, there is an Unfilled Gap of 33 percent: In other words, it would take an additional
$55.6 billion in income or assistance to ensure that all New York households meet the ALICE
Threshold. When health care spending is added, the gap almost closes (0.4 percent), but as
discussed below, there are several reasons why additional health care spending cannot provide
financial stability for ALICE and poverty families (additional details in Appendix E).
Figure 32.
Categories of Income and Assistance for Households below the ALICE
Threshold, New York, 2014
$85,615
$17,602
$1,962
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$55,040
$8,613
$100,000
$608
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Millions
Income
Nonprofits
Cash Public Assistance
Government Programs
Health Care
Unfilled Gap
In 2014, the total

annual public and
private spending
from federal, state
and New York City
sources on
New York
households
below the ALICE
Threshold was
$83.2 billion, or
7 percent of New
Yorks $1.26 trillion
Gross Domestic
Product.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2014; Department of Treasury, 2015; American Community Survey, 2014; National
Association of State Budget Officers, 2014; NCCS Data Web, Urban Institute, 2012; see Appendix E
In 2014, the total annual public and private spending from federal, state and New York City
sources on New York households below the ALICE Threshold was $83.2 billion, or 7 percent
of New Yorks $1.26 trillion Gross Domestic Product (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
2014). That spending included several types of assistance:
Cash Public Assistance delivered $8.6 billion, adding another 5 percent.

Nonprofits in the human services area provided $1.96 billion, or 1 percent.
Health Care assistance, a large category that provided an additional $55 billion and is
structured differently from other types of assistance, is discussed later in this section.
70
Government Programs spent $17.6 billion, or 10 percent of the total required for ALICE
families to reach the ALICE Threshold.
DEFINITIONS
Income = Wages, dividends, Social Security
Health Care = Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), community
health benefits
Cash Public Assistance = Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Government Programs = Head Start, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly food stamps), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (WIC), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), housing, and
human services, federal and state
Nonprofits = Human services revenue not from the government or user fees
Unfilled Gap = Shortfall to ALICE Threshold
Challenges of Public and Private Assistance
Without public
assistance, ALICE
households would
face even greater
hardship and many
more would be in
poverty, especially
in the wake of the
Great Recession.
Without public assistance, ALICE households would face even greater hardship and many
more would be in poverty, especially in the wake of the Great Recession. Programs like
SNAP, the EITC and CTC, Medicaid, and, increasingly, food banks provide a critical safety net
for basic household well-being and enable many families to work (Sherman, Trisi, and Parrott,
2013; Grogger, 2003; Dowd and Horowitz, 2011; Rosenbaum, 2013; Feeding America,
August 2014; Coleman-Jenson, 2013). This analysis is not an evaluation of the efficiency of
the programs in delivering good or services. However, research has shown that assistance is
not always well-targeted, effective, and timely. There are several challenges to the ability of
public and private assistance to meet basic needs.
First, the majority of government programs are intended to fill short-term needs, such as
basic housing, food, clothing, health care, and education. By design, their goal is not to
help households achieve long-term financial stability (Haskins, 2011; Shaefer & Edin, 2013)
Ben-Shalom, Moffitt, and Scholz, 2012).
Second, crucial resources are often targeted to households near or below the FPL, so many
struggling ALICE households are not eligible for assistance. Benefits are often structured to
end before a family reaches stability, known as the cliff effect. In New York, as earnings rise,
SNAP benefits decrease once income reaches 130 percent of the FPL, or just $31,005 for
a family of four slightly more than half of the Household Survival Budget for a family (New
York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance, 2016; National Conference of State
Legislatures, October 2011).
71
Third, resources may not be available where they are needed, and this statewide analysis
may mask geographic disparities in the various types of assistance. For example, while NYC
contains 48 percent of the states households below the ALICE threshold, residents receive
62 percent of Medicaid funds but only 43 percent of mental health funds (Rockefeller Institute
of Government, 2011). If funding is disproportionately going to one part of New York, there
could be unmet need, not reflected in the Income Assessment, in other parts of the state.
Finally, because public and nonprofit assistance is allocated for specific purposes and often
delivered as services, it can only be used for specific parts of the household budget. Only
5 percent of the assistance provided in New York is done through cash transfers, which
households can use toward any of their most pressing needs. The remainder is earmarked for
specific items, like food assistance or health care, for which the need varies across households
below the ALICE threshold. This means that not all households benefit equally from assistance.
For example, a household that does not visit a doctor for more than a checkup does not
receive the average household health care expenditure in New York, while a household that
experiences a medical emergency uses far more than that just to meet its needs.
Details for Spending Categories in New York

A breakdown of public and nonprofit spending in New York by category reveals that there
are large gaps in key areas, particularly housing, child care, and transportation. Figure 33
compares the budget amounts for each category of the Household Survival Budget for a
family of four (shown in dark blue) with the public and nonprofit spending in each category
(shown in yellow cross-hatch), to show the gap or surplus in each budget area. The
comparison assumes that the income households earn (shown in dark yellow) is allocated
proportionately to each category.
A breakdown
of public and
nonprofit spending
in New York by
category reveals
that there are
large gaps in key
areas, particularly
housing, child
care, and
transportation.
Figure 33.
Comparing Basic Need with Public and Nonprofit Spending by Category
(Excluding Health Care and Miscellaneous Expenses), New York, 2014
$50,000
47% Gap
$45,000
$40,000
Millions
$35,000
$30,000
34% Gap
$25,000
$20,000
13% Gap
47% Gap
21% Gap
Food
Transportation
Taxes
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
Housing
Minimum Need
Child Care
ALICE Income
Government & Nonprofit Assistance
Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2014; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014; Internal Revenue Service, 2014; Department
of Treasury, 2015; American Community Survey, 2014; National Association of State Budget Officers, 2014; NCCS Data Web, 2012;
Council of the City of New York, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d; Fiscal Policy Institute, 2014
72
$0
Gap in Housing Resources
In the Household Survival Budget for a family of four, housing accounts for 18 percent
of the family budget. Following this allocation, this analysis assumes that all ALICE
households then spend 18 percent of their income on housing, which still leaves them
far short of what is needed to afford rent at HUDs 40th rent percentile. But does public
assistance fill the gap? Federal housing programs provide $4.1 billion in assistance,
including Section 8 Housing Vouchers, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, the Public Housing Operating Fund, and Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG). New York City spends $161,000 on the Home Energy Assistance
Program (HEAP). In addition, nonprofits spend an estimated $392 million on housing
assistance statewide. (Because nonprofit spending is not available by category, the
estimate for each category here is one-fifth of the total nonprofit budget.) Yet when
income and government and nonprofit assistance for housing are combined, there is
still a 34 percent gap in resources for all households to meet the basic ALICE
Threshold for housing. Given that gap, it is not surprising that most families spend
more of their income on housing, which leaves less for other items.
Gap in Child Care Resources
In the Household
Survival Budget
for a family of
four, child care
accounts for 26
percent of the
family budget. Yet
for many ALICE
households, 26
percent of what
they actually earn
is not enough to
pay for even homebased child care,
the least expensive
organized care
option.
In the Household Survival Budget for a family of four, child care accounts for 26
percent of the family budget. Yet for many ALICE households, 26 percent of what
they actually earn is not enough to pay for even home-based child care, the least
expensive organized care option. Additional child care resources available to New
York families include $505.5 million in federal education spending for Head Start,
the program that helps children meet their basic needs or is necessary to enable
their parents to work. New York City also spends $304 million to subsidize child care
for low-income households. Though advanced education is vital to future economic
success, it is not a component of the basic Household Survival Budget, so programs
such as Pell grants are not included in the education spending figure. Nonprofits
provide additional child care assistance including vouchers and child care services
estimated at $392 million. Yet when income and government and nonprofit assistance
are combined, there is still a 47 percent gap in resources for all households to
meet the basic ALICE Threshold for child care.
Gap in Food Resources
In the Household Survival Budget for a family of four, food accounts for 12 percent of
the family budget, yet for many ALICE households, 12 percent of what they actually
earn is insufficient to afford even the USDA Thrifty Food Plan. Food assistance for
New York households include $6.8 billion of federal spending on food programs,
primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food
stamps), school breakfast and lunch programs, and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). NYC spends $69
million and statewide nonprofits spend $392 million on food assistance, including
food pantries, food banks, and soup kitchens. Yet when income and government
and nonprofit food assistance are combined, there is still a 13 percent gap in
resources for all households to meet the basic ALICE Threshold for food.
Gap in Transportation Resources
In the Household Survival Budget for a family of four, transportation accounts for 13
percent of the family budget. Yet for many ALICE households, 13 percent of what
they actually earn is not enough to afford even the running costs of a car. While
New Yorks public transportation systems are state-funded, there is only $45 million
in NYC government spending on transportation targeted specifically to ALICE and
73
poverty families. However, nonprofits provide additional programs, spending an

estimated $392 million. When income and nonprofit assistance are combined, there
is a 47 percent gap in resources for all households to meet the basic ALICE
Threshold for transportation.
Taxes
In the Household Survival Budget for a family of four, taxes account for 12 percent
of the family budget, so this analysis assumes that 12 percent of income is allocated
towards taxes. The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides $4.1 billion
in tax credits and refunds, which were accessed by 83 percent of eligible working
families in New York, In addition, New York EITC (worth 30 percent of the federal)
provides an additional $1.2 billion, and the NYC EITC (worth 5 percent of the federal)
adds another $370 million. Eligible New York households collected an average refund
of $3,035 from their taxes in 2014, which helped 1.8 million ALICE and poverty-level
families (IRS, 2014; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016). From 2011
to 2013, the federal and state EITC and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted 597,000
New York taxpayers and their households out of poverty, including 307,000 children
on average each year (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 2015). The
per-household amount depends on a recipients income and the number of children
they have. Yet when income and government credits and refunds are combined,
there remains a 21 percent gap in resources for all households to meet the
basic ALICE Threshold for taxes.
EITC filing data provides another window into households with income below the
ALICE Threshold. In 2014, 18 percent of tax filers in New York were eligible for
federal EITC. Of those, 24 percent were married households, 50 percent were single
heads of households, and 26 percent were single adults. Their median Adjusted
Gross Income was $14,118. The industry that employed the most EITC-eligible
workers was health care, followed by retail trade, and then accomodation and food
services (Brookings Institution, 2014).
There are special

challenges to
estimating health
care needs
and costs and
delivering health
care efficiently
to more than 3.2
million struggling
New Yorkers.
The Special Case of Health Care
With the increasing cost of health care and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), spending on health care doubled from 2000 to 2014, increasing more than any
other category (New York State Comptroller, 2015). For this reason, spending on health
care in New York surpasses the amount needed for each household to afford basic
out-of-pocket health care expenses. However, even this level of assistance does not
necessarily guarantee good or improved health to low-income New York households.
There are special challenges to estimating health care needs and costs and
delivering health care efficiently to more than 3.2 million struggling New Yorkers.
First, there is greater variation in the amount of money families need for health care
than exists in any other single category. An uninsured (or even an insured) household
74
Health care resources are separated from other government and nonprofit spending
because they account for the largest single source of assistance to low-income
households: $55 billion, or 66 percent of all public and private spending on these
households in New York. Health care spending includes federal grants for Medicaid,
CHIP, and Hospital Charity Care; state matching grants for Medicaid, CHIP, and
Medicare Part D Clawback Payments; and the cost of unreimbursed or unpaid
services provided by New York hospitals (Office of Management and Budget, 2014;
National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 2014; NCCS Data Web
Report Builder, 2012).
In New York, on
average, health
care spending
per household in
2014 was $17,025,
while the average
spending per
household through
other types of
assistance was
$8,716.
with a severe and sudden illness could be burdened with hundreds of thousands of
dollars in medical bills in a single year, while a healthy household would have few
expenses. National research has shown that a small proportion of households facing
severe illness or injury account for more than half of all health care expenses, and
those expenses can vary greatly from year to year (U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 2010; Silletti, 2005; Culhane, Park, and Metraux, 2011).
The difference between health care spending and other types of assistance is
also obvious in the average amount of spending per household below the ALICE
Threshold. In New York, on average, health care spending per household in 2014
was $17,025, while the average spending per household through other types of
assistance was $8,716. Combining the two categories, the average spending on each
New York household below the ALICE Threshold was $25,741 in cash and services,
shared by all members of the household and spread throughout the year (Figure 34).
Figure 34.
Total Public and Nonprofit Assistance per Household below the ALICE
Threshold, New York, 2014
Spending per Household below the ALICE Threshold
New York
HEALTH ASSISTANCE
ONLY
ASSISTANCE
EXCLUDING HEALTH
TOTAL ASSISTANCE
$17,025
$8,716
$25,741
Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2014; Department of Treasury, 2015; American Community Survey, 2014; National
Association of State Budget Officers, 2014; NCCS Data Web, 2012; American Community Survey, 2014; and the ALICE Threshold, 2014
75
V. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC

CONDITIONS FOR ALICE
HOUSEHOLDS IN NEW YORK?
Measure 4 The Economic Viability Dashboard
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION V
The Economic Viability Dashboard incorporates three indices Housing Affordability,
Job Opportunities, and Community Resources for each county.
Only three counties in New York scored in the highest third on all three indices of the
Dashboard, and three counties scored in the lowest third on all three indices.
On average, housing affordability in New York declined slightly from 2007 to 2014.
Job opportunities fell sharply from 2007 to 2010, then began to improve, but they
have not returned to their 2007 levels. Community resources fluctuated from 2010 to
2014, ultimately improving over the period.
The average affordable housing gap in New York reflects an 11 percent shortage in
rental and owner housing stock.
On average in New York, 55 percent of renters pay more than 30 percent of their
household income on rent, and 31 percent of owners pay more than 30 percent of
their income on monthly owner costs.
There is wide variation in job opportunities across New York; wages for new hires
range from $1,524 per month in Hamilton County to $5,307 per month in New York
County (Manhattan).
Preschool enrollment, a marker of education resources in each county, varies widely:
Only 24 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in Madison County, while 77
percent are enrolled in Putnam County.
For ALICE in
particular, local
economic
conditions largely
determine how
many households
in a county or state
struggle financially.
These conditions
also determine
how difficult
it is to survive
without sufficient
income and
assets to afford
basic household
necessities.
Place matters. The Harvard Equality of Opportunity Project has brought to the fore the
importance of where we live, and especially where we grow up, in determining the directions
that our lives take (Chettty and Hendren, April 2015). For ALICE in particular, local economic
conditions largely determine how many households in a county or state struggle financially.
These conditions also determine how difficult it is to survive without sufficient income and
assets to afford basic household necessities.
76
The share of voting-age New York residents who voted in the 2012 presidential
election was 53 percent, just below the national average of 58 percent.
In order to understand the challenges that the ALICE population faces in New York, it is
essential to recognize that local conditions do not impact all socio-economic and geographic
groups in the same way. For example, New Yorks high GDP obscures the lack of high-skilled
jobs in many counties.
By contrast, county unemployment statistics clearly reveal where there are not enough jobs.
Yet having a job is only part of the economic landscape for ALICE households. The full picture
requires an understanding of the types of jobs available and their wages, as well as the cost
of basic living expenses and the level of community resources in each county.
ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARD

In addition to shifting labor market conditions, the financial stability of ALICE households
depends on local conditions. The Economic Viability Dashboard is composed of three indices
that evaluate the local economic conditions that matter most to ALICE households the
Housing Affordability Index, the Job Opportunities Index, and the Community Resources
Index. The Dashboard reports how each county performs on the three dimensions; the ideal
for a county is to have Good conditions in all three indices.
By comparing counties, the Economic Viability Dashboard offers a way to better understand
why so many households struggle to achieve basic economic stability throughout New York
and why that struggle is harder in some parts of the state than in others.
Economic Viability Dashboard Scores
ALICE households
have to navigate a
range of variables,
and the Economic
Viability Dashboard,
using the best
available proxies,
shows them
clearly.
The cumulative Dashboard results are presented in the color-coded map of New Yorks
counties in Figure 35, and the detailed index results are presented in the table in Figure 36.
Full results, as well as the methodology and sources, are in Appendix F. Index scores for
each county range from a possible 1 (worse economic conditions for ALICE) to 100 (better
conditions). Each countys score is relative to other counties in New York. A score of 100
does not necessarily mean that conditions are very Good; it means that they are better than
in other counties in the state. The indices are used only for comparison within the state, not
for comparison to other states. They also provide the means to see changes over time within
New York.
ALICE households have to navigate a range of variables, and the Economic Viability
Dashboard, using the best available proxies, shows them clearly. A common challenge is to
find job opportunities in the same counties that are affordable places for ALICE households
to live. In addition, many affordable counties do not offer key community resources such
as access to quality schools, high levels of health coverage, and the types of community
engagement that create social capital. The ideal locations are those that offer affordable
housing, job opportunities, and high levels of community resources.
For ALICE households, those locations are both most needed and hardest to find. The
Economic Viability Dashboard shows that only Cayuga, Chemung, and Schuyler counties
scored in the highest third on all three indices. At the other end of the spectrum, Bronx, Kings
(Brooklyn), and Sullivan counties scored in the lowest third on all three indices (Figure 36).
77
Figure 35.
Economic Viability Dashboard, Number of Good Scores, New York, 2014
Syracuse
Buffalo
Albany
Number of Good Scores
Manhattan
3
Sources and Methodology: See Appendix F
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
78
Figure 36.
Economic Viability Dashboard, New York, 2014
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings (Brooklyn)
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Orange
Poor
Good
Good
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
St.
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Tioga
Good
Fair
Fair
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
County
Sources and Methodology: See Appendix F
79
The Housing Affordability Index

Key Indicators: Affordable Housing Gap + Housing Burden + Real Estate Taxes
The more affordable housing is in a county, the easier it is for a household to be financially
stable. In New York, there is wide variation between counties on Housing Affordability
scores (Figure 36 and Appendix F). The least affordable counties are Nassau and Rockland
counties, each with a score of 14 out of 100; the most affordable is Schuyler County, with a
score of 66. Yet even the most affordable counties are well below the possible 100 points. In
terms of regions, New York City and its surrounding counties are the least affordable, while
the counties farthest north are more affordable.
The three key indicators for the Housing Affordability Index are the affordable housing gap,
the housing burden, and real estate taxes.
Affordable Housing Gap Indicator
The first key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is the affordable housing
gap. In a given county, there is a difference between the total number of available
renter and owner units and the number of those units that households below the
ALICE Threshold can afford while spending no more than one-third of their income on
housing. This indicator measures that gap, as a percent of the overall housing stock.
This is one of the few indicators that assesses the total housing stock in a county
and includes subsidized as well as market-rate units that are affordable to ALICE and
poverty households. This is discussed further in Section VI.
The larger the gap, the harder it is for households below the ALICE Threshold to find
affordable housing, and for this Index, the lower the score. The average affordable
housing gap in New York is an 11 percent shortage in rental and owner housing stock,
but there is broad variation between counties. Tompkins County had the lowest gap at
less than 4 percent. However, most counties had a gap greater than 10 percent, and
three had more than 24 percent: Nassau, Rockland, and Suffolk counties.
With many of New

Yorks metropolitan
areas ranking
among the least
affordable in the
country, it is not
surprising that
many New York
households are
housing burdened.
Housing Burden Indicator
With many of New Yorks metropolitan areas ranking among the least affordable
in the country, it is not surprising that many New York households are housing
burdened. On average, 55 percent of New York renters pay more than 30 percent of
their household income on rent, and 31 percent of owners pay more than 30 percent
of their income on monthly owner costs, which include their mortgage. There is wide
variation across the state, with the highest housing burden across renters and owners
in Bronx County at a rate of 55 percent; the lowest is 22 percent in Schuyler County
(American Community Survey, 2014). For the Housing Affordability Index, the housing
burden is inversely related so that the greater the housing burden, the less affordable
the cost of living and, therefore, the lower the Index score.
80
The second key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is the housing burden
housing costs that exceed 30 percent of income, as defined by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). That standard is based on the premise
established in the United States Housing Act of 1937 that 30 percent of income was
the most a family could spend on housing and still afford other household necessities
(Schwartz and Wilson, 2008).
Real Estate Taxes Indicator
The third key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is real estate taxes. While
related to housing cost, they also reflect a countys standard of living. Even for
renters, real estate taxes raise the cost of housing. The average annual real estate
tax in New York is $3,810, but there is wide variation across counties. Average
annual real estate taxes are lowest in Lewis County at $1,911 and highest in Nassau,
Rockland, and Westchester counties at $10,000 (American Community Survey,
2014). For the Housing Affordability Index, real estate taxes are inversely related so
that the higher the taxes, the harder it is to support a household and, therefore, the
lower the Index score.
The Job Opportunities Index

Key Indicators: Income Distribution + Unemployment Rate + New Hire Wages
The Job Opportunities Index focuses on job opportunities for the population in general and
for households living below the ALICE Threshold in particular. The key indicators for job
opportunities are income distribution, the unemployment rate, and new hire wages. The more
job opportunities there are in a county, the more likely a household is to be financially stable.
There is wide variation in job opportunities across New York: The fewest opportunities are
in Bronx County with a score of 37, and the most are in Saratoga County with a score of 72.
Because New Yorks economy has a wide range of industries, from agriculture to advanced
manufacturing to utilities and transportation, job opportunities for ALICE workers are spread
throughout the state economy. At the high end, the most profitable opportunities are in
NYC and its surrounding counties. Many of New Yorks industries have transformed over
time to keep pace with the modern economy; those transitions, though, have caused local
unemployment at some times and created new jobs at others (MPI Group, 2013).
Income Distribution Indicator

Because
New Yorks
economy has a
wide range of
industries, from
agriculture
to advanced
manufacturing
to utilities and
transportation, job
opportunities for
ALICE workers are
spread throughout
the state economy.
The first indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is income distribution as measured
by the share of income for the lowest two quintiles. The more evenly income is
distributed across the quintiles, the greater the possibility ALICE households have to
achieve the countys median income, and therefore the higher the Index score. The
distribution of income in New York is less equal than in the U.S. overall. Within New
York, income is most unequal in New York County (Manhattan), where the lowest two
quintiles earn only 7 percent of the income. The highest percentage that these two
quintiles earn is 15 percent in Genesee, Hamilton, Jefferson, Saratoga, Schuyler,
Washington, and Wyoming counties (American Community Survey, 2014).
Unemployment Rate Indicator
The second indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is the unemployment rate. Having a
job is obviously crucial to financial stability; the higher the unemployment level in a given
county, the fewer opportunities there are for earning income, and therefore the lower the
Index score. In most New York counties, the 2014 unemployment rate was above the
national average of 6.2 percent, but there was a wide range across the state. The lowest
rate was in Chemung County at 3.9 percent, and the highest was above 11.9 percent in
Bronx County (American Community Survey, 2014).
New Hire Wages Indicator

81
The third indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is the average wage for new hires
as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). While having a job is essential,
having a job with a salary high enough to afford the cost of living is also important. This
indicator seeks to capture the types of jobs that are currently available in each county.
The higher the wage for new hires, the greater the contribution employment can make
to household income and, therefore, the higher the Index score. The average wage for
a new hire in New York is $2,299 per month (or $13.79 per hour) according to the U.S.
Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators, but there is wide variation between counties.
At the low end of the spectrum, new hires in Hamilton County earn $1,524 per month;
at the top of the spectrum, new hires in New York County (Manhattan) can expect to
earn more than triple that at $5,307 per month. This degree of variation reflects the very
different economic activity across the state and the kinds of jobs and/or wage levels
available (see further discussion in Sections III and VI) (U.S. Census, 2014).
The Community Resources Index

Key Indicators: Education Resources + Health Resources + Social Capital
In New York, there is more variation between counties in Community Resources scores than
on the other indices. Bronx County, with a score of 20 out of 100, has the fewest community
resources; the county with the most is sparsely populated Schuyler County, with a score of
86. More typically, rural counties have fewer community resources.
Education Resources Indicator
The first indicator in the Community Resources Index reflects the level of education
resources in each county. Providing public education is a fundamental American value,
and education is widely regarded as a means to achieve economic success. Quality
learning experiences have social and economic benefits for children, parents, employers,
and society as a whole, now and in the future. Early learning in particular enables young
children to gain skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond. In addition,
it enables parents to work, which enhances the familys current and future earning
potential. For these reasons, the quality of education available to low-income children
could be one of the most important determinants of their future. As a proxy for the level
of education resources in a county, the Index uses the percent of 3- and 4-year-olds
enrolled in preschool (American Community Survey, 2014). The higher the percentage of
the population enrolled in preschool, the higher the Index score.
Providing public
education is a
fundamental
American value,
and education is
widely regarded as
a means to achieve
economic success.
The average share of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool in New York is 51.5
percent, but there is wide variation between counties. Only 24 percent of 3- and
4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool in Madison County, while 77 percent are
enrolled in Putnam County. This extreme variation indicates that there are more
options for early childhood education in some parts of the state especially in NYC,
with the start of the PreK for All program.
Health Resources Indicator
The second indicator in the Community Resources Index reflects the level of health
resources in each county. Health insurance is especially important for people living
below the ALICE Threshold who earn more than the Medicaid eligibility level, but
not enough to afford the high deductibles of the lowest-cost plans offered through
82
The Community Resources Index measures the education, health, and social capital
resources that are available in a community. These resources are fundamental prerequisites
to being able to work and raise a family. The Index focuses on resources that can make a
difference in the financial stability of ALICE households in both the short and long terms. It
also looks at resources that reflect on a specific locality, rather than those that are available in
all communities across the country.
the Affordable Care Act (ACA); this group does not have the resources to pay for a
health emergency. As a proxy for the level of health resources in a county, the Index
uses percent of the population with health insurance. The higher the rate of health
insurance, the higher the Index score.
With the introduction of the ACA, low-income households have more access to health
insurance in New York. However, low-income residents are still less likely to have
coverage. Of New Yorkers under age 64 with annual income below 200 percent of the
FPL, 12 percent still did not have health insurance in 2014, but for residents under age
64 of all income levels, that rate was only 9 percent (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014).
The overall level of health insurance coverage in New York increased slightly over
the last two decades, from 84 percent in 1994 to 91.3 percent in 2014 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 1995; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). However, coverage rates vary widely
across the state today: The lowest health insurance coverage rate is in Yates County
at 79.6 percent, and the highest is in Saratoga County at 94.7 percent (American
Social Capital Indicator
The overall level of

health insurance
coverage in
New York increased
slightly over the
last two decades,
from 84 percent
in 1994 to 91.3
percent in 2014.
The third indicator in the Community Resources Index reflects the level of social capital
in each county. Communities with engaged citizens build the social capital necessary
to mobilize resources, improve quality of life, and resolve conflict. The greater the
community engagement, the more the communitys activities reflect the populations
values (Putnam, 1995; National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic
Engagement, 2012; Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America, 2000).
Participating in electoral and political processes such as voting, campaigning, attending
rallies and protests, contacting officials, or serving on local boards is one aspect of
community engagement. Broader community engagement includes volunteering and
contributing with religious, educational, neighborhood, and community organizations.
As a proxy for the level of social capital in a county, the Index uses one of the
longest-standing indicators of community engagement the percent of the adult
population who voted in the most recent national election (U.S. Election Assistance
Commission, 2014; Hoopes Halpin, Holzer, Jett, Piotrowski, and Van Ryzin, 2012).
The higher the proportion of the total population (taking into account the impact of
noncitizens) that voted, the greater the community engagement and ability to build
social capital in the community, and therefore, the higher the Index score.
The share of voting-age New York residents who voted in the 2012 presidential
election was 53 percent, slightly below the national average of 58 percent. This is
much higher than the 2014 mid-term election rate of 29 percent in New York (United
States Elections Project, 2014; United States Elections Project, 2015). There is also
great variation across the state: In Bronx and Queens counties, only 13 percent of
residents voted, while 78 percent voted in Schuyler County (United States Election
Assistance Commission, 2014; American Community Survey, 2014).
Changes Over Time
83
The Economic Viability Dashboard enables comparison over time for the three dimensions
that it measures. To visualize changes over time, the average scores for all counties in New
York on each Index are presented in Figure 37. With 2010 as the baseline for each Index, the
score for each is 50. Scores in 2007, 2012, or 2014 that are above 50 show better conditions
than in 2010; scores below that level represent conditions that have worsened. In measuring
change over time, complete data was not available for two smaller counties, Hamilton and
Schuyler, out of 62 total counties.
The changes in Dashboard scores from 2007 to 2014 illustrate the changing conditions
in New York over the course of the Great Recession and after. Both housing affordability
and job opportunities worsened during the Great Recession. Conditions for housing
affordability have continued to decline slightly. Conditions for job opportunities have improved
since 2010 but have not returned to their 2007 levels.
For most of the latter half of the 20th century, housing prices increased steadily. This trend
reached its peak around 2005, then abruptly ended with the housing market crash that led to
the Great Recession. Since then, housing prices have declined in New York and most of the
U.S., causing financial strain for many but making housing more affordable for others (Public
Policy Center, 2010). In New York, housing affordability fell by 2 percent from 2007 to 2010,
then stabilized from 2010 to 2012, but fell another 1 percent between 2012 and 2014.
Job opportunities fell by 11 percent from 2007 to 2010 and then by another 3 percent in the
two years following the technical end of the Recession. More recently, from 2012 to 2014,
they increased by 10 percent, almost returning to 2007 levels. However, it is still too soon to
tell if this will be a long-term trend.
Community resources fluctuated between 2007 and 2014. They increased by 1 percent
during the Great Recession, then spiked between 2010 and 2012, rising 28 percent. The
spike in 2012 was due to high voter turnout for the presidential election. Following the
election-related increase, they fell by 18 percent, but remained 6 percent higher than 2007
levels. Community resources including health care, early childhood education, and social
capital are important to ALICE households. The research is not clear on whether these
factors lead to or result from better economic conditions. But the fact that their improvement
has preceded signs of economic recovery in other states suggests that they support the
needs of ALICE households while those households wait for market-driven forces, such as
jobs and housing, to catch up. It is still too early to tell if this is the case in New York.
Both housing
affordability and
job opportunities
worsened
during the
Great Recession.
Conditions
for housing
affordability have
continued to
decline slightly.
Conditions for job
opportunities have
improved since
2010 but have not
returned to their
2007 levels.
2007
2010
51 50 50 49
56
50 48
53
63
49 50
52
2012
2014
Housing Affordability
Job Opportunities
Community Resources
Source and Methodology: See Appendix F
84
Average Index Score
Figure 37.
Economic Viability Dashboard, New York, 2007 to 2014
Comparison with Other Indices

THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX
A project of the Social Science Research Council, this Index measures health (life expectancy),
education (school enrollment and the highest educational degree attained), and income (median
personal earnings) for each state in the U.S. Of all the states, New York ranks eighth in social and
economic development, driven primarily by the states high education attainment, life expectancy, and
median earnings (Lewis and Burd-Sharps, 2014).
BE THE CHANGES OPPORTUNITY INDEX

This Index measures the degree of opportunity now and in the future available to residents of
each state based on measurements of that states economic, educational, and community health.
New York ranks 15th overall and scores slightly above average on the economy and community
measures, while slightly below average on the education measure. This Index also breaks down
opportunity scores by county (Opportunity Nation, 2015).
THE INSTITUTION FOR SOCIAL AND POLICY STUDIES ECONOMIC SECURITY INDEX
This Index measures not conditions, but changes the size of drops in income or spikes in medical
spending and the corresponding financial insecurity level in each state based on the percentage
of the population that lost a quarter of their income within the year. New York residents face more
financial insecurity than the national average, scoring 21.6 between 2008 and 2010. Like the national
average, the scores in New York improved since 2010, falling to 20 in 2012 (Hacker, Huber, Nichols,
Rehm, and Craig, 2012).
THE GALLUP-HEALTHWAYS WELL-BEING INDEX
Of the 50 largest
commuting
zones in the U.S.,
New York, NY is
ranked sixth in
the probability
that a child born
to a family in the
bottom quintile
of the national
income distribution
will ultimately
reach the top
quintile.
85
This Index provides a view of life in New York at the state level in terms of overall well-being, life
evaluation, emotional health, physical health, healthy behavior, work environment, and feeling safe,
satisfied, and optimistic within a community. Overall, New York has scored below the national average
and ranks 40th. The state ranks 17th in physical well-being but lower in all other elements, with the
third-worst rank for community pride and safety (Gallup-Healthways, 2015).
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (NAHB)/WELLS FARGO HOUSING OPPORTUNITY

INDEX
This Index measures the share of homes sold in a given area that would be affordable to a family
earning the local median income, based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. New Yorks 12
metropolitan areas rank from the fourth most affordable area in the nation (Binghamton, NY) to the
222nd (New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ) out of 225 metro areas (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015).
THE INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY INDEX

Developed by the Equality of Opportunity project at Harvard University, this Index focuses on
metro areas, measuring the upward mobility of children from low-income families. Of the 50 largest
commuting zones in the U.S., New York, NY is ranked sixth in the probability that a child born to a
family in the bottom quintile of the national income distribution will ultimately reach the top quintile
(Chetty, Hendren, Kline, and Saez, 2014).
THE HUMAN NEEDS INDEX

Developed by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and the Salvation Army, this
Index is based on the services that the Salvation Army provides (clothing, food, basic medical care,
and shelter). In 2014, New York scored 1.1 in the composite index of poverty-related need and the
impact of Salvation Army services. The national average was 1.97; zero represents the minimum level
of need (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2015).
VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF

INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
When households face difficult economic conditions and cannot afford basic necessities, they
are forced to make difficult choices and take costly risks. When the overall economic climate
worsens, as it did from 2007 to 2010 during the Great Recession, many households have to
make even harder trade-offs; the same is true when families are faced with emergencies and
unexpected expenses. Many of New Yorks ALICE households have depleted their savings
and are still having trouble finding higher-wage jobs four years after the end of the Great
Recession. This section reviews the strategies that they use to survive.
For ALICE households, difficult economic conditions create specific problems in the areas
of housing, child care and education, food, transportation, and health care, as well as
income and savings. Yet what is not always acknowledged is that these problems have
consequences not just for ALICE households, but for their broader communities as well.
The choices that ALICE households are forced to make often include skipping health care,
accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance. While these savings have direct impacts on
the health, safety, and future of these households, their wider effects can include reducing New
Yorks economic productivity and raising insurance premiums and taxes for everyone (Figure 38).
When households
face difficult
economic
conditions and
cannot afford
basic necessities,
they are forced
to make difficult
choices and take
costly risks.
Figure 38.
Consequences of Households Living below the ALICE Threshold in New York
Impact on ALICE
Impact on Community
Live in substandard
housing
Health and safety risks; increased

maintenance costs; inconvenience
Increased health care costs; worker

stressed, late, and/or absent from job
less productive
Move farther away

from job
Longer commute; costs increase;

severe weather can affect commuter
safety; less time for other activities
More traffic on road; workers late

to job; absenteeism due to severe
weather can affect community
access to local businesses and
amenities; increased cost of urban
sprawl including infrastructure and
services such as roads, public
transit, sewage, etc.
Homeless
Disruption to job, family, school, etc.
Costs for homeless shelters, foster

care system, health care

No child care
One parent cannot work; forgoing

immediate income and future
promotions
Future need for education and social

services
Substandard public
education
Learning risks; limited earning

potential/ mobility; limited career
opportunity
Stressed parents; lower-skilled

workforce; future need for social
services
86
HOUSING
Impact on ALICE
Impact on Community
FOOD
Less healthy
Poor health; obesity
Less productive worker/student;

increased future demand for health
care
Not enough
Poor daily functioning
Even less productive; increased

future need for social services and
health care
Old car
Unreliable transportation; risk of

accidents; increased maintenance costs
Worker stressed, late, and/or absent

from job less productive
No insurance/
registration
Risk of fine; accident liability; risk of

license being revoked
Higher insurance premiums; unsafe

vehicles on the road
Long commute
Costs increase; severe weather can

affect commuter safety; less time for
other activities
More traffic on road; workers late

to job; increased demand for road
maintenance and services
No car
Limited employment opportunities

and access to health care/child care
Reduced economic productivity;

higher taxes for specialized public
transportation; greater stress on
emergency vehicles
Underinsured
Delaying or skipping preventative

health care; more out-of-pocket
expense; substandard or no mental
health coverage
Workers report to job sick; spread

illness; increased workplace issues
due to lower productivity and greater
absenteeism
No insurance
Forgoing preventative health care;

use of emergency room for nonemergency care
Higher premiums for all to fill the gap;

more expensive health costs; risk of
health crises
Low wages
Longer work hours; pressure on other

family members to work (drop out of
school); no savings; use of high-cost
alternative financial products
Worker stressed, late, and/or absent

from job less productive; higher
taxes to fill the gap
No wages
Cost of looking for work and finding

social services; risk of depression
Less productive society; higher taxes

to fill the gap
Minimal savings
Mental stress; crises; risk taking; use

costly alternative financial systems to
bridge gaps
More workers facing crises; unstable

workforce; community disruption
No savings
Crises spiral quickly, leading to

homelessness, hunger, illness
Costs for homeless shelters, foster

care system, emergency health care
TRANSPORTATION
HEALTH CARE
INCOME
SAVINGS
Suggested reference: United Way ALICE Report New York, 2016
87
HOUSING
Housing is the cornerstone of financial stability, and as such, its relatively high cost often
forces ALICE households into difficult situations. Homelessness is the worst possible
outcome when ALICE cannot afford basic housing, but there are lesser consequences that
still take a toll, including excessive spending on housing, living far from work, or living in
substandard units. Finding convenient housing that is affordable is challenging for low-wage
workers in many parts of New York. A growing population and changing demographics
have increased the demand for an already tight supply of smaller, low-cost housing units,
especially rental units. In addition, the most recent economic challenges in New York have
cost many homeowners the equity in their homes and even forced some into foreclosure.
The first and most common way ALICE households deal with these challenges is by paying
more for housing than they can afford. Throughout the state, housing remains the most
expensive budget item in all counties for all households except those with two or more children
in child care. In the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing
Opportunity Index, which ranks homeownership affordability, the New York City metropolitan
area is the 219th most affordable area in the nation (out of 225) and 44th in the Northeast (out
of 44). On the other end of the spectrum, the Syracuse metro area is the third most affordable
metro area in the nation and first in the region (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015) (Figure 39).
A growing
population
and changing
demographics
have increased
the demand for
an already tight
supply of smaller,
low-cost housing
units, especially
rental units.
Figure 39.
NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index for New York Metro Areas, 2014
Affordability Ranking for New York Metro Areas, 2014
REGIONAL
RANKING
(OUT OF 44)
AlbanySchenectady-Troy
76
22
4%
0%
Binghamton
4%
-3%
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls
56
13
12%
5%
Elmira
21
9%
13%
Glens Falls
66
18
26%
2%
Ithaca
130
32
7%
31%
Kingston
128
31
-15%
-4%
Nassau-Suffolk
189
38
-14%
2%
New York-White
Plains-Wayne,
NY-NJ
219
44
-15%
6%
PoughkeepsieNewburghMiddletown
103
26
-20%
-7%
Rochester
51
11
7%
1%
Syracuse
4%
-3%
METRO AREA
PERCENT CHANGE PERCENT CHANGE

IN MEDIAN PRICE, IN MEDIAN PRICE,
2007-2010
2010-2014
Source: NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index, 2014
88
NATIONAL
RANKING
(OUT OF 225)
Affordability has changed over time, falling in the southern portion of the state, especially
through the Great Recession, while improving in the Rest of State. The median house price
fell by more than 14 percent in the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, Kingston, NassauSuffolk, and New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ metro areas from 2007 to 2010. It then
improved slightly only for Nassau-Suffolk and New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ from
2010 to 2014. At the same time, all other regions experienced a positive change in median
house price from 2007 to 2014, with Elmira, Glens Falls, and Ithaca experiencing more than a
20 percent gain (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015).
Another indicator of the lack of housing affordability in the state is the extent to which
households are housing burdened. As discussed in Section V, 55 percent of New York renters
paid more than 30 percent of their household income on rent, and 31 percent of owners paid
more than 30 percent of their income on monthly owner costs, which included their mortgage,
in 2014. Owners and renters with lower incomes are more likely to be housing burdened than
those with higher incomes (American Community Survey, 2012 and 2014). When households
with income below the ALICE Threshold spend more than 30 percent of income on rent and
utility costs, they are often forced to forgo other basics, such as food, medicine, child care, or
heat (National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), 2015; MacArthur Foundation, 2015).
When households
with income
below the ALICE
Threshold spend
more than 30
percent of income
on rent and utility
costs, they are
often forced to
forgo other basics,
such as food,
medicine, child
care, or heat.
Finding lower-cost housing is a second strategy for ALICE families, but those who pay
less face a range of problems that accompany lower-cost units. Many housing units cost
less because they are in undesirable locations areas with high crime rates, run-down
infrastructure, no public transportation, or long distances to grocery stores, public services,
and other necessities. Families also often face a trade-off between spending money on
housing or on transportation: Harvard Universitys Joint Center for Housing Studies estimates
that in 2014, low-income households living in affordable housing (spending 30 percent of their
income or less on housing) spent nearly three times more on transportation than households
with severe burdens (those spending more than 50 percent of their income) (Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2016).
Finally, ALICE families in New York often live in substandard units that present a variety of
health and safety risks. These range from lack of basic heating and plumbing to exposure
to lead, mold, and other toxins, which can increase demand and costs for health care
services. In addition, lower-cost housing is often older, and older units are more likely to need
maintenance and costly repairs. On average New Yorks housing stock is older than in the
rest of the country, with 56 percent of housing units built before 1960, well above the U.S.
average of 29 percent. The oldest units, those built before 1940, account for approximately 32
percent of the states housing stock (American Community Survey, 2014).
Of the states low-cost housing stock, 31,057 units lack complete plumbing facilities and
55,145 lack complete kitchen facilities (American Community Survey, 2014). Low-rent
housing often needs maintenance, so ALICE families face the additional cost of upkeep as
well as the safety risks of do-it-yourself repairs, or possibly greater risks when repairs are
not made. A costly repair can threaten the safety or livelihood of an ALICE household (Joint
Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2016; MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Coley,
Leventhal, Lynch, and Kull 2013).
Overall, with very low vacancy rates statewide 2 percent for homeowners and 4 percent
for renters New York residents are more likely to face problems of higher costs, or poor
housing conditions for lower-cost units (American Community Survey, 2014).
89
Renters
ALICE households are more likely to be renters than owners in New York, occupying 63 percent
of all rental units. The national housing crisis and the Recession led to an increase in the
demand for rental housing in New York. The percentage of total households renting in the state
increased from 44 percent in 2007 to 47 percent in 2014 (American Community Survey, 2014).
Yet renting has distinct downsides. First, as mentioned above, renters are more likely than
owners to face a housing burden. While this is a problem across the state, it is particularly
severe in NYC, where 56 percent of renters are housing burdened. Second, while renting
offers greater mobility, allowing people to move more easily for work, and renters are more
likely than homeowners to have moved in the last few years, there are associated expenses
(American Community Survey, 2014). Any move has a range of costs, from financial transition
costs and reduced wages due to time off from work to social start-up costs for new schools and
the process of becoming invested in a new community. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
renters are not able to build equity in a home (American Community Survey, 2012; West, 2015).
Analysis of the housing stock in each county in New York reveals that the available units
do not match current needs. According to housing and income data that roughly aligns with
the ALICE dataset, there are 2.1 million renters with income below the ALICE Threshold,
yet there are fewer than 1.7 million rental units subsidized and market-rate that these
households can afford without being housing burdened (Figure 40). Using high and low
estimates, New York would need between 471,893 and 590,363 more lower-cost rental units
to meet the demand of renters below the ALICE Threshold. This assumes that all ALICE
and poverty households are currently living in rental units they can afford. But the number of
households that are housing burdened reveals that this is often not the case in New York, so
the assessment of need for low-cost rental units across the state is in fact a low estimate.
Using a different methodology, the NLIHC estimates a shortage of 627,684 units in New York
that are affordable and available for extremely low-income renters, based on affordability to
residents earning less than 30 percent of the median income (National Low Income Housing
Coalition, March 2015). Despite using different parameters, the NLIHC and ALICE estimates
both confirm the significant shortage of affordable rental units in New York.
The national
housing crisis and
the Recession led
to an increase in
the demand for
rental housing
in New York. The
percentage of
total households
renting in the state
increased from 44
percent in 2007 to
47 percent
in 2014.
Figure 40.
Renters below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, New York, 2014
4,000,000
Rental Units
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2.1 Million
1,500,000
1.06 Million
Market Rate
Affordable
1,000,000
500,000
0
1.76 Million
All Other
Rental Units
601,834
Subsidized
Renters below
ALICE Threshold
Rental Units
90
3.4 Million
3,500,000
Subsidized housing units are an important source of affordable housing for ALICE families.
Of the nearly 1.7 million rental units that households with income below the ALICE Threshold
can afford across the state, approximately 36 percent are subsidized: New Yorks affordable
rental housing programs reached 601,834 households across the state in 2014 (HUD, 2014).
The majority of rental units in the state (63 percent) are located in NYC, as are 57 percent of
renters with income below the ALICE Threshold. Following the need, 65 percent of subsidized
units are located in NYC. The need for subsidized units is apparent in the small supply of
market-rate affordable housing units, which account for only 31 percent of all rental units
across the state (and an even smaller share in NYC).
Across the state, most renters continue to spend large portions of their income on housing. In
New York, the estimated mean wage for a renter in 2014 was $21.81 per hour. At this wage,
in order to afford the Fair Market Rate (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment without becoming
housing burdened, a renter would have to work 124 hours per week, 52 weeks per year
(NLIHC, 2014).
Homeowners
According to
the Corporation
for Economic
Development,
New York is
among the bottom
five states in
homeownership
affordability based
on the ratio
of median
housing value to
median income.
According to the Corporation for Economic Development, New York is among the bottom five
states in homeownership affordability based on the ratio of median housing value to median
income (Corporation for Economic Development, 2016). For this reason, it is not surprising
that only 37 percent of the states households with income below the ALICE Threshold are
homeowners. There would be enough affordable units for them (defined as those that do not
consume more than one-third of their income) if all homeowners had a 30-year mortgage at 4
percent for 90 percent of the value of the house or better. But the fact that 34 percent of New
York households with a mortgage are housing burdened suggests that many homeowners
were not able to get competitive financing rates, that they put less than 10 percent down,
or that they were not able to find units that were affordable. The increase in the number of
renters also reflects these challenges.
ALICE families that own their homes are more likely than higher-income families to have a
sub-prime mortgage. Almost by definition, most sub-prime mortgages are sold to low-income
households, and now these households make up the majority of foreclosures. An additional
factor in foreclosure is often property tax: when rates increase faster than wages or the
value of the home, homeowners may be burdened with additional expense that they cannot
manage. In 2014 there were 43,868 foreclosure cases filed in New York, up significantly from
16,772 in 2011 but still below the peak of 47,824 in 2009. The 2015 foreclosure inventory
rate was 3.7 percent, considerably higher than the average U.S. historic level of 1.1 percent.
Rates vary across the state: The counties surrounding NYC have the greatest number of
pending foreclosures with rapid growth from 2013 to 2015, and the Rest of State also saw
growth in pending cases. NYC, by contrast, had a drop of nearly 10 percent during the same
time period (CoreLogic, 2013; CoreLogic, 2015; Marks, 2015; RealtyTrac, 2016; New York
State Office of the State Comptroller, 2015).
For an ALICE household, a foreclosure not only results in the loss of a stable place to live
and an owners primary asset but also reduces the owners credit rating, creating barriers to
future home purchases and rentals. With few or no other assets to cushion the impact, ALICE
households recovering from foreclosure often have difficulty finding new housing (Bernanke,
2008; Kingsley, Smith, and Price, 2009; Frame, 2010).
91
In addition, with the tightening of mortgage regulations, those who do not qualify for traditional
mortgages look for alternatives, leading to an increased use of contract for deed or rentto-own mortgages that charge higher interest rates and have less favorable terms for
borrowers. The need for such services is reflected in the growth of this industry nationally, and
in New York, 3 percent of the total population and 8 percent of unbanked households have
used a rent-to-own financial product (FDIC, 2014; Anderson and Jaggia, 2008; Edelman,
Zonta, Gordon, 2015; Kusisto, 2015).
Homelessness
Ultimately, if an ALICE household cannot afford their home or it becomes too unsafe and
has to be vacated, they can become homeless. This starts a downward spiral of bad credit
and destabilized work, school, and family life. Some households move in with relatives,
threatening the stability of another household. Others rely on homeless services, like
rehousing, emergency shelter, and transitional housing, adding to government costs.
In New York in 2014, there were 80,590 people counted as homeless on a single night,
including 2,542 veterans. The states rate of 41 homeless people per 100,000 residents is
much higher than the national rate of 18.3 per 100,000. Overall, more than one-quarter of
those who are homeless in New York are homeless as part of a family (National Alliance to
End Homelessness, 2015).
Broader Consequences for Housing in New York

When ALICE families cannot afford safe housing near where they work, there are
consequences for the whole community. When workers pay more for housing, they have
less to spend on other goods and services in the community. They may not have enough
resources to maintain their homes, which impacts entire neighborhoods. If they are forced to
move due to cost or foreclosure, that adds instability to their neighborhoods. And ultimately, if
a family becomes homeless, there are additional costs that the wider community absorbs.
The evidence is clear that keeping a family housed is significantly less expensive than caring
for a homeless family or returning them to a home one-sixth the cost, according to the Office
of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finds that nationally, the average cost
of services for homeless individuals ranges from $1,634 to $2,308 per month, and for families,
from $3,184 to $20,031 per month (Spellman, Khadduri, Sokol, and Leopold, March 2010).
Based on
forecasted
economic and
demographic
changes,
significantly more
households will be
in need of smaller,
lower-cost housing
over the next two
decades, adding
to the demand
for additional
affordable
housing options.
Future Prospects
The cost of housing in New York will continue to be a drain on the Household Survival
Budget. Based on forecasted economic and demographic changes, significantly more
households will be in need of smaller, lower-cost housing over the next two decades, adding
to the demand for additional affordable housing options. These trends include the decline in
the rate of homeownership (down 3.8 percentage points from 2004 to 2014), the decrease in
household size, the flat level of incomes for renters, and the changing demands of seniors as
well as young workers (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014, Paulsen, 2015).
92
Philip Mangano, former executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,
reports that the cost of having people on the street ranges from $35,000 to $150,000
per person per year, while the cost of keeping formerly homeless people housed
ranges from $13,000 to $25,000 per person per year, based on data from 65 U.S. cities
(Mangano, 2008). The highest numbers are for chronically homeless people, who are the
most vulnerable and disabled. Expenses include temporary housing as well as crisis services
such as emergency room treatment, substance abuse and mental health care, and police and
court costs.
In general, rental housing units especially those that are older and in poor condition are
also vulnerable to removal or to damage and destruction. Nationally, 5.6 percent of the rental
stock was demolished between 2001 and 2011, but the loss rate for units with rent under
$400 per month (i.e., those most affordable for ALICE households) was more than twice as
high, at 12.8 percent (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2013). The
removal of these units, inexpensive and unsafe as they may have been, puts additional
pressure on the remaining rental stock, increasing costs for all renters.
Homeownership continues to elude many workers, especially in New York. Nationally, the two
most common reasons renters cite for renting rather than owning a home are that they dont
think they can afford the necessary down payment (50 percent of respondents) or they dont
think that they will qualify for a mortgage (31 percent), according to the Federal Reserves
Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking in 2014 (Federal Reserve, 2015).
Because homeownership has been the most common vehicle for families to build savings,
the shift towards renting and away from homeownership may leave those families without the
assets needed for retirement or education, or to draw upon in an emergency. This, in turn,
stands to increase the number of ALICE households in the future.
The ability to drastically change the housing stock in New York is constrained by geography,
economics, and, in some places, zoning laws that limit the potential for new small or low-cost
housing units to be built in economically prosperous areas. Given this combination of factors,
many ALICE households will continue to live farther away from their jobs or in unsafe units,
resulting in the associated challenges and costs (Prevost, 2013).

The consequences
for a family of not
having child care
are twofold: The
child may not
gain pre-learning
skills necessary
for success in
kindergarten and
beyond, and one
parent has to forgo
work, limiting both
current income
and future earning
potential.
93
Education is one of the few ways ALICE families can get ahead in the long run. In the
short-term, it is a challenge to find quality, affordable child care, strong public schools, and
affordable higher education. As a result, ALICE families often forgo educational opportunities,
with consequences both for their earning potential and for the development of human capital
in their communities.
Quality, Affordable Child Care

Quality, affordable child care is one of the most important and most expensive budget
items for ALICE families. The consequences for a family of not having child care are twofold:
The child may not gain pre-learning skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond,
and one parent has to forgo work, limiting both current income and future earning potential.
As discussed in Section II, child care in New York is often the most expensive item in the
Household Survival Budget. The average cost of registered home-based child care is $706
per month for an infant in New York, and the cost for a 4-year-old is $657 per month. By
comparison, the average cost of a licensed, accredited child care center for an infant is 34
percent more (New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 2014).
To get a sense of the types of child care that families use, the U.S. Census reports that
nationally in 2011, 42 percent of preschoolers were in a regular child care arrangement
with a relative, 24 percent were in an organized care facility, 11 percent were in another
non-relative care arrangement, and 25 percent had no regular child care arrangement. Since
the mid-1980s, the biggest changes in child care arrangements for working mothers have
been the decline in non-relative care (falling from 28 percent to 13 percent in 2011) and the
increased use of organized day care centers and father care (Laughlin, 2013). In New York,
58 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in early childhood education, the fifth-highest
rate in the country (Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2016).
In an attempt to save money or because they lack other available child care options, ALICE
parents may use unlicensed, home-based child care or even rely on friends and neighbors in
formal and informal ways. In New York, all organized care facilities must be licensed by the
Office of Children and Family Services. Unlicensed, home-based child care, while often less
expensive, is not fully regulated, so the safety, health, and learning quality of home-based
care can vary greatly and are not guaranteed (Child Care Aware of America, 2014).
Some child care needs can be covered by publicly subsidized preschools, which provide great
savings to ALICE families. In New York, state preschool programs enroll more than 170,000
children. The state ranks 22nd nationally in terms of spending per preschool student, at $3,820
per year. In terms of quality, one of New Yorks programs, Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK),
provides tuition reimbursement for qualifying programs to 98,910 children and meets 7 of
the 10 benchmarks for state pre-K quality standards set by the National Institute for Early
Education Research (NIEER). In 2014, New York City established Pre-K for All, expanding
public pre-kindergarten classes to enroll 51,500 4-year-olds, up from 20,000 in 2013. With these
programs, enrollment in pre-K for 4-year-olds across the state increased from 25 percent to 44
percent from 2002 to 2014 (NIEER, 2014; Lucadamo, 2016; City of New York, 2014).
One area of
particular concern
for New Yorks
ALICE households
is the achievement
gap in the states
public schools.
From 2012 to 2014 in New York, 58 percent of children ages 3 and 4 attended preschool, above
the national average of 46 percent. However, attendance at preschool is strongly related to
income, and children in households with higher incomes are more likely to attend. In New York,
51 percent of children in households with income below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty
Level were enrolled in preschool between 2012 and 2014 (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014).
The Achievement Gap

One area of particular concern for New Yorks ALICE households is the achievement gap
in the states public schools. Across the state, students of color and low-income students
performed lower on test scores throughout K-12 and had lower high school graduation rates
than their White or higher-income counterparts.
New Yorks statewide public high school graduation rate was 77 percent slightly lower
than the national average of 81 percent in 2012, the latest year for which federal data
is available. However, the rates were significantly lower for economically disadvantaged
students (68 percent), those with disabilities (48 percent), and those with limited English
proficiency (44 percent). Rates also vary markedly by race and gender: For the 2012-2013
school year, the states graduation rate was 57 percent for Black and Latino males and 85
percent for White males (Stetser and Stillwell, 2014; Education Week Research Center,
2016a; Schott Foundation for Public Education, 2015).
Achievement gaps also exist across geographies in New York, particularly between NYC
and the rest of the state. NYCs 2015 standardized test results for grades 3 through 8 lagged
behind the rest of the state. Just over 31 percent of NYC students were proficient in English,
compared to 32.5 percent in the rest of the state. The gap in math was larger 37.1 percent
in NYC versus 40.5 percent in the rest of the state (New York City Independent Budget Office,
2016). These gaps have not decreased with the introduction of the Common Core curriculum
and the expansion of standardized testing (Felton and Butrymowicz, 2015).
94
In terms of overall student achievement, New York is ranked ninth in the U.S. in Education
Weeks Quality Counts report. According to the most recent data, only 36 percent of fourth
graders in New York were proficient in reading, slightly above the national average of 35
percent. In eighth grade math, only 31 percent of New York students were proficient, versus
a national average of 32 percent, according to the 2015 New York National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment (Education Week Research Center, 2016;
Education Week Research Center, 2016a).
Broader Consequences for Child Care and Education in New York

Quality learning experiences have social and economic benefits for children, parents,
employers, and society as a whole, now and in the future. Early learning in particular enables
young children to gain skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond. In addition, it
enables parents to work, which enhances the familys current and future earning potential.
Nationally, the
difference in
earnings over a
lifetime between
high school
graduates and
those who hold a
bachelors degree
is estimated to be
$830,800.
The value of quality child care for children, their families, and the wider community is
well documented. Alternatively, poor quality child care can slow intellectual and social
development, and low standards of hygiene and safety can lead to injury and illness
for children. Inadequate child care also has wider consequences: It negatively affects
working parents and employers, resulting in absenteeism, tardiness, and lower productivity on
the job (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011 and 2013; Haskins, 2011; Childhood Trends,
2011; McCartney, 2008).
The evidence is clear on the importance of needing, at a minimum, a solid high school
education in order to achieve economic success. Nationally, the difference in earnings over a
lifetime between high school graduates and those who hold a bachelors degree is estimated
to be $830,800. The difference in earnings between high school graduates and those with
an associates degree is estimated at $259,000. And estimates of the difference in the net
earnings of a high school graduate versus a high school dropout range from $260,000
to $400,000 when including income from tax payments minus the cost of government
assistance, institutionalization, and incarceration (Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah, 2011; Center
for Labor Market Studies, 2009; Daly and Bengali, 2014; Klor de Alva and Schneider, 2013;
Tyler and Lofstrom, 2009).
The lack of a basic education has repercussions society-wide as well, including lower tax
revenues, greater public spending on public assistance and health care, and higher crime
rates. Closing the education achievement gap would be economically beneficial not only for
lower-income individuals and families but for all New York residents.
Future Prospects
The importance of high-quality child care and public education remains a fundamental
American value, but ALICE households are challenged to find quality, affordable education
at all levels in New York. From child care through high school, the states current facilities
do not match the existing need, creating several important consequences for the New York
economy. Reworking public education to address the achievement gap takes significant
financial resources, and if the gap is not addressed, the state economy forgoes local talent. In
order for New Yorks economy to continue to grow and sustain an aging population, the state
must also then continue to attract workers from other states and abroad. An education system
that works for all residents would be an important draw.
Education is also important for communities; people with lower levels of education are often
less engaged in their communities and less able to improve conditions for their families.
More than half of those without a high school diploma report not understanding political
issues while 89 percent of those with a bachelors degree have at least some understanding
of political issues. Similarly, having a college degree significantly increases the likelihood of
volunteering, even controlling for other demographic characteristics (Baum, Ma, and Payea,
2013; Campbell, 2006; Mitra, 2011).
Overall, New Yorks education system produces the 17th-highest rate of a Chance for
Success out of the 50 states in the U.S., according to Education Weeks Quality Counts
report (Education Week Research Center, 2015).
95
Child Care
The need for child care in New York is clear given that 88 percent of all New York
families with children had all available parents in the workforce in 2013 the same
as the national average (Working Poor Families Project, 2013). With the extensive
involvement of parents in the workforce, child care is an issue for virtually all New
York families, and high costs make finding quality care even more challenging for
parents in low-wage jobs.
Economic trends may make it harder to find and afford quality child care in New
York in the future. From 2010 to 2012, the number of registered family daycare and
school-age providers in New York the more affordable type of organized child
care declined 6 percent. At the same time, the number of center-based child care
programs which are more expensive increased 2 percent. While almost half of
these programs are in NYC, the trends are the same in the city and across the state.
Combined with the limited availability of public preschool, especially in the Rest of
State, these trends mean that there will be more parents across the state who must
forgo work or advancement, and more children who may not be fully school-ready by
kindergarten (New York State Office of Children and Family Services; New York State
Education Department, 2014).
For many small businesses, there is a dual challenge when ALICE is both the
employee and the customer, and child care is one example. There were 77,143 child
care establishments in New York in 2014, of which 71,698 were sole proprietors (family
child care home operators) and 5,445 were child care centers. Child care workers
are ALICE; there were 50,640 child care workers in New York in 2014, earning an
average wage of $12.07 per hour ($24,140 annually if full time). The phasing in of the
new minimum wage in New York will increase wages for these workers. However,
ALICE families use child care so that they themselves can work, and it can be the
most expensive item in ALICEs budget even more expensive than housing. The
conundrum is that if the wages of child care employees increase, those expenses are
passed on to customers, who themselves are often ALICE. ALICE child care workers
will earn more, but child care will become more expensive for ALICE families (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2014; Committee for Economic Development, 2015).
For many small

businesses, there
is a dual challenge
when ALICE is both
the employee and
the customer, and
child care is
one example.
In school districts across the country, one response to the persistence of the
achievement gap and the perception that public schools have not met the needs
of many students has been the creation of charter schools. The ability of charter
schools to improve school performance and close the achievement gap for students
of color and low-income students is the subject of nationwide debate. There are 295
charter schools out of 4,471 public schools in New York, and more than half of them
are located in NYC. While charter schools have not eliminated the achievement gap,
many schools have made gains, especially for students of color who are in poverty,
with more pronounced improvements in math than in reading (New York State
Education Department, 2016; Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2013).
In terms of K12 and higher education preparing students for jobs, the state faces
two major challenges: job creation, and the reduction in jobs requiring higher
education. Education has traditionally been the best guarantee of higher income, and
the two are still strongly correlated. Yet short- and long-term factors may be changing
the equation, especially for ALICE households. Longer-term structural changes have
limited the growth of medium- and high-skilled jobs, changing the need for education
as well as the incentives to pursue higher education and take on student debt.
96
K-12 and Beyond
In addition, college tuition has increased beyond the means of many ALICE
households and burdened many others. In New Yorks Class of 2014, 61 percent
graduated with an average of $27,822 in student debt the 19th-highest debt level
in the country and more than 8 percent of those students defaulted on their
loans within 3 years (Project on Student Debt, 2015; Corporation for Economic
Development, 2014). As national research by the Federal Reserve reveals, this
debt burden jeopardizes the short-term financial health of younger households: The
median net worth for households with no outstanding student loan debt is
nearly three times higher than for households with outstanding student loan
debt (Elliott and Nam, 2013).
Because college graduates have greater earning power, more Americans than
ever before are attending college, but at the same time, more are dropping out and
defaulting on their loans. More than 70 percent of Americans matriculate at a fouryear college the seventh-highest rate among 23 developed nations for which the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) compiles such
statistics. But less than two-thirds of matriculating Americans end up graduating; when
including community colleges, the graduation rate drops to 53 percent (OECD, 2015).
The median
net worth for
households with
no outstanding
student loan debt
is nearly three
times higher than
for households
with outstanding
student loan debt.
The proliferation of for-profit schools and, to a lesser extent, two-year institutions during
and after the Recession has hurt the economic prospects of many students. These
schools include online universities, certificate-granting institutions, technical schools,
and community colleges, with a wide range of credentials and tuition costs. Not all,
but many of these schools targeted low-income and non-traditional students older,
independent, and those already struggling in the job market who financed their
educations largely through federal student loans. Many of these students subsequently
dropped out of their programs, and as a result face poor job prospects and loan
distress (Cellini, 2009; Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012).
Almost 20 percent of non-traditional borrowers were unemployed three years after
leaving school, and those who did have jobs earned about 20 percent less than
their peers. Those circumstances, a lack of family financial resources, and high debt
burdens relative to income drove these students default rates up precipitously. By
2013, 70 percent of students who had fallen into default two years after leaving school
were non-traditional borrowers (Looney & Yannelis, 2015).
Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of new borrowers fell by 44 percent at for-profit
schools and by 19 percent at two-year institutions. Yet the debt burden of former
students continues to cast a long shadow. When the cost of a certificate or degree
leads to excessive borrowing, there are significant implications for students career
choices (including willingness to take risks as entrepreneurs), personal choices (such
as living independently of their families and starting families of their own), and financial
choices (such as homeownership). Slow repayment rates suggest that the debt burden
drags students down for years (Baum & Johnson, April 2015; Bleemer, Brown, Lee,
& van der Klaauw, 2015; Gicheva & Thompson, 2015; Marx & Turner, January 2015;
Mezza, Sommer, & Sherlund, October 15, 2014; Looney & Yannelis, 2015).
In New York, 25 percent of residents have some college or an associates degree
but not a bachelors degree. These residents are more likely to have debt that they
cannot repay. Nationally, 58 percent of borrowers whose student loans came due
in 2005 hadnt received a degree, according to the Institute for Higher Education
Policy. Of those, 59 percent were delinquent on their loans or had already defaulted,
compared with 38 percent of college graduates (Cunningham and Kienzl, 2011).
97
Another factor limiting the prospects of many recent graduates is the lack of mediumand high-paying job opportunities. Research by the National Bureau of Economic
Research and the Federal Reserve has found that many jobs requiring highly skilled
workers are offering wages that are too low for college-educated students to live
on and still pay back their loans. When unemployment is high, employers have a
broader choice of applicants and can seek more qualified candidates at lower wages.
In pursuit of cost savings, employers may also leave positions open. The competition
for these jobs means that less qualified or less experienced workers are passed over
even though they could do the job (Rothstein, 2012; Altig and Robertson, 2012). As a
result, it appears in recent national surveys that a number of jobs are unfilled due to
lack of qualified candidates (Manpower, 2012), when in fact qualifications are not the
main obstacle.
There is wide disparity in employment and earnings among young workers based on
their level of education and also among college graduates based on their major. The
unemployment rate for young workers without a college degree is significantly higher
than for those with a degree. Degree majors that provide technical training (such as
engineering, math, or computer science), or majors that are geared toward growing
parts of the economy (such as education and health), have done relatively well. At
the other end of the spectrum, those with majors that provide less technical and more
general training such as leisure and hospitality, communications, the liberal arts,
and even the social sciences and business have not tended to fare particularly well
in recent years; hence the increase in well-educated ALICE households (PayScale,
2014; Abel, Deitz and Su, 2014). For example, the median annual salaries of collegeeducated workers age 25 to 59 range from $39,000 for an early childhood educator to
$136,000 for a petroleum engineer (Carnevale, Cheah, and Hanson, 2015).
Low wages, then, are the main problem, in tandem with strong competition for the
fewer well-paying jobs. This situation will improve slightly as unemployment falls. But
major change will not occur unless there is a structural shift in the kinds of jobs that
make up our economy.
Nevertheless, basic secondary education remains essential for any job, and the
performance and graduation rates of New Yorks public schools especially for
low-income students and students of color remain an area of particular concern. In
fact, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE), if 90 percent of students
had graduated from high school in New York in 2013 their aggregate increased
annual income would be $500 million, and increased federal and state tax revenues
would be $166 million (AEE, 2013).
Nevertheless,
basic secondary
education remains
essential for
any job, and the
performance and
graduation rates
of New Yorks
public schools
especially for lowincome students
and students of
color remain an
area of particular
concern.
Having enough food is a basic challenge for ALICE households. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity as the lack of access, at times, to enough food
for an active, healthy life for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of
nutritionally adequate foods. According to Feeding Americas 2015 Map the Meal Gap study,
14 percent of New Yorks residents are food insecure including 938,610 children. Similarly,
according to the USDA, between 2012 and 2014, 14 percent of New York households
experienced food hardship, slightly below the national average of 14.3 percent. There are
also much higher rates of food insecurity in some counties, including 20 percent in Kings
County (Brooklyn) and 19 percent in the Bronx. National comparison shows that the NYC
metropolitan area had the most food hardship in the state, ranking 46th out of 107 U.S.
metro areas. Rates were slightly better in other parts of the state with Rochester ranking
98
FOOD
70th; Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls ranking 83rd; Syracuse ranking 90th; and AlbanySchenectady-Troy ranking 104th (USDA, 2014; Gundersen, Engelhard, Satoh, and Waxman,
2014; Feeding America, 2015; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2015; Food Research
and Action Center (FRAC), 2015).
Focusing on New York City separately from its surrounding areas, the five boroughs have
slightly higher rates of food insecurity than the rest of the state. Compared to the states 14
percent food insecurity, 16 percent of NYC residents are food insecure, and they make up half
of all of the states 2.6 million food insecure residents (Feeding America, 2015). Each year
approximately 1.4 million NYC residents including 339,000 children rely on emergency food
programs such as soup kitchens and food pantries (Food Bank for New York City).
Food insecurity is often a recurrent situation. USDA national data has found that for both
food-insecure and very low food-insecure households (those with multiple instances of
disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake), on average they were food insecure for 7
months of the year (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2015).
Beyond food
insecurity, ALICE
families have
difficulty accessing
healthy food
options. Many
low-income
households work
long hours at lowpaying jobs and do
not have time to
regularly shop for
and prepare
low-cost meals.
99
Beyond food insecurity, ALICE families have difficulty accessing healthy food options. Many
low-income households work long hours at low-paying jobs and do not have time to regularly
shop for and prepare low-cost meals. In addition, they are faced with higher prices for and
often minimal access to fresh food in low-income and rural neighborhoods, which often
makes healthy cooking at home difficult and unaffordable. More convenient options like fast
food, however, are usually far less healthy. In New York, 34 percent of adults and 48 percent
of adolescents do not eat fruit or vegetables daily. This may be explained in part by the fact
that 21 percent of New York neighborhoods do not have healthy food retailers within a halfmile, even if this percentage is lower than the national average of 30.5 percent (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2014).
When ALICE families do not have enough food, they use various strategies to avoid hunger.
The primary options for children are the federal School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, which
provide free (for those with family income below 130 percent of FPL), reduced-price (for those
with family income below 185 percent of FPL), or full-price (for those with income above
$43,568 for a family of four annually) breakfast and lunch at participating schools throughout
New York. In 2014, approximately half of students in the state were eligible for free breakfast
or lunch and 7 percent were eligible for reduced-price lunch. In terms of participation by
eligibility, three-quarters of students eligible for a free lunch participated; 57 percent of those
eligible for a reduced-price lunch participated; and one-third of those required to pay full price
participated. The gaps in participation for those with few other resources suggest that these
children face food insecurity at various times throughout the year (New York State Office of
Temporary and Disability Assistance, 2016; New York State Education Department, 2014).
Other options such as purchasing food that is less healthful but cheaper and more
calorically dense are not always successful and can result in unintended health problems.
According to the recent Feeding America national survey, buying inexpensive, unhealthy
food is the most commonly reported coping strategy for food-insecure families (reported by
78.7 percent of respondents), and many families also buy food that has passed its expiration
date (56 percent). Eating foods that are higher in fat, sodium, and sugar, or that are no
longer fresh, can contribute to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, low energy levels, and poor
nutrition. The second most common strategy is to seek federal or charitable food assistance
(63 percent), and a third is to sell or pawn personal property to obtain funds for food (34.9
percent), which is not a sustainable solution. Most respondents to the survey employed two
or more of these strategies (Feeding America, 2014).
In line with documented links between food insecurity and obesity, ALICE families are more
vulnerable to obesity than families with higher income. ALICE households often lack access
to healthy, affordable food or the time to prepare it, and they have fewer opportunities for
physical activity because of long hours at work and poor access to recreational spaces and
facilities. In addition, stress often contributes to weight gain, and ALICE households face
significant stress from food insecurity and other financial pressures. These factors help
explain why obesity is increasing for those in poverty as well as for households with higher
levels of income (Hartline-Grafton, 2011; FRAC, 2015; Kim and Leigh, 2010). In New York
overall, more than 27 percent of adults are overweight or obese, just below than the national
average of 28 percent (CDC, 2014).
Broader Consequences for Food in New York
Future Prospects
The USDAs Thrifty Food Plan does not provide for a sustainable, healthy diet, especially
with the continued increase in the cost of food staples. A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM)
report finds that most benefit levels for SNAP (formerly food stamps) are based on unrealistic
assumptions about the cost of food, time preparation, and access to grocery stores (IOM,
2013). Other public health and nutrition advocates have been even more critical (FRAC,
December 2012). Unrealistic assumptions about the cost of food and the time it takes to
prepare have ripple effects for those relying on SNAP, who often dont get the benefits they
need and may be judged as wasteful if they try to use their benefits to buy higher quality or
quick-to-prepare foods.
The use of
government food
programs as well
as soup kitchens,
food pantries, and
food banks has
increased steadily
through the Great
Recession to
the present.
The use of government food programs as well as soup kitchens, food pantries, and food
banks has increased steadily through the Great Recession to the present. From 2009 to
2014, SNAP enrollment increased by 39 percent across New York. The 2009 Recovery Act
boosted SNAP benefits, but after it expired in 2013, some individuals no longer qualified
and many others had their benefits reduced. Though SNAP enrollment has slowed since the
Great Recession, it has continued to increase at a slower rate across the state (Dean and
Rosenbaum, 2013; Loveless, 2015; Food Research and Action Center, 2014; Food Research
and Action Center, 2016). Yet the strong, ongoing increase in the use of soup kitchens, food
pantries, and food banks suggests that many New York residents still cannot meet their food
needs and often employ more than one strategy to avoid hunger. Feeding America reports
that nationally, the number of unique clients served by their programs increased by roughly 25
percent from 2010 to 2014 (Feeding America, 2014).
The long-term consequences of food insecurity can be severe, especially for children.
Prolonged food insecurity can lead to a variety of physical, cognitive, and psychosocial
stressors. Even when controlling for poverty, children from food insecure households have
been shown to score lower on measures of arithmetic skills while also being more likely to
have repeated a grade and more likely to have been seen by a psychologist. Food-insecure
teenagers are more likely to have been suspended from school and have difficulty forming
relationships. For adults, the consequences include greater risk of low-weight births, worse
100
Not having enough income to afford healthy food has consequences not only for ALICEs
health, but also for the strength of the local economy and the future health care costs of
the wider community. Numerous studies have shown associations between food insecurity
and adverse health outcomes such as coronary heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes,
hypertension, and osteoporosis (Seligman, Laraia and Kushel, 2010; Kendall, Olson and
Frongillo, 1996). The USDA argues that healthier diets would prevent excessive medical
costs, lost productivity, and premature deaths associated with these conditions (USDA, 1999).
academic outcomes, and lower wages (Alaimo, Olson, and Frongillo, 2001; New York City
Coalition Against Hunger, 2015). In a vicious cycle, some of the strategies people use to
avoid hunger can actually lead to more families becoming ALICE or slipping into poverty,
through either poor health and additional health care costs or reduced assets to weather an
unexpected emergency.
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTING

New Yorkers are known for long commutes. The mean travel time to work in New York via
both public and private transportation is 32.6 minutes, above the national average of 26
minutes. An overview of commuting patterns is highlighted in Figure 41. Thirty percent of
commuters in New York using both public and private transportation commute to another
county for work (Figure 41). There is huge variation across the state: In 20 counties, fewer
than 30 percent of workers commute outside their home county, while in another 24 counties,
more than 40 percent of workers do so (U.S. Census, 2014).
The work commute varies greatly across New York, divided primarily between those who
drive and those who use public transportation. Each type of transportation poses particular
challenges for ALICE. Because many ALICE workers are employed in the service sector and
are required to be on the job in person, the timeliness of commuting is critical for them.
In New York, public transportation is concentrated in NYC and the surrounding counties. The
highest public transportation usage in the state is in Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), and New York
(Manhattan) counties, where more than 60 percent of workers use public transportation to
get to their jobs. There is also significant usage in Queens (52 percent), Richmond (Staten
Island) (29 percent), Westchester (22 percent), and Nassau counties (15 percent). All other
counties in the state fall below the 8 percent threshold, and in most, fewer than 2 percent of
commuters use public transportation (American Community Survey, 2014).
Because many
ALICE workers
are employed in
the service sector
and are required
to be on the job
in person, the
timeliness of
commuting is
critical for them.
The primary advantage of public transportation is that it costs significantly less than owning
and operating a vehicle particularly in New York City, where the cost of parking adds an
additional layer of expense to driving. However, the primary challenge of public transportation is
that it often takes longer than driving. The average commute for people living in NYCs outer
boroughs Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, and Richmond (Staten Island) counties is
between 42 and 43 minutes, while Albany residents have an average commute of 20 minutes.
In addition, public transportation is subject to disruptions, and it is not always located near home
or work (American Community Survey, 2014; County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, 2015;
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2013; American Public Transportation Association, 2007).
Across much of the surrounding counties region and in the Rest of State, public transportation
options are limited, so a vehicle often becomes essential for employment. In 2014, 54 percent
of New York workers drove alone to work; some chose this for convenience, while others with
variable work hours had no choice.
The average cost of owning and operating a car in the U.S. ranges from about $6,000 to
$12,000 per year, according to AAA. Long commutes add costs (such as car maintenance,
gas, and child care) that ALICE households cannot afford. Commutes also reduce time for
101
other activities such as exercise, shopping for and cooking healthy food, and community
and family involvement (AAA, 2013; HUD, 2014). Since the vehicles that ALICE families can
afford are usually older and of lesser value, the median car value for low-income families
is $4,000, or about one-third of the $12,000 median value of cars owned by middle-income
families. Low-income families are also more likely to face higher and more frequent repair
bills and therefore greater disruption in their transportation to work (Bricker, Kennickell,
Moore, and Sabelhaus, 2012).
Figure 41.
Percent of Workers Commuting Outside Home County, New York, 2014
Syracuse
Buffalo
Albany
Percent of Workers Commuting

Outside Home County
6%
Nationally, families
with a car are
more likely to have
a job and live in
neighborhoods
with greater safety,
environmental
quality, and social
quality than
households
without cars.
Manhattan
69%
Cars also impact the broader quality of life. Nationally, families with a car are more likely to
have a job and live in neighborhoods with greater safety, environmental quality, and social
quality than households without cars. Both cars and transit access also have a positive effect
on earnings, though the effect of car ownership is considerably larger (Pendall et al., 2014).
One way low-income households try to close the income gap is by skimping on expenses,
and those expenses often include car insurance. Despite the fact that driving without
insurance is a violation in almost all states, including New York, 5.3 percent of New York
motorists were uninsured in 2012 (Insurance Information Institute, 2012). Another cost-saving
strategy is not registering a vehicle, avoiding the annual fee and possibly the repairs needed
for it to pass inspection.
102
Source: U.S. Census, 2014
These strategies may provide short-term savings, but they have long-term consequences
such as fines, towing and storage fees, points on a drivers license that increase the cost
of car insurance, and even impounding of the vehicle. Because of long collection times and
cumulative fines and interest, the amounts can be more than ALICE families can pay (New
York State Bar Association, 2016).
ALICE drivers face similar challenges paying traffic tickets. The system of sizable fixed fines
for particular offenses in most municipalities hits low-income drivers harder than those who
are more affluent. Preliminary reports across the country have found that in many states,
when drivers cant pay a ticket, their drivers license can be suspended, harming credit
ratings, raising public safety concerns, and making it harder for people to get and keep jobs
and take care of their families (Urbana IDOT Traffic Stop Data Task Force, 2015; Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights, 2015).
Broader Consequences for Transportation in New York

Cost-cutting strategies have risks for ALICE households as well as for the wider community.
Long commutes reduce worker productivity and state economic competitiveness. In fact,
one study finds that, on average, absenteeism would be about 15 to 20 percent lower if all
workers had a negligible commute. Long commutes can also impact new hire retention and
performance (van Ommeren and Gutierrez-i-Puigarnau, 2010; Belsky, Goodman, and Drew,
2005; Sullivan, 2015; National Economic Council, 2014).
The rising trend

of nonstandard
and part-time
schedules can
complicate
transportation for
low-wage workers,
who may be
relying on friends
or family for rides
or using public
transportation.
Older cars that may need repairs make driving less safe and increase pollution for all, as
does deferring car maintenance. Vehicles without insurance increase costs for all motorists;
uninsured and under-insured motorist coverage adds roughly 8 percent to an average auto
premium for the rest of the community (McQueen, 2008). And when there is an emergency,
such as a child being sick or injured, if an ALICE household does not have reliable
transportation, their options are poor forgo treatment and risk the childs health, rely on
friends or neighbors for transportation, or resort to public specialty transit services or even an
ambulance, increasing costs for all taxpayers.
Moving further away from job centers not only increases commuting, but has a wider impact
on the community as well. Urban sprawl adds costs for additional infrastructure and services
such as roads, public transit, and sewage.
Future Prospects
For ALICE households in New York, housing and transportation are tightly linked and can have
a large impact on the household budget. People who live in location-efficient neighborhoods
compact, mixed-use, and with convenient access to jobs, services, transit, and amenities
have lower transportation costs than those who dont. According to the Center for Neighborhood
Technologys (CNT) Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, many New York workers
live in location-inefficient areas, and as a result have high transportation costs (CNT, 2013).
Commuting long distances will only increase in the coming years as lack of affordable housing
persists and pushes people away from employment centers.
Jobs and transportation are also linked. The rising trend of nonstandard and part-time
schedules can complicate transportation for low-wage workers, who may be relying on friends
or family for rides or using public transportation. Irregular work schedules can make it difficult
to get to work on time, or transportation can become cost prohibitive on less than a full-time
work schedule (Watson, Frohlich, and Johnston, 2014).
103
Given the size and age of New Yorks transportation infrastructure and the states growing
population, it will be expensive for the state to meet the increasing demand for transportation
improvements. With tight state budgets, it has proven difficult to maintain public transportation
service and fares. Yet without transportation investment, costs will increase for ALICE auto
commuters in terms of both time spent in transit and wear and tear on their vehicles, and for
public commuters in terms of both access and cost (American Society of Civil Engineers,
2013; National Economic Council and the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers, 2014;
American Society of Civil Engineers New York State Council, 2015).
HEALTH CARE
This is a two-way connection: Having a health problem can reduce income and increase
expenses, often causing a family to fall below the ALICE Threshold or even into poverty.
And trying to maintain a household with a low income and few assets can also cause poor
health and certainly mental stress (Choi, 2009; Currie and Tekin, 2011; Federal Reserve,
2013; Zurlo, Yoon, and Kim, 2014). State and national research on toxic stress has found
that living in chronically stressful situations, such as living in a dangerous neighborhood or in
a family that struggles to afford daily food, damages neurological functioning, which in turn
impedes a persons especially a childs ability to function well (Shonkoff and Garner, 2012;
Evans, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov, 2011).
Recent studies have found that access to medical care alone cannot help people achieve and
maintain good health if they have unmet basic needs, such as not having enough to eat, living
in a dilapidated apartment without heat, or being unemployed (Berkowitz et al., 2015; Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, December 2011). In a 2011 survey by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, physicians reported that their patients frequently express health concerns caused by
unmet social needs, including the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age.
Four in five physicians surveyed say unmet social needs are directly leading to poor health. The
top social needs include: fitness programs (75 percent), nutritious food (64 percent), transportation
assistance (47 percent), employment assistance (52 percent), adult education (49 percent), and
housing assistance (43 percent) (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, December 2011).
Having a health
problem can
reduce income and
increase expenses,
often causing
a family to fall
below the ALICE
Threshold or even
into poverty. And
trying to maintain
a household with
a low income and
few assets can
also cause
poor health
and certainly
mental stress.
ALICE households often try to save on health care by forgoing preventative care and health
insurance. As a result, they more frequently use the emergency room (ER) for advanced
treatment that might not have been necessary if they had had earlier access to in-office primary
or specialty care. In addition, without regular preventative care and coverage, they are more
likely to develop chronic health conditions (Majerol, Newkirk, and Garfield, January 2015).
These ongoing conditions lead to additional medical and care expenses and often require
family members to devote time to caregiving, which is discussed further in the Conclusion.
Preventative Health Care

A common way to try to save on health care costs is to forgo preventative health care. With
basic preventative care now covered through the ACA (even in high-deductible plans), cost
is less of a barrier to seeing a primary care doctor. However, there are still cost barriers to
filling prescriptions for maintenance medications, getting to doctors offices, and maintaining a
healthy lifestyle (Commonwealth Fund, 2013; Cohen, Kirzinger, and Gindi, 2013).
104
Quality of health directly correlates to income: Low-income households in the U.S. are more likely
than higher-income households to be obese and to have poorer health in general. In New York,
people with household income below $25,000 were more than 50 percent more likely to report
being obese than those with household income above $75,000 (CDC, 2011; CDC, Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2014; New York State Department of Health, 2014).
Forgoing preventative dental care is even more common, especially as Medicaid coverage
for dental care is minimal and there are relatively few dentists who participate in Medicaid.
As a result, low-income adults and children are almost twice as likely as those with higherincome to have gone without a dental check-up in the previous year. In New York, 33 percent
of adults did not visit the dentist in 2013 2014, and only 40 percent of Medicaid-enrolled
children and adolescents in New York received preventative dental treatment in 2013, well
below the national average of 48 percent (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2015;
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2013; New York State Department of Health,
2015; Bureau of Dental Health, 2006; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014).
Poor oral health causes pain, can result in poor nutrition, and increases the risk for
diabetes, heart disease, and poor birth outcomes. Oral health problems have even more
implications for children, including eating difficulties, altered speech, pain, and infection
(McCarthy, Radley, and Hayes, 2015; U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
& Pensions, 2012).
The Health Policy Institute reports that the number of ER visits for dental conditions in the
U.S. doubled from 2000 to 2012 and continues to rise as the number of dental office visits
declines. In 2012, ER dental visits cost the U.S. health care system $1.6 billion, with an
average cost of $749 per visit. Up to 79 percent of ER dental visits could be diverted to
more cost-efficient community settings. For example, an analysis in Maryland estimates that
the state Medicaid program could save up to $4 million each year through these types of
diversion programs (Wall and Vujicic, 2015).
Across the U.S.,

funding has been
cut for mental
health services
while demand has
increased. The
result has been
longer waiting
lists for care, less
money to help
patients find
housing and jobs,
and more people
visiting ERs for
psychiatric care.
105
Forgoing health care also has consequences for mental health. Thirty-five percent of New
York adults reported poor mental health in 2014. Between 2009 and 2013, about 3.7 percent
of adult New Yorkers reported having been diagnosed with a serious mental illness in the
past year, slightly lower than the national rate of 4.1 percent (SAMHSA, 2014). Yet New
Yorks public health system has struggled to provide services, which fits with national trends.
National data from 2013 show that fewer than 40 percent of adults living with mental illness
received treatment and that represented an increase from 2007, when only 17 percent of
adults received treatment. Across the U.S., funding has been cut for mental health services
while demand has increased. The result has been longer waiting lists for care, less money
to help patients find housing and jobs, and more people visiting ERs for psychiatric care
(Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014; Aron, Honberg, Duckworth, et al., 2009; Glover, Miller and
Sadowski, 2012; NAMI, 2010).
Cost is one of the primary reasons that people do not seek mental health treatment. In recent
national surveys, over 65 percent of respondents cited money-related issues as the primary
reason for not pursuing treatment. Even among people with private insurance, over half said
that the number one reason they do not seek mental health treatment is because they are
worried about the cost. For those without comprehensive mental health coverage, treatment
is often prohibitively expensive (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2012;
Parity Project, 2003).
Mental illness is also an issue for children and adolescents in New York State, given that half
of mental health disorders appear before age 14 (Mental Health Association in New York
State, 2016). In New York, 9 percent of minors aged 12-17 experienced a major depressive
episode in 20122013, slightly lower than the national rate of 10 percent (SAMHSA, 2014).
According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, the consequences of untreated
mental illness in children and teens are severe. Nationally, 44 percent of youth with mental
health problems drop out of school; 50 percent of children in the child welfare system have
mental health problems; and 67 to 70 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have
a diagnosable mental health disorder (Stagman and Cooper, 2010; NAMI, 2010). National
research also shows that, consistent with other areas of health, children in low-income
households (such as ALICE) and children of color who have special health care needs have
higher rates of mental health problems than their White or higher-income counterparts, yet
are less likely to receive mental health services (VanLandeghem and Brach, 2009).
In addition to the high costs of health care, low-income families and families of color across
the country may experience other barriers to care, including language and cultural barriers,
transportation challenges, and difficulty making work and child care arrangements to
accommodate health care appointments (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
& Pensions, 2012). When care is hard to access, a health problem worsens, and the cost of
treatment increases significantly for the patient or, if the patient cannot pay, for the state.
Insurance Coverage
Initial reports on the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Insurance
Marketplace in New York suggest that the ACA has resulted in an additional modest reduction
in the number of uninsured New Yorkers. About half of the uninsured in New York are not
eligible for assistance and 34 percent are eligible only for tax credits. These families will
have to go without or buy less insurance coverage than they need; it is not surprising that the
Commonwealth Fund finds that 30 percent of New York residents are underinsured (Kaiser
Family Foundation, June 2014; McCarthy, Radley, and Hayes, 2015; Cohen and Martinez,
2015; Witters, 2015).
In addition, specialty care, such as mental health care and dental care, remains particularly
difficult to obtain in part due to the lack of providers accepting Medicaid (Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2015; Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, June 2012; U.S.
GAO, 2012; U.S. GAO, 2015).
Emergency Room Use
When health care

is expensive, many
ALICE families
only seek care
when an illness
is advanced and
pain is unbearable.
It is at that point
that many people
go to the ER for
help because their
condition has
reached a crisis
point and they
have no
other option.
Forgoing preventative care and health insurance often results in poorer health status and
increases in ER use, hospitalizations, and cardiovascular events (Heisler, Langa, Eby,
Fendrick, Kabeto, and Piette, 2004; Piette, Rosland, Silveira, Hayward, and McHorney,
2011). When health care is expensive, many ALICE families only seek care when an illness
is advanced and pain is unbearable. It is at that point that many people go to the ER for help
because their condition has reached a crisis point and they have no other option. Notably, low
income is the most important cause of avoidable hospital use and costs, according to a recent
Rutgers study (DeLia and Lloyd, 2014).
In 2013, the number of ER visits in New York was 435 per 1,000 people, compared to the
national rate of 428 per 1,000. Nationally, New York had the seventh-best score in the country
in terms of rates of potentially avoidable ER visits (McCarthy, Radley, and Hayes, 2015;
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015).
Caregiving
Another dimension of health care that can add significant cost is caregiving for a sick or
elderly family member or someone living with a disability. A 2015 AARP survey in New York
found that half of adults 50 and older in New York have provided unpaid care to an adult loved
106
Another way to save on health care costs is to go without health insurance. The rate of health
insurance coverage for low-wage workers has fallen steadily over the last three decades
across the country. In New York, 9 percent of all residents under 65 years old did not have
health insurance in 2014, while 12 percent of those with income below 200 percent of the
Federal Poverty Level (roughly below the ALICE Threshold) were without insurance (Kaiser
Family Foundation, 2014; Federal Reserve, 2014; Schmitt, 2012).
one who is ill, frail, elderly, or has a physical or mental disability caregiving hours worth an
estimated $32 billion. Seventy-four percent of those people said that caregiving impacted
their work schedule to the point where they had to leave work early, arrive late, or take days
off to provide necessary caregiving (AARP, 2014).
National estimates of the number of caregivers vary, ranging from 18 percent (in a 2015
AARP survey) to 23 percent of workers and 16 percent of retirees (in the Employee Benefit
Research Institutes 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey) to 9 percent of the adult population
(in a 2014 RAND Corporation survey) (AARP Public Policy Institute, 2015; Helman,
Copeland, and VanDerhei, 2015; Ramchand et al., 2014).
While families of all income levels may choose to care for family members themselves, many
caregivers are forced into the role because they cannot afford to hire outside care. In fact,
half of caregivers report that they had no choice in taking on their caregiving responsibilities,
and almost half (47 percent) reported household income of less than $50,000 per year (AARP
Public Policy Institute, 2015). The value of caregiving is significant for care recipients; the
presence of an informal caregiver can improve care recipients well-being and recovery and
defray medical care and institutionalization costs. Yet caregiving is costly for families in several
ways, including added direct costs, mental and physical strain on the caregiver, and lost income
due to decreased hours or loss of job (Ramchand et al., 2014; Tanielian et al., 2013).
While families of
all income levels
may choose to care
for family members
themselves, many
caregivers are
forced into the
role because they
cannot afford to
hire outside care.
Family caregiving exacts a toll both on the caregivers and on the broader economy.
Nationally, 18 percent of caregivers report experiencing extreme financial strain as a result of
providing care (4 or 5 on a 5-point scale), and another 20 percent report moderate financial
strain. Another 19 percent of caregivers report a high level of physical strain resulting from
caregiving, and 38 percent consider their caregiving situation to be emotionally stressful
(AARP Public Policy Institute, 2015).
For the 60 percent of caregivers who are working, caregiving is also costly in the time it takes
away from employment. Six in 10 caregivers report having experienced at least one impact
or change to their employment situation as a result of caregiving, such as cutting back on
their working hours, taking a leave of absence, or receiving a warning about performance
or attendance (AARP Public Policy Institute, 2015). A 2010 MetLife Mature Market Institute
study quantifies the opportunity cost for adult children caring for their elderly parents. For
women, who are more likely to provide basic care, the total per-person amount of lost wages
due to leaving the labor force early and/or reducing hours of work because of caregiving
responsibilities was on average $142,693 over the care period. The estimated impact of
caregiving in lost Social Security benefits was $131,351, and a very conservative estimate
for reduced pensions was approximately $50,000. In total, nationally, the cost impact of
caregiving on an individual female caregiver in terms of lost wages and retirement benefits
was $324,044 (MetLife, 2010).
Broader Consequences for Health and Health Care in New York

Some families in New York are ALICE because they have extensive health care needs;
others face deteriorating health because they lack the time and money for adequate care. In
both cases, there are increased cost to society due to increased public health care use, lost
productivity, and higher rates of poverty and criminality.
Untreated mental health and substance abuse issues shift problems to other areas:
They increase ER and acute care costs, add to caseloads in the criminal, juvenile justice,
and corrections systems, and increase costs to assist the homeless and the unemployed.
It should be noted that nationally, each $1 spent on substance abuse treatment saves $7 in
future health care spending (Glover, Miller, and Sadowski, 2012).
107
Untreated or improperly treated mental illness also costs employees lost wages for
absenteeism, and their companies feel the cost in decreased productivity. A NAMI study
estimated that the annual cost to employers for mental-health absenteeism ranged from
$10,000 for small organizations to over $3 million for large organizations (Harvard Mental
Health Letter, 2010; Parity Project, 2003).
The implications of the lack of dental health care are often overlooked, but a growing body
of scientific evidence has linked poor oral health to missed workdays and increasing public
and private expenditures for dental care. There are even wider consequences for children
because poor oral health impacts their ability to learn, their school attendance, and their
longer-term health outcomes (Bureau of Dental Health, 2006) (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013).
The wider community feels the consequences of increased ER use in increases in health
insurance premiums and more need for charity care, Medicare, and hospital community
assistance (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2011).
In terms of impact on the economy as a whole, family caregiving offers substantial health
care cost savings, since it is much less expensive than hospital care or a nursing home, but it
incurs significant costs for U.S. employers. Family caregiving for the elderly costs employers
approximately $13.4 billion in excess health care spending each year for employees who
are also caregivers, due to the toll that caregiving takes on their own health (MetLife, 2010).
In addition, an analysis of the Gallup Well-Being survey found that the lost productivity due
to absenteeism among full- and part-time caregivers cost the U.S. economy more than $28
billion in 2010 (Witters, 2011).
Future Prospects
Expanded health
insurance coverage
and more efficient
health care
delivery would
improve conditions
for all households
below the ALICE
Threshold.
The trend for low-income households to have poorer overall health than higher-income
households will increase as health care and healthy food costs rise and the New York
population ages. Poor health is a common reason why many households face a reduction
in income and become ALICE households in the first place, and without sufficient income, it
is even harder to stay healthy or improve health. Low-income households are more likely to
be obese and have poor health status, both long-term drivers that will increase health care
needs and costs in the future.
The situation may be reversed, or at least slowed, by the ACA, though its impact is not yet
clear. New research from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that health insurance
coverage not only makes a difference in health outcomes but also decreases financial strain
(Baicker and Finkelstein, 2011). Expanded health insurance coverage and more efficient
health care delivery would improve conditions for all households below the ALICE Threshold.
The group of New Yorkers who may not benefit from the ACA are those who
earn above the Medicaid eligibility level and do not qualify for other assistance or
subsidies, but do not have enough income to cover all their basic necessities.
Medicaid eligibility in New York for nonelderly adults is for those with income up
to 138 percent of the FPL; eligibility for premium tax credits to help New Yorkers
purchase coverage in the Marketplace is up to 400 percent of the FPL. For a family
with children, Medicaid eligibility increases to 405 percent of the FPL, but those
families are not eligible for premium tax credits to help them purchase coverage in
the Marketplace. With the Medicaid expansion, over 4 in 10 uninsured New Yorkers
(43 percent) became eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP in 2014 (Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2014).
108
Affording Health Care
For workers earning above 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level but not earning
enough to meet all of their basic needs, the ACA plans may not be economical,
especially when their incomes are too high to be eligible for premium tax subsidies
and they are responsible for meeting their plans high deductibles out of pocket. The
ADP Research Institute estimates the income threshold for choosing to participate
in health care coverage is $45,000, even when incorporating government subsidies.
Initial research on the first wave of ACA enrollment shows that there is a lower rate of
participation by low- and moderateincome families (those with income between 138
percent and 400 percent of the FPL), and a higher rate of taxpayers opting to pay
the penalty for remaining uninsured instead ($95 per adult and $47.50 per child) 5
percent of taxpayers instead of the 2 to 4 percent originally estimated. In New York,
this translates to approximately 21 percent of those uninsured in 2014, according
to the Kaiser Family Foundation (ADP Research Institute, 2014; Viebeck, 2015;
Koskinen, 2015; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014).
Just to maintain
current rates of
utilization, New
York will need an
additional 1,220
primary care
physicians (PCPs)
by 2030, an 8
percent increase
compared to the
states 14,858-PCP
workforce as
of 2010.
A New York example is illuminating. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation

Subsidy Calculator, a married couple with two children living in Syracuse with an
annual income of $63,252 (the cost of the Household Survival Budget for Onondaga
County) would pay a monthly premium of $448 for the Silver Plan (after taking
into account $12,356 in annual subsidies), which looks much better than the $564
budgeted in the Household Survival Budget for the familys health care costs without
health insurance. However, the out-of-pocket expenses for the Silver Plan, including
co-pays and deductible, could total $14,300 per year, increasing the monthly cost of
the Silver Plan to $1,756, far more than their current spending. With the subsidies,
the cost of the ACA Bronze Plan would actually be $184, but the co-pays and
deductible would still apply and fewer items are covered, so out-of-pocket costs
would be higher (Kaiser Family Foundation Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator,
2016). These families will need to make difficult decisions about their health care.
The Physician Shortage
Finding doctors to treat low-income families may be even more difficult in the coming
years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are 28 Primary Care Health
Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) in New York, with 48 percent of need being met.
This is significantly worse than the national rate of 60 percent for HPSAs across the
country. In addition, there are approximately 23 Dental Care HPSAs in New York, with
62 percent of need being met, and 154 Mental Health HPSAs, with only 44 percent of
need being met (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014).
The availability of primary care is especially important for prevention and costeffective treatment. People without a usual source of care particularly the uninsured
and Medicaid enrollees are more likely to rely on ERs for care (Liaw, Petterson,
Rabin, and Bazemore, 2014). The lack of primary care not only reduces the quality
of health in the short term, but it contributes to more complicated health issues and
increased costs over the long term.
Just to maintain current rates of utilization, New York will need an additional 1,220
primary care physicians (PCPs) by 2030, an 8 percent increase compared to
the states 14,858-PCP workforce as of 2010. Going forward, there will be even
greater demand for health care in New York from a population that is aging and is
increasingly insured due to the ACA (Petterson, Cai, Moore, and Bazemore, 2013).
109
Access to Care
In addition, insurance coverage does not guarantee access to health care in New
York. In fact, roughly half of the states PCPs did not accept new Medicaid patients
in 201112. More doctors are likely to stop accepting Medicaid patients because
reimbursement rates are expected to decline, now that federal funding to keep
Medicaid reimbursement rates at the same level as when the ACA was introduced
has ended (Ollove, 2015; Decker, 2013).
Accessing and affording health care in New York is most difficult for undocumented
immigrants, who are not covered by the ACA. This group is likely to remain uninsured
and will continue to struggle to find and afford health care (Lloyd, Cantor, Gaboda,
and Guarnaccia, 2011; DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith, 2013).
TAXES
While headlines often feature low-income households receiving government assistance, the
analysis of the Household Survival Budget makes clear that ALICE households contribute to
the economy by working, buying goods and services, and paying taxes. There is some tax
relief for the elderly and the lowest-income earners, but most ALICE households pay about 15
percent of their income in federal taxes. Only very low-income households, earning less than
$20,000 per year for a couple or $10,000 per year for a single individual (below the FPL),
are not required to file a tax return (IRS, 2013). However, when households do not pay their
taxes, they increase the cost to other taxpayers, and they incur the risk of being audited and
paying fines and interest in addition to the original amount due.
While headlines
often feature
low-income
households
receiving
government
assistance, the
analysis of the
Household Survival
Budget makes
clear that ALICE
households
contribute to
the economy by
working, buying
goods and services,
and paying taxes.
ALICE households pay income, property, and wage taxes. While federal tax credits have
made a difference for many ALICE households, they do not match the size of those received
by higher-income households, such as the mortgage tax deduction. Taxes paid after federal
deductions result in the lowest income quintile paying more than 10 percent in income tax
while the highest income quintile pays less than 8 percent, according to the Institute on
Taxation and Economic Policy. In terms of payroll taxes, on average, the lowest income group
pays more than 8 percent of their income while those in the highest income quintile pay less
than 6 percent of theirs. The lowest income group on average also pays almost 8 percent of
their income in state sales and excise taxes, while those in the highest income quintile pay
less than 3 percent (Marr and Huang, 2012; Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2015).
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are important ways to
reduce poverty, primarily for families with children. According to recent reports, the credits
encourage work, with little or no effect on the number of hours worked, and they supplement
the wages of low-paid workers. For taxpayers eligible for the EITC who have no qualifying
110
The lack of access to mental health services will also impact ALICE families into
the future. Poor mental health outcomes are associated with an array of poor
physical health outcomes, including increased occurrence of diabetes, asthma, and
cardiovascular disease. In addition, growing up in a household with someone with
depression or other mental health problems is considered an adverse childhood
experience (ACE). For this reason, unaddressed mental illness can perpetuate a
cyclical pattern of dysfunction in families, often for generations (Office of the Mayor,
2015; New York State Department of Health, 2016).
children, the credit does little to offset income and payroll taxes. However, among taxpayers
(married or single) with qualifying children, there is often a reduction in poverty rates due to
the EITC and CTC. For taxpayers with the lowest income, the two credits together more than
offset income and payroll taxes to raise living standards (Marr, Huang, Sherman, and Debot,
2015; Hungerford and Thiess, 2013). Overall, the median adjusted gross income of EITC
filers in New York is very low $14,118 for a household so the tax credits for which they are
eligible are helpful, but are not enough to move them to financial stability (Brookings, 2014).
Broader Consequences for Taxes in New York

When ALICE workers cannot pay their taxes, not only do they face penalties, fees, and the
challenges of collection agencies and more paperwork, but the wider community must cover
that gap. According to the U.S. GAO, at the end of fiscal year 2011, individuals owed a total of
$258 billion in federal unpaid tax debts (U.S. GAO, 2012). When this happens, the rest of the
community must pay more to cover the shortfall and the cost of collection efforts.
Future Prospects
Concerns about
money have been
the number-one
source of stress
for Americans for
the last 6 years,
according to an
annual survey
by the American
Psychological
Association.
Besides the cost of household basics and the level of current wages, the tax code is another
factor in questions of economic inequality. According to the Federal Reserve, federal taxes
compress income distribution and reduce income inequality while state taxes widen the
after-tax income distribution. As discussed in Section II, according to the Institute on Taxation
and Economic Policys Tax Inequality Index, New York has the 41st most unfair state and local
tax system in the country (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2015). Still, reductions
in tax rates for income tax, sales tax, and payroll taxes could increase the income families
have to afford the basic Household Survival Budget. In addition, changes in the tax structure
could reduce inequality between income groups.
INCOME AND SAVINGS

As discussed throughout this Report, there are many consequences when ALICE families
do not have enough income to afford basic household necessities. A common but often
overlooked consequence both for these households and for their wider communities can
be extreme levels of stress.
Concerns about money have been the number-one source of stress for Americans for the
last 6 years, according to an annual survey by the American Psychological Association
(APA). While stress in general is felt by Americans across the income spectrum, stress about
money follows a different pattern; adults in lower-income households are twice as likely as
those in higher-income households to say they feel stress about money all or most of the
time (36 percent vs.18 percent). The difference in overall stress levels based on income also
increased during and after the Great Recession: In 2007, average reported stress levels
were the same regardless of income, but by 2014, those living in lower-income households
reported higher overall stress levels than those living in higher-income households (5.2 vs.
4.7 on a 10-point scale) (American Psychological Association, 2015).
There are several sources of stress for low-income households. The most common sources
in the APA survey were paying for unexpected expenses (54 percent said very or somewhat
significant), paying for essentials (44 percent), and saving for retirement (44 percent) (American
Psychological Association, 2015). Others are more subtle such as forms of bias that flow from
the everyday social experience of being poor in America but they nevertheless function as a
constant and potent source of stress. Whether discrimination is driven by income, gender, skin
111
color, or other factors, the health impacts and cognitive consequences of persistent bias can be
devastating (Daminger, Hayes, Barrows, and Wright, 2015).
An extensive body of research confirms that the multiple stresses that accompany poverty
can overload the brain systems involved in decision-making, with severe consequences
(Center on the Developing Child, 2016; Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, and Zhao, 2013;
Mullainathan and Shafir, 2009; McEwen and Gianaros, 2011; Daminger, Hayes, Barrows, and
Wright, 2015). Working in low-wage, high stress jobs (such as demanding service positions),
especially those with low levels of autonomy and high emotional demands, can lead to
decreased functioning on and off the job, reducing parents ability to provide for their children
or plan for their own future. These workers are more likely to have poorer performance,
higher turnover, and a greater likelihood of negative or aggressive responses while on the job.
Some people experiencing stress attempt to self-medicate with drugs or alcohol. Addiction
can be the cause of a family becoming ALICE, but it can also be a consequence (Center on
the Developing Child, 2016). In addition, the stresses that accompany poverty are most often
overlapping and compounding, so ALICE individuals and families are likely to experience
more intractable stress levels than individuals and families with higher incomes.
Broader Consequences for Income and Savings in New York

When ALICE workers and their families struggle to afford a basic household budget, there are
consequences for the whole community, as outlined above. From another perspective, ALICE
individuals who are struggling to make ends meet are often less productive workers. They
are more likely to be tired or stressed on the job, late to work, or absent. With fewer dollars
in savings to weather an emergency, they are disproportionately impacted by crises and less
able to return to work quickly. Together, these factors put a strain on fellow workers and drain
company resources. In addition, unemployed workers add costs to government programs, from
unemployment benefits to all the social services necessary to support a family, as outlined in
the ALICE Income Assessment in Section IV. These expenses increase taxes for all.
With many
government
benefits now linked
to work and many
jobs increasingly
subject to
changes in hours
due to seasonal
or economic
activity, ALICE
workers are often
in a precarious
position.
Without asset-building stakeholders, communities may experience instability and a decline in

economic growth. When ALICE families do not have savings, they do not have the resources
to resolve an emergency and are often forced to seek public assistance, which puts them in
a more vulnerable position than if they had had the means to address the issue immediately.
The community as a whole not only shares the cost of emergency services, but also feels the
broader social and economic disruption that such emergencies cause.
Future Prospects
Prospects for public assistance for ALICE families are moderate. With many government
benefits now linked to work and many jobs increasingly subject to changes in hours due
to seasonal or economic activity, ALICE workers are often in a precarious position. An
unexpected reduction in hours means a loss of pay, and it can mean the loss of employer or
government benefits that are tied to work hours, including paid and unpaid time off, health
insurance, unemployment insurance, public assistance, and work supports. In fact, low-wage
workers are 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than other workers, but only half as
likely to receive unemployment insurance (Garfield, Damico, Stephens, and Rouhani, 2015;
Watson, Frohlich, and Johnston, 2014; U.S. GAO, 2007).
112
While prospects for jobs and income in New York (discussed further in the Conclusion) are
crucial to knowing what the future will hold for ALICE families, the long-term effects of a lack
of savings may have just as great an effect on the state in the coming years.
Because
low-income
households have
few assets to begin
with and the
assets they have
are more likely to
be either liquid
assets, which
are consumed by
emergencies, or
cars, which do
not gain in value
over time it is
extremely difficult
for ALICE families
to improve their
asset base.
113
Overall, both in New York and nationally, benefits programs have retrenched since
phasing out of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; extended federal
unemployment benefits were shut off in April 2012, and emergency unemployment
compensation shut off at the end of 2013. The notable exception is the expansion of health
insurance coverage with the rollout of the ACA. In some cases, nonprofits have worked to fill
these benefit gaps, most notably with food pantries expanding as SNAP benefits fall.
The lack of savings may not be noticed from day to day, but it takes its toll over time when
there are no resources for an emergency and a family can spiral into homelessness, when a
family cannot send their child to college, or when seniors cannot retire. Those who lost their
jobs or moved into lower-paying jobs during the Great Recession have used their savings
to get by, and with lower wages, many have not been able to replenish those savings. This
lack of resources to invest is one of the strongest drivers of financial inequality in the U.S.
Because low-income households have few assets to begin with and the assets they have
are more likely to be either liquid assets, which are consumed by emergencies, or cars, which
do not gain in value over time it is extremely difficult for ALICE families to improve their
asset base.
Lack of savings has consequences both for short-term financial stability and for longer-term
economic mobility. According to The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project, even
for low-income families, the children of parents who save are more likely to experience
upward mobility than the children of those who do not (Cramer, OBrien, Cooper, and LuengoPrado, 2009).
CONCLUSION
This Report on Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE) households across
New York offers a new set of tools that policymakers and other stakeholders can use to
understand financial hardship in the state on both the state and local levels. The Report
explains how much it costs to live at the most basic level in the local economy in each New
York county, using the Household Survival Budget. In addition, the Report reveals that a full
44 percent of households in New York cannot reach even that most basic level, because they
earn below the ALICE Threshold for economic survival.
ALICE households range from young families with children to senior citizens. They face a variety
of challenges: low-wage jobs located far from their homes (with the attendant rise in commuting
costs); financial barriers that limit access to low-cost community banking services; and having
few or no assets to cushion the cost of an unexpected health emergency or caregiving need.
Some households become ALICE after an emergency, while others have been struggling near the
poverty line since the Great Recession. Effective policy solutions will need to reflect this reality.
While ALICE families differ in their composition, obstacles, and magnitude of need, there
are three broad trends that will influence who becomes ALICE in New York and what the
implications will be for the wider community:
1. Population changes aging, migration, and racial and ethnic diversity
2. Jobs unemployment and underemployment, employment practices, trends, and
changes in the number and types of jobs that are available
3. Voting national, state, and local elections and ALICEs political voice
What will it take to make a difference for ALICE families and expand the options they have?
With the Economic Viability Dashboard, New York stakeholders can better identify where
housing is affordable relative to local wages, where there are job opportunities, where there
are strong community resources for ALICE households and where there are gaps.
As the ALICE Income Assessment documents, despite aggregate ALICE household
earnings of $85.6 billion and another $83.2 billion in spending by government, nonprofits,
and health care organizations, there are still 3.2 million households in New York that struggle
financially.
In order to
address the
states economic
challenges, it
is important to
recognize that
ALICE families are
forced to take risks
in order to get by,
such as forgoing
health insurance,
car repairs, or a
meal risks that
can be harmful
to the families
involved and
costly for the wider
community.
Without public assistance, ALICE households would face even greater hardship, and many more
would slide into poverty. Yet because these households struggle just to satisfy their basic needs, it
is almost impossible for them to gain enough traction to improve their overall circumstances, and
government assistance is not designed to address this predicament. The majority of programs
aim to alleviate poverty and help the poor obtain basic housing, food, clothing, health care, and
education not to enable long-term economic stability (Haskins, 2011; Shaefer & Edin, 2013).
Economic insecurity is pervasive among ALICE households. This is clearest in Social Security
spending: Most senior households have incomes that are above the Federal Poverty Level
(FPL) but often still below the ALICE Threshold for economic survival. Quantifying the
problem can help stakeholders best decide whether to fill that gap by working to increase
income for ALICE households or decrease expenses for basic household necessities.
114
In order to address the states economic challenges, it is important to recognize that ALICE
families are forced to take risks in order to get by, such as forgoing health insurance, car repairs,
or a meal risks that can be harmful to the families involved and costly for the wider community.
New Yorks
population has
become both older
and more diverse,
and this trend
is projected to
continue into the
next two decades
for all areas of
the state.
This section also reviews the short-term interventions that can help sustain New Yorks
ALICE households through an emergency, as well as medium-term strategies that can ease
the consequences and hardship of those struggling to achieve economic stability. Finally,
this section considers the long-term, large-scale economic and social changes that would
significantly reduce the number of households with income below the ALICE Threshold.
POPULATION CHANGES
New York, along with its New England neighbors, is one of the slower-growing states in the
U.S.; the population is expected to grow overall by 3 percent from 2000 to 2030, while the
U.S. overall is expected to grow by 29 percent (Figure 42). There is significant movement in
and out of the state, varying by age group. The younger population is expected to decrease
overall, those aged 17 and under by 8 percent and the population aged 18 to 64 by 5 percent.
At the same time, the population 65 years and older is predicted to increase by more than 60
percent (U.S. Census, 2005; Urban Institute, 2015).
Figure 42.
Population Growth, New York, 2000 to 2030
Population (in thousands)
25,000
20,000
13%
20%
65 & Over
15,000
18-64
10,000
62%
58%
0-17
5,000
25%
22%
2000 Actual
2030 Projected
Source: U.S. Census, 2005
New Yorks population has become both older and more diverse, and this trend is projected to
continue into the next two decades for all areas of the state. The aging of the Baby Boomers has
wide implications, including a smaller proportion of younger families, a more racially and ethnically
diverse population of families with children, and a decrease in the working-age population.
115
New Yorks low unemployment rate and growing economy will provide ongoing opportunities
for migration, which is a leading component of population change. Domestic migration is
greater than immigration in New York, though the foreign-born population increased from 20.4
percent of the overall population in 2000 to 22.6 percent in 2014 (Migration Policy Institute,
2014). Because there are still obstacles in the state to economic stability for people of color,
those groups may be harder to attract, especially in areas of the state that are less diverse.
An Aging Population
Overall, New York ranks 35th in the U.S. on the well-being of its 55-and-older population
slightly below the national average, according to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. But
as the Baby Boomer cohort ages, the share of the population aged 65 and over is projected to
increase in nearly every country in the world by 2030. Insofar as this shift will tend to lower both
labor force participation and savings rates, it raises bona fide concerns about a future slowing
of economic growth and the ability to provide financial stability for those no longer able to work
(Bloom, Canning, & Fink, 2011; Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, 2014).
With 39 percent of non-retirees nationally giving little or no thought to financial planning for
retirement and 31 percent having no retirement savings or pension, the number of senior
ALICE households will likely increase. During unemployment, many people draw down
their retirement accounts to augment their households cash flow. However, this strategy
comes with both short- and long-term costs. Penalties are charged for early withdrawals
and retirement savings are diminished, putting future financial stability at risk. In addition,
retirement plan participation has continued to decrease since the Great Recession for families
in the bottom half of the income distribution. Participation rebounded slightly only for uppermiddle-income families from 2010 to 2013, but it did not return to the levels seen in 2007
(Bricker, et al., 2014; Boguslaw, et al., 2013).
Seniors in the workforce are bucking trends set by other generations and other age groups.
During the Great Recession, workers 50 years and older were more likely to experience longterm unemployment. Combined with other financial hits, including loss of savings, declining
home values, and lower-wage jobs, many senior New Yorkers have remained in the labor
force longer than previous generations, and contrary to a general trend of declining labor
force participation. The numbers of New Yorkers aged 16 to 64, in their prime working years,
declined from 2009 to 2014. Over that same period, the number of individuals aged 65 and
over in the labor force jumped by nearly 24 percent, significantly more than the 14 percent
increase in that age groups population (Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, 2015; New York
City Office of the Comptroller, 2016).
Many aging
New York residents
have seen the
value of their
home decline and
their retirement
assets dwindle
at the same time
that their wages
and ability to
save have also
decreased.
More ALICE seniors will be women because they are likely to live longer than men of their
generation. Generally, women have worked less and earned less than men, and therefore
have smaller or no pensions and lower Social Security retirement benefits. Since women on
average live longer than men, they are more likely to be single and depend on one income as
they get older. Nationally in 2012, only 46 percent of women nationwide aged 65 and older
were married, compared to 73 percent of men (Waid, 2013; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
2015; Hounsell, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
Infrastructure
The aging population, combined with other trends, will have significant consequences
for ALICE households and the wider community. First, there will be increased pressure
on the states infrastructure, especially the housing market for smaller, affordable rental
units. These units will need to be close to family, health care, and other services, or
116
This shift in demographics as well as the impact of the stock market crash, falling house
prices, and periods of unemployment will likely produce more senior ALICE households and
increase their economic challenges. Many aging New York residents have seen the value of
their home decline and their retirement assets dwindle at the same time that their wages
and ability to save have also decreased. A recent AARP report on working-age adults (18
to 64 years old) found that 52 percent of New Yorks private sector employees work for an
employer that does not offer a retirement plan; more than 80 percent of these employees
earn less than $40,000 per year (Federal Reserve, 2015; John & Koenig, 2015).
public transportation options will need to be expanded for older adults who cannot
drive, especially those in rural areas. Unless changes are made to New Yorks housing
stock, the current shortage will increase, pushing up prices for low-cost units and
making it harder for ALICE households of all ages to find and afford basic housing. In
addition, homeowners trying to downsize may have difficulty realizing home values they
had estimated in better times, which they had thought would support their retirement
plans (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015; Garcia & Deitz, 2007).
There will also be increased pressure on New Yorks public transportation
infrastructure from older adults who cannot drive. Seniors in suburban settings
and especially in rural counties in the rest of state, where access to family, health
care, and other services is limited, will have difficult choices. Fixed-route and
paratransit services to rural and suburban areas in New York are minimal due to cost,
distances traveled, and low-density ridership. The alternatives are isolation, unsafe
driving, or expensive private transit (New York State Office for Aging, 2015; Ithaca
College Gerontology Institute, 2007; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015; and
Transportation for America, 2011).
Senior Living and Eldercare
In 2014, 44
percent of older
adults in New York
got recommended
preventative care,
slightly above the
national average of
40 percent.
The second consequence of New Yorks aging population will be increased demand
for geriatric health services, including assisted living and nursing facilities and home
health care. But without sufficient savings, many families will not be able to afford these
services. The median annual cost of a private room in a nursing home in New York is
$125,732 one of the highest rates in the country and out of reach of most New York
seniors, as the cost is 393 percent of the median annual household income in the state,
according to the AARP Scorecard on Long-Term Services and Supports. In terms of other
aspects of access to long-term care, New York ranked 25th in the country on an index that
includes information, awareness, counseling, and quality. Notably, however, New York
was the leading state in the supply of home care workers (Reinhard, et al., 2014).
The need for quality elder caregiving is already apparent. According to a 2011 study
by Weill Cornell Medical College, 76 out of every 1,000 seniors in New York selfreported at least one form of abuse financial, physical, emotional, or neglect. The
term elder abuse applies to those over 60 years of age and includes treatment
without consent, physical and sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and financial
exploitation. Seniors are often reluctant or unable to come forward; the estimated
elder abuse incidence rate in New York in 2011 was nearly 24 times greater than the
number of cases referred to social services, law enforcement, or legal authorities.
Nationally, the reported incidence of abuse is increasing (Quinn & Benson, Fall 2012;
Anetzberger, October 2012; Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Weill Cornell Medical
College, and the NY City Department for the Aging, 2011).
In terms of health services, older adults frequently dont receive recommended
preventative care. In 2014, 44 percent of older adults in New York got recommended
preventative care, slightly above the national average of 40 percent. In addition, 10
percent of at-risk adults (age 50 or older, in fair or poor health, or have ever been
told they have diabetes or pre-diabetes, acute myocardial infarction, heart disease,
stroke, or asthma) had not visited a doctor for a routine checkup in the past two
years, a rate only slightly better than the national average of 13 percent (McCarthy,
Radley, & Hayes, 2015).
117
Aside from the predictable decline in physical health, seniors in New York also face
mental health issues. According to the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS) survey, in New York, 12.2 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds and 6.6
percent of those 65 and older report mental distress slightly lower than the national
averages of 13 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds and 7 percent of those 65 and older.
These seniors are also more likely to report poor or fair physical health (Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in partnership with the U.S.
Administration on Aging, 2012).
Caregiving
The third trend as New Yorks population ages will be an increasing need for
caregivers, both paid home health aides and unpaid family members, and both are
more likely to be ALICE. Personal care aides are one of the fastest growing jobs
in New York, followed closely by home health aides and nursing assistants. (Top
projected occupations in the state are discussed later in this section.) These jobs
involve substantial responsibility for the health of vulnerable clients, yet they only pay
around $10 per hour. In New York, they are becoming increasingly regulated: New
York Citys wage requirement is $14.09 per hour in total compensation, while Long
Island and Westchesters is $9.50 per hour if health benefits are included or $10.93
without health benefits and those rates could be further increased as the New York
state minimum wage is phased in starting in 2016. These jobs also require the worker
to be there in person, which can mean travelling great distances even in bad weather
and with variable hours (Home Care Association of New York State, 2014; Bercovitz,
Moss, Park-Lee, Jones, & Harris-Kojetin, 2011; Redfoot, Feinberg, & Houser, 2013).
In terms of support for seniors, New York has the highest rates of professional
caregivers per senior in the country. From 2010 to 2012, there were 77 personal care,
psychiatric, and home health aide direct care workers per 1,000 residents age 65 or
older, up from 61 between 2007 and 2009. Many of these workers are ALICE, another
example of critical services that are needed in New York (Reinhard, et al., 2014).
Currently,
approximately
20 percent of
households have
a family caregiver,
with half of those
reporting income
less than $50,000,
or close to the
ALICE Threshold.
There are serious health and financial consequences for caregivers. In addition to
the toll that caregiving takes on mental and physical health, caregivers also risk
future financial instability because of reduced work opportunities, lost Social Security
benefits, and reduced pensions. This reality is reflected in the high percentage of
caregivers who report stress: A recent study found that in New York, almost half of
caregivers (47 percent) reported experiencing a lot of stress, or were not well-rested
(Reinhard, et al., 2014).
The 5.5 million military caregivers in the United States are especially vulnerable.
Military caregivers helping veterans from earlier eras tend to resemble civilian
caregivers in many ways; by contrast, post-9/11 military caregivers (accounting for 20
percent of military caregivers) differ systematically, according to a RAND Corporation
survey. These caregivers are more likely to be overseeing a younger individual with
118
ALICE families will likely take on more caregiving responsibilities for their own
relatives because they cannot afford other care options. Currently, approximately 20
percent of households have a family caregiver, with half of those reporting income
less than $50,000, or close to the ALICE Threshold. The demand for caregivers is
projected to rise across the country. At the same time, fewer family members are
likely to be available to provide care. The Caregiver Support Ratio, which measures
the number of people nationwide aged 45 to 64 for each person aged 80 and older,
was 6.7 in 2010 and is projected to fall to 4.0 by 2030 and 2.9 in 2050. This means
that the overall pool of middle-aged people who could potentially serve as caregivers
to seniors will shrink significantly in the coming decades (AARP Public Policy
Institute, 2015; Redfoot, Feinberg, & Houser, 2013). Recent surveys have found that
this trend has already started in New York.
a mental health or substance abuse condition. They themselves tend to be younger

(more than 40 percent are aged 18 to 30), nonwhite, veterans of military service,
employed, and perhaps most significantly, not connected to a support network
(Ramchand, et al., 2014).
Migration
A large college-age
population is a
potential engine
for a states future
economic growth.
The challenge
for New York is
to provide its
young residents
with ample job
opportunities and
affordable places
to live.
The perception of New York is often as a state with a high immigration rate, and with younger
immigrants fueling its population growth. However, the large flows of people coming into
and out of the state, broken down by age group, tell a different story (Figure 43). New York
is actually attracting large numbers of college students, but is sending even more to other
states. The largest net outflow of New York residents is among children under 18; the next
largest is among those 65 years and older. These population flows present both opportunities
and challenges for ALICE.
In 2014, the largest movement of people in New York was among those 18 to 24 years old:
More than 110,000 people in that age group moved to New York, 26 percent of them from
outside the United States (light blue portion of the bar in Figure 43). Of the students in that
age group, 38,855 of those arriving were college students (one of the highest numbers in
the country), while one-third of those leaving (32,794) were high-school graduates going to
college in another state. (American Community Survey, 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014; Stone,
Van Horn, & Zukin, 2012).
A large college-age population is a potential engine for a states future economic growth. The
challenge for New York is to provide its young residents with ample job opportunities and
affordable places to live. Students who take out loans, especially those who do not graduate
or find gainful employment, are at risk of becoming ALICE. In New York, the average loan
default rate was 8.2 percent for student borrowers who entered repayment in 2012 and
defaulted between 2012 and 2014. This is below the national default rate of 11.8 percent
(Project on Student Debt, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
The next largest movement of people was among those aged 1 to 17 years. In 2014, more
than 60,000 children and teens moved to New York, and more than half of them came from
outside the United States. As minors, most came with their families, reflecting inflows of
people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. Even more minors left New York, reflecting the outflow of
families headed by those in their 30s and 40s.
The state has a positive inflow of people in their mid-twenties, but by the age of 30 more are
leaving New York than are entering. This trend starts earlier in the rest of state, where there
has been a significant outflow of people aged 25-29 and 30-34 (Blakely-Armitage, Sanders,
Francis, and Vink, 2011).
119
Figure 43.
Population Inflows and Outflows, New York, 2014
150,000
100,000
50,000
22,559
0
8,398
(2,533)
(2,691)
(12,881)
(7,554)
(12,397)
(50,000)
(100,000)
(150,000)
Under 18
Outflow
18 to 24
Years
Mid 20s
Inflow - Domestic
30s
40s
Mid-career Retired: 65+
Inflow - Foreign
Net Migration
International migration is playing an increasing role in New Yorks racial and ethnic
composition. The foreign-born population now represents 23 percent of the state total, up
from 16 percent in 1990. The light blue portions of the inflow bars in Figure 43 represent
the number of people moving to New York from outside the United States. The foreign-born
population accounts for a larger percentage of the youngest and oldest migrants 51 percent
of those under 18 moving to New York, 26 percent of college-age migrants, 44 percent of
30- and 40-year-olds, 41 percent of mid-career-age migrants, and 50 percent of retirees
(American Community Survey, 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014); Migration Policy Institute, 2014.
There are also important differences in migration by regions over time. In general, while all
areas of New York experienced population loss through the 2000s, the rate was significant
in NYC and its surrounding counties, and more moderate in the rest of state. More recently,
population movement has increased across all regions. In terms of foreign migration, the
rest of state experienced lower but fairly steady rates of net international migration during
the 2000s. There is much more movement in and out of NYC, which has turned positive
every year since 2010 (Blakely-Armitage, Sanders, Francis, and Vink, 2011; New York City
Economic Development Corporation, 2014).
An emerging trend for New York is the growing Hispanic population. Currently, half of New
Yorks immigrants were born in South America, Central America, Mexico, or the Caribbean,
making Hispanics the largest immigrant group. Twenty-eight percent of immigrants are from
Asia, with the largest group from China (Migration Policy Institute, 2013).
International
migration is
playing an
increasing role
in New Yorks
racial and ethnic
composition. The
foreign-born
population now
represents 23
percent of the
state total, up from
16 percent
in 1990.
Immigrants vary widely in language, education, age, and skills. Many are well educated and
financially successful in the United States. However, many other immigrant families have
distinct challenges that make them more likely to be unemployed or in struggling ALICE
households, including low levels of education, minimal English proficiency, and lack of access
to support services if they have unauthorized citizenship status (Gonzalez-Barrera, Lopez,
Passel, & Taylor, 2013).
120
As both employees and entrepreneurs, immigrants have been a key source of economic
growth in New York, making up 27 percent of the states workforce (2.7 million workers) in
2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Across the state there were 193,183 Latinoowned businesses with sales and receipts of $18.2 billion, employing 86,329 people in 2007,
the last year for which data is available. The states 196,825 Asian-owned businesses had
sales and receipts of $50.5 billion and employed 224,576 people in 2007, according to the
U.S. Census Bureaus Survey of Business Owners (American Immigration Council, 2015).
Undocumented workers are also important to New Yorks economy and tax base. In 2012,
undocumented immigrants paid $1.1 billion in sales, income, and property taxes in New York,
according to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. Moreover, if all unauthorized
immigrants were removed from the state, New York would lose $28.7 billion in economic
activity, $12.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 137,013 jobs. Unauthorized
workers are often underpaid and are among the most vulnerable to living in ALICE and
poverty-level households. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, removing
undocumented workers would not lead to the same number of job openings for unemployed
Americans for two reasons: first, because it would remove millions of entrepreneurs,
consumers, and taxpayers from the U.S. economy; and second, because immigrants and
native-born workers typically do not compete for the same jobs (Gardner, Johnson, & Wiehe,
April 2015; Perryman Group, 2008; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2013; Institute on Taxation
and Economic Policy (ITEP), 2015).
The availability of low-skilled immigrant workers, such as child care providers and
housecleaners, has enabled higher-income American women to work more and to pursue
careers while having children (Furman & Gray, 2012). Both job opportunities and wages need
to be sufficient in order to continue to attract these workers.
Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Economic Disparities
As New Yorks
population grows,
it is also becoming
more racially and
ethnically diverse,
and this diversity
is projected to
increase at an even
faster rate over the
next two decades.
121
As New Yorks population grows, it is also becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, and
this diversity is projected to increase at an even faster rate over the next two decades. While
NYC is already one of the most diverse cities in the country, the surrounding counties and the
rest of state are predicted to increase in diversity, primarily through international migration.
The states Black population is expected to increase through domestic migration. Aging will
have an impact on the ethnic composition of New Yorks workforce as well. As older residents
retire in the next two decades, a lower percentage of the remaining working-age population
will be White and a higher percentage will be Hispanic and Asian. These younger and more
racially and ethnically diverse cohorts will make up an increasing share of the labor force over
the next two decades and beyond. This will be most noticeable in the counties surrounding
NYC and in the rest of state, where the percentage of the population that is White is much
higher than in NYC (ESRI, 2012).
While attitudes about race have improved over the last few decades, the sharp economic
disparities that remain indicate a deeper cause. Recent reports have found that the gaps in
education, income, and wealth that now exist along racial lines in the U.S. reflect policies and
institutional practices that create different opportunities for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, with
individual behavior playing only a minimal role. Structural impediments to equity exist in the
legal system, health care, housing, education, and jobs. For these reasons, it is not surprising
that Blacks and Hispanics are two of the demographic groups disproportionately likely to have
lower income and to be among households below the ALICE Threshold (Mishel, Bivens, Gould,
& Shierholz, 2012; Shapiro, Meschede, and Osoro, 2013; Oliver and Shapiro, 2006; Cramer,
2012; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 2000; Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, 2015; Goldrick-Rab, Kelchen, and Houle, 2014; Sum and Khatiwada, 2010).
A new collection of data disaggregated by racial and ethnic groups and by state illustrates
how far we still are from positioning all children for success in school and in life. The Race for
Results Index, which combines 12 critical developmental, health, and educational milestones,
shows that New York had the sixth-best index score in the country for White children, 25th for
Hispanic children, 28th for Asian children, 21st for Black children, and fifth (out of 26 states
with scores) for Native American children. But scores varied greatly between groups: The
index score for White children was 768 (1,000 best, 0 worst) and for Asian children was 743,
while that for Hispanic children was 395, for Black children was 384, and for Native American
children was 537 (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014).
Economic Disparities
Education
As Section VI explained, one area of particular and ongoing concern for New
Yorks ALICE households is the achievement gap in New Yorks public schools.
Across the state, students of color and low-income students perform lower
on math and reading test scores throughout K-12 and have lower high school
graduation rates, all of which makes them more likely to live in poverty or ALICE
households as adults. In addition to structural issues of school funding and
residential segregation that feed the achievement gap, current research shows
that academic success is deeply tied to family resources, especially access
to books, high-quality child care, and other goods and services that foster the
stimulating environment necessary for cognitive development (Bradbury, Corak,
Waldfogel, & Washbrook, 2015).
While ALICE
households consist
of all races and
ethnicities,
New Yorks Black
and Hispanic
communities
continue to face
marked economic
disparities.
Employment and Earnings

Employment and wage differences among Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and
Asians are less pronounced in New York than some states, but Whites clearly
have the highest median earnings and the lowest unemployment rate. In 2014,
the median earnings for Black workers were 26 percent lower than for White
workers in New York; the median earnings for Hispanic workers were 56 percent
lower; and the median earnings for Asian workers were 19 percent lower. In
addition, it is often harder for people of color to find employment in New York
than it is for Whites. The state unemployment rate for Whites alone was 5.8
percent; for Asians, it was 5.9 percent; for Hispanics, it was 9 percent, and for
Blacks, it was 11.8 percent (American Community Survey, 2007, 2010, 2012,
and 2014) (Figure 44).
122
While ALICE households consist of all races and ethnicities, New Yorks Black and
Hispanic communities continue to face marked economic disparities. As the states
population becomes more diverse, more families will struggle on a day-to-day basis
to secure adequate food and access to quality health care (Lee, 2016; Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014). Over the longer term, these groups will
face ongoing obstacles to finding quality education and good jobs, which in turn will
undercut their ability to accumulate wealth (Povich, Roberts, & Mather, 2013-2014).
Figure 44.
Median Earnings and Unemployment by Race and Ethnicity, New York, 2014
14%
$45,000
$40,000
12%
10%
$30,000
$25,000
8%
$20,000
6%
$15,000
4%
Unemployment Rate
Median Earnings
$35,000
$10,000
2%
$5,000
$0
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
0%
Blacks and
Hispanics face
economic and
racial barriers
to wealth
accumulation
in New York and
across the U.S.,
including difficulty
buying a home
in a popular
neighborhood,
accessing quality
financial services
including a
mortgage, and
earning a
college degree.
123
Assets
With less income, it follows that it is harder to save and build assets. Blacks
and Hispanics face economic and racial barriers to wealth accumulation in
New York and across the U.S., including difficulty buying a home in a popular
neighborhood, accessing quality financial services including a mortgage, and
earning a college degree.
Homeownership is the most common means of accumulating wealth, but in
New York, as in the rest of the country, Blacks are more likely to be renters
than homeowners. In 2014, 66 percent of Black households were living in
renter-occupied units in New York compared to 28 percent of White households
(American Community Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000).
While state level data is not available, national data provides a window into
the way income disparities lead to greater wealth disparities. For example,
nationally, less than half of all households have investment assets, but even
among these types of assets, there are large differences by race and ethnicity.
More than 44 percent of White and Asian families have a 401(k) savings plan,
while 32 percent of Black families and 26 percent of Hispanic families do.
Similarly, one-third of White and Asian families have an Individual Retirement
Account (IRA), while less than 11 percent of Black and Hispanic families do;
and more than 22 percent of White and Asian families have stocks or mutual
funds, while less than 6 percent of Black and Hispanic families do (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2011). With such a different base, Blacks and Hispanics are much less
able to build assets for the future.
Ultimately, these issues of race, ethnicity, and financial stability are interrelated
and will continue to be in the decades to come. According to the National
Center for Children in Poverty, children under 18 years are more likely to live in
poverty or in low-income families than the general population, and that fact is
directly related to parental education and employment levels, racial and ethnic
disparities, housing instability, and family structure (Jiang, Ekono, & Skinner,
2015). For this reason, trends including the predominance of low-wage jobs,
a continuing lack of affordable housing, and the persistence of race-based
economic disparities will have serious implications for the next generation.
JOBS
Over the last three decades, New Yorks economy has been impacted by a decline in its
manufacturing sector as well as uneven growth across the state. New York was hit hard by
the Great Recession, sustaining sharp losses in the financial industry as well as in housing
and construction. While 2010 marked the technical end of the Recession, low-income families
continued to struggle in New York and nationally over the four years that followed. Families
at the bottom of the income distribution saw continued substantial declines in average real
incomes between 2010 and 2014, while those in the top half saw, on average, modest gains
(Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, 2015; Bricker, et al., 2014). The most immediate
challenge to financial stability for New Yorks ALICE households is employment finding
jobs with wages and numbers of hours that can support a basic household budget, as well
as basic work protections such as employment security, paid sick days, and access to health
care. Other important sources of income for some ALICE families are government benefit
programs and less commonly, income from investments.
While 2010 marked

the technical end
of the Recession,
low-income
families continued
to struggle in
New York and
nationally over the
four years that
followed.
Unemployment and Underemployment
For a small but significant number of people, long-term unemployment continues to be a

problem, especially older workers. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
explained, Because of its negative effects on workers skills and attachment to the labor
force, long-term unemployment may ultimately reduce the productive capacity of our
economy (Bernanke, Recent Developments in the Labor Market, 2012; New York City Office
of the Comptroller, 2016). Obviously, long spells of unemployment can also have disastrous
financial consequences for low-income families.
In the current economy, pressure for additional family income often spurs teens to drop out
of school in order to work. The rate for New York high school students not graduating on time
was 22 percent in 2011-2012, slightly above the national average of 19 percent. Graduation
rates are lower for youth in households where insufficient income drives family members
to drop out of school and find jobs. Unfortunately, there are also fewer job opportunities for
young people in todays economy as many part-time hourly jobs are now being taken by older
workers who have lost their full-time jobs, especially in poorer areas. Across the U.S. in 2013,
16 percent of residents aged 18 to 24 were not enrolled in school, were not working, and
124
The unemployment rate in New York has improved since the Great Recession, falling from
8.5 percent in 2010 to 6.4 percent in 2014. However, that does not include those who are
underemployed, such as those working less than a 40-hour week who want to be working
more. The underemployment rate was 12.4 percent in 2014, down from 14.8 percent in 2010
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014; Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), 2015). According to national statistics from the Federal Reserve, half of part-time
workers and one-third of underemployed workers would prefer to work more hours (Federal
Reserve, 2015).
had no degree beyond a high school diploma or GED; in New York, that rate was 14 percent
(Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013; Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012). Low graduation
rates and high unemployment both contribute to higher rates of crime, teen pregnancy, and
substance abuse.
Employment Practices
In New York, ALICE is most likely to work in industries and occupations that not only pay low
wages but also have low levels of job security, no paid sick days or parental leave, and no
access to health care (Schmitt, 2012; Schwartz, Wasser, Gillard, & Paarlberg, 2015; Watson
& Swanberg, 2013). These industries in New York include tourism, education and health
services, and transportation. The much-noted finance and information industries provide
higher-wage jobs which contribute strongly to the states GDP but offer fewer jobs overall,
as discussed in Section III. Yet even within seemingly high-skilled industries, there is a
substantial portion of workers who provide critical support services but do not receive high
wages. For example, in the professional and business services industry nationally, 26 percent
of jobs are administrative and support services (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).
The employment practices in many of these low-wages jobs, especially part-time jobs, make
it harder for workers to earn a minimal income or plan for the future. According to the BLS,
nationally, only 23 percent of part-time workers in the private sector have medical benefits
available, compared to 86 percent of full-time employees. Similarly, 37 percent of part-time
workers have access to retirement benefits, compared to 74 percent of full-time employees;
and only 24 percent of part-time workers are offered paid sick leave, compared to 74 percent
of full-time employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).
Within occupations,
there is wide
variation in wage
level, job security,
predictability
of schedule,
opportunities for
advancement,
and benefits.
Even within industries, employment practices can vary by employer. Within occupations,
there is wide variation in wage level, job security, predictability of schedule, opportunities for
advancement, and benefits. Employers who provide appropriately structured jobs make a
difference for New Yorks ALICE households. Research shows that these employers make a
particular difference for workers with a disability, who are often disadvantaged economically
and thus more likely to be ALICE (Ton, 2012; Schur, Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009).
One of the greatest economic shifts over the last 50 years has been the increase in working
mothers. In 1967, 27.5 percent of mothers were primary or co-breadwinners for their families.
By 2012, nearly two-thirds (63.3 percent) brought home at least 25 percent of their families
incomes (Glynn, 2014). This shift has had a number of different repercussions for families. On
the one hand, families have greater income or more diversified sources of income when there
is more than one income earner. On the other, women still earn less than men and are more
likely to work in low-wage jobs. These jobs typically have work scheduling policies and other
practices that pose particular challenges for workers with significant responsibilities outside of
their job, including caregiving, pursuing education and workforce training, or holding down a
second job (Watson, Frohlich, & Johnston, 2014).
Ultimately, low wages also mean that ALICE households cannot afford to save, and the loss
of a job means that any savings accumulated in better times are used to cover basic living
expenses. ALICE families have both the greatest risk of job loss and the least access to
resources to soften the blow. The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project found that
families that experienced unemployment suffered not only lost income during their period of
not working, but also longer-term wealth losses, compromising their economic security and
mobility (Boguslaw, et al., 2013).
125
The Future of Jobs in New York

The most immediate challenge to financial stability for New Yorks ALICE households is
employment. Employment will depend on the growth of the New York economy and the kinds
of jobs it produces. The impact of technology replacing jobs will also be an important factor in
the future; both low-wage and high-wage jobs stand to be replaced.
Total jobs in New York are projected to grow slowly over the ten years from 2014 to 2024, but
there is wide variation across industries and geographies. While attention is often focused
on the recovery of top-level jobs in finance and information technology, a different group of
occupations many of them low-skilled, low-wage service jobs will have the greatest impact
on ALICE workers in the state. The implementation of the minimum wage in New York may
impact these projections as well.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, low-skilled jobs will have the most projected job
openings from 2014 to 2024 (Figure 45). More than 80 percent of the 9,690 new jobs in the top
20 projected occupations in New York pay less than $20 per hour (equivalent to an annual fulltime salary of less than $40,000), and most of those jobs are projected to pay between $10 and
$15 per hour. What stands out in this table is how few occupations require a bachelors degree
(5 percent) and offer wages over $30 per hour (13 percent). While they account for a small
percentage of new job growth, these jobs offer much more financial stability for workers and
their families. These occupations include 480 projected openings for general and operations
managers with an hourly wage of $52.86, and 740 openings for registered nurses with an
hourly wage of $30.89 (New York State Department of Labor, 2014).
These projections support national findings that the U.S. economy is less able to generate middlewage jobs than in years past. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, workers
of all ages with four years or more of college are actually less likely to have a good job (one that
pays at least $37,000 per year and has employer-provided health insurance and an employersponsored retirement plan) now than three decades ago (Schmitt & Jones, 2012). Similarly, the
education and training levels necessary for the labor force of 2020 will not require a significantly
greater level of education than workers currently possess (Thiess, 2012). The experience of
recent college graduates shows that they are less likely to be gainfully employed than previous
generations (Stone, Van Horn, & Zukin, 2012). With this employment outlook, the number of
ALICE households will increase, as will demand for resources to fill the gap to financial stability.
Total jobs in
New York are
projected to grow
slowly over the ten
years from 2014
to 2024, but there
is wide variation
across industries
and geographies.
For workers in New York City employed by large businesses (those with at least 11
employees), the minimum wage would rise to $11 at the end of 2016, then increase
another $2 each year after, reaching $15 on December 31, 2018.
For workers in New York City employed by small businesses (those with 10 employees
or fewer), the minimum wage would rise to $10.50 by the end of 2016, then increase
another $1.50 each year after, reaching $15 on December 31, 2019.
For workers in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, the minimum wage would
increase to $10 at the end of 2016, then increase $1 each year after, reaching $15 on
December 31, 2021.
126
The implementation of a $15 per hour minimum wage could impact the wage levels for many
of these job projections. The wage increases will be phased in from 2016 through 2021,
though they can be suspended starting in 2019 after review by the Division of Budget. The
state estimates that more than 2.3 million people will be affected by these increases (New
York State Office of the Governor, 2016).
For workers elsewhere in the state, the minimum wage would increase to $9.70 at the end
of 2016, then increase another 70 cents each year after, reaching $12.50 on December 31,
2020. After that date, the wage will continue to increase to $15 on an indexed schedule to be
set by the Director of the Division of Budget in consultation with the Department of Labor.
The full implementation of the wage increase to $15 per hour would impact 6,260 new jobs
that are projected to grow in New York, affecting 67 percent of the states top occupations by
job growth (New York State Department of Labor, 2014).
Figure 45.
Projected Occupational Demand by Wage, Education, and Work Experience,
New York, 2014 to 2024
Occupational
2014
Title
Employment
According to the
Bureau of Labor
Statistics,
low-skilled jobs
will have the
most projected
job openings from
2014 to 2024.
127
Annual
New
Growth
Hourly
Wage
Education or
Training
Work
Experience
Personal Care
Aides
24,990
1,010
$8.93
Less than high

school
None
Retail
Salespersons
58,870
820
$12.21
High school
diploma or
equivalent
None
Registered
Nurses
41,270
740
$30.89
Associates
degree
None
Laborers and
Freight, Hand
39,440
620
$12.54
Less than high

school
None
Secretaries and
Administrative
Assistants
40,400
560
$14.42
Postsecondary
non-degree
award
None
Combined Food
Prep, Including
Fast Food
27,780
530
$8.84
Less than high

school
None
General and
Operations
Managers
31,060
480
$52.86
Bachelors
degree
Less than 5
years
Home Health
Aides
11,560
470
$10.13
Less than high

school
None
Licensed
Practical and
Vocational
Nurses
22,930
440
$18.91
Postsecondary
non-degree
award
None
Cashiers
68,250
420
$9.22
High school
diploma or
equivalent
None
Nursing
Assistants
23,500
400
$10.33
Postsecondary
non-degree
award
None
Heavy and
Tractor- Trailer
Truck Drivers
27,860
390
$19.34
Postsecondary
non-degree
award
None
Maintenance
and Repair
Workers
28,650
380
$17.60
High school
diploma or
equivalent
None
Janitors and
Cleaners
30,050
370
$10.49
Less than high

school
None
Occupational
2014
Title
Employment
Annual
New
Growth
Hourly
Wage
Education or
Training
Work
Experience
Bookkeeping,
Accounting
Clerks
26,890
370
$17.21
Associates
Degree
None
Customer
Service
Representatives
22,200
360
$14.29
Postsecondary
non-degree
award
None
Waiters and
Waitresses
34,660
350
$9.89
Less than high

school
None
Construction
Laborers
23,700
350
$14.17
Less than high

school
None
Sales
Representatives
25,470
330
$28.71
High school
diploma or
equivalent
None
First-Line
Supervisors
20,820
300
$22.92
Associates
Degree
Less than 5
years
Source: New York State Department of Labor, 2014
Jobs and Technology
New opportunities to earn income: Technology has enabled new job

opportunities, especially in the gig economy; these range from freelance writers
to Uber drivers. Freelance and contingent (on-call) labor has more than doubled
its share of the national labor force over the last 20 years, from 7 percent in 1993
to 15 percent in 2014, and is expected to grow to nearly 20 percent by 2020.
These positions may help ALICE households that need to fill short-term gaps in
standard employment, and they may provide more lucrative opportunities than
exist in the traditional employment market. Companies have also come to value
the new hiring model since it provides flexibility to scale up or down on demand,
and often can be cheaper than hiring a part-time or full-time employee on staff
when considering health insurance and other benefits (Wald, 2014).
Less job security: While sometimes beneficial, the type of flexibility offered
by contingent or on-call work does not help ALICE households make longterm financial plans. For one, there is no job security: a lucrative job today can
be gone tomorrow. In addition, independent contractor positions provide no
benefits, such as health insurance and retirement plans, for ALICE families.
They also lack other standard workplace protections. For example, independent
contractors have no recourse under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which
mandates that eligible workers be compensated for hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek, or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which entitles
eligible workers to unpaid, job-protected leave depending on their work history
with a company (Donovan, Bradley, & Shimabukuro, 2016).
Loss of low-wage jobs: Low-wage workers, especially those in jobs that
involve repetitive tasks and require little education, are the most likely to lose
their jobs due to technological advances. The more a job utilizes a workers
Freelance and
contingent
(on-call) labor has
more than doubled
its share of the
national labor
force over the last
20 years, from 7
percent in 1993 to
15 percent in 2014,
and is expected to
grow to nearly 20
percent by 2020.
128
Technologys influence extends to both ends of the employment spectrum: generating

jobs and eliminating them in equal measure. Improved automation may put some
workers out of jobs and change the activities of others (Figure 46). For ALICE
workers, the impact will be mixed:
judgment and analysis (usually associated with higher levels of education), the
less likely it is to be replaced by technology. Among the 20 occupations with
more than a 50 percent chance of being replaced by technology in New York,
none require a bachelors degree. Many of the jobs likely to be replaced (such
as janitors) are not highly coveted and are often difficult to fill (Brynjolfsson &
McAfee, 2014; Frey & Osborne, September 2013).
Job schedules
are increasingly
variable for
low-wage workers,
with several
consequences for
ALICE households.
129
Unstable schedules: Job schedules are increasingly variable for low-wage

workers, with several consequences for ALICE households. It is difficult to
maintain a household budget when the number of work hours fluctuates and
a worker cant predict her weekly or monthly income. In some cases, unstable
schedules can also affect a workers eligibility for employer or government
benefits tied to work hours. In addition, having irregular hours makes it difficult
to arrange transportation and child care (Watson, Frohlich, & Johnston, 2014);
Center for Law and Social Policy, 2014).
Economic change: The effects of new technology will ripple across the
economic and educational spectrum. Accountants and auditors making an
average of $62,000 per year, highly educated mathematical technicians making
$45,000 per year, and nuclear reactor power operators, who make an average
of $76,000 per year, have a greater than 90 percent chance of being replaced
by technology. More people-oriented professions, such as teachers, nurses, and
home health aides, are less likely to be replaced by new technology (Figure 46).
However, technological advances will almost certainly with more than a 97
percent probability render the jobs of cashiers, bookkeepers, and accountants
obsolete. But many employees who use computers, know accounting, or
perform administrative functions have skills that can be transferred to other
jobs. The more vulnerable are people in jobs that require minimal education
and provide few transferrable skills; these displaced workers will have the most
difficulty finding new jobs (Frey & Osborne, September 2013).
Figure 46.
Occupations by Number of Jobs and Technology, New York, 2014
350,000
92%
96%
100%
90%
300,000
Number of Jobs
250,000
70%
60%
64%
200,000
50%
150,000
40%
30%
100,000
Probability of Computerization
80%
20%
16%
50,000
10%
Technology and
increasingly
affordable
technology will
enable more
online educational
options, which in
turn could make
education more
cost-effective
and worthwhile.
0%
Ge
ne
ral
Re
gis
Of tered
an
d O fice
Nu
pe
Su
r
rat
pe ses
ion
rvi
so
s
H
Cu ome Man rs
a
sto
H
ge
me ealt
r
hA s
St
r
Se
oc
i
T
de
r
ea
kC
s
ch vice
ler
er
Re
ks
A
p
an
s
s
d O sist
Ja
a
nit
r
n
d
ts
or
s a er F
Pe
i
n
l
l
er
d
rso
na Clea s
La
lC
ne
bo
rs
are
rer Sec
Ai
ur
sa
de
ity
nd
s
Fo
Mo Gua
od
R
rd
eta
ve
Pr
s
rs
ep
il S
,
ale , Han
Ac Incl
sp
d
u
co
ers
un ding
o
t
Wa ants Fast ns
Fo
i
t
ers and
Se
Au od
cre
an
d W dito
tar
ies
rs
ait
an
r
d A Offi esse
ce
s
dm
Cl
in
e
rks
As
sis
tan
ts
C
Bo ashi
e
ok
ke rs
ep
ers
Probability Job Will be Replaced by Computers
Source: New York State Department of Labor, 2014; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Survey Wages, 2014; Frey
and Osborne, 2013.
The impact of technology on education: Technology and increasingly

affordable technology will enable more online educational options, which in
turn could make education more cost-effective and worthwhile. Colleges are
enrolling more matriculated students into online courses and offering the wider
community Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as high-profit ventures
(West, 2015). At the same time, however, technology makes it easier to
create false educational organizations and to cheat unsuspecting students. As
130
2012 Employment
discussed in Section VI, for-profit colleges nationwide enroll about 11 percent

of all higher education students but account for nearly 50 percent of all loan
defaults. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and several state
Attorneys General are investigating numerous fraudulent educational practices
and money-making education schemes (State Attorneys General, 2014; U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 2009; U.S. Government Accountability Office,
October 7, 2010; U.S. Government Accountability Office, August 4, 2010; Cohen
P. , 2015; Minnesota Attorney Generals Office, 2016; United States Senate
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 2012).
Technological innovation has the potential to change the jobs landscape in New York and
across the U.S. Without technological change, national projections show that the U.S.
economy will be less able to generate middle-wage jobs than in years past. But the timing
and the extent of that change will depend on a host of economic factors, and the implications
for ALICE families are not yet clear. There are two distinct challenges: first, to make sure
that current low-wage workers have the opportunity to improve both skills and wages as
technology creates new jobs, so that they are not left behind; and second, to ensure that the
value of service jobs that cannot be replaced by technology from teachers to health care
workers is recognized and rewarded economically.
VOTING
ALICE voters
represent a
substantial bloc
of the electorate,
accounting for 30
percent of those
registered and 28
percent of those
who voted in the
2012 presidential
election.
131
Whether ALICE households have the wherewithal to improve their economic situation comes
to the fore during political elections, especially because there is so much at stake in many
state and national elections. Headlines such as Rich Americans are Nearly Twice as Likely
to Vote as the Poor (Huffington Post, April 17, 2014) reinforce perceptions that lower-income
households do not vote (Kavoussi, 2014). An analysis of U.S. Census data reveals that voting
rates have been highest for Americans 65 years and older, non-Hispanic Whites, individuals
with high levels of education, and those with relatively high incomes (File, 2015).
While higher-income groups vote at higher rates, the majority of ALICE households also vote
and make up a sizable voting demographic. In fact, nationally, households with income below
$50,000 per year (near the average ALICE Threshold) vote at only slightly lower rates than
wealthier households: In the 2012 presidential election, 68 percent were registered to vote
compared to 76 percent of households with income above $50,000, and 56 percent reported
voting compared to 67 percent of households with income above $50,000. ALICE voters
represent a substantial bloc of the electorate, accounting for 30 percent of those registered and
28 percent of those who voted in the 2012 presidential election (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
ALICE voters make up an even bigger bloc of the New York electorate. In the 2014 New York
gubernatorial election, voters with household income below $50,000 per year (close to the
ALICE Threshold) accounted for 36 percent of voters. In comparison, 33 percent of voters
had income between $50,000 and $100,000, and 32 percent had income above $100,000
(NBCNews.com, 2014) (Figure 47).
Figure 47.
New York Voters by Annual Income, 2014 Gubernatorial Election
40%
Percent of Voters
35%
30%
25%
9%
Above $150,000
20%
$30$49,000
20%
33%
15%
10%
5%
0%
23%
$100$149,000
16%
below $30,000
Below $50,000
$50,000 to $99,000
Above $100,000
The United Way

ALICE Report looks
at strategies that
support families
earning below the
ALICE Threshold
now and in the
near future, as
well as those that
might help them
become financially
stable in the
longer term.
Source: NBCnews.com, 2014
IMPROVING LIFE FOR ALICE: SHORT-,

MEDIUM-, AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIES
132
The United Way ALICE Report looks at strategies that support families earning below the
ALICE Threshold now and in the near future, as well as those that might help them become
financially stable in the longer term. There are two basic approaches that would make a
difference for ALICE households: increase income, or reduce expenses. Short-term strategies
can help a family cope with an emergency and prevent a spiral into poverty. Long-term
strategies, which aim to help a family maintain financial stability and support themselves
over time, are harder to achieve. Depending on how far a familys income is below the ALICE
Threshold, different strategies may be required. But all strategies play an important role: there
is no one solution. Many stakeholders have a role, including friends and family, nonprofits,
employers, and government. The strategies presented here are a starting point (Figure 48).
Figure 48.
Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Strategies to Assist Families below the
ALICE Threshold
Strategies to Assist ALICE Families
To permanently
reduce the
number of ALICE
households,
broader and more
strategic action is
needed. For ALICE
households to be
able to support
themselves,
structural
economic changes
are required to
make New York
more affordable
and provide
better jobs.
Friends and
Family
SHORT-TERM
MEDIUM-TERM
LONG-TERM
Temporary housing
Loans
Support to access good

employers
Loans and affordable

financial products
Support to access good

employers
Paid days off
Regular work schedule
Career paths
Transportation assistance
Full-time opportunities
Mentoring
Food
Rides
Child care
Caregiving for ill/elderly
relatives
Nonprofits
Temporary housing
Food pantries
Utility assistance
Home repair
Tax preparation
Caregiver respite
Subsidized child care
Employers
Higher wages
Benefits
Flex-time
Telecommuting
HR resources for
caregivers
On-site health services,
presentations, wellness
incentives
Government
TANF
Child care and housing
subsidies
Educational vouchers and
charter school options
Social Security credit for
caregivers
Tax credit for caregivers
Guidelines to ensure
quality, affordable housing,
child care, education,
health care, transportation,
and financial products
Attract higher-skilled jobs

Strengthen infrastructure
Reduced student loan

burden
Guidelines to ensure job
safety and stability
Efforts to assist ALICE and poverty households in supporting themselves can be broken
down into short-, medium-, and long-term actions. Short-term intervention by family,
employers, nonprofits, and government throughout New York can be essential to supporting
a household through a crisis and preventing a downward spiral into homelessness. The chief
value of short-term measures is in the stability that they provide. Food pantries, TANF, utility
assistance, emergency housing repairs, and child care subsidies all help stabilize ALICE
households, potentially preventing much larger future costs.
133
To permanently reduce the number of ALICE households, broader and more strategic action
is needed. For ALICE households to be able to support themselves, structural economic
changes are required to make New York more affordable and provide better jobs. The cost
of basic necessities housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care is high
in New York relative to the income currently available to ALICE households. The financial
stability of this population will not improve dramatically unless systemic changes are made
to the housing market and the health care delivery system. Investments in transportation
infrastructure, affordable quality child care, and healthy living would also make a difference.
One of the most direct and significant ways to help ALICE would be to improve job
opportunities, either by increasing the wages of current low-wage jobs or increasing the
number of higher-paying jobs. How much would have to change? In New York, 38 percent,
or 3.3 million, of the states 8.8 million jobs pay less than $15.58 per hour, the least
amount needed for each of two working parents to support their family.
The biggest impact on income opportunity in New York would come through a substantial
increase in the number of medium- and high-skilled jobs in both the public and private
sectors. Such a shift would require an influx of new businesses and possibly new industries,
as well as increased education and training.
In expanding job opportunities, both the kind of job and the kind of employer matter. Across
industries, employers who can offer adequate wages and benefits, consistent schedules, job
security, and advancement potential can make a significant difference for ALICE households.
In addition, the extensive use of alternative financial services in New York suggests that more
cost-effective financial resources, such as better access to savings, auto loans, and sound
microloans, would also help ALICE households become more financially stable.
The biggest
impact on income
opportunity in
New York would
come through
a substantial
increase in the
number of mediumand high-skilled
jobs in both the
public and
private sectors.
134
Ultimately, improvements in job opportunities and a decrease in the cost of household

essentials would enable ALICE households to afford to live near their work, build
assets, and become financially independent.
APPENDIX A INCOME INEQUALITY

IN NEW YORK
More Inequality
Less Inequality
Gini Coefficient
Income Inequality in New York, 19792014

0.53
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.45
0.43
0.41
0.39
0.37
0.35
1979
1989
1999
2009
2014
The Gini index is a measure of income inequality. It varies from 0 to 100 percent, where 0 indicates perfect
equality and 100 indicate perfect inequality (when one person has all the income). The distribution of income in
New York was 22 percent more unequal in 2014 than in 1979.
Sources: 1979-1999: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/state/state4.html, 2009: https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-2.pdf,
2014: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acsbr13-02.pdf
Income Distribution by Quintile in New York, 2014

3%
7%
14%
54%
22%
Lowest
Second
Third
Fourth
Highest
135
Income distribution is a tool to measure how income is divided within a population. In this case, the population
is divided into five groups or quintiles. In New York, the top 20 percent of the population the highest quintile
receives 54 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile earns only 3 percent. If five New York residents
divided $100 according to the current distribution of income, the first person would get $54, the second would
get $22, the third, $14, the fourth, $7, and the last $3.
APPENDIX B THE ALICE

THRESHOLD: METHODOLOGY
The ALICE Threshold based upon the Household Survival Budget determines how many households are
struggling in a county. Using the Household Survival Budgets for different household combinations, a pair of
ALICE Thresholds is developed for each county, one for households headed by someone younger than 65
years old and one for households headed by someone 65 years and older.
For households headed by someone under 65 years old, the ALICE Threshold is calculated by adding
the Household Survival Budget for a family of four plus the Household Survival Budget for a single adult,
dividing by 5, and then multiplying by the average household size for households headed by someone
under 65 years old in each county.
The ALICE Threshold for households headed by someone 65 years old and over is calculated by multiplying
the Household Survival Budget for a single adult by the average senior household size in each county.
The results are rounded to the nearest Census break ($30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $50,000,
$60,000, or $75,000).
The number of ALICE households is calculated by subtracting the number of households in poverty as reported
by the American Community Survey, 20072014, from the total number of households below the ALICE
Threshold. The number of households in poverty by racial/ethnic categories is not reported by the American
Community Survey, so when determining the number of ALICE households by race/ethnicity, the number of
households earning less than $15,000 per year is used as an approximation for households in poverty.
Note: American Community Survey data for New York counties with populations over 65,000 are 1-Year estimates; for populations between 20,000 and 65,000,
data are 3-Year estimates; and for populations below 20,000, data are 5-Year estimates. Because there was not a 5-Year survey for 2007, the data for the least
populated counties (see chart below) is not available. For statewide totals, the numbers from counties are extrapolated from overall percentages. Starting in
2014, there is no 3-Year survey data, so that only 1- and 5-Year estimates are used in the ALICE calculations.
Bronx
Kings (Brooklyn)
Queens
Richmond (Staten
Island)
Dutchess
Nassau
Orange
Putnam
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
Albany
Allegany
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
*Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Rensselaer
St Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
*Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wyoming
Yate
*Least populated counties; no 2007 American Community Survey data available.
136
New York Counties by Region
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, New York, 2014
County
137
Total HHs
HHs
below
ALICE
Threshold
Percent HHs below ALICE Threshold (AT)

Race/Ethnicity
Percent
HHs
below AT
Age
ALICE Threshold
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
ALICE
Threshold
HH Under 65
Years
ALICE
Threshold
HH 65 Years
and Over
Albany
124,716
38%
47%
62%
55%
34%
38%
$50,000
$35,000
Allegany
18,407
47%
63%
83%
68%
46%
46%
$45,000
$30,000
Bronx
492,481
71%
62%
67%
78%
47%
70%
$60,000
$45,000
Broome
78,810
42%
54%
74%
73%
39%
38%
$45,000
$30,000
Cattaraugus
30,735
45%
50%
54%
55%
45%
48%
$45,000
$30,000
Cayuga
31,290
38%
24%
44%
52%
37%
39%
$45,000
$30,000
Chautauqua
52,916
47%
65%
70%
76%
46%
42%
$45,000
$30,000
Chemung
34,617
40%
20%
62%
60%
38%
40%
$45,000
$30,000
Chenango
19,560
45%
42%
68%
42%
44%
47%
$45,000
$30,000
Clinton
31,426
41%
63%
79%
81%
40%
42%
$45,000
$30,000
Columbia
25,095
39%
61%
62%
65%
37%
48%
$50,000
$40,000
Cortland
18,045
46%
72%
74%
71%
46%
50%
$50,000
$35,000
Delaware
19,370
44%
44%
60%
43%
44%
43%
$45,000
$30,000
Dutchess
104,190
39%
25%
57%
53%
36%
46%
$60,000
$45,000
Erie
383,657
41%
46%
64%
66%
35%
42%
$45,000
$30,000
Essex
15,571
38%
44%
71%
48%
37%
38%
$45,000
$30,000
Franklin
19,131
44%
12%
86%
41%
44%
46%
$45,000
$30,000
Fulton
22,440
45%
36%
52%
58%
45%
50%
$45,000
$30,000
Genesee
23,967
35%
58%
67%
53%
34%
45%
$40,000
$30,000
Greene
18,102
44%
4%
60%
57%
44%
47%
$50,000
$35,000
Hamilton
1,639
47%
100%
100%
20%
47%
50%
$60,000
$35,000
Herkimer
26,583
46%
72%
87%
60%
46%
56%
$45,000
$35,000
Jefferson
43,516
46%
41%
51%
69%
43%
49%
$50,000
$40,000
Kings
942,402
56%
56%
64%
69%
44%
67%
$60,000
$45,000
Lewis
10,726
38%
0%
76%
33%
38%
45%
$40,000
$30,000
Livingston
25,334
39%
79%
60%
63%
38%
37%
$45,000
$30,000
Madison
25,932
43%
29%
84%
53%
43%
48%
$50,000
$35,000
Monroe
298,271
42%
45%
72%
70%
35%
40%
$50,000
$30,000
Montgomery
19,655
48%
56%
76%
68%
45%
58%
$45,000
$35,000
Nassau
440,168
31%
27%
42%
47%
28%
34%
$75,000
$40,000
New York
762,228
35%
38%
58%
59%
20%
51%
$45,000
$40,000
Niagara
86,907
40%
65%
67%
52%
37%
47%
$45,000
$30,000
Oneida
90,583
44%
58%
71%
74%
41%
49%
$45,000
$35,000
Onondaga
185,474
39%
49%
67%
59%
34%
40%
$45,000
$30,000
Ontario
43,581
37%
51%
79%
60%
36%
41%
$50,000
$30,000
Orange
124,587
41%
28%
48%
49%
37%
49%
$60,000
$45,000
Orleans
15,894
45%
62%
57%
75%
44%
42%
$50,000
$30,000
Oswego
45,646
45%
26%
46%
65%
44%
49%
$45,000
$35,000
Otsego
23,798
46%
12%
82%
48%
46%
46%
$50,000
$35,000
Putnam
34,234
33%
22%
38%
48%
31%
44%
$75,000
$45,000
Total HHs
Percent HHs below ALICE Threshold (AT)

Race/Ethnicity
Percent
HHs
below AT
Age
ALICE Threshold
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
ALICE
Threshold
HH Under 65
Years
ALICE
Threshold
HH 65 Years
and Over
Queens
785,985
50%
53%
50%
57%
43%
60%
$60,000
$50,000
Rensselaer
63,289
38%
52%
72%
62%
34%
37%
$50,000
$35,000
Richmond
164,971
42%
41%
57%
50%
36%
54%
$60,000
$50,000
Rockland
98,873
42%
23%
48%
55%
38%
44%
$75,000
$50,000
Saratoga
90,964
28%
20%
42%
37%
28%
33%
$50,000
$35,000
Schenectady
56,255
44%
51%
76%
78%
40%
39%
$60,000
$35,000
Schoharie
12,739
40%
8%
39%
30%
41%
41%
$50,000
$30,000
Schuyler
7,759
35%
100%
36%
32%
35%
40%
$40,000
$30,000
Seneca
13,485
42%
67%
69%
67%
41%
46%
$45,000
$30,000
St Lawrence
40,286
52%
65%
40%
60%
52%
57%
$50,000
$35,000
Steuben
41,046
40%
15%
53%
46%
39%
46%
$40,000
$30,000
Suffolk
493,287
39%
37%
53%
52%
36%
46%
$75,000
$50,000
Sullivan
27,524
46%
24%
67%
56%
45%
56%
$50,000
$40,000
Tioga
20,178
36%
17%
30%
37%
37%
41%
$45,000
$30,000
Tompkins
38,120
52%
74%
77%
69%
46%
40%
$60,000
$40,000
Ulster
69,522
45%
46%
66%
60%
42%
46%
$60,000
$35,000
Warren
26,193
41%
48%
75%
42%
40%
38%
$50,000
$35,000
Washington
24,165
45%
46%
70%
81%
44%
50%
$50,000
$35,000
Wayne
35,577
47%
18%
78%
35%
46%
57%
$45,000
$35,000
Westchester
342,557
34%
20%
52%
54%
25%
39%
$60,000
$40,000
Wyoming
15,691
38%
8%
0%
53%
38%
44%
$45,000
$30,000
Yates
9,642
39%
29%
38%
32%
39%
38%
$45,000
$30,000
138
County
HHs
below
ALICE
Threshold
APPENDIX C THE HOUSEHOLD

SURVIVAL BUDGET: METHODOLOGY
AND SOURCES
The Household Survival Budget provides the foundation for a threshold for economic survival in each county.
The Budget is comprised of the actual cost of five household essentials plus a 10 percent contingency and
taxes for each county. The minimum level is used in each category for 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014. The line
items and sources are reviewed below.
HOUSING
The housing budget is based on HUDs Fair Market Rent (40th percentile of gross rents) for an efficiency
apartment for a single person, a one-bedroom apartment for a head of household with a child, and a two-bedroom
apartment for a family of three or more. The rent includes the sum of the rent paid to the owner plus any utility
costs incurred by the tenant. Utilities include electricity, gas, water/sewer, and trash removal services, but not
telephone service. If the owner pays for all utilities, then the gross rent equals the rent paid to the owner.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
CHILD CARE
The child care budget is based on the average annual cost of care for one infant and one preschooler in
Registered Family Child Care Homes (the least expensive child care option). Data is compiled by the New York
State Office of Children & Family Services and reported to the National Association of Child Care Resource and
Referral Agencies (NACCRRA, nationally known as Child Care Aware of America). When data is missing, state
averages are used, though missing data may mean child care facilities are not available in those counties and
residents may be forced to use facilities in neighboring counties.
Source:
New York State Office of Children & Family Services
2007: http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/policies/external/OCFS_2008/LCMs/08-OCFS-LCM-10%20Child%20Care%20
Market%20Rates%202007-2009.pdf
2010: http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/policies/external/ocfs_2010/lcm/10-ocfs-lcm-01%20child%20care%20market%20
rates%20%202009-2011.pdf
2012: http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/policies/external/OCFS_2011/LCMs/11-OCFS-LCM-12%20Child%20
Care%20Market%20Rates%202011-2013.pdf
2014: http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/policies/external/OCFS_2014/LCMs/14-OCFS-LCM-03%20Child%20Care%20
Market%20Rates%20%202014-2015.pdf
FOOD
139
The food budget is based on the Thrifty Level (lowest of four levels) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home, U.S. Average, June 2007. The household food budget is adjusted
for six select household compositions including: single adult male 19-50 years old; family of two adults (male
and female) 19-50 years old; one adult female and one child 2-3 years old; one adult female and one child 9-11
years old; family of four with two adults (male and female as specified by the USDA) and children 2-3 and 4-5
years old; and family of four with two adults (male and female as specified by the USDA) and children 6-8 and
9-11 years old. Data for June is used as that is considered by USDA to be the annual average. New Yorks food
costs are adjusted for regional price variation, Regional Variation Nearly Double Inflation Rate for Food Prices,
Food CPI, Price, and Expenditures, USDA, 2009.
Sources:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/FoodPlans2007AdminReport.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/176139/page19.pdf
TRANSPORTATION
The transportation budget is calculated using average annual expenditures for transportation by car and by
public transportation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). Since the CES
is reported by metropolitan statistical areas and regions, New Yorks counties were matched with the most local
level possible.
Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult households,
which are divided by two). Building on work by the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, we suggest
that in the counties where 8 percent or more of the population uses public transportation, the cost for public
transportation is used; in those counties where less than 8 percent of the population uses public transportation,
the cost for auto transportation is used instead (Porter & Deakin, 1995; Pearce, 2015). Public transportation
includes bus, trolley, subway, elevated train, railroad, and ferryboat. Car expenses include gas, oil, and other
vehicle maintenance expenses, but not lease payments, car loan payments, or major repairs.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607
HEALTH CARE
Starting with the 2016 ALICE Reports, the health care cost will incorporate changes from the Affordable Care
Act (ACA). Because ALICE does not qualify for Medicaid but in many cases cannot afford even the Bronze
Marketplace premiums and deductibles, we add the cost of the shared responsibility payment the penalty for
not having coverage to the current out-of-pocket health care spending. The penalty for 2014 was the higher
of these: 1 percent of household income, yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze Plan sold
through the Marketplace, or $95 per adult and $47.50 per child under 18, for a maximum of $285.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607
MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous category includes 10 percent of the total (including taxes) to cover cost overruns.
140
The health care budget includes the nominal out-of-pocket health care spending, medical services, prescription
drugs, and medical supplies using the average annual health expenditure reported in the CES. Since the
CES is reported by metropolitan areas and regions, New Yorks counties were matched with the most local
level possible. Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult
households, which are divided by two). The health care budget does not include the cost of health insurance.
TAXES
The tax budget includes both federal and state income taxes where applicable, as well as Social Security
and Medicare taxes. These rates include standard federal and state deductions and exemptions, as well as
the federal Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit. New York income tax rates remained
flat from 2007 to 2014, but the income brackets increased slightly. New York tax calculations also include the
Personal Tax Credit, and for those living in NYC, additional NYC income tax.
Federal taxes include income tax using standard deductions and exemptions for each household type. The
federal tax brackets increased slightly from 2007 to 2010 to 2014, though rates stayed the same. Federal taxes
also include the employee portions of Social Security and Medicare at 6.2 and 1.45 percent respectively. The
employee Social Security tax holiday rate of 4.2 percent was incorporated for 2012.
Sources:
Federal:
Internal Revenue Service 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2014
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2014.pdf
New York:
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance
2014: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2014/inc/it201i_2014.pdf
2010: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2010/inc/it150_201i_2010.pdf
HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET
The Household Survival Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:
http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice
141
APPENDIX D THE HOUSEHOLD

STABILITY BUDGET: METHODOLOGY
AND SOURCES
The Household Stability Budget represents the cost of living in each county at a modest but sustainable level, in
contrast to the basic level of the Household Survival Budget. The Household Stability Budget is made up of the
actual cost of five household essentials plus a 10 percent savings item and a 10 percent contingency item, as
well as taxes for each county. The data builds on the sources from the Household Survival Budget; differences
are reviewed below.
HOUSING
The housing budget is based on HUDs median rent for a one-bedroom apartment, rather than an efficiency, at
the Fair Market Rent of 40th percentile, for a single adult; for a head of household with children, the basis is a
two-bedroom apartment at the median rent. Housing for a family is based on the American Community Surveys
median monthly owner costs for those with a mortgage, instead of rent for a two-bedroom apartment at the 40th
percentile. Real estate taxes are included in the tax category below for households with a mortgage.
CHILD CARE
The child care budget is based on the cost of a fully licensed and accredited child care center. These costs are
typically more than 30 percent higher than the cost of registered home-based child care used in the Household
Survival Budget. Data is compiled by the New York State Office of Children & Family Services and reported to
the national organization Child Care Aware of America.
FOOD
TRANSPORTATION
Where there is public transportation, family transportation expenses include public transportation for one adult
and gas and maintenance for one car; costs for a single adult include public transportation for one, and half the
cost of gas and maintenance for one car. Where there is no public transportation, family expenses include costs
for leasing one car and for gas and maintenance for two cars, and single-adult costs are for leasing, gas, and
maintenance for one car as reported by the CES.
142
The food budget is based on the USDAs Moderate Level Food Plans for cost of food at home (second of
four levels), adjusted for regional variation, plus the average cost of food away from home as reported by the
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES).
HEALTH CARE
The health care costs are based on employer-sponsored health insurance at a low-wage firm as reported by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Also
included is out-of-pocket health care spending as reported in the CES.
Sources:
http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2012/tiic2.htm
http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_7/2012/tviid2.htm
CELL PHONE
Most jobs now require access to the internet and a smartphone. These are necessary for work schedules,
changes in start time or location, access to work support services, and customer follow-up. The Stability Budget
includes the minimal cost of a smartphone for each adult in the family.
Source: Consumer Reports, Cell Phone Plan Comparison, 2014
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/best-phone-plans-for-your-family-save-money/index.htm
SAVINGS
The Household Stability Budget also includes a 10 percent line item for savings, a category that is essential
for sustainability. This provides a cushion for emergencies and possibly allows a household to invest in their
education, house, car, and health as needed.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous category includes 10 percent of the total (not including taxes or savings) to cover cost overruns.
TAXES
Taxes increase for the Household Stability Budget, but the methodology is the same as in the Household
Survival Budget. The one difference is that a mortgage deduction is included for families who are now
homeowners. In addition, while real estate taxes were included in rent in the Household Survival Budget, they
are added to the tax bill here for homeowners.
143
HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET

Average Household Stability Budget, New York, 2014
Monthly Costs New York Average 2014
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
SINGLE ADULT
Housing
$930
$1,201
$-
$1,755
Food
$376
$1,159
Transportation
$336
$1,119
Health Care
$256
$996
Child Care
Cell Phone
$64
$99
Savings
$196
$633
Miscellaneous
$196
$633
Taxes
$595
$2,094
$2,949
$9,689
$35,388
$116,268
$17.69
$58.14
Monthly Total
ANNUAL TOTAL
Hourly Wage
144
Monthly Costs
HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET, NEW YORK REGIONS
2 ADULTS,
1 INFANT, 1
PRESCHOOLER
SINGLE
ADULT
2 ADULTS,
1 INFANT, 1
PRESCHOOLER
SINGLE
ADULT
2 ADULTS,
1 INFANT, 1
PRESCHOOLER
SINGLE
ADULT
Monthly Costs
Housing
$1,519
$2,146
$1,477
$1,977
$795
$997
$-
$2,346
$-
$2,422
$-
$1,603
Food
$378
$1,168
$378
$1,168
$375
$1,157
Transportation
$256
$849
$274
$893
$353
$1,177
Health Care
$246
$957
$246
$957
$258
$1,005
Child Care
Cell Phone
$64
$99
$64
$99
$64
$99
Savings
$246
$757
$244
$752
$185
$604
Miscellaneous
$246
$757
$244
$752
$185
$604
Taxes
$949
$3,228
$801
$3,138
$531
$1,834
$3,904
$12,307
$3,728
$12,158
$2,746
$9,080
$46,848
$147,684
$44,736
$145,896
$32,952
$108,960
$23.42
$73.84
$22.37
$72.95
$16.48
$54.48
Monthly Total
ANNUAL TOTAL
Hourly Wage
The Household Stability Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:
http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice
145
APPENDIX E THE ALICE INCOME

ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY AND
SOURCES
The ALICE Income Assessment is a tool to measure how much households need to reach the ALICE Threshold
compared to their actual income, which includes earned income as well as cash government assistance and
in-kind public assistance. The Unfilled Gap is calculated by totaling the income needed to reach the Threshold,
then subtracting earned income and all government and nonprofit spending. Household income includes
wages, dividends, and Social Security.
There are many resources available to low-income families. The ones included here are those that benefit
households below the ALICE Threshold, not resources that benefit society in general. For example, spending
on free and reduced-price school lunches is included; public education budgets are not. Data is for 2012 unless
otherwise noted.
Sources:
Community Health Benefits NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990 c3 Report for 2012,
Urban Institute
Department of Treasury, USAspending.gov Data Download, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, accessed 9/1/15:
https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/Pages/DataDownload.aspx
Federal spending data was gathered from Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2016 Analytical
Perspectives Budget of the U.S. Government, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 2016:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET
Non-Profit Revenue for Human Services, registered charity NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of
Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute, 2012
State spending data was gathered from: National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), State
Expenditure Report: Examining Fiscal 2012-2014 State Spending, 2014:
https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/
UploadedImages/SER%20Archive/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20Fiscal%202012%202014%20S.pdf
Supplemental Social Insurance, B19066 - Aggregate Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in the Past 12
Months For Households, American Community Survey, 2014
Earned Income Tax Credit Federal spending retrieved from https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats
146
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Data
and Statistics website. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
FEDERAL SPENDING
Social Services
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Provides cash assistance to low-income families.
Social Security Disability Insurance Provides funds to offset the living costs of disabled workers who
formerly contributed to Social Security but are not old enough to draw it.
Social Services Block Grant Funds programs that allow communities to achieve or maintain economic
self-sufficiency to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency on social services.
Child Care and Education

Only programs that help children meet their basic needs or are necessary to enable their parents to work are
included. Though post-secondary education is vital to future economic success, it is not a component of the
basic Household Survival Budget, so programs such as Pell grants are not included.
Head Start Provides money for agencies to promote school readiness for low-income children by
providing health, education, nutritional, and social services to the children and their parents.
Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education Supports education of children and youths in
correctional institutions.
Rural and Low-Income Schools Program - Assists rural districts in meeting their states definition of
adequate yearly progress.
Homeless Children and Youth Education - Supports an office for coordination of the education of homeless
children and youths in each state and helps ensure that homeless children, including preschoolers and
youths, have equal access to free and appropriate public education.
Food
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Provides money to low-income households to
supplement their food budgets. Formerly Food Stamps.
School Lunch Program Subsidizes lunches for low-income children in schools or residential institutions.
School Breakfast Program Provides funds to schools to offset the costs of providing a nutritious
breakfast and reimburses the costs of free and reduced-price meals.
Child and Adult Care Food Program Provides grants to non-residential care centers, after-school
programs, and emergency shelters to provide nutritious meals and snacks.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Provides pregnant
women and children through age five with money for nutritious foods and referrals to health services.
Housing
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Tenant-based rental assistance for low-income families; includes
Fair Share Vouchers and Welfare-to-Work Vouchers, the Section 8 Rental Voucher program (14.855), or
the former Section 8 Certificate program (14.857).
147
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Provides funds to nonprofits to help lowincome homeowners afford heating and cooling costs. The program may give money directly to a
homeowner or give to an energy supplier on the homeowners behalf.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Provide annual grants to develop decent housing and
a suitable living environment and to expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderateincome people.
Public Housing Operating Fund - Provides operating subsidies to housing authorities (HAs) to assist in
funding the operating and maintenance expenses of their own buildings.
EITC
Earned Income Tax Credit, Statistics for Tax Returns with EITC, 2014:
https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats
HEALTH CARE
Medicaid Provides money to states, which they must match, to offer health insurance for low-income
residents. Also known as the Medical Assistance Program.
Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Provides funds to states to enable them to maintain and
expand child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children and, at a states discretion, to lowincome pregnant women and legal immigrants.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Spending on ALICE was estimated from the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) State
Expenditure Report: Examining Fiscal 2012-2014 State Spending, which includes most data on benefits
provided by New York.
New Yorks state EITC is 30 percent of the federal EITC.
Source for amount spent in 2014:
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 2015
https://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/credits/earned_income_credit.htm
NONPROFIT ASSISTANCE
Community Health Benefit Spending by hospitals on low-income patients that includes charity care and
means-tested expenses, including unreimbursed Medicaid minus direct offsetting revenue as reported on
the 990c3 Report. Most current data is for 2012. Data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder,
Statistics of Income 990c3 Report for 2010, Urban Institute.
Source: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/dw/index.php?page=CHome&s=1
148
Non-Profit Revenue for Human Services Nonprofits as reported on Form 990EZc3 and 990c3 minus
program service revenue, dues, and government grants as reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Most
current data is for 2012. Data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income
990EZc3 Report and 990c3 Report, Urban Institute.
Source: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/dw/index.php?page=CHome&s=1
APPENDIX F THE ECONOMIC

VIABILITY DASHBOARD:
METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES
The Economic Viability Dashboard is composed of three indices: The Housing Affordability Index, the Job
Opportunities Index, and the Community Resources Index. Index scores for each county range from a possible
1 (worse economic conditions for ALICE households) to 100 (better conditions). Each countys score is relative
to other counties in New York. A score of 100 does not necessarily mean that conditions are very Good; it
means that they are better than in other counties in the state. The indices are used only for comparison within
the state, not for comparison to other states. They also provide the means to see changes over time within New
York. The methodology and sources for each are presented below.
INDEX METHODOLOGY
Each index in the Dashboard is composed of different kinds of measures. The first step is therefore to create
a common scale across rates, percentages, and other scores by measuring from the average. Raw indicator
scores are converted to z-scores, which measure how far any value falls from the mean of the set, measured
in standard deviations. The general formula for normalizing indicator scores is:
z = (x ) /
where x is the indicators value, is the unweighted average, is the standard deviation for that indicator,
and z is the resulting z-score. All scores must move in a positive direction, so for variables with an inverse
relationship (e.g., housing burden) the scores are multiplied by -1. In order to make the resulting scores more
accessible, they are translated from a scale of -3 to 3 to 1 to 100.
INDICATORS AND THEIR SOURCES
Housing Affordability Index

Affordable Housing Gap Measures the number of units needed to house all ALICE and poverty
households spending no more than one-third of their income on housing, controlled for size by the percent
of total housing stock. The gap is calculated as the number of ALICE households minus the number of
rental and owner-occupied housing units that ALICE households can afford.
Source: American Community Survey and ALICE Threshold calculations
Housing Burden Households spending more than 30 percent of income on housing
Source: American Community Survey
Real Estate Taxes Median real estate taxes
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25103
149
Job Opportunities Index

Income Distribution Share of income of the lowest two quintiles
Source: American Community Survey
Unemployment Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Source: http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
New Hire Wages (4th quarter) Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI), U.S. Census
Source: LED Extraction Tool: http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/
Community Resources Index

Education Resources Enrollment of 3- to 4-Year-olds in preschool
Source: American Community Survey, Table B14003
Health Resources Percent of population under 65 years old with health insurance
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, American Community Survey
Social Capital Percent of population 18 and older registered to vote. For consistency with the
presidential cycle, for 2014 we use 2014 data, for 2010 we use 2010 data, and for 2007 we use 2006 data.
Sources:
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey and Data Sets, Section
F, 2014 and 2010: http://www.eac.gov/research/election_administration_and_voting_survey.aspx
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey and Data Sets, Appendix
C: 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey:
http://www.eac.gov/research/uocava_survey.aspx#2006eavsdata
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Housing
Job
Affordability Opportunities
Fair (50)
Good (58)
Poor (39)
Fair (51)
Fair (56)
Good (60)
Fair (56)
Good (57)
Good (59)
Good (60)
Poor (45)
Fair (54)
Fair (56)
Poor (30)
Fair (54)
Good (58)
Good (58)
Fair (54)
Good (59)
Poor (49)
Good (65)
Good (58)
Good (63)
Poor (44)
Poor (37)
Fair (51)
Fair (53)
Good (59)
Poor (48)
Good (61)
Good (57)
Good (60)
Fair (50)
Fair (53)
Poor (45)
Fair (54)
Fair (55)
Fair (51)
Poor (47)
Poor (46)
Fair (56)
Poor (45)
Fair (53)
Poor (48)
Community
Resources
Fair (55)
Poor (48)
Poor (20)
Good (60)
Fair (56)
Good (63)
Fair (54)
Good (60)
Poor (45)
Poor (46)
Fair (55)
Fair (54)
Poor (42)
Fair (53)
Good (62)
Good (58)
Poor (37)
Poor (48)
Poor (49)
Fair (56)
Good (74)
Poor (41)
150
County
County
Jefferson
Kings (Brooklyn)
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
St. Lawrence
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
151
Housing
Job
Affordability Opportunities
Fair (55)
Poor (38)
Good (62)
Poor (48)
Good (61)
Poor (47)
Fair (51)
Poor (14)
Poor (27)
Fair (56)
Fair (54)
Fair (53)
Fair (56)
Poor (30)
Fair (52)
Fair (54)
Fair (55)
Poor (24)
Poor (38)
Poor (47)
Poor (39)
Poor (14)
Fair (53)
Fair (52)
Fair (54)
Good (66)
Good (57)
Good (58)
Good (61)
Poor (15)
Poor (43)
Good (60)
Fair (50)
Poor (41)
Fair (53)
Fair (51)
Fair (52)
Poor (18)
Good (60)
Good (58)
Fair (53)
Poor (41)
Fair (52)
Good (58)
Good (57)
Fair (51)
Poor (46)
Good (61)
Good (65)
Fair (53)
Poor (47)
Fair (50)
Good (57)
Good (57)
Poor (46)
Poor (47)
Fair (50)
Good (60)
Fair (54)
Good (59)
Fair (52)
Fair (56)
Good (72)
Good (61)
Poor (45)
Good (62)
Good (60)
Poor (48)
Fair (55)
Good (63)
Poor (48)
Fair (55)
Poor (44)
Poor (41)
Fair (55)
Fair (54)
Good (58)
Fair (54)
Good (60)
Poor (49)
Community
Resources
Fair (52)
Poor (36)
Poor (42)
Good (64)
Poor (44)
Good (60)
Poor (45)
Good (60)
Fair (52)
Good (62)
Fair (50)
Good (60)
Good (57)
Good (57)
Poor (44)
Fair (51)
Fair (52)
Good (66)
Poor (22)
Good (59)
Poor (49)
Good (59)
Good (72)
Fair (51)
Fair (51)
Good (86)
Poor (39)
Poor (42)
Fair (54)
Fair (52)
Poor (43)
Fair (52)
Fair (52)
Fair (52)
Good (59)
Poor (49)
Good (59)
Fair (51)
Fair (54)
Poor (27)
APPENDIX G HOUSING DATA BY

COUNTY
This table presents key housing data for each county in New York in 2014 for both owner-occupied and renteroccupied housing units. For owner-occupied units, the table presents the percent of owner units that are
occupied by households with income below the ALICE Threshold and the percent of all owner-occupied units
that are housing burdened, meaning that housing costs are more than 30 percent of household income. For
renter-occupied units, the table presents the percent of renter units occupied by households with income below
the ALICE Threshold and the percent of all renter-occupied units that are housing burdened. In addition, the
table includes the Affordable Housing Gap, the number of additional rental units needed that are affordable to
households with income below the ALICE Threshold so that all of these households would pay less than one
third of their income on housing.
Housing Data by County, New York, 2014

Owner-Occupied Units
Owner-Occupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Renter-Occupied Units
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay more than
30% of Income
Renter-Occupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Source
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay more than
30% of Income
Gap in Rental
Stock Affordable
for All HHs
below ALICE
Threshold
American
Community
Survey Estimate
Albany
71,870
25%
20%
52,846
66%
46%
11,330
1-Year
Allegany
13,492
48%
20%
4,915
82%
53%
2,089
5-Year
Bronx
89,396
31%
38%
403,085
72%
62%
25,099
1-Year
Broome
50,775
40%
23%
28,035
75%
54%
9,727
1-Year
Cattaraugus
21,824
44%
21%
8,911
78%
53%
3,431
1-Year
Cayuga
21,833
36%
20%
9,457
70%
43%
2,368
1-Year
Chautauqua
37,908
48%
23%
15,008
86%
56%
5,541
1-Year
Chemung
23,747
38%
17%
10,870
76%
55%
3,461
1-Year
Chenango
14,818
47%
23%
4,742
81%
48%
1,688
5-Year
Clinton
21,734
38%
17%
9,692
68%
49%
2,646
1-Year
Columbia
18,067
33%
30%
7,028
68%
48%
2,230
5-Year
Cortland
11,936
38%
21%
6,109
78%
45%
2,255
5-Year
Delaware
14,372
48%
27%
4,998
78%
49%
1,635
5-Year
Dutchess
69,959
42%
38%
34,231
74%
54%
3,647
1-Year
Erie
249,564
37%
21%
134,093
74%
50%
35,064
1-Year
11,451
42%
24%
4,120
71%
49%
1,328
5-Year
Franklin
13,711
42%
22%
5,420
79%
51%
2,192
5-Year
Fulton
15,541
44%
26%
6,899
76%
52%
2,348
5-Year
Genesee
17,513
23%
22%
6,454
60%
49%
1,769
5-Year
Greene
13,605
41%
31%
4,497
77%
62%
1,592
5-Year
Hamilton
1,341
43%
24%
298
68%
33%
91
5-Year
Herkimer
18,688
43%
21%
7,895
81%
49%
2,838
5-Year
Essex
Jefferson
23,769
36%
23%
19,747
64%
42%
6,013
1-Year
Kings
268,400
30%
43%
674,002
60%
57%
61,613
1-Year
Lewis
8,131
27%
20%
2,595
65%
55%
924
5-Year
Livingston
17,981
38%
21%
7,353
84%
64%
3,728
1-Year
Madison
19,387
40%
24%
6,545
72%
37%
1,378
1-Year
Monroe
191,921
33%
22%
106,350
77%
55%
34,600
1-Year
Montgomery
13,231
43%
26%
6,424
80%
51%
2,523
5-Year
152
County
Housing Data by County, New York, 2014

County
Owner-Occupied Units
Owner-Occupied
153
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Renter-Occupied Units
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay more than
30% of Income
Renter-Occupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay more than
30% of Income
Source
Gap in Rental
Stock Affordable
for All HHs
below ALICE
Threshold
American
Community
Survey Estimate
Nassau
354,287
32%
39%
85,881
65%
59%
26,418
1-Year
New York
172,744
18%
22%
589,484
43%
46%
129,635
1-Year
1-Year
Niagara
63,049
39%
21%
23,858
79%
51%
7,489
Oneida
59,023
40%
23%
31,560
72%
48%
9,570
1-Year
Onondaga
121,061
32%
20%
64,413
76%
51%
19,429
1-Year
Ontario
31,533
35%
20%
12,048
68%
51%
3,559
1-Year
Orange
88,015
42%
34%
36,572
78%
62%
4,764
1-Year
Orleans
12,178
43%
28%
3,716
80%
56%
1,657
5-Year
Oswego
32,619
39%
23%
13,027
84%
54%
5,312
1-Year
Otsego
17,601
42%
23%
6,197
78%
58%
2,505
5-Year
Putnam
27,855
31%
35%
6,379
68%
58%
978
1-Year
Queens
338,516
30%
41%
447,469
54%
58%
44,312
1-Year
Rensselaer
40,347
26%
25%
22,942
69%
51%
7,559
1-Year
1-Year
Richmond
112,509
27%
40%
52,462
62%
58%
3,934
Rockland
67,801
30%
39%
31,072
79%
61%
8,035
1-Year
Saratoga
64,349
25%
24%
26,615
53%
39%
5,819
1-Year
Schenectady
37,187
30%
28%
19,068
67%
50%
2,526
1-Year
Schoharie
9,723
41%
27%
3,016
73%
51%
1,198
5-Year
Schuyler
6,056
26%
19%
1,703
64%
40%
399
5-Year
Seneca
9,861
41%
22%
3,624
78%
51%
1,516
5-Year
St. Lawrence
28,625
45%
24%
11,661
77%
54%
3,699
1-Year
Steuben
28,071
29%
23%
12,975
57%
42%
3,247
1-Year
Suffolk
385,265
36%
40%
108,022
71%
62%
17,045
1-Year
Sullivan
18,265
40%
39%
9,259
65%
54%
2,382
1-Year
Tioga
15,840
36%
22%
4,338
72%
47%
1,403
5-Year
Tompkins
20,837
32%
23%
17,283
69%
59%
921
1-Year
Ulster
47,857
33%
34%
21,665
72%
66%
1,747
1-Year
Warren
18,463
32%
28%
7,730
76%
50%
2,376
1-Year
Washington
17,757
39%
28%
6,408
76%
54%
2,539
5-Year
Wayne
26,352
41%
22%
9,225
86%
59%
3,755
1-Year
Westchester
206,805
30%
35%
135,752
69%
55%
27,209
1-Year
Wyoming
11,759
37%
19%
3,932
78%
46%
1,491
5-Year
Yates
7,452
41%
24%
2,190
80%
49%
787
5-Year
APPENDIX H KEY FACTS AND

ALICE STATISTICS FOR NEW YORK
MUNICIPALITIES
Knowing the extent of local variation is an important aspect of understanding the challenges facing households
earning below the ALICE Threshold in New York. Key data and ALICE statistics for the states municipalities are
presented here. Because they build on American Community Survey data, for most towns with populations over
65,000, the data are 1-Year estimates; for populations under 65,000, data are 5-Year estimates. (Starting in
2014, there are no 3-Year estimates.) The Gini coefficient shows income inequality in each municipality, varying
from 0 (perfect equality) to 100 percent (perfect inequality, when one person has all the income).
Municipality by County
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Albany city, Albany County

(SD)
98287
39,903
24%
30%
46%
0.4749
8.9%
90%
26%
53%
5-Year
Albany city, Albany County (P)
98566
41,262
23%
29%
48%
0.4829
5.7%
91%
16%
49%
1-Year
Altamont village, Albany

County (P)
1609
670
6%
28%
66%
0.388
7.0%
98%
21%
40%
5-Year
Berne town, Albany County

(SD)
2809
1,214
7%
25%
68%
0.3861
5.0%
96%
26%
36%
5-Year
Bethlehem town, Albany

County (SD)
34163
13,178
4%
16%
80%
0.4054
5.5%
97%
22%
37%
5-Year
Coeymans town, Albany

County (SD)
7437
3,017
11%
31%
58%
0.3908
4.3%
90%
27%
40%
5-Year
Cohoes city, Albany County

(SD)
16195
7,139
14%
39%
47%
0.4125
9.6%
90%
31%
40%
5-Year
Colonie town, Albany County

(SD)
82197
31,941
7%
23%
70%
0.4142
5.2%
95%
20%
43%
5-Year
Colonie village, Albany

County (P)
7869
3,254
3%
23%
74%
0.3777
6.2%
95%
23%
30%
5-Year
Green Island town, Albany

County (SD)
2612
1,058
11%
33%
56%
0.3647
8.0%
91%
7%
32%
5-Year
Guilderland town, Albany

County (SD)
35511
14,304
5%
21%
74%
0.4257
5.0%
97%
22%
36%
5-Year
Knox town, Albany County

(SD)
2618
970
5%
24%
71%
0.3768
9.2%
92%
23%
37%
5-Year
Menands village, Albany

County (P)
4004
1,701
6%
26%
68%
0.4651
0.8%
97%
32%
34%
5-Year
New Scotland town, Albany

County (SD)
8725
3,358
5%
23%
72%
0.4136
4.7%
97%
27%
28%
5-Year
Preston-Potter Hollow CDP,

Albany County (P)
354
146
5%
22%
73%
0.3087
5.7%
88%
15%
0%
5-Year
Ravena village, Albany

County (P)
3275
1,387
14%
36%
50%
0.3558
2.4%
85%
27%
57%
5-Year
Rensselaerville town, Albany

County (SD)
1942
754
19%
23%
58%
0.4596
13.0%
90%
31%
45%
5-Year
Voorheesville village, Albany

County (P)
2813
1,092
2%
20%
78%
0.3417
6.0%
98%
15%
31%
5-Year
Watervliet city, Albany County

(SD)
10250
4,740
13%
42%
45%
0.383
7.7%
89%
31%
43%
5-Year
Westerlo town, Albany County

(SD)
3378
1,369
8%
19%
73%
0.3839
7.7%
99%
21%
83%
5-Year
Westmere CDP, Albany

County (P)
7066
3,215
7%
27%
66%
0.4207
3.5%
96%
22%
38%
5-Year
Alfred town, Allegany County

(SD)
5127
783
29%
21%
50%
0.497
14.3%
95%
20%
59%
5-Year
Alfred village, Allegany

County (P)
4278
394
45%
18%
37%
0.5843
15.5%
95%
2%
71%
5-Year
Allen town, Allegany County

(SD)
581
192
21%
26%
53%
0.3745
11.1%
54%
32%
40%
5-Year
Alma town, Allegany County

(SD)
905
347
18%
27%
55%
0.3874
15.2%
94%
22%
13%
5-Year
154
Key Facts and ALICE Statistics by Municipality, New York, 2014

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Almond town, Allegany

County (SD)
1706
661
11%
22%
67%
0.3689
4.8%
92%
10%
47%
5-Year
Almond village, Allegany

County (P)
535
208
19%
25%
56%
0.3964
18.9%
88%
16%
59%
5-Year
Amity town, Allegany County

(SD)
2401
965
15%
26%
59%
0.3977
13.5%
91%
20%
46%
5-Year
Andover town, Allegany

County (SD)
1695
701
14%
30%
56%
0.3863
10.9%
95%
18%
40%
5-Year
Andover village, Allegany

County (P)
860
379
12%
29%
59%
0.3766
6.9%
97%
14%
36%
5-Year
Angelica town, Allegany

County (SD)
1376
569
15%
31%
54%
0.3944
9.6%
92%
22%
26%
5-Year
Angelica village, Allegany

County (P)
894
369
14%
33%
53%
0.3899
12.5%
94%
20%
32%
5-Year
Belfast CDP, Allegany County

(P)
917
425
17%
42%
41%
0.387
7.4%
89%
19%
49%
5-Year
Belfast town, Allegany County

(SD)
1792
749
17%
29%
54%
0.376
4.2%
85%
19%
48%
5-Year
Belmont village, Allegany

County (P)
1031
433
16%
25%
59%
0.3641
9.6%
94%
19%
54%
5-Year
Bolivar town, Allegany County

(SD)
2273
932
18%
31%
51%
0.4428
10.1%
93%
23%
64%
5-Year
Bolivar village, Allegany

County (P)
1136
495
22%
29%
49%
0.5027
11.0%
92%
19%
69%
5-Year
Burns town, Allegany County

(SD)
1551
591
15%
39%
46%
0.3929
5.3%
93%
31%
39%
5-Year
Canaseraga village, Allegany

County (P)
671
258
23%
42%
35%
0.4585
7.8%
93%
33%
64%
5-Year
Caneadea town, Allegany

County (SD)
2602
624
11%
27%
62%
0.3528
9.0%
94%
22%
44%
5-Year
Centerville town, Allegany

County (SD)
816
287
17%
32%
51%
0.3875
9.6%
58%
21%
28%
5-Year
Clarksville town, Allegany

County (SD)
846
402
14%
37%
49%
0.3828
5.6%
93%
26%
27%
5-Year
Cuba town, Allegany County

(SD)
3231
1,362
13%
24%
63%
0.4464
10.0%
90%
18%
50%
5-Year
Cuba village, Allegany County

(P)
1648
680
18%
26%
56%
0.4076
13.9%
87%
15%
47%
5-Year
Fillmore CDP, Allegany

County (P)
621
285
13%
42%
45%
0.3367
13.6%
85%
20%
30%
5-Year
Friendship CDP, Allegany

County (P)
1138
443
29%
36%
35%
0.3874
13.5%
83%
24%
47%
5-Year
Friendship town, Allegany

County (SD)
2003
823
26%
32%
42%
0.3986
14.7%
87%
20%
47%
5-Year
Genesee town, Allegany

County (SD)
1298
572
10%
31%
59%
0.3642
7.8%
92%
19%
36%
5-Year
Granger town, Allegany

County (SD)
585
238
21%
25%
54%
0.4222
10.8%
88%
27%
18%
5-Year
Grove town, Allegany County

(SD)
489
217
12%
28%
60%
0.3511
9.9%
96%
28%
11%
5-Year
Houghton CDP, Allegany

County (P)
1763
270
11%
22%
67%
0.3608
3.0%
97%
17%
36%
5-Year
Hume town, Allegany County

(SD)
1825
866
16%
40%
44%
0.38
11.7%
88%
22%
37%
5-Year
Independence town, Allegany

County (SD)
1193
476
15%
24%
61%
0.3482
4.2%
94%
18%
45%
5-Year
New Hudson town, Allegany

County (SD)
773
305
7%
37%
56%
0.3814
6.6%
82%
24%
61%
5-Year
Richburg village, Allegany

County (P)
670
252
20%
27%
53%
0.4013
18.3%
85%
22%
65%
5-Year
Rushford CDP, Allegany

County (P)
307
136
4%
62%
34%
0.3122
13.7%
93%
7%
53%
5-Year
Rushford town, Allegany

County (SD)
1045
494
8%
46%
46%
0.3523
9.7%
96%
20%
44%
5-Year
155
Scio CDP, Allegany County (P)
460
216
11%
22%
67%
0.3482
3.9%
93%
13%
36%
5-Year
Scio town, Allegany County

(SD)
1577
697
17%
28%
55%
0.3865
8.4%
93%
19%
51%
5-Year
Stannards CDP, Allegany

County (P)
912
430
16%
40%
44%
0.4928
10.2%
88%
14%
71%
5-Year
Ward town, Allegany County

(SD)
286
103
12%
24%
64%
0.3709
10.3%
92%
20%
33%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Wellsville town, Allegany

County (SD)
7306
3,177
16%
35%
49%
0.4635
9.0%
91%
16%
54%
5-Year
Wellsville village, Allegany

County (P)
4621
1,980
20%
31%
49%
0.4842
11.3%
92%
12%
53%
5-Year
West Almond town, Allegany

County (SD)
373
128
13%
17%
70%
0.3129
1.3%
74%
14%
40%
5-Year
Willing town, Allegany County

(SD)
1458
610
19%
31%
50%
0.4547
7.9%
85%
22%
57%
5-Year
Wirt town, Allegany County

(SD)
1082
441
17%
26%
57%
0.3998
7.6%
87%
25%
38%
5-Year
Bronx borough, Bronx County

(SD)
1413566
480,323
30%
40%
30%
0.4946
15.0%
85%
42%
58%
5-Year
Barker town, Broome County

(SD)
2710
1,000
14%
28%
58%
0.4073
12.4%
90%
24%
60%
5-Year
Binghamton city, Broome

County (SD)
46771
19,902
29%
30%
41%
0.5006
11.4%
91%
27%
57%
5-Year
Binghamton town, Broome

County (SD)
4893
1,872
6%
18%
76%
0.4129
5.8%
92%
19%
44%
5-Year
Chenango Bridge CDP,

Broome County (P)
2903
1,127
5%
19%
76%
0.368
2.4%
97%
20%
19%
5-Year
Chenango town, Broome

County (SD)
11134
4,478
9%
21%
70%
0.3722
7.0%
96%
22%
49%
5-Year
Colesville town, Broome

County (SD)
5184
1,901
15%
25%
60%
0.3908
8.3%
90%
25%
48%
5-Year
Conklin town, Broome County

(SD)
5368
2,035
13%
22%
65%
0.3785
7.2%
89%
25%
59%
5-Year
Deposit village, Broome

County (P)
1815
765
20%
33%
47%
0.4059
8.3%
80%
31%
53%
5-Year
Dickinson town, Broome

County (SD)
5251
1,932
10%
27%
63%
0.4346
10.5%
96%
17%
48%
5-Year
Endicott village, Broome

County (P)
13216
5,985
21%
40%
39%
0.4414
12.4%
88%
23%
55%
5-Year
Endwell CDP, Broome County

(P)
11315
4,942
8%
26%
66%
0.407
4.3%
95%
14%
33%
5-Year
Fenton town, Broome County

(SD)
6595
2,691
12%
28%
60%
0.4289
8.0%
95%
15%
30%
5-Year
Glen Aubrey CDP, Broome

County (P)
351
162
17%
16%
67%
0.3563
17.1%
93%
10%
44%
5-Year
Johnson City village, Broome

County (P)
14977
6,545
19%
32%
49%
0.4362
8.4%
92%
22%
50%
5-Year
Kirkwood town, Broome

County (SD)
5800
2,371
12%
26%
62%
0.4498
7.6%
94%
17%
29%
5-Year
Lisle town, Broome County

(SD)
2716
1,014
9%
28%
63%
0.4237
8.4%
89%
19%
31%
5-Year
Lisle village, Broome County

(P)
266
129
19%
24%
57%
0.462
15.0%
86%
13%
52%
5-Year
Maine town, Broome County

(SD)
5332
1,833
11%
24%
65%
0.3939
7.6%
91%
20%
53%
5-Year
Nanticoke town, Broome

County (SD)
1568
592
12%
25%
63%
0.3599
13.2%
93%
22%
43%
5-Year
Port Dickinson village,

Broome County (P)
1639
700
8%
34%
58%
0.3912
7.2%
94%
26%
48%
5-Year
Sanford town, Broome

County (SD)
2478
1,070
13%
31%
56%
0.4366
9.1%
84%
28%
31%
5-Year
Triangle town, Broome

County (SD)
2915
1,107
10%
26%
64%
0.3489
3.3%
91%
18%
30%
5-Year
Union town, Broome County

(SD)
55700
24,367
14%
30%
56%
0.4351
8.3%
92%
19%
48%
5-Year
Vestal town, Broome County

(SD)
28170
8,915
8%
20%
72%
0.4341
7.5%
94%
21%
50%
5-Year
Whitney Point village, Broome

County (P)
1016
407
25%
23%
52%
0.3995
7.6%
96%
28%
46%
5-Year
Windsor town, Broome

County (SD)
6212
2,358
8%
24%
68%
0.3812
3.9%
91%
25%
30%
5-Year
Windsor village, Broome

County (P)
1005
373
10%
27%
63%
0.3915
8.3%
91%
16%
39%
5-Year
Allegany Reservation,
Cattaraugus County (SD)
932
373
32%
26%
42%
0.4271
9.5%
84%
20%
18%
5-Year
Allegany town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
7860
2,699
11%
30%
59%
0.395
8.0%
94%
20%
36%
5-Year
Allegany village, Cattaraugus

County (P)
1868
718
19%
25%
56%
0.4639
9.1%
93%
25%
40%
5-Year
Ashford town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
2101
860
10%
27%
63%
0.3377
10.8%
96%
24%
58%
5-Year
Carrollton town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1242
517
14%
36%
50%
0.383
8.2%
90%
20%
46%
5-Year
156
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Cattaraugus Reservation,
334
112
53%
25%
22%
0.4312
26.4%
58%
37%
88%
5-Year
Cattaraugus village,
Cattaraugus County (P)
1042
450
17%
28%
55%
0.4158
5.5%
89%
17%
48%
5-Year
Coldspring town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
628
260
15%
32%
53%
0.3921
6.5%
86%
26%
31%
5-Year
Conewango town,
1973
561
30%
22%
48%
0.4235
3.7%
51%
24%
44%
5-Year
Dayton town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
2108
795
15%
23%
62%
0.342
7.6%
86%
22%
32%
5-Year
Delevan village, Cattaraugus

County (P)
1115
444
21%
27%
52%
0.4049
11.0%
88%
26%
55%
5-Year
East Otto town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
949
400
10%
25%
65%
0.4048
4.3%
93%
29%
31%
5-Year
East Randolph CDP,

573
181
29%
31%
40%
0.4057
7.9%
90%
14%
68%
5-Year
Ellicottville town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1424
634
6%
38%
56%
0.4769
8.5%
88%
28%
45%
5-Year
Ellicottville village,
239
142
1%
50%
49%
0.5122
8.6%
93%
24%
19%
5-Year
Farmersville town,
904
407
8%
37%
55%
0.381
6.6%
85%
24%
41%
5-Year
Franklinville town,
2960
1,187
18%
28%
54%
0.4114
11.6%
89%
17%
53%
5-Year
Franklinville village,
1794
708
25%
30%
45%
0.44
11.3%
90%
18%
55%
5-Year
Freedom town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
2434
983
12%
35%
53%
0.383
10.4%
93%
29%
53%
5-Year
Gowanda village, Cattaraugus

County (P)
2679
1,104
16%
35%
49%
0.3937
5.9%
87%
18%
47%
5-Year
Great Valley town,

2281
894
15%
23%
62%
0.4155
11.8%
92%
27%
17%
5-Year
Hinsdale town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1987
750
13%
37%
50%
0.3509
6.1%
92%
25%
75%
5-Year
Humphrey town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
694
289
13%
32%
55%
0.3742
4.2%
91%
25%
25%
5-Year
Ischua town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
937
364
16%
26%
58%
0.4213
14.6%
87%
20%
29%
5-Year
Leon town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1252
352
22%
27%
51%
0.5227
6.0%
64%
21%
30%
5-Year
Lime Lake CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
725
230
10%
26%
64%
0.3983
7.8%
99%
25%
45%
5-Year
Limestone CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
157
411
149
17%
27%
56%
0.3889
6.9%
90%
20%
48%
5-Year
Little Valley town,

1773
643
17%
35%
48%
0.3864
9.6%
88%
19%
43%
5-Year
Little Valley village,

1203
409
21%
36%
43%
0.3954
8.6%
86%
22%
38%
5-Year
Lyndon town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
738
327
13%
38%
49%
0.4651
11.0%
86%
38%
18%
5-Year
Machias CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
553
214
9%
30%
61%
0.3213
10.2%
95%
16%
26%
5-Year
Machias town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
2403
817
9%
31%
60%
0.3569
7.4%
96%
20%
38%
5-Year
Mansfield town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
898
376
8%
25%
67%
0.4183
6.0%
86%
26%
94%
5-Year
Napoli town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1311
404
18%
25%
57%
0.3601
10.1%
72%
25%
36%
5-Year
New Albion town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1871
830
15%
36%
49%
0.3962
4.6%
89%
21%
36%
5-Year
Olean city, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
14232
6,222
18%
32%
50%
0.4646
9.3%
94%
14%
46%
5-Year
Olean town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1828
794
17%
25%
58%
0.439
9.5%
92%
30%
68%
5-Year
Otto town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
834
316
13%
28%
59%
0.3836
9.0%
94%
25%
73%
5-Year
Perrysburg CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
308
135
24%
20%
56%
0.4408
4.0%
93%
13%
43%
5-Year
Perrysburg town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
1522
662
7%
26%
67%
0.3342
5.7%
90%
21%
25%
5-Year
Persia town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
2377
951
13%
33%
54%
0.3565
6.0%
88%
16%
43%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Portville town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
3692
1,547
10%
19%
71%
0.3827
5.6%
92%
10%
31%
5-Year
Portville village, Cattaraugus

County (P)
1135
444
12%
23%
65%
0.4246
3.4%
89%
15%
42%
5-Year
Randolph CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
1215
518
15%
37%
48%
0.4172
7.1%
93%
23%
42%
5-Year
Randolph town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
2570
995
12%
33%
55%
0.3853
8.1%
91%
19%
42%
5-Year
Salamanca city, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
5717
2,384
27%
36%
37%
0.4282
14.1%
86%
23%
45%
5-Year
Salamanca town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
515
212
11%
27%
62%
0.3688
12.4%
84%
18%
0%
5-Year
South Dayton village,

816
318
20%
34%
46%
0.3579
11.8%
89%
30%
54%
5-Year
South Valley town,

202
113
8%
29%
63%
0.3477
5.1%
94%
25%
33%
5-Year
St. Bonaventure CDP,

1975
266
6%
40%
54%
0.4044
2.5%
99%
23%
15%
5-Year
West Valley CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
488
196
14%
36%
50%
0.35
5.7%
96%
23%
73%
5-Year
Weston Mills CDP,

1346
581
15%
17%
68%
0.4163
10.1%
90%
15%
43%
5-Year
Yorkshire CDP, Cattaraugus

County (P)
1103
635
15%
57%
28%
0.4226
15.1%
87%
29%
39%
5-Year
Yorkshire town, Cattaraugus

County (SD)
3869
1,754
14%
44%
42%
0.4094
10.8%
84%
35%
36%
5-Year
Auburn city, Cayuga County

(SD)
27369
11,119
20%
33%
47%
0.4437
11.0%
89%
22%
43%
5-Year
Aurelius town, Cayuga

County (SD)
2780
1,133
5%
25%
70%
0.3692
5.2%
88%
18%
24%
5-Year
Aurora village, Cayuga

County (P)
734
146
3%
20%
77%
0.3331
2.6%
96%
13%
22%
5-Year
Brutus town, Cayuga County

(SD)
4437
1,882
8%
30%
62%
0.3694
12.1%
93%
19%
32%
5-Year
Cato town, Cayuga County

(SD)
2530
1,006
10%
19%
71%
0.3772
7.5%
84%
21%
58%
5-Year
Cato village, Cayuga County

(P)
665
238
12%
37%
51%
0.4067
9.5%
90%
17%
49%
5-Year
Cayuga village, Cayuga

County (P)
523
216
4%
28%
68%
0.3362
4.8%
94%
14%
32%
5-Year
Conquest town, Cayuga

County (SD)
1554
612
8%
32%
60%
0.3476
10.0%
91%
20%
61%
5-Year
Fair Haven village, Cayuga

County (P)
746
332
14%
26%
60%
0.4297
11.7%
90%
22%
37%
5-Year
Fleming town, Cayuga County

(SD)
2627
1,069
2%
25%
73%
0.3587
4.1%
95%
22%
51%
5-Year
Genoa town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1847
732
13%
21%
66%
0.4233
4.9%
93%
25%
32%
5-Year
Ira town, Cayuga County (SD)
2310
838
9%
22%
69%
0.3819
6.4%
91%
29%
39%
5-Year
Ledyard town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1810
578
6%
20%
74%
0.3478
4.9%
92%
21%
20%
5-Year
Locke town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1797
719
14%
17%
69%
0.3316
7.6%
87%
14%
29%
5-Year
Melrose Park CDP, Cayuga

County (P)
2026
802
2%
18%
80%
0.3808
4.5%
97%
14%
35%
5-Year
Mentz town, Cayuga County

(SD)
2542
965
14%
34%
52%
0.358
11.6%
91%
24%
43%
5-Year
Montezuma town, Cayuga

County (SD)
1182
471
12%
31%
57%
0.3714
6.7%
85%
22%
24%
5-Year
Moravia town, Cayuga County

(SD)
3550
1,075
7%
27%
66%
0.3496
6.9%
93%
17%
38%
5-Year
Moravia village, Cayuga

County (P)
1512
594
9%
29%
62%
0.3817
11.3%
93%
17%
38%
5-Year
Niles town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1159
471
6%
21%
73%
0.4052
8.6%
90%
24%
58%
5-Year
Owasco town, Cayuga County

(SD)
3761
1,506
3%
20%
77%
0.406
5.5%
98%
26%
44%
5-Year
Port Byron village, Cayuga

County (P)
1387
494
13%
35%
52%
0.3665
9.7%
91%
24%
54%
5-Year
Scipio town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1872
650
6%
17%
77%
0.3907
8.5%
88%
17%
22%
5-Year
Sempronius town, Cayuga

County (SD)
925
363
11%
23%
66%
0.3361
7.2%
92%
17%
72%
5-Year
Sennett town, Cayuga County

(SD)
3581
1,222
4%
14%
82%
0.4048
3.2%
96%
20%
33%
5-Year
158
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Springport town, Cayuga

County (SD)
2492
941
11%
16%
73%
0.3678
6.7%
90%
21%
33%
5-Year
Sterling town, Cayuga County

(SD)
3053
1,245
12%
27%
61%
0.3694
7.2%
89%
29%
43%
5-Year
Summerhill town, Cayuga

County (SD)
1250
404
12%
19%
69%
0.3395
6.1%
84%
27%
54%
5-Year
Throop town, Cayuga County

(SD)
2041
748
4%
17%
79%
0.3249
3.6%
96%
16%
24%
5-Year
Union Springs village, Cayuga

County (P)
1330
475
17%
19%
64%
0.4064
6.6%
88%
24%
40%
5-Year
Venice town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1350
485
8%
28%
64%
0.3527
3.4%
91%
22%
16%
5-Year
Victory town, Cayuga County

(SD)
1662
673
14%
30%
56%
0.3805
8.0%
87%
27%
48%
5-Year
Weedsport village, Cayuga

County (P)
1910
791
6%
25%
69%
0.3767
5.7%
96%
12%
32%
5-Year
Arkwright town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
975
399
9%
25%
66%
0.3516
2.2%
94%
18%
12%
5-Year
Bemus Point village,

Chautauqua County (P)
212
100
12%
39%
49%
0.5724
8.6%
97%
25%
34%
5-Year
Brocton village, Chautauqua

County (P)
1553
676
24%
28%
48%
0.4153
9.1%
91%
24%
43%
5-Year
Busti CDP, Chautauqua

County (P)
514
139
1%
36%
63%
0.219
27.7%
84%
22%
7%
5-Year
Busti town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
7302
3,089
12%
26%
62%
0.4311
5.9%
93%
21%
40%
5-Year
Carroll town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
3495
1,542
8%
29%
63%
0.3789
8.6%
93%
18%
32%
5-Year
Cassadaga village,
600
235
8%
29%
63%
0.3399
8.7%
97%
16%
34%
5-Year
Celoron village, Chautauqua

County (P)
1078
509
21%
25%
54%
0.368
13.5%
87%
18%
36%
5-Year
Charlotte town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
1832
701
16%
35%
49%
0.3885
8.4%
91%
25%
43%
5-Year
Chautauqua CDP, Chautauqua

County (P)
559
188
9%
12%
79%
0.6548
4.3%
93%
34%
0%
5-Year
Chautauqua town,
Chautauqua County (SD)
4433
1,701
13%
22%
65%
0.5157
4.6%
89%
23%
19%
5-Year
Cherry Creek town,

1020
382
12%
25%
63%
0.3386
8.7%
87%
24%
38%
5-Year
Cherry Creek village,

480
184
18%
27%
55%
0.3827
15.1%
93%
19%
45%
5-Year
Clymer town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
1630
554
14%
29%
57%
0.4439
5.4%
70%
18%
26%
5-Year
Dunkirk city, Chautauqua

County (SD)
12386
5,504
22%
31%
47%
0.4335
9.9%
92%
16%
56%
5-Year
Dunkirk town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
1263
497
15%
29%
56%
0.4961
7.5%
95%
20%
50%
5-Year
Ellery town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
4497
1,990
11%
32%
57%
0.4564
7.2%
92%
28%
40%
5-Year
Ellicott town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
8634
3,698
14%
23%
63%
0.3661
6.9%
93%
19%
37%
5-Year
Ellington town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
1651
634
14%
26%
60%
0.3727
6.7%
87%
20%
25%
5-Year
Falconer village, Chautauqua

County (P)
2594
1,080
18%
35%
47%
0.3768
7.8%
95%
15%
45%
5-Year
Forestville village,
791
287
14%
25%
61%
0.3345
3.2%
95%
13%
47%
5-Year
10988
3,862
19%
26%
55%
0.4452
5.8%
93%
20%
44%
5-Year
French Creek town,

848
337
11%
33%
56%
0.4524
9.5%
86%
21%
20%
5-Year
Frewsburg CDP, Chautauqua

County (P)
2183
941
9%
21%
70%
0.3734
10.0%
97%
12%
36%
5-Year
Gerry town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
2229
787
9%
30%
61%
0.3923
7.0%
94%
18%
48%
5-Year
Hanover town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
7034
2,886
14%
25%
61%
0.3734
10.3%
91%
23%
43%
5-Year
Harmony town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
2136
855
11%
25%
64%
0.3643
5.7%
90%
18%
41%
5-Year
Jamestown city, Chautauqua

County (SD)
30799
13,108
27%
34%
39%
0.4593
12.3%
91%
23%
52%
5-Year
Fredonia village, Chautauqua

County (P)
159
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Jamestown West CDP,

2146
920
7%
19%
74%
0.3728
4.9%
94%
24%
19%
5-Year
Kennedy CDP, Chautauqua

County (P)
466
188
6%
38%
56%
0.3932
12.9%
95%
4%
35%
5-Year
Kiantone town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
1462
560
7%
29%
64%
0.3941
5.5%
95%
23%
11%
5-Year
Lakewood village,
2978
1,365
15%
24%
61%
0.4592
5.8%
93%
18%
39%
5-Year
Mayville village, Chautauqua

County (P)
1386
524
14%
27%
59%
0.3808
6.3%
97%
22%
32%
5-Year
Mina town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
971
394
9%
32%
59%
0.3925
1.7%
82%
26%
0%
5-Year
North Harmony town,

2208
917
12%
22%
66%
0.3861
9.6%
92%
28%
37%
5-Year
Panama village, Chautauqua

County (P)
492
200
11%
36%
53%
0.3644
14.5%
92%
24%
49%
5-Year
Poland town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
2319
924
7%
30%
63%
0.3635
9.0%
96%
17%
24%
5-Year
Pomfret town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
14698
5,302
18%
26%
56%
0.4401
6.7%
93%
23%
41%
5-Year
Portland town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
4910
1,698
20%
31%
49%
0.4327
6.2%
90%
33%
42%
5-Year
Ripley CDP, Chautauqua

County (P)
826
351
17%
43%
40%
0.4085
2.1%
90%
21%
38%
5-Year
Ripley town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
2080
853
15%
38%
47%
0.4402
6.0%
86%
25%
39%
5-Year
Sheridan town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
2655
1,099
9%
21%
70%
0.3253
4.8%
97%
21%
24%
5-Year
Sherman town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
1953
586
20%
30%
50%
0.4193
3.8%
66%
22%
38%
5-Year
Sherman village, Chautauqua

County (P)
701
280
10%
44%
46%
0.3817
3.5%
93%
13%
43%
5-Year
Silver Creek village,

2607
1,065
14%
32%
54%
0.3775
12.4%
88%
29%
36%
5-Year
Sinclairville village,
587
217
14%
35%
51%
0.3427
11.3%
94%
24%
36%
5-Year
Stockton town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
2219
797
17%
30%
53%
0.3863
6.8%
96%
19%
50%
5-Year
Sunset Bay CDP, Chautauqua

County (P)
750
294
7%
31%
62%
0.4342
17.6%
84%
15%
44%
5-Year
Villenova town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
940
382
9%
31%
60%
0.4209
13.1%
95%
29%
32%
5-Year
Westfield town, Chautauqua

County (SD)
4838
2,023
14%
32%
54%
0.3837
7.0%
96%
22%
46%
5-Year
Westfield village, Chautauqua

County (P)
3571
1,414
9%
36%
55%
0.3672
7.6%
96%
25%
39%
5-Year
Ashland town, Chemung

County (SD)
1541
647
16%
35%
49%
0.3889
11.5%
93%
25%
39%
5-Year
Baldwin town, Chemung

County (SD)
850
382
12%
19%
69%
0.3685
5.3%
93%
20%
27%
5-Year
Big Flats CDP, Chemung

County (P)
5247
2,138
7%
17%
76%
0.376
3.8%
93%
15%
31%
5-Year
Big Flats town, Chemung

County (SD)
7775
3,315
7%
23%
70%
0.4013
4.5%
94%
19%
38%
5-Year
Breesport CDP, Chemung

County (P)
913
312
4%
22%
74%
0.2887
6.3%
93%
27%
5-Year
Catlin town, Chemung County

(SD)
2614
1,096
13%
23%
64%
0.4187
7.3%
94%
23%
71%
5-Year
Chemung town, Chemung

County (SD)
2555
982
10%
35%
55%
0.4073
1.8%
91%
26%
39%
5-Year
Elmira city, Chemung County

(SD)
29046
10,826
28%
31%
41%
0.4815
9.2%
90%
19%
55%
5-Year
Elmira Heights village,

Chemung County (P)
4111
1,658
18%
29%
53%
0.3794
6.5%
94%
12%
44%
5-Year
Elmira town, Chemung

County (SD)
6896
2,888
6%
16%
78%
0.4868
6.9%
94%
12%
42%
5-Year
Erin CDP, Chemung County

(P)
384
187
16%
47%
37%
0.351
9.4%
82%
9%
100%
5-Year
Erin town, Chemung County

(SD)
2043
801
12%
24%
64%
0.3639
4.0%
92%
13%
43%
5-Year
Horseheads North CDP,

Chemung County (P)
2658
1,130
9%
10%
81%
0.367
2.9%
98%
5%
49%
5-Year
Horseheads town, Chemung

County (SD)
19618
8,148
12%
22%
66%
0.4383
3.9%
94%
12%
45%
5-Year
Horseheads village, Chemung

County (P)
6593
2,975
9%
27%
64%
0.415
3.7%
93%
11%
38%
5-Year
160
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Millport village, Chemung

County (P)
398
133
29%
31%
40%
0.4297
19.8%
86%
16%
57%
5-Year
Pine Valley CDP, Chemung

County (P)
829
423
31%
23%
46%
0.4961
7.3%
94%
22%
82%
5-Year
Southport CDP, Chemung

County (P)
7145
3,188
14%
30%
56%
0.4021
5.0%
92%
14%
44%
5-Year
Southport town, Chemung

County (SD)
10848
4,367
11%
27%
62%
0.3899
5.3%
94%
13%
43%
5-Year
Van Etten town, Chemung

County (SD)
1592
620
14%
27%
59%
0.3887
7.0%
90%
27%
56%
5-Year
Van Etten village, Chemung

County (P)
558
223
19%
29%
52%
0.4518
10.9%
92%
33%
70%
5-Year
Veteran town, Chemung

County (SD)
3303
1,318
9%
22%
69%
0.3853
3.8%
94%
25%
19%
5-Year
Wellsburg village, Chemung

County (P)
558
227
15%
42%
43%
0.4205
14.2%
92%
24%
36%
5-Year
West Elmira CDP, Chemung

County (P)
5077
2,155
6%
13%
81%
0.4876
6.8%
94%
9%
44%
5-Year
Afton town, Chenango County

(SD)
2827
1,135
12%
39%
49%
0.3865
11.5%
83%
20%
37%
5-Year
Afton village, Chenango

County (P)
1082
437
16%
32%
52%
0.404
11.8%
91%
23%
30%
5-Year
Bainbridge town, Chenango

County (SD)
3282
1,348
9%
32%
59%
0.4052
5.5%
88%
36%
46%
5-Year
Bainbridge village, Chenango

County (P)
1337
573
13%
32%
55%
0.4142
6.4%
92%
32%
44%
5-Year
Columbus town, Chenango

County (SD)
936
357
11%
37%
52%
0.3706
10.0%
84%
33%
45%
5-Year
Coventry town, Chenango

County (SD)
1598
581
16%
29%
55%
0.3613
12.8%
86%
26%
46%
5-Year
German town, Chenango

County (SD)
347
150
17%
35%
48%
0.4289
16.0%
85%
35%
26%
5-Year
Greene town, Chenango

County (SD)
5512
2,114
10%
26%
64%
0.3762
5.1%
93%
21%
34%
5-Year
Greene village, Chenango

County (P)
1750
717
10%
33%
57%
0.3961
4.3%
92%
19%
30%
5-Year
Guilford CDP, Chenango

County (P)
308
141
16%
43%
41%
0.3378
39.4%
95%
42%
36%
5-Year
Guilford town, Chenango

County (SD)
2889
1,241
15%
28%
57%
0.4087
11.8%
91%
28%
26%
5-Year
Lincklaen town, Chenango

County (SD)
383
156
13%
31%
56%
0.4965
6.7%
92%
21%
15%
5-Year
McDonough town, Chenango

County (SD)
721
324
14%
38%
48%
0.4039
10.1%
90%
19%
33%
5-Year
New Berlin town, Chenango

County (SD)
2636
1,148
17%
36%
47%
0.4505
9.7%
87%
24%
33%
5-Year
New Berlin village, Chenango

County (P)
1240
502
22%
35%
43%
0.4392
12.9%
90%
25%
40%
5-Year
North Norwich town,

Chenango County (SD)
1698
634
12%
22%
66%
0.3976
4.1%
89%
21%
47%
5-Year
Norwich city, Chenango

County (SD)
7080
2,854
25%
31%
44%
0.4813
9.5%
93%
22%
53%
5-Year
Norwich town, Chenango

County (SD)
3935
1,435
15%
21%
64%
0.3818
8.6%
96%
11%
61%
5-Year
Otselic town, Chenango

County (SD)
910
370
19%
26%
55%
0.4075
13.3%
90%
26%
49%
5-Year
Oxford town, Chenango

County (SD)
3870
1,475
10%
30%
60%
0.395
6.8%
93%
24%
58%
5-Year
Oxford village, Chenango

County (P)
1565
571
13%
26%
61%
0.4101
8.8%
92%
21%
48%
5-Year
Pharsalia town, Chenango

County (SD)
573
223
16%
17%
67%
0.3429
13.0%
90%
12%
18%
5-Year
Pitcher town, Chenango

County (SD)
622
259
12%
27%
61%
0.3366
14.3%
86%
25%
16%
5-Year
Plymouth town, Chenango

County (SD)
2135
717
14%
29%
57%
0.4039
12.3%
87%
30%
27%
5-Year
Preston town, Chenango

County (SD)
1111
423
13%
35%
52%
0.3981
7.8%
93%
21%
30%
5-Year
Sherburne town, Chenango

County (SD)
4005
1,585
14%
31%
55%
0.381
7.1%
92%
22%
35%
5-Year
Sherburne village, Chenango

County (P)
1371
630
21%
32%
47%
0.429
4.9%
96%
17%
41%
5-Year
161
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Smithville Flats CDP,

Chenango County (P)
530
189
30%
25%
45%
0.4535
13.6%
92%
30%
65%
5-Year
Smithville town, Chenango

County (SD)
1659
578
23%
25%
52%
0.3901
6.0%
95%
22%
36%
5-Year
Smyrna town, Chenango

County (SD)
1139
453
18%
22%
60%
0.3433
8.6%
90%
24%
27%
5-Year
Altona CDP, Clinton County

(P)
832
157
28%
32%
40%
0.3405
14.1%
96%
23%
31%
5-Year
Altona town, Clinton County

(SD)
2913
973
20%
26%
54%
0.4976
13.0%
93%
24%
62%
5-Year
Au Sable Forks CDP, Clinton

County (P)
393
181
19%
23%
58%
0.4072
3.2%
95%
22%
48%
5-Year
Au Sable town, Clinton

County (SD)
3141
1,342
16%
29%
55%
0.4167
8.3%
94%
22%
45%
5-Year
Beekmantown town, Clinton

County (SD)
5545
2,317
11%
28%
61%
0.4008
6.3%
93%
16%
41%
5-Year
Black Brook town, Clinton

County (SD)
1446
625
12%
24%
64%
0.3747
6.9%
89%
18%
46%
5-Year
Champlain town, Clinton

County (SD)
5732
2,484
13%
28%
59%
0.4243
13.7%
95%
19%
44%
5-Year
Champlain village, Clinton

County (P)
1107
477
21%
32%
47%
0.4319
15.2%
93%
25%
51%
5-Year
Chazy CDP, Clinton County

(P)
533
169
8%
4%
88%
0.2694
6.3%
100%
15%
0%
5-Year
Chazy town, Clinton County

(SD)
4251
1,769
9%
21%
70%
0.3906
6.2%
93%
21%
41%
5-Year
Clinton town, Clinton County

(SD)
696
270
17%
31%
52%
0.4503
7.0%
93%
20%
47%
5-Year
Cumberland Head CDP,

Clinton County (P)
1578
697
3%
24%
73%
0.4004
5.3%
98%
25%
0%
5-Year
Dannemora town, Clinton

County (SD)
4802
737
12%
27%
61%
0.3867
8.2%
96%
23%
43%
5-Year
Dannemora village, Clinton

County (P)
3785
380
15%
28%
57%
0.3675
10.1%
97%
30%
49%
5-Year
Ellenburg town, Clinton

County (SD)
1811
702
18%
27%
55%
0.4244
5.8%
94%
23%
39%
5-Year
Keeseville village, Clinton

County (P)
1986
808
17%
32%
51%
0.4005
13.4%
92%
21%
67%
5-Year
Lyon Mountain CDP, Clinton

County (P)
342
188
19%
32%
49%
0.3862
0.0%
95%
28%
57%
5-Year
Mooers CDP, Clinton County

(P)
161
132
39%
33%
28%
0.365
0.0%
100%
0%
0%
5-Year
Mooers town, Clinton County

(SD)
3597
1,512
24%
26%
50%
0.4232
7.9%
97%
19%
58%
5-Year
Morrisonville CDP, Clinton

County (P)
1730
724
21%
16%
63%
0.4066
14.3%
97%
22%
77%
5-Year
Peru CDP, Clinton County (P)
1233
481
11%
7%
82%
0.4076
3.6%
97%
4%
22%
5-Year
Peru town, Clinton County

(SD)
7007
2,733
6%
16%
78%
0.3964
3.4%
94%
18%
29%
5-Year
Plattsburgh city, Clinton

County (SD)
19840
8,005
23%
34%
43%
0.489
7.2%
92%
19%
52%
5-Year
Plattsburgh town, Clinton

County (SD)
11861
4,858
13%
22%
65%
0.4122
6.7%
94%
24%
49%
5-Year
Plattsburgh West CDP,

Clinton County (P)
1462
613
21%
30%
49%
0.3542
12.7%
93%
26%
39%
5-Year
Redford CDP, Clinton County

(P)
544
146
0%
0%
100%
0.1392
13.6%
88%
8%
5-Year
Rouses Point village, Clinton

County (P)
2336
1,076
14%
25%
61%
0.4495
12.0%
96%
11%
42%
5-Year
Saranac town, Clinton County

(SD)
4013
1,668
6%
23%
71%
0.3834
7.5%
94%
20%
37%
5-Year
Schuyler Falls town, Clinton

County (SD)
5174
1,981
15%
16%
69%
0.4254
6.0%
96%
18%
48%
5-Year
West Chazy CDP, Clinton

County (P)
893
319
15%
21%
64%
0.343
1.7%
88%
13%
87%
5-Year
Ancram town, Columbia

County (SD)
1606
633
9%
25%
66%
0.4151
8.7%
87%
43%
29%
5-Year
Austerlitz town, Columbia

County (SD)
1503
642
13%
26%
61%
0.5106
5.0%
93%
39%
46%
5-Year
Canaan town, Columbia

County (SD)
1614
623
4%
29%
67%
0.4144
8.6%
94%
32%
40%
5-Year
Chatham town, Columbia

County (SD)
4079
1,670
7%
22%
71%
0.5027
9.8%
91%
22%
51%
5-Year
Chatham village, Columbia

County (P)
1490
648
17%
33%
50%
0.4604
10.3%
89%
39%
46%
5-Year
162
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Claverack town, Columbia

County (SD)
5953
2,584
10%
36%
54%
0.4301
9.3%
93%
27%
48%
5-Year
Claverack-Red Mills CDP,

Columbia County (P)
776
412
0%
21%
79%
0.2915
2.5%
100%
27%
0%
5-Year
Clermont town, Columbia

County (SD)
1893
681
9%
25%
66%
0.4519
6.6%
88%
40%
19%
5-Year
Copake Hamlet CDP,

Columbia County (P)
386
143
5%
35%
60%
0.3256
6.5%
100%
9%
73%
5-Year
Copake Lake CDP, Columbia

County (P)
593
228
5%
22%
73%
0.3224
1.4%
94%
24%
63%
5-Year
Copake town, Columbia

County (SD)
3589
1,354
8%
27%
65%
0.4608
6.0%
92%
26%
41%
5-Year
Gallatin town, Columbia

County (SD)
1790
742
5%
29%
66%
0.3636
8.8%
91%
33%
47%
5-Year
Germantown CDP, Columbia

County (P)
973
334
5%
25%
70%
0.365
8.6%
93%
26%
55%
5-Year
Germantown town, Columbia

County (SD)
2075
844
7%
33%
60%
0.4208
7.9%
94%
32%
50%
5-Year
Ghent CDP, Columbia County

(P)
430
163
0%
31%
69%
0.3203
12.0%
93%
30%
48%
5-Year
Ghent town, Columbia County

(SD)
5348
2,031
7%
30%
63%
0.5064
8.0%
92%
24%
47%
5-Year
Greenport town, Columbia

County (SD)
4110
1,814
11%
37%
52%
0.4411
9.6%
90%
26%
29%
5-Year
Hillsdale town, Columbia

County (SD)
1726
670
10%
19%
71%
0.4595
7.3%
87%
20%
48%
5-Year
Hudson city, Columbia

County (SD)
6658
2,821
22%
39%
39%
0.4542
11.5%
95%
38%
47%
5-Year
Kinderhook town, Columbia

County (SD)
8464
3,197
4%
26%
70%
0.3737
6.4%
96%
30%
47%
5-Year
Kinderhook village, Columbia

County (P)
1463
611
1%
25%
74%
0.4275
4.8%
96%
25%
45%
5-Year
Livingston town, Columbia

County (SD)
3624
1,265
7%
31%
62%
0.4305
3.7%
84%
39%
19%
5-Year
Lorenz Park CDP, Columbia

County (P)
2253
998
11%
39%
50%
0.4119
10.8%
91%
22%
34%
5-Year
New Lebanon town, Columbia

County (SD)
2406
1,056
7%
35%
58%
0.4202
5.4%
90%
33%
46%
5-Year
Niverville CDP, Columbia

County (P)
1688
660
5%
25%
70%
0.3861
11.7%
95%
39%
16%
5-Year
Philmont village, Columbia

County (P)
1364
592
24%
35%
41%
0.5074
18.6%
89%
24%
55%
5-Year
Stockport town, Columbia

County (SD)
2771
1,138
6%
34%
60%
0.4475
6.8%
92%
33%
33%
5-Year
Stottville CDP, Columbia

County (P)
1388
584
9%
41%
50%
0.5551
2.9%
92%
34%
24%
5-Year
Stuyvesant town, Columbia

County (SD)
2052
824
15%
16%
69%
0.3614
6.3%
95%
31%
45%
5-Year
Taconic Shores CDP,

Columbia County (P)
603
253
15%
30%
55%
0.4118
14.3%
96%
30%
100%
5-Year
Taghkanic town, Columbia

County (SD)
1264
506
11%
31%
58%
0.4449
12.7%
88%
36%
25%
5-Year
Valatie village, Columbia

County (P)
1791
564
13%
30%
57%
0.3838
10.0%
94%
31%
43%
5-Year
Cincinnatus town, Cortland

County (SD)
163
920
357
21%
33%
46%
0.4143
12.8%
92%
30%
49%
5-Year
Cortland city, Cortland County

(SD)
19218
6,732
19%
39%
42%
0.4385
7.5%
94%
20%
45%
5-Year
Cortland West CDP, Cortland

County (P)
1350
541
12%
11%
77%
0.3813
7.7%
98%
17%
0%
5-Year
Cortlandville town, Cortland

County (SD)
8440
3,310
10%
28%
62%
0.4137
6.5%
95%
21%
46%
5-Year
Cuyler town, Cortland County

(SD)
757
273
14%
38%
48%
0.3729
11.3%
90%
29%
37%
5-Year
Freetown town, Cortland

County (SD)
626
265
15%
38%
47%
0.3776
2.2%
87%
21%
29%
5-Year
Harford town, Cortland

County (SD)
708
309
17%
24%
59%
0.496
7.3%
91%
19%
67%
5-Year
Homer town, Cortland County

(SD)
6424
2,543
11%
31%
58%
0.3924
4.8%
90%
18%
30%
5-Year
Homer village, Cortland

County (P)
3250
1,292
14%
33%
53%
0.4083
7.0%
90%
25%
27%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Lapeer town, Cortland County

(SD)
806
245
7%
36%
57%
0.4239
3.4%
76%
15%
0%
5-Year
Marathon town, Cortland

County (SD)
2077
799
9%
39%
52%
0.3838
7.7%
92%
28%
35%
5-Year
Marathon village, Cortland

County (P)
1081
430
13%
39%
48%
0.4346
7.4%
89%
24%
37%
5-Year
McGraw village, Cortland

County (P)
1097
418
13%
31%
56%
0.3794
7.4%
91%
25%
44%
5-Year
Munsons Corners CDP,

Cortland County (P)
2333
968
9%
45%
46%
0.3773
7.8%
93%
22%
49%
5-Year
Preble town, Cortland County

(SD)
1483
538
7%
30%
63%
0.4112
6.4%
90%
23%
31%
5-Year
Scott town, Cortland County

(SD)
1137
391
11%
17%
72%
0.3441
14.5%
94%
21%
30%
5-Year
Solon town, Cortland County

(SD)
1067
377
6%
34%
60%
0.3292
7.6%
89%
21%
40%
5-Year
Taylor town, Cortland County

(SD)
465
159
4%
41%
55%
0.4256
8.6%
96%
21%
11%
5-Year
Truxton town, Cortland

County (SD)
1168
432
5%
28%
67%
0.3762
8.9%
92%
14%
28%
5-Year
Virgil CDP, Cortland County

(P)
335
128
4%
33%
63%
0.3048
0.0%
88%
27%
0%
5-Year
Virgil town, Cortland County

(SD)
2659
897
8%
25%
67%
0.3763
5.3%
87%
24%
36%
5-Year
Willet town, Cortland County

(SD)
1276
418
10%
37%
53%
0.3388
7.8%
94%
15%
23%
5-Year
Andes town, Delaware County

(SD)
1133
525
16%
25%
59%
0.438
4.3%
92%
29%
42%
5-Year
Bovina town, Delaware

County (SD)
574
227
11%
30%
59%
0.4369
10.0%
91%
22%
46%
5-Year
Colchester town, Delaware

County (SD)
1984
843
22%
25%
53%
0.4179
6.1%
85%
17%
51%
5-Year
Davenport Center CDP,

Delaware County (P)
405
181
0%
36%
64%
0.3688
17.0%
78%
25%
44%
5-Year
Davenport town, Delaware

County (SD)
2923
1,213
10%
32%
58%
0.4112
12.3%
94%
26%
52%
5-Year
Delhi town, Delaware County

(SD)
4978
1,446
14%
27%
59%
0.4887
11.3%
95%
27%
41%
5-Year
Delhi village, Delaware

County (P)
3023
688
22%
27%
51%
0.4493
18.0%
95%
31%
49%
5-Year
Deposit town, Delaware

County (SD)
1806
750
13%
30%
57%
0.4005
6.4%
85%
25%
37%
5-Year
Downsville CDP, Delaware

County (P)
633
263
42%
19%
39%
0.5237
10.1%
79%
15%
60%
5-Year
Fleischmanns village,
Delaware County (P)
328
113
29%
35%
36%
0.4105
14.8%
85%
48%
67%
5-Year
Franklin town, Delaware

County (SD)
2225
933
9%
23%
68%
0.3747
6.7%
91%
29%
36%
5-Year
Franklin village, Delaware

County (P)
346
155
15%
37%
48%
0.397
5.3%
96%
37%
38%
5-Year
Hamden town, Delaware

County (SD)
1240
518
16%
26%
58%
0.402
7.7%
94%
28%
47%
5-Year
Hancock town, Delaware

County (SD)
3174
1,249
13%
30%
57%
0.4006
8.2%
89%
24%
43%
5-Year
Hancock village, Delaware

County (P)
950
436
18%
40%
42%
0.4453
8.8%
88%
35%
47%
5-Year
Harpersfield town, Delaware

County (SD)
1677
655
16%
18%
66%
0.3875
8.3%
91%
31%
36%
5-Year
Hobart village, Delaware

County (P)
515
201
19%
29%
52%
0.5467
22.7%
92%
27%
43%
5-Year
Kortright town, Delaware

County (SD)
1460
544
11%
28%
61%
0.4185
6.4%
94%
29%
36%
5-Year
Margaretville village,
Delaware County (P)
539
258
24%
40%
36%
0.4749
6.6%
66%
25%
83%
5-Year
Masonville town, Delaware

County (SD)
1598
586
9%
28%
63%
0.4165
9.6%
94%
25%
13%
5-Year
Meredith town, Delaware

County (SD)
1641
662
6%
24%
70%
0.4389
8.6%
87%
24%
45%
5-Year
Middletown town, Delaware

County (SD)
3699
1,700
15%
26%
59%
0.4654
10.7%
87%
28%
49%
5-Year
Roxbury town, Delaware

County (SD)
2345
1,002
11%
36%
53%
0.3949
18.2%
92%
34%
22%
5-Year
Sidney town, Delaware

County (SD)
5694
2,599
8%
44%
48%
0.3759
10.8%
92%
23%
42%
5-Year
Sidney village, Delaware

County (P)
3900
1,836
10%
46%
44%
0.3787
15.3%
93%
31%
41%
5-Year
164
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Stamford town, Delaware

County (SD)
2583
1,021
16%
29%
55%
0.4406
12.5%
92%
30%
44%
5-Year
Stamford village, Delaware

County (P)
1303
578
22%
32%
46%
0.4599
15.9%
90%
36%
44%
5-Year
Tompkins town, Delaware

County (SD)
1005
431
17%
28%
55%
0.3828
10.0%
86%
17%
52%
5-Year
Walton town, Delaware

County (SD)
5484
2,466
23%
33%
44%
0.4377
11.4%
86%
32%
54%
5-Year
Walton village, Delaware

County (P)
3043
1,415
29%
31%
40%
0.4364
18.1%
90%
35%
50%
5-Year
Amenia CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
1222
445
12%
45%
43%
0.4179
3.7%
71%
35%
50%
5-Year
Amenia town, Dutchess

County (SD)
4399
1,692
9%
39%
52%
0.4609
9.0%
85%
37%
25%
5-Year
Arlington CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
4033
1,369
22%
36%
42%
0.4478
15.1%
93%
37%
54%
5-Year
Beacon city, Dutchess County

(SD)
14437
5,452
13%
33%
54%
0.4283
11.5%
89%
37%
52%
5-Year
Beekman town, Dutchess

County (SD)
14557
4,324
5%
19%
76%
0.3966
7.0%
97%
41%
35%
5-Year
Brinckerhoff CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
2940
981
4%
19%
77%
0.3239
4.5%
93%
29%
29%
5-Year
Clinton town, Dutchess

County (SD)
4306
1,569
9%
21%
70%
0.4928
9.3%
91%
42%
41%
5-Year
Crown Heights CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
2737
1,051
10%
18%
72%
0.3189
2.3%
92%
34%
49%
5-Year
Dover Plains CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
1190
613
15%
37%
48%
0.4609
4.1%
96%
24%
45%
5-Year
Dover town, Dutchess County

(SD)
8638
3,107
11%
31%
58%
0.3809
10.0%
91%
42%
43%
5-Year
East Fishkill town, Dutchess

County (SD)
29241
9,483
3%
20%
77%
0.3865
8.0%
95%
39%
52%
5-Year
Fairview CDP (Dutchess

County), Dutchess County (P)
5554
1,730
16%
31%
53%
0.4161
9.4%
91%
42%
61%
5-Year
Fishkill town, Dutchess

County (SD)
23392
8,653
8%
27%
65%
0.387
10.2%
94%
29%
45%
5-Year
Fishkill village, Dutchess

County (P)
1923
937
12%
45%
43%
0.405
10.5%
92%
35%
44%
5-Year
Freedom Plains CDP,

Dutchess County (P)
496
254
6%
26%
68%
0.3923
19.1%
90%
49%
0%
5-Year
Haviland CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
3516
1,430
4%
27%
69%
0.3688
4.8%
96%
26%
22%
5-Year
Hillside Lake CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
1089
387
7%
24%
69%
0.337
11.1%
98%
49%
65%
5-Year
611
213
14%
23%
63%
0.3532
9.0%
92%
36%
62%
5-Year
Hyde Park CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
2314
842
11%
16%
73%
0.3582
17.0%
90%
41%
41%
5-Year
Hyde Park town, Dutchess

County (SD)
21474
7,805
9%
27%
64%
0.3886
7.2%
93%
34%
46%
5-Year
La Grange town, Dutchess

County (SD)
15763
5,287
2%
20%
78%
0.3873
9.6%
94%
39%
49%
5-Year
Merritt Park CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
1446
521
1%
11%
88%
0.3239
3.9%
95%
49%
36%
5-Year
Milan town, Dutchess County

(SD)
2254
946
4%
38%
58%
0.4404
6.9%
94%
38%
62%
5-Year
Millbrook village, Dutchess

County (P)
1510
718
10%
37%
53%
0.5686
3.9%
94%
45%
48%
5-Year
Millerton village, Dutchess

County (P)
764
333
10%
52%
38%
0.4121
8.8%
70%
43%
58%
5-Year
Myers Corner CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
6927
2,331
3%
19%
78%
0.373
8.2%
95%
30%
57%
5-Year
North East town, Dutchess

County (SD)
3022
1,207
4%
42%
54%
0.442
7.6%
83%
35%
48%
5-Year
Pawling town, Dutchess

County (SD)
8420
2,995
5%
30%
65%
0.4734
9.2%
88%
39%
47%
5-Year
Pawling village, Dutchess

County (P)
2297
887
9%
40%
51%
0.4103
12.2%
82%
49%
42%
5-Year
Pine Plains CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
1481
565
9%
40%
51%
0.4228
15.9%
91%
26%
71%
5-Year
Pine Plains town, Dutchess

County (SD)
2576
987
6%
32%
62%
0.3922
10.9%
90%
26%
67%
5-Year
Hopewell Junction CDP,

Dutchess County (P)
165
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Pleasant Valley CDP,

Dutchess County (P)
1308
562
12%
35%
53%
0.3663
4.0%
92%
29%
58%
5-Year
Pleasant Valley town,

Dutchess County (SD)
9708
3,809
8%
30%
62%
0.3902
12.1%
92%
37%
57%
5-Year
Poughkeepsie city, Dutchess

County (SD)
30716
12,018
22%
42%
36%
0.4936
14.5%
84%
43%
60%
5-Year
Poughkeepsie town, Dutchess

County (SD)
44944
15,118
10%
30%
60%
0.4222
8.6%
92%
37%
59%
5-Year
Red Hook town, Dutchess

County (SD)
11298
3,810
9%
31%
60%
0.4524
7.3%
94%
32%
54%
5-Year
Red Hook village, Dutchess

County (P)
1760
838
16%
37%
47%
0.4615
3.5%
91%
29%
63%
5-Year
Red Oaks Mill CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
4128
1,458
9%
19%
72%
0.3567
13.7%
91%
36%
79%
5-Year
Rhinebeck town, Dutchess

County (SD)
7641
3,213
5%
32%
63%
0.5127
6.7%
93%
37%
53%
5-Year
Rhinebeck village, Dutchess

County (P)
2642
1,158
11%
37%
52%
0.5382
11.7%
92%
48%
61%
5-Year
Rhinecliff CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
464
206
0%
3%
97%
0.2444
1.8%
93%
18%
0%
5-Year
Spackenkill CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
3800
1,340
1%
16%
83%
0.4063
9.9%
97%
24%
55%
5-Year
Staatsburg CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
470
149
15%
22%
63%
0.3811
0.0%
100%
33%
100%
5-Year
Stanford town, Dutchess

County (SD)
3819
1,387
5%
33%
62%
0.4828
10.8%
90%
29%
25%
5-Year
Titusville CDP, Dutchess

County (P)
548
236
0%
17%
83%
0.2967
7.7%
100%
34%
5-Year
Tivoli village, Dutchess

County (P)
1091
460
18%
44%
38%
0.4793
11.6%
90%
46%
57%
5-Year
Union Vale town, Dutchess

County (SD)
4864
1,850
2%
26%
72%
0.3891
8.5%
97%
38%
59%
5-Year
Wappinger town, Dutchess

County (SD)
27194
10,251
4%
28%
68%
0.3641
8.1%
90%
37%
36%
5-Year
Wappingers Falls village,

Dutchess County (P)
5377
2,154
5%
49%
46%
0.3424
4.6%
82%
41%
48%
5-Year
Washington town, Dutchess

County (SD)
4725
1,935
7%
25%
68%
0.4685
3.1%
93%
39%
32%
5-Year
Akron village, Erie County (P)
2850
1,228
8%
34%
58%
0.3994
7.9%
93%
18%
23%
5-Year
Alden town, Erie County (SD)
10717
3,409
8%
21%
71%
0.3489
8.6%
95%
16%
43%
5-Year
Alden village, Erie County (P)
2606
1,191
14%
26%
60%
0.4142
8.6%
91%
19%
45%
5-Year
123542
49,174
9%
19%
72%
0.4629
5.1%
96%
19%
47%
5-Year
Angola on the Lake CDP, Erie

County (P)
1720
770
8%
35%
57%
0.5103
14.7%
93%
19%
72%
5-Year
Angola village, Erie County

(P)
1813
765
17%
24%
59%
0.417
4.1%
90%
25%
58%
5-Year
Aurora town, Erie County (SD)
13818
5,431
6%
17%
77%
0.421
4.0%
95%
24%
33%
5-Year
Billington Heights CDP, Erie

County (P)
1445
575
2%
34%
64%
0.4451
8.3%
95%
12%
82%
5-Year
Blasdell village, Erie County

(P)
2565
1,086
15%
32%
53%
0.4012
14.6%
88%
19%
40%
5-Year
Boston town, Erie County

(SD)
8025
3,265
5%
25%
70%
0.3688
6.2%
97%
20%
45%
5-Year
Amherst town, Erie County

(SD)
Brant town, Erie County (SD)
2058
845
8%
25%
67%
0.3471
11.9%
90%
20%
29%
5-Year
Buffalo city, Erie County (SD)
259959
111,444
28%
32%
40%
0.5007
12.5%
91%
25%
52%
5-Year
Buffalo city, Erie County (P)
258699
110,070
29%
31%
40%
0.5093
8.6%
92%
25%
51%
1-Year
Cattaraugus Reservation, Erie

County (SD)
1868
716
24%
39%
37%
0.441
20.4%
69%
20%
24%
5-Year
Cheektowaga CDP, Erie

County (P)
73556
34,471
11%
32%
57%
0.3904
6.7%
96%
22%
42%
1-Year
Cheektowaga town, Erie

County (SD)
87959
38,959
10%
30%
60%
0.3791
7.8%
94%
22%
41%
5-Year
Clarence CDP, Erie County (P)
2811
1,044
11%
22%
67%
0.4256
2.9%
99%
14%
37%
5-Year
Clarence Center CDP, Erie

County (P)
2069
750
2%
8%
90%
0.3236
1.7%
99%
12%
0%
5-Year
Clarence town, Erie County

(SD)
31048
11,371
5%
16%
79%
0.4463
3.2%
97%
20%
44%
5-Year
Colden town, Erie County

(SD)
3268
1,295
8%
17%
75%
0.4085
4.5%
95%
30%
43%
5-Year
Collins town, Erie County (SD)
6519
1,637
13%
24%
63%
0.4146
9.4%
94%
13%
45%
5-Year
166
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Concord town, Erie County

(SD)
8534
3,601
10%
28%
62%
0.4058
5.5%
93%
22%
48%
5-Year
167
Depew village, Erie County (P)
15262
6,588
10%
30%
60%
0.3608
7.1%
93%
22%
43%
5-Year
East Aurora village, Erie

County (P)
6255
2,538
6%
22%
72%
0.4349
3.8%
95%
22%
32%
5-Year
Eden CDP, Erie County (P)
3214
1,220
5%
20%
75%
0.3209
5.6%
97%
23%
13%
5-Year
Eden town, Erie County (SD)
7704
3,019
4%
23%
73%
0.3401
6.7%
95%
26%
31%
5-Year
Eggertsville CDP, Erie County

(P)
15357
6,503
12%
20%
68%
0.473
6.7%
94%
17%
47%
5-Year
Elma Center CDP, Erie County

(P)
2606
1,046
8%
19%
73%
0.3799
2.1%
95%
23%
57%
5-Year
Elma town, Erie County (SD)
11518
4,599
5%
19%
76%
0.3916
3.6%
93%
19%
43%
5-Year
Evans town, Erie County (SD)
16334
6,581
12%
23%
65%
0.4086
9.0%
92%
27%
48%
5-Year
Farnham village, Erie County

(P)
374
143
18%
14%
68%
0.3403
10.3%
78%
17%
37%
5-Year
Grand Island town, Erie

County (SD)
20580
7,946
6%
17%
77%
0.383
5.3%
94%
22%
37%
5-Year
Grandyle Village CDP, Erie

County (P)
4766
1,877
7%
15%
78%
0.3111
5.0%
92%
26%
22%
5-Year
Hamburg town, Erie County

(SD)
57441
23,926
7%
23%
70%
0.3944
7.2%
95%
20%
37%
5-Year
Hamburg village, Erie County

(P)
9482
4,069
4%
23%
73%
0.3557
5.9%
96%
19%
43%
5-Year
Harris Hill CDP, Erie County

(P)
5380
2,182
3%
18%
79%
0.3806
3.1%
98%
18%
46%
5-Year
Holland CDP, Erie County (P)
1253
467
14%
27%
59%
0.4167
4.8%
95%
26%
17%
5-Year
Holland town, Erie County

(SD)
3395
1,378
11%
27%
62%
0.3959
7.4%
96%
30%
9%
5-Year
Kenmore village, Erie County

(P)
15334
6,900
10%
29%
61%
0.4064
5.8%
96%
21%
46%
5-Year
Lackawanna city, Erie County

(SD)
18037
7,661
20%
36%
44%
0.4151
11.9%
92%
26%
41%
5-Year
Lake Erie Beach CDP, Erie

County (P)
4068
1,650
11%
22%
67%
0.3807
9.7%
91%
27%
40%
5-Year
Lancaster town, Erie County

(SD)
42221
16,596
7%
22%
71%
0.3955
6.5%
96%
18%
44%
5-Year
Lancaster village, Erie County

(P)
10314
4,306
8%
28%
64%
0.3725
9.9%
93%
21%
50%
5-Year
Marilla town, Erie County (SD)
5341
1,960
4%
15%
81%
0.336
5.7%
96%
15%
9%
5-Year
Newstead town, Erie County

(SD)
8624
3,569
7%
27%
66%
0.4242
6.0%
92%
22%
29%
5-Year
North Boston CDP, Erie

County (P)
2487
1,082
4%
29%
67%
0.3677
5.7%
93%
8%
53%
5-Year
North Collins town, Erie

County (SD)
3519
1,280
8%
23%
69%
0.3346
9.3%
92%
18%
20%
5-Year
North Collins village, Erie

County (P)
1284
446
12%
36%
52%
0.3853
10.0%
90%
26%
35%
5-Year
Orchard Park town, Erie

County (SD)
29351
11,499
2%
18%
80%
0.4589
3.9%
98%
17%
42%
5-Year
Orchard Park village, Erie

County (P)
3230
1,383
5%
17%
78%
0.395
3.8%
97%
16%
40%
5-Year
Sardinia town, Erie County

(SD)
2788
1,018
5%
20%
75%
0.3482
4.2%
98%
16%
39%
5-Year
Sloan village, Erie County (P)
3642
1,725
13%
33%
54%
0.364
11.6%
90%
21%
36%
5-Year
Springville village, Erie

County (P)
4318
1,893
12%
29%
59%
0.4113
7.1%
93%
20%
54%
5-Year
Tonawanda CDP, Erie County

(P)
58204
25,694
9%
26%
65%
0.3883
5.0%
95%
18%
39%
5-Year
Tonawanda city, Erie County

(SD)
15048
6,728
12%
32%
56%
0.3915
8.8%
92%
22%
43%
5-Year
Tonawanda town, Erie County

(SD)
73538
32,594
9%
27%
64%
0.3923
5.2%
96%
19%
41%
5-Year
Town Line CDP, Erie County

(P)
2491
948
5%
9%
86%
0.2976
8.3%
96%
16%
20%
5-Year
University at Buffalo CDP, Erie

County (P)
6058
106
88%
0%
12%
0.6854
6.9%
99%
41%
5-Year
Wales town, Erie County (SD)
3021
1,228
11%
17%
72%
0.4213
3.9%
94%
14%
46%
5-Year
Wanakah CDP, Erie County (P)
3107
1,254
0%
31%
69%
0.4067
8.2%
96%
22%
30%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
West Seneca CDP, Erie

County (P)
44902
19,051
7%
26%
67%
0.3771
7.8%
95%
20%
42%
5-Year
Williamsville village, Erie

County (P)
5286
2,566
7%
19%
74%
0.4484
6.0%
97%
20%
25%
5-Year
Chesterfield town, Essex

County (SD)
2715
1,095
9%
23%
68%
0.3907
8.6%
91%
16%
51%
5-Year
Crown Point town, Essex

County (SD)
1843
767
9%
34%
57%
0.4407
12.9%
90%
25%
29%
5-Year
Elizabethtown CDP, Essex

County (P)
792
325
14%
18%
68%
0.3639
3.8%
96%
28%
34%
5-Year
Elizabethtown town, Essex

County (SD)
1125
502
12%
19%
69%
0.3743
2.8%
94%
28%
27%
5-Year
Essex town, Essex County

(SD)
577
253
15%
30%
55%
0.4823
6.8%
86%
30%
33%
5-Year
Jay town, Essex County (SD)
2726
1,096
8%
27%
65%
0.4967
12.0%
89%
23%
48%
5-Year
Keene town, Essex County

(SD)
998
443
13%
24%
63%
0.4328
7.1%
93%
28%
50%
5-Year
Lake Placid village, Essex

County (P)
2356
1,196
11%
32%
57%
0.474
5.6%
89%
32%
29%
5-Year
Lewis town, Essex County

(SD)
1503
537
13%
31%
56%
0.36
8.3%
91%
25%
60%
5-Year
Minerva town, Essex County

(SD)
591
262
15%
23%
62%
0.3924
11.3%
95%
30%
55%
5-Year
Mineville CDP, Essex County

(P)
1238
304
7%
12%
81%
0.3464
13.5%
96%
30%
11%
5-Year
Moriah town, Essex County

(SD)
4791
1,685
10%
30%
60%
0.3842
8.8%
95%
27%
44%
5-Year
Newcomb town, Essex

County (SD)
493
208
3%
34%
63%
0.3461
6.3%
96%
14%
28%
5-Year
North Elba town, Essex

County (SD)
8782
3,181
9%
26%
65%
0.4266
7.4%
90%
22%
34%
5-Year
Port Henry village, Essex

County (P)
1042
436
26%
30%
44%
0.4939
8.2%
93%
35%
53%
5-Year
Schroon Lake CDP, Essex

County (P)
569
286
9%
40%
51%
0.4537
2.4%
97%
13%
50%
5-Year
Schroon town, Essex County

(SD)
1348
605
10%
29%
61%
0.433
5.1%
89%
23%
51%
5-Year
St. Armand town, Essex

County (SD)
1717
727
10%
21%
69%
0.3929
2.8%
97%
27%
37%
5-Year
Ticonderoga CDP, Essex

County (P)
3335
1,413
16%
25%
59%
0.4748
12.2%
86%
24%
64%
5-Year
Ticonderoga town, Essex

County (SD)
5020
2,220
15%
26%
59%
0.4509
10.5%
88%
27%
64%
5-Year
Westport CDP, Essex County

(P)
393
152
18%
28%
54%
0.4857
20.0%
89%
35%
41%
5-Year
Westport town, Essex County

(SD)
1476
527
13%
32%
55%
0.4062
19.7%
82%
24%
61%
5-Year
Willsboro CDP, Essex County

(P)
676
332
21%
36%
43%
0.3942
6.4%
91%
32%
41%
5-Year
Willsboro town, Essex County

(SD)
1890
854
10%
31%
59%
0.3589
4.9%
93%
19%
49%
5-Year
Wilmington CDP, Essex

County (P)
955
381
6%
22%
72%
0.3723
7.5%
87%
15%
11%
5-Year
Wilmington town, Essex

County (SD)
1305
531
8%
24%
68%
0.3867
8.3%
88%
22%
21%
5-Year
Witherbee CDP, Essex County

(P)
384
171
11%
54%
35%
0.2853
5.1%
88%
47%
31%
5-Year
Bangor town, Franklin County

(SD)
2532
926
20%
23%
57%
0.3858
5.1%
88%
17%
40%
5-Year
Bellmont town, Franklin

County (SD)
1535
606
14%
17%
69%
0.4008
6.5%
92%
18%
9%
5-Year
Bombay town, Franklin

County (SD)
1274
491
21%
27%
52%
0.4636
16.4%
78%
24%
60%
5-Year
Brandon town, Franklin

County (SD)
743
280
21%
31%
48%
0.4478
8.3%
91%
25%
63%
5-Year
Brighton town, Franklin

County (SD)
1379
348
8%
33%
59%
0.3762
6.2%
97%
28%
33%
5-Year
Brushton village, Franklin

County (P)
546
216
29%
30%
41%
0.4679
18.1%
86%
25%
48%
5-Year
Burke town, Franklin County

(SD)
1257
550
13%
28%
59%
0.3718
8.1%
85%
22%
34%
5-Year
Chateaugay town, Franklin

County (SD)
2026
721
23%
28%
49%
0.4336
6.8%
92%
27%
35%
5-Year
Chateaugay village, Franklin

County (P)
639
291
19%
26%
55%
0.4342
4.1%
96%
17%
36%
5-Year
168
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Constable town, Franklin

County (SD)
1405
516
11%
19%
70%
0.3597
7.2%
91%
20%
42%
5-Year
Dickinson town, Franklin

County (SD)
988
357
20%
25%
55%
0.4371
18.5%
84%
18%
44%
5-Year
Fort Covington Hamlet CDP,

Franklin County (P)
1542
605
21%
30%
49%
0.4578
12.8%
79%
26%
34%
5-Year
Fort Covington town, Franklin

County (SD)
1942
775
23%
31%
46%
0.4613
13.0%
80%
28%
37%
5-Year
Franklin town, Franklin

County (SD)
1076
512
8%
20%
72%
0.379
7.0%
94%
26%
20%
5-Year
Harrietstown town, Franklin

County (SD)
5679
2,662
11%
35%
54%
0.4379
9.6%
92%
20%
48%
5-Year
Malone town, Franklin County

(SD)
14511
4,261
19%
24%
57%
0.4531
5.5%
93%
22%
46%
5-Year
Malone village, Franklin

County (P)
5866
2,458
25%
28%
47%
0.4456
6.6%
92%
27%
53%
5-Year
Moira town, Franklin County

(SD)
2901
1,248
19%
32%
49%
0.5045
11.1%
91%
16%
42%
5-Year
Santa Clara town, Franklin

County (SD)
461
175
3%
16%
81%
0.3685
1.4%
98%
20%
3%
5-Year
Saranac Lake village, Franklin

County (P)
6055
2,749
11%
37%
52%
0.4079
8.9%
90%
16%
50%
5-Year
St. Regis Falls CDP, Franklin

County (P)
384
201
34%
30%
36%
0.4355
12.0%
91%
12%
83%
5-Year
St. Regis Mohawk

Reservation, Franklin County
(SD)
3244
1,202
29%
25%
46%
0.4634
19.0%
60%
34%
70%
5-Year
Tupper Lake town, Franklin

County (SD)
5941
2,335
13%
26%
61%
0.374
8.2%
92%
23%
33%
5-Year
Tupper Lake village, Franklin

County (P)
3533
1,496
19%
31%
50%
0.3849
7.1%
90%
24%
36%
5-Year
Waverly town, Franklin

County (SD)
826
417
28%
28%
44%
0.437
16.9%
90%
18%
66%
5-Year
Westville town, Franklin

County (SD)
1642
676
16%
24%
60%
0.4475
5.8%
92%
15%
50%
5-Year
Bleecker town, Fulton County

(SD)
642
260
14%
31%
55%
0.4317
22.4%
92%
28%
40%
5-Year
Broadalbin town, Fulton

County (SD)
5234
2,180
6%
29%
65%
0.3722
8.2%
94%
26%
39%
5-Year
Broadalbin village, Fulton

County (P)
1649
617
8%
20%
72%
0.3431
6.2%
92%
22%
39%
5-Year
Caroga Lake CDP, Fulton

County (P)
576
254
5%
46%
49%
0.3584
6.7%
84%
28%
0%
5-Year
Caroga town, Fulton County

(SD)
1223
518
7%
37%
56%
0.3557
8.6%
90%
25%
31%
5-Year
Ephratah town, Fulton County

(SD)
1555
600
9%
31%
60%
0.3767
6.9%
84%
21%
13%
5-Year
Gloversville city, Fulton

County (SD)
15395
6,277
25%
30%
45%
0.4369
14.7%
87%
27%
52%
5-Year
Johnstown city, Fulton

County (SD)
8552
3,780
12%
35%
53%
0.4163
9.1%
87%
21%
47%
5-Year
Johnstown town, Fulton

County (SD)
7177
2,583
9%
32%
59%
0.4291
5.1%
93%
29%
22%
5-Year
Mayfield town, Fulton County

(SD)
6412
2,712
14%
25%
61%
0.4051
11.7%
91%
27%
33%
5-Year
Mayfield village, Fulton

County (P)
795
328
5%
28%
67%
0.3623
8.4%
91%
24%
14%
5-Year
Northampton town, Fulton

County (SD)
2654
1,101
11%
24%
65%
0.3921
5.2%
92%
18%
55%
5-Year
Northville village, Fulton

County (P)
1112
441
14%
26%
60%
0.4046
5.3%
96%
12%
46%
5-Year
Oppenheim town, Fulton

County (SD)
1895
727
15%
38%
47%
0.3967
10.1%
86%
27%
65%
5-Year
Perth town, Fulton County

(SD)
3572
1,450
11%
24%
65%
0.4251
6.4%
95%
22%
56%
5-Year
Stratford town, Fulton County

(SD)
559
252
21%
34%
45%
0.4965
7.0%
89%
34%
45%
5-Year
Alabama town, Genesee

County (SD)
1713
682
12%
17%
71%
0.3669
6.5%
92%
20%
38%
5-Year
Alexander town, Genesee

County (SD)
2631
964
9%
14%
77%
0.331
9.6%
95%
23%
44%
5-Year
Alexander village, Genesee

County (P)
528
188
7%
27%
66%
0.3603
5.0%
96%
13%
59%
5-Year
169
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Batavia city, Genesee County

(SD)
15274
6,432
18%
28%
54%
0.4377
7.5%
92%
19%
49%
5-Year
Batavia town, Genesee

County (SD)
6870
2,949
6%
24%
70%
0.4818
8.9%
88%
21%
42%
5-Year
Bergen town, Genesee

County (SD)
3096
1,192
12%
25%
63%
0.3931
9.0%
93%
26%
44%
5-Year
Bergen village, Genesee

County (P)
1305
450
9%
26%
65%
0.3474
7.7%
88%
25%
40%
5-Year
Bethany town, Genesee

County (SD)
1625
692
9%
21%
70%
0.3475
4.7%
86%
20%
22%
5-Year
Byron town, Genesee County

(SD)
2292
891
6%
18%
76%
0.3691
7.1%
90%
20%
23%
5-Year
Corfu village, Genesee

County (P)
792
348
14%
19%
67%
0.4859
11.5%
97%
15%
51%
5-Year
Darien town, Genesee County

(SD)
3134
1,165
10%
16%
74%
0.3499
9.3%
91%
24%
37%
5-Year
Elba town, Genesee County

(SD)
2463
858
3%
18%
79%
0.3246
3.3%
88%
16%
34%
5-Year
Elba village, Genesee County

(P)
644
242
1%
12%
87%
0.2792
1.9%
94%
13%
9%
5-Year
Le Roy town, Genesee County

(SD)
7579
3,055
8%
26%
66%
0.3922
6.3%
92%
25%
33%
5-Year
Le Roy village, Genesee

County (P)
4348
1,668
9%
30%
61%
0.4285
6.3%
93%
26%
34%
5-Year
Oakfield town, Genesee

County (SD)
3221
1,246
10%
30%
60%
0.3749
10.5%
92%
22%
48%
5-Year
Oakfield village, Genesee

County (P)
1797
689
12%
25%
63%
0.3552
10.9%
94%
24%
43%
5-Year
Pavilion CDP, Genesee

County (P)
517
201
0%
27%
73%
0.2747
4.1%
98%
16%
18%
5-Year
Pavilion town, Genesee

County (SD)
2605
942
11%
16%
73%
0.3198
8.9%
95%
19%
28%
5-Year
Pembroke town, Genesee

County (SD)
4314
1,681
10%
27%
63%
0.4003
6.6%
93%
23%
71%
5-Year
Stafford town, Genesee

County (SD)
2342
954
8%
23%
69%
0.3931
3.4%
93%
24%
57%
5-Year
Tonawanda Reservation,
Genesee County (SD)
543
264
24%
27%
49%
0.4377
22.7%
74%
21%
15%
5-Year
Ashland town, Greene County

(SD)
769
347
10%
37%
53%
0.4483
11.4%
94%
30%
38%
5-Year
Athens town, Greene County

(SD)
4034
1,488
9%
28%
63%
0.3762
16.8%
93%
31%
53%
5-Year
Athens village, Greene

County (P)
1432
602
13%
30%
57%
0.4059
15.3%
92%
31%
65%
5-Year
Cairo CDP, Greene County (P)
1341
564
27%
37%
36%
0.4525
37.0%
93%
41%
71%
5-Year
Cairo town, Greene County

(SD)
6576
2,684
19%
26%
55%
0.4605
9.8%
94%
29%
63%
5-Year
Catskill town, Greene County

(SD)
11627
4,466
14%
35%
51%
0.4362
12.6%
88%
36%
56%
5-Year
Catskill village, Greene

County (P)
3989
1,491
19%
35%
46%
0.4872
17.6%
82%
35%
67%
5-Year
Coxsackie town, Greene

County (SD)
8815
2,365
10%
31%
59%
0.4385
4.7%
93%
35%
45%
5-Year
Coxsackie village, Greene

County (P)
2767
992
12%
32%
56%
0.4295
7.1%
91%
37%
51%
5-Year
Durham town, Greene County

(SD)
2706
1,090
13%
30%
57%
0.4654
9.7%
94%
39%
48%
5-Year
Greenville CDP (Greene

County), Greene County (P)
573
241
2%
44%
54%
0.3228
0.0%
100%
22%
86%
5-Year
Greenville town, Greene

County (SD)
3683
1,433
11%
34%
55%
0.4165
8.9%
92%
28%
76%
5-Year
Halcott town, Greene County

(SD)
252
109
10%
27%
63%
0.3124
8.8%
97%
13%
41%
5-Year
Hunter town, Greene County

(SD)
2699
1,073
17%
26%
57%
0.4315
5.0%
91%
23%
57%
5-Year
Hunter village, Greene County

(P)
531
232
19%
39%
42%
0.4572
7.5%
88%
38%
49%
5-Year
Jefferson Heights CDP,

Greene County (P)
1019
304
8%
31%
61%
0.372
3.2%
100%
22%
47%
5-Year
Jewett town, Greene County

(SD)
788
433
15%
36%
49%
0.4465
19.8%
91%
30%
73%
5-Year
Leeds CDP, Greene County

(P)
550
130
25%
13%
62%
0.3451
0.0%
90%
25%
100%
5-Year
Lexington town, Greene

County (SD)
1069
449
14%
38%
48%
0.4523
16.7%
85%
26%
37%
5-Year
170
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
New Baltimore town, Greene

County (SD)
3315
1,181
5%
27%
68%
0.4117
5.6%
91%
27%
55%
5-Year
Palenville CDP, Greene

County (P)
797
395
13%
47%
40%
0.4475
14.9%
87%
58%
54%
5-Year
Prattsville CDP, Greene

County (P)
279
102
12%
36%
52%
0.4126
10.2%
86%
19%
93%
5-Year
Prattsville town, Greene

County (SD)
630
283
16%
41%
43%
0.4701
6.1%
81%
40%
64%
5-Year
Tannersville village, Greene

County (P)
596
223
19%
37%
44%
0.3682
8.4%
88%
36%
57%
5-Year
Windham CDP, Greene

County (P)
436
205
26%
19%
55%
0.4001
13.4%
98%
15%
53%
5-Year
Windham town, Greene

County (SD)
1655
701
13%
28%
59%
0.4012
8.8%
90%
21%
35%
5-Year
Hope town, Hamilton County

(SD)
583
145
10%
34%
56%
0.3971
8.7%
91%
22%
35%
5-Year
Indian Lake town, Hamilton

County (SD)
1114
410
9%
37%
54%
0.3591
3.5%
90%
26%
23%
5-Year
Inlet town, Hamilton County

(SD)
487
183
13%
37%
50%
0.4514
10.8%
96%
33%
19%
5-Year
Lake Pleasant town, Hamilton

County (SD)
815
254
8%
35%
57%
0.3876
5.2%
93%
14%
39%
5-Year
Long Lake CDP, Hamilton

County (P)
323
132
5%
42%
53%
0.4165
6.6%
98%
29%
0%
5-Year
Long Lake town, Hamilton

County (SD)
482
185
3%
41%
56%
0.4049
9.1%
84%
23%
0%
5-Year
Wells CDP, Hamilton County

(P)
768
263
23%
30%
47%
0.4309
12.7%
89%
28%
32%
5-Year
Wells town, Hamilton County

(SD)
856
298
20%
33%
47%
0.4219
12.3%
90%
26%
32%
5-Year
Cold Brook village, Herkimer

County (P)
383
144
14%
48%
38%
0.3899
21.8%
85%
13%
62%
5-Year
Columbia town, Herkimer

County (SD)
1546
590
8%
24%
68%
0.3545
9.5%
90%
22%
71%
5-Year
Danube town, Herkimer

County (SD)
1059
419
15%
24%
61%
0.3723
11.5%
84%
25%
52%
5-Year
Dolgeville village, Herkimer

County (P)
2086
847
15%
34%
51%
0.3818
8.3%
94%
22%
40%
5-Year
Fairfield town, Herkimer

County (SD)
1455
557
7%
27%
66%
0.4127
7.8%
86%
25%
31%
5-Year
Frankfort town, Herkimer

County (SD)
7598
3,127
13%
31%
56%
0.3965
8.2%
92%
18%
42%
5-Year
Frankfort village, Herkimer

County (P)
2577
1,046
20%
33%
47%
0.41
9.7%
92%
20%
32%
5-Year
German Flatts town, Herkimer

County (SD)
13180
5,638
18%
32%
50%
0.4125
9.7%
92%
18%
47%
5-Year
Herkimer town, Herkimer

County (SD)
10118
4,294
19%
31%
50%
0.4494
10.4%
91%
20%
46%
5-Year
Herkimer village, Herkimer

County (P)
7752
3,330
22%
33%
45%
0.4356
10.4%
90%
22%
47%
5-Year
Ilion village, Herkimer County

(P)
7968
3,471
19%
34%
47%
0.3932
11.6%
90%
13%
47%
5-Year
Litchfield town, Herkimer

County (SD)
1516
606
11%
23%
66%
0.4727
5.9%
91%
25%
24%
5-Year
Little Falls city, Herkimer

County (SD)
4909
2,200
22%
36%
42%
0.4276
9.0%
92%
20%
39%
5-Year
Little Falls town, Herkimer

County (SD)
1603
632
12%
24%
64%
0.3881
8.0%
94%
20%
45%
5-Year
Manheim town, Herkimer

County (SD)
3328
1,315
15%
34%
51%
0.3954
8.5%
90%
24%
45%
5-Year
Middleville village, Herkimer

County (P)
550
213
6%
28%
66%
0.3843
13.4%
90%
25%
21%
5-Year
Mohawk village, Herkimer

County (P)
2632
1,098
19%
30%
51%
0.3872
8.2%
90%
25%
53%
5-Year
Newport town, Herkimer

County (SD)
2302
849
8%
36%
56%
0.3722
7.7%
91%
22%
44%
5-Year
Newport village, Herkimer

County (P)
512
217
10%
56%
34%
0.4414
9.3%
97%
30%
44%
5-Year
Norway town, Herkimer

County (SD)
944
355
12%
30%
58%
0.4007
11.9%
94%
22%
24%
5-Year
Ohio town, Herkimer County

(SD)
1071
436
16%
41%
43%
0.4624
18.4%
84%
26%
58%
5-Year
171
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Old Forge CDP, Herkimer

County (P)
529
293
10%
56%
34%
0.4525
8.2%
91%
44%
55%
5-Year
Poland village, Herkimer

County (P)
407
150
9%
23%
68%
0.3823
9.7%
89%
21%
30%
5-Year
Russia town, Herkimer

County (SD)
2584
1,045
16%
33%
51%
0.4279
10.7%
89%
26%
55%
5-Year
Salisbury town, Herkimer

County (SD)
2057
766
14%
30%
56%
0.3741
10.6%
88%
23%
35%
5-Year
Schuyler town, Herkimer

County (SD)
3436
1,415
8%
32%
60%
0.3802
9.7%
93%
25%
40%
5-Year
Stark town, Herkimer County

(SD)
730
301
8%
32%
60%
0.3623
9.2%
82%
25%
46%
5-Year
Warren town, Herkimer

County (SD)
1075
387
25%
25%
50%
0.4437
11.4%
89%
36%
22%
5-Year
Webb town, Herkimer County

(SD)
1729
855
3%
31%
66%
0.4235
6.5%
93%
18%
44%
5-Year
West Winfield village,

Herkimer County (P)
787
348
16%
26%
58%
0.401
5.9%
86%
9%
42%
5-Year
Winfield town, Herkimer

County (SD)
2089
796
12%
20%
68%
0.3688
5.9%
91%
9%
34%
5-Year
Adams Center CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
1996
804
20%
23%
57%
0.362
17.6%
89%
23%
53%
5-Year
Adams town, Jefferson

County (SD)
5272
2,052
16%
26%
58%
0.4098
11.0%
90%
21%
48%
5-Year
Adams village, Jefferson

County (P)
1612
719
14%
36%
50%
0.4522
10.6%
91%
22%
47%
5-Year
Alexandria Bay village,

Jefferson County (P)
1001
451
14%
47%
39%
0.3966
19.5%
89%
28%
49%
5-Year
Alexandria town, Jefferson

County (SD)
4157
1,693
16%
40%
44%
0.4295
20.3%
84%
31%
44%
5-Year
Antwerp town, Jefferson

County (SD)
1627
605
10%
28%
62%
0.346
14.8%
86%
18%
36%
5-Year
Antwerp village, Jefferson

County (P)
540
207
12%
27%
61%
0.318
24.9%
85%
25%
46%
5-Year
Belleville CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
346
102
36%
50%
14%
0.3028
31.9%
100%
36%
100%
5-Year
Black River village, Jefferson

County (P)
1374
522
11%
25%
64%
0.3679
14.0%
93%
33%
39%
5-Year
Brownville town, Jefferson

County (SD)
6438
2,448
9%
33%
58%
0.3738
6.0%
92%
21%
37%
5-Year
Brownville village, Jefferson

County (P)
922
385
10%
36%
54%
0.4081
10.6%
93%
17%
17%
5-Year
Calcium CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
3540
1,601
8%
43%
49%
0.3862
15.9%
92%
27%
50%
5-Year
Cape Vincent town, Jefferson

County (SD)
2856
962
12%
25%
63%
0.473
12.0%
90%
18%
24%
5-Year
Cape Vincent village,

647
344
18%
31%
51%
0.4518
22.4%
90%
22%
24%
5-Year
Carthage village, Jefferson

County (P)
3689
1,449
15%
38%
47%
0.4243
15.0%
86%
25%
31%
5-Year
Champion town, Jefferson

County (SD)
4612
1,703
11%
27%
62%
0.3613
11.9%
93%
19%
28%
5-Year
Chaumont village, Jefferson

County (P)
701
270
12%
37%
51%
0.4165
10.7%
98%
24%
27%
5-Year
Clayton town, Jefferson

County (SD)
5263
2,027
12%
33%
55%
0.4034
7.9%
93%
32%
40%
5-Year
Clayton village, Jefferson

County (P)
1891
795
10%
34%
56%
0.4242
8.0%
91%
37%
40%
5-Year
Deferiet village, Jefferson

County (P)
273
111
10%
41%
49%
0.3702
12.3%
88%
23%
40%
5-Year
Depauville CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
959
282
41%
26%
33%
0.4201
13.5%
88%
47%
100%
5-Year
Dexter village, Jefferson

County (P)
1397
530
12%
35%
53%
0.4153
7.6%
96%
17%
31%
5-Year
Ellisburg town, Jefferson

County (SD)
3569
1,358
16%
36%
48%
0.4264
12.1%
85%
19%
37%
5-Year
Ellisburg village, Jefferson

County (P)
271
101
19%
20%
61%
0.3738
7.7%
89%
24%
27%
5-Year
Evans Mills village, Jefferson

County (P)
477
210
12%
34%
54%
0.3823
9.4%
96%
25%
40%
5-Year
Felts Mills CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
290
138
17%
56%
27%
0.3024
50.0%
67%
56%
67%
5-Year
Fort Drum CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
14057
3,760
15%
51%
34%
0.3776
16.0%
98%
0%
33%
5-Year
505
175
13%
34%
53%
0.4174
5.7%
89%
21%
58%
5-Year
Glen Park village, Jefferson

County (P)
172
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Great Bend CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
1073
373
7%
23%
70%
0.301
13.0%
89%
20%
21%
5-Year
Henderson town, Jefferson

County (SD)
1610
674
10%
31%
59%
0.4489
7.1%
95%
21%
11%
5-Year
Hounsfield town, Jefferson

County (SD)
3547
1,442
12%
26%
62%
0.3773
10.5%
95%
29%
35%
5-Year
La Fargeville CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
381
165
12%
32%
56%
0.3424
29.0%
85%
35%
63%
5-Year
Le Ray town, Jefferson

County (SD)
22280
6,964
13%
45%
42%
0.3886
14.4%
95%
32%
38%
5-Year
Lorraine town, Jefferson

County (SD)
1062
369
13%
37%
50%
0.4193
11.9%
82%
26%
50%
5-Year
Lyme town, Jefferson County

(SD)
2370
904
12%
30%
58%
0.412
7.1%
97%
32%
35%
5-Year
Mannsville village, Jefferson

County (P)
332
119
6%
30%
64%
0.3347
1.9%
94%
20%
11%
5-Year
Natural Bridge CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
734
161
42%
14%
44%
0.4422
22.9%
93%
12%
37%
5-Year
Orleans town, Jefferson

County (SD)
2858
1,110
7%
38%
55%
0.3664
13.4%
89%
17%
55%
5-Year
Pamelia Center CDP,

294
133
0%
0%
100%
0.139
0.0%
94%
35%
17%
5-Year
Pamelia town, Jefferson

County (SD)
3203
1,155
5%
27%
68%
0.3521
12.0%
84%
26%
38%
5-Year
Philadelphia town, Jefferson

County (SD)
1799
707
13%
36%
51%
0.4375
9.1%
92%
27%
38%
5-Year
Philadelphia village, Jefferson

County (P)
1138
437
16%
34%
50%
0.4539
10.6%
95%
16%
41%
5-Year
Redwood CDP, Jefferson

County (P)
529
186
21%
48%
31%
0.3089
22.8%
65%
56%
54%
5-Year
Rodman town, Jefferson

County (SD)
1333
438
5%
31%
64%
0.3834
5.7%
92%
19%
42%
5-Year
Rutland town, Jefferson

County (SD)
3152
1,265
12%
38%
50%
0.3859
12.8%
88%
38%
56%
5-Year
Sackets Harbor village,

1434
668
4%
28%
68%
0.3322
5.3%
96%
20%
21%
5-Year
Theresa town, Jefferson

County (SD)
2984
1,114
11%
28%
61%
0.3973
12.4%
94%
27%
36%
5-Year
Theresa village, Jefferson

County (P)
844
329
13%
36%
51%
0.3781
19.8%
91%
22%
52%
5-Year
Watertown city, Jefferson

County (SD)
27590
11,865
20%
38%
42%
0.4307
11.4%
92%
20%
42%
5-Year
Watertown town, Jefferson

County (SD)
4581
1,594
7%
20%
73%
0.4305
5.1%
93%
27%
21%
5-Year
West Carthage village,

1897
780
15%
38%
47%
0.3769
10.0%
94%
28%
29%
5-Year
Wilna town, Jefferson County

(SD)
173
6507
2,288
15%
36%
49%
0.4109
12.1%
89%
20%
35%
5-Year
Brooklyn borough, Kings

County (SD)
2570801
925,371
22%
29%
49%
0.5111
10.6%
87%
45%
53%
5-Year
New York city, Kings County

(P)
8491079
20%
26%
54%
0.5482
8.3%
89%
37%
52%
1-Year
Castorland village, Lewis

County (P)
401
122
12%
28%
60%
0.4289
9.5%
96%
18%
42%
5-Year
Constableville village, Lewis

County (P)
239
112
17%
21%
62%
0.4383
7.7%
94%
16%
74%
5-Year
Copenhagen village, Lewis

County (P)
547
244
5%
33%
62%
0.3537
9.8%
94%
9%
48%
5-Year
Croghan town, Lewis County

(SD)
3117
1,273
7%
32%
61%
0.3875
7.4%
91%
15%
43%
5-Year
Croghan village, Lewis

County (P)
691
291
12%
37%
51%
0.4213
5.3%
91%
21%
46%
5-Year
Denmark town, Lewis County

(SD)
2873
1,059
13%
21%
66%
0.4135
4.4%
94%
23%
46%
5-Year
Diana town, Lewis County

(SD)
1552
616
25%
25%
50%
0.4444
10.2%
90%
26%
51%
5-Year
Greig town, Lewis County

(SD)
1343
562
14%
28%
58%
0.4423
15.4%
89%
24%
22%
5-Year
Harrisburg town, Lewis

County (SD)
415
149
5%
18%
77%
0.3753
1.3%
79%
12%
40%
5-Year
Harrisville village, Lewis

County (P)
562
210
6%
34%
60%
0.3648
8.3%
94%
17%
31%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Lewis town, Lewis County

(SD)
760
295
14%
29%
57%
0.4189
10.7%
89%
28%
16%
5-Year
Leyden town, Lewis County

(SD)
1881
745
19%
24%
57%
0.3843
8.3%
91%
20%
58%
5-Year
Lowville town, Lewis County

(SD)
4958
2,155
18%
25%
57%
0.4409
12.0%
92%
23%
55%
5-Year
Lowville village, Lewis County

(P)
3646
1,679
20%
25%
55%
0.4597
13.0%
89%
24%
54%
5-Year
Lyons Falls village, Lewis

County (P)
761
308
9%
35%
56%
0.3692
13.8%
89%
19%
58%
5-Year
Lyonsdale town, Lewis

County (SD)
1251
494
24%
22%
54%
0.3937
14.4%
84%
25%
43%
5-Year
Martinsburg town, Lewis

County (SD)
1358
504
13%
24%
63%
0.4173
9.9%
84%
15%
50%
5-Year
New Bremen town, Lewis

County (SD)
2723
904
9%
21%
70%
0.3671
11.0%
87%
16%
47%
5-Year
Osceola town, Lewis County

(SD)
210
105
11%
17%
72%
0.4015
10.8%
89%
21%
80%
5-Year
Port Leyden village, Lewis

County (P)
774
285
29%
22%
49%
0.4525
11.3%
89%
31%
63%
5-Year
Turin town, Lewis County (SD)
550
252
5%
24%
71%
0.3417
3.4%
91%
9%
25%
5-Year
Watson town, Lewis County

(SD)
1903
747
4%
29%
67%
0.3793
8.0%
84%
16%
42%
5-Year
West Turin town, Lewis

County (SD)
1924
736
10%
25%
65%
0.4406
7.1%
93%
21%
50%
5-Year
Avon town, Livingston County

(SD)
7103
2,828
5%
27%
68%
0.3494
1.9%
95%
20%
49%
5-Year
Avon village, Livingston

County (P)
3357
1,322
7%
22%
71%
0.3471
1.5%
95%
15%
28%
5-Year
Caledonia town, Livingston

County (SD)
4219
1,761
9%
25%
66%
0.3793
7.2%
94%
21%
53%
5-Year
Caledonia village, Livingston

County (P)
2219
989
14%
22%
64%
0.4031
7.6%
92%
17%
50%
5-Year
Conesus Hamlet CDP,

Livingston County (P)
397
136
32%
30%
38%
0.4053
6.6%
91%
41%
78%
5-Year
Conesus Lake CDP,

2415
1,233
5%
14%
81%
0.3714
1.4%
96%
28%
22%
5-Year
Conesus town, Livingston

County (SD)
2413
976
11%
20%
69%
0.377
4.7%
96%
24%
49%
5-Year
Cuylerville CDP, Livingston

County (P)
332
148
40%
1%
59%
0.3952
18.6%
94%
30%
50%
5-Year
Dalton CDP, Livingston

County (P)
363
129
2%
15%
83%
0.296
10.1%
97%
5%
10%
5-Year
Dansville village, Livingston

County (P)
4618
2,080
20%
31%
49%
0.4256
11.1%
90%
16%
62%
5-Year
East Avon CDP, Livingston

County (P)
555
226
0%
68%
32%
0.3278
0.0%
90%
40%
100%
5-Year
Geneseo town, Livingston

County (SD)
10535
3,005
31%
15%
54%
0.5013
6.4%
97%
17%
64%
5-Year
Geneseo village, Livingston

County (P)
8043
1,850
46%
12%
42%
0.5293
8.1%
97%
16%
65%
5-Year
Groveland Station CDP,

280
101
13%
28%
59%
0.2989
5.8%
93%
29%
21%
5-Year
Groveland town, Livingston

County (SD)
3299
575
11%
23%
66%
0.3827
9.3%
93%
27%
32%
5-Year
Hemlock CDP, Livingston

County (P)
483
215
0%
19%
81%
0.2387
2.0%
100%
27%
0%
5-Year
Lakeville CDP, Livingston

County (P)
1097
271
49%
6%
45%
0.3526
10.1%
83%
25%
79%
5-Year
Leicester town, Livingston

County (SD)
2183
923
14%
18%
68%
0.3319
7.5%
95%
25%
25%
5-Year
Leicester village, Livingston

County (P)
498
198
2%
18%
80%
0.2935
6.2%
97%
10%
14%
5-Year
Lima town, Livingston County

(SD)
4224
1,718
9%
32%
59%
0.3628
2.6%
94%
27%
52%
5-Year
Lima village, Livingston

County (P)
2487
992
13%
33%
54%
0.3788
2.2%
93%
29%
56%
5-Year
Livonia Center CDP,

300
104
0%
12%
88%
0.1735
7.3%
100%
16%
30%
5-Year
Livonia town, Livingston

County (SD)
7737
2,934
9%
21%
70%
0.3713
5.3%
95%
26%
37%
5-Year
Livonia village, Livingston

County (P)
1322
564
17%
26%
57%
0.4291
11.3%
94%
28%
36%
5-Year
Mount Morris town,

Livingston County (SD)
4411
1,538
22%
21%
57%
0.3837
7.0%
89%
20%
45%
5-Year
174
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Mount Morris village,

2610
1,045
25%
27%
48%
0.4083
6.8%
94%
28%
49%
5-Year
North Dansville town,

Livingston County (SD)
5461
2,536
19%
32%
49%
0.4263
9.5%
89%
15%
60%
5-Year
Nunda town, Livingston

County (SD)
3026
1,275
14%
34%
52%
0.4004
9.2%
93%
21%
37%
5-Year
Nunda village, Livingston

County (P)
1479
614
26%
27%
47%
0.4392
11.8%
96%
24%
45%
5-Year
Ossian town, Livingston

County (SD)
773
310
12%
24%
64%
0.3928
9.0%
94%
20%
62%
5-Year
Piffard CDP, Livingston

County (P)
190
100
0%
36%
64%
0.2785
0.0%
100%
28%
0%
5-Year
Portage town, Livingston

County (SD)
855
366
15%
30%
55%
0.3913
7.2%
95%
26%
32%
5-Year
South Lima CDP, Livingston

County (P)
229
115
0%
45%
55%
0.3432
0.0%
100%
33%
70%
5-Year
Sparta town, Livingston

County (SD)
1678
619
9%
25%
66%
0.3745
2.8%
95%
24%
16%
5-Year
Springwater Hamlet CDP,

520
217
23%
34%
43%
0.5198
14.6%
98%
26%
83%
5-Year
Springwater town, Livingston

County (SD)
2265
945
12%
30%
58%
0.3927
8.2%
90%
23%
60%
5-Year
West Sparta town, Livingston

County (SD)
1332
502
19%
26%
55%
0.376
6.5%
94%
30%
41%
5-Year
York Hamlet CDP, Livingston

County (P)
643
293
3%
10%
87%
0.2487
0.0%
97%
3%
29%
5-Year
York town, Livingston County

(SD)
3353
1,431
7%
17%
76%
0.3256
6.6%
97%
18%
24%
5-Year
Brookfield town, Madison

County (SD)
2489
942
13%
40%
47%
0.3759
10.1%
85%
25%
18%
5-Year
Canastota village, Madison

County (P)
4741
1,996
12%
33%
55%
0.4159
5.2%
96%
16%
44%
5-Year
Cazenovia town, Madison

County (SD)
7063
2,460
9%
22%
69%
0.4979
4.2%
96%
30%
43%
5-Year
Cazenovia village, Madison

County (P)
2808
981
15%
28%
57%
0.5416
3.1%
94%
26%
47%
5-Year
Chittenango village, Madison

County (P)
5052
1,941
7%
28%
65%
0.3614
2.4%
96%
18%
45%
5-Year
DeRuyter town, Madison

County (SD)
1725
685
15%
34%
51%
0.4073
2.7%
94%
27%
27%
5-Year
DeRuyter village, Madison

County (P)
532
231
15%
43%
42%
0.4077
1.2%
94%
27%
26%
5-Year
Earlville village, Madison

County (P)
984
374
17%
34%
49%
0.4424
1.6%
97%
30%
53%
5-Year
Eaton town, Madison County

(SD)
5004
1,270
12%
33%
55%
0.4211
6.5%
95%
24%
53%
5-Year
Fenner town, Madison County

(SD)
1803
660
7%
29%
64%
0.4349
5.8%
85%
21%
23%
5-Year
Georgetown town, Madison

County (SD)
603
208
12%
34%
54%
0.366
1.9%
87%
19%
20%
5-Year
Hamilton town, Madison

County (SD)
6638
1,739
11%
34%
55%
0.4781
4.7%
94%
30%
35%
5-Year
Hamilton village, Madison

County (P)
4070
762
15%
21%
64%
0.5222
2.6%
97%
17%
31%
5-Year
Lebanon town, Madison

County (SD)
1360
486
14%
39%
47%
0.3689
7.3%
94%
22%
35%
5-Year
Lenox town, Madison County

(SD)
9060
3,794
12%
35%
53%
0.4051
4.2%
95%
22%
42%
5-Year
Lincoln town, Madison

County (SD)
1952
707
7%
28%
65%
0.3896
7.9%
90%
23%
38%
5-Year
Madison town, Madison

County (SD)
2996
1,188
15%
34%
51%
0.3745
10.0%
95%
24%
40%
5-Year
Madison village, Madison

County (P)
299
139
28%
35%
37%
0.4582
5.8%
93%
31%
15%
5-Year
Morrisville village, Madison

County (P)
2053
257
16%
39%
45%
0.4359
5.0%
98%
26%
40%
5-Year
Munnsville village, Madison

County (P)
473
153
14%
29%
57%
0.4091
2.6%
92%
10%
41%
5-Year
Nelson town, Madison County

(SD)
1954
777
6%
26%
68%
0.3542
7.1%
95%
28%
5%
5-Year
Oneida city, Madison County

(SD)
11290
4,340
18%
32%
50%
0.4573
7.0%
93%
20%
43%
5-Year
175
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Smithfield town, Madison

County (SD)
1084
422
13%
32%
55%
0.4357
5.8%
86%
26%
21%
5-Year
Stockbridge town, Madison

County (SD)
2365
816
16%
26%
58%
0.376
3.0%
88%
22%
20%
5-Year
Sullivan town, Madison

County (SD)
15345
5,913
6%
28%
66%
0.3528
3.6%
95%
19%
35%
5-Year
Wampsville village, Madison

County (P)
513
221
11%
28%
61%
0.3963
0.0%
98%
22%
100%
5-Year
Brighton CDP, Monroe County

(P)
36870
15,762
10%
25%
65%
0.5003
6.2%
95%
22%
45%
5-Year
Brockport village, Monroe

County (P)
8398
2,414
23%
31%
46%
0.4924
7.0%
95%
17%
65%
5-Year
Chili town, Monroe County

(SD)
28726
11,130
6%
24%
70%
0.384
6.9%
95%
18%
55%
5-Year
Churchville village, Monroe

County (P)
1997
822
10%
28%
62%
0.3581
4.9%
93%
21%
64%
5-Year
Clarkson CDP, Monroe County

(P)
4546
1,641
12%
16%
72%
0.4022
6.6%
98%
18%
46%
5-Year
Clarkson town, Monroe

County (SD)
6796
2,296
10%
17%
73%
0.3778
5.3%
93%
18%
40%
5-Year
East Rochester town, Monroe

County (SD)
6687
2,889
17%
32%
51%
0.3965
8.8%
91%
25%
53%
5-Year
Fairport village, Monroe

County (P)
5364
2,480
5%
21%
74%
0.3826
9.3%
94%
20%
35%
5-Year
Gates CDP, Monroe County

(P)
5049
2,051
10%
31%
59%
0.3859
11.3%
96%
21%
50%
5-Year
Gates town, Monroe County

(SD)
28506
12,054
8%
34%
58%
0.3725
7.0%
94%
27%
52%
5-Year
Greece CDP, Monroe County

(P)
14482
6,214
9%
31%
60%
0.3842
4.6%
95%
19%
53%
5-Year
Greece town, Monroe County

(SD)
96606
39,741
8%
29%
63%
0.395
5.8%
93%
23%
50%
5-Year
Hamlin CDP, Monroe County

(P)
5508
1,940
10%
30%
60%
0.3434
7.7%
95%
23%
56%
5-Year
Hamlin town, Monroe County

(SD)
9090
3,299
8%
28%
64%
0.3596
7.0%
94%
27%
48%
5-Year
Henrietta town, Monroe

County (SD)
43291
15,054
12%
23%
65%
0.3815
6.6%
95%
22%
48%
5-Year
Hilton village, Monroe County

(P)
5954
2,268
2%
34%
64%
0.3376
6.3%
95%
16%
55%
5-Year
Honeoye Falls village, Monroe

County (P)
2707
1,236
9%
25%
66%
0.4526
6.6%
97%
22%
40%
5-Year
Irondequoit CDP, Monroe

County (P)
51594
22,315
9%
30%
61%
0.4025
6.7%
95%
26%
46%
5-Year
Mendon town, Monroe County

(SD)
9245
3,648
5%
15%
80%
0.4753
3.8%
96%
24%
38%
5-Year
North Gates CDP, Monroe

County (P)
9956
4,304
10%
45%
45%
0.4024
7.3%
91%
27%
50%
5-Year
Ogden town, Monroe County

(SD)
20059
7,275
6%
22%
72%
0.3575
6.1%
95%
22%
34%
5-Year
Parma town, Monroe County

(SD)
15783
5,825
4%
24%
72%
0.3341
6.2%
96%
20%
57%
5-Year
Penfield town, Monroe County

(SD)
36751
14,519
6%
20%
74%
0.4068
5.4%
97%
23%
44%
5-Year
Perinton town, Monroe

County (SD)
46569
19,125
7%
19%
74%
0.4398
6.1%
96%
21%
39%
5-Year
Pittsford town, Monroe

County (SD)
29577
10,173
5%
8%
87%
0.472
4.6%
98%
22%
34%
5-Year
Pittsford village, Monroe

County (P)
1507
643
5%
12%
83%
0.449
7.2%
96%
32%
34%
5-Year
Riga town, Monroe County

(SD)
5612
2,282
8%
35%
57%
0.4194
5.1%
93%
33%
50%
5-Year
Rochester city, Monroe

County (SD)
210461
86,025
29%
37%
34%
0.4908
13.9%
89%
28%
60%
5-Year
Rochester city, Monroe

County (P)
209974
83,944
29%
40%
31%
0.5078
14.2%
92%
26%
62%
1-Year
Rush town, Monroe County

(SD)
3473
1,384
6%
16%
78%
0.4168
1.9%
98%
22%
24%
5-Year
Scottsville village, Monroe

County (P)
2446
914
7%
31%
62%
0.3699
5.7%
92%
17%
30%
5-Year
Spencerport village, Monroe

County (P)
3606
1,422
4%
23%
73%
0.3491
5.9%
97%
16%
36%
5-Year
Sweden town, Monroe County

(SD)
14210
4,899
16%
29%
55%
0.4408
7.5%
95%
18%
58%
5-Year
Webster town, Monroe County

(SD)
43402
17,145
7%
22%
71%
0.4148
5.4%
96%
24%
43%
5-Year
176
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Webster village, Monroe

County (P)
5528
2,493
21%
38%
41%
0.4089
6.3%
93%
20%
47%
5-Year
Wheatland town, Monroe

County (SD)
4768
2,075
6%
32%
62%
0.3591
6.9%
91%
20%
47%
5-Year
Amsterdam city, Montgomery

County (SD)
18348
7,584
24%
31%
45%
0.4754
13.2%
91%
25%
50%
5-Year
Amsterdam town,
Montgomery County (SD)
5801
2,448
9%
29%
62%
0.3799
12.8%
98%
27%
32%
5-Year
Canajoharie town,
3678
1,313
12%
27%
61%
0.4392
6.6%
91%
20%
46%
5-Year
Canajoharie village,
Montgomery County (P)
2192
767
11%
35%
54%
0.409
7.5%
89%
17%
44%
5-Year
Charleston town, Montgomery

County (SD)
1293
479
10%
26%
64%
0.3718
11.8%
83%
39%
18%
5-Year
Florida town, Montgomery

County (SD)
2689
1,100
8%
28%
64%
0.4425
7.4%
93%
23%
30%
5-Year
Fonda village, Montgomery

County (P)
704
277
11%
45%
44%
0.4111
12.1%
95%
16%
40%
5-Year
Fort Johnson village,

533
198
10%
23%
67%
0.3507
3.6%
98%
16%
55%
5-Year
Fort Plain village,

2027
862
23%
34%
43%
0.5161
6.8%
95%
27%
56%
5-Year
Fultonville village,
662
253
13%
36%
51%
0.4214
5.1%
90%
29%
58%
5-Year
Glen town, Montgomery

County (SD)
2544
805
9%
29%
62%
0.4173
6.5%
78%
21%
43%
5-Year
Hagaman village, Montgomery

County (P)
1284
524
10%
26%
64%
0.3722
10.3%
94%
31%
12%
5-Year
Minden town, Montgomery

County (SD)
4240
1,657
23%
34%
43%
0.4958
8.8%
84%
32%
52%
5-Year
Mohawk town, Montgomery

County (SD)
3809
1,449
7%
33%
60%
0.403
7.3%
94%
20%
42%
5-Year
Nelliston village, Montgomery

County (P)
583
266
15%
41%
44%
0.3736
13.1%
84%
15%
38%
5-Year
Palatine Bridge village,

806
327
11%
39%
50%
0.4992
4.8%
93%
23%
40%
5-Year
Palatine town, Montgomery

County (SD)
3244
1,307
13%
32%
55%
0.4311
7.3%
82%
25%
28%
5-Year
Root town, Montgomery

County (SD)
1724
620
10%
31%
59%
0.3611
8.5%
88%
27%
25%
5-Year
St. Johnsville town,

2581
893
25%
34%
41%
0.4364
11.4%
81%
24%
43%
5-Year
St. Johnsville village,

1655
605
24%
37%
39%
0.4165
9.8%
92%
21%
44%
5-Year
Tribes Hill CDP, Montgomery

County (P)
1110
466
0%
31%
69%
0.4103
8.9%
95%
14%
54%
5-Year
Albertson CDP, Nassau

County (P)
5154
1,773
4%
25%
71%
0.3989
13.5%
90%
42%
70%
5-Year
Atlantic Beach village, Nassau

County (P)
1613
688
4%
26%
70%
0.5471
7.1%
96%
48%
26%
5-Year
Baldwin CDP, Nassau County

(P)
24897
7,587
7%
26%
67%
0.3817
7.5%
89%
48%
59%
5-Year
Baldwin Harbor CDP, Nassau

County (P)
7799
2,577
7%
27%
66%
0.3991
7.3%
89%
47%
66%
5-Year
Barnum Island CDP, Nassau

County (P)
2489
844
2%
38%
60%
0.3823
10.4%
90%
44%
64%
5-Year
Baxter Estates village, Nassau

County (P)
955
389
6%
22%
72%
0.4953
4.5%
92%
40%
54%
5-Year
Bay Park CDP, Nassau County

(P)
1637
711
3%
17%
80%
0.3666
11.8%
99%
35%
0%
5-Year
Bayville village, Nassau

County (P)
6724
2,482
6%
26%
68%
0.4399
2.6%
94%
42%
52%
5-Year
Bellerose Terrace CDP,

Nassau County (P)
1975
588
3%
32%
65%
0.3935
8.1%
94%
58%
43%
5-Year
Bellerose village, Nassau

County (P)
1072
346
2%
17%
81%
0.3765
4.6%
95%
31%
63%
5-Year
Bellmore CDP, Nassau County

(P)
16260
5,533
2%
23%
75%
0.398
6.8%
97%
41%
55%
5-Year
Bethpage CDP, Nassau

County (P)
16337
5,769
3%
26%
71%
0.4159
7.2%
94%
39%
27%
5-Year
Brookville village, Nassau

County (P)
3518
756
1%
5%
94%
0.4977
4.6%
97%
39%
41%
5-Year
177
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Carle Place CDP, Nassau

County (P)
5377
1,829
7%
28%
65%
0.434
5.4%
94%
37%
49%
5-Year
Cedarhurst village, Nassau

County (P)
6631
1,932
6%
29%
65%
0.4657
8.1%
91%
41%
58%
5-Year
Centre Island village, Nassau

County (P)
418
162
7%
17%
76%
0.6346
0.9%
96%
46%
8%
5-Year
Cove Neck village, Nassau

County (P)
271
105
2%
9%
89%
0.6044
3.6%
100%
31%
0%
5-Year
East Atlantic Beach CDP,

Nassau County (P)
2229
880
1%
11%
88%
0.4004
1.9%
97%
27%
10%
5-Year
East Garden City CDP, Nassau

County (P)
6249
1,336
9%
25%
66%
0.5438
11.1%
96%
39%
60%
5-Year
East Hills village, Nassau

County (P)
7025
2,289
4%
7%
89%
0.4564
5.0%
97%
40%
0%
5-Year
East Massapequa CDP,

Nassau County (P)
19891
6,517
6%
23%
71%
0.3807
6.3%
93%
38%
43%
5-Year
East Meadow CDP, Nassau

County (P)
37513
12,386
5%
26%
69%
0.4022
6.6%
93%
39%
47%
5-Year
East Norwich CDP, Nassau

County (P)
2677
937
6%
19%
75%
0.4862
5.6%
97%
30%
21%
5-Year
East Rockaway village,

Nassau County (P)
9861
3,608
4%
32%
64%
0.4137
6.5%
94%
35%
56%
5-Year
East Williston village, Nassau

County (P)
2569
836
2%
14%
84%
0.4464
6.2%
98%
39%
44%
5-Year
Elmont CDP, Nassau County

(P)
36762
9,837
8%
30%
62%
0.3891
9.1%
86%
53%
48%
5-Year
Farmingdale village, Nassau

County (P)
8306
3,266
5%
44%
51%
0.4082
6.0%
91%
47%
50%
5-Year
Floral Park village, Nassau

County (P)
16190
5,589
4%
24%
72%
0.3957
6.5%
95%
34%
47%
5-Year
Flower Hill village, Nassau

County (P)
4741
1,396
5%
13%
82%
0.4926
5.4%
95%
40%
44%
5-Year
Franklin Square CDP, Nassau

County (P)
31291
9,859
6%
28%
66%
0.3807
8.4%
93%
48%
52%
5-Year
Freeport village, Nassau

County (P)
43168
13,557
15%
33%
52%
0.4459
9.7%
83%
50%
63%
5-Year
Garden City Park CDP,

Nassau County (P)
7807
2,546
5%
28%
67%
0.4161
8.2%
93%
44%
50%
5-Year
Garden City South CDP,

Nassau County (P)
3985
1,317
7%
26%
67%
0.451
1.9%
88%
40%
55%
5-Year
Garden City village, Nassau

County (P)
22543
7,403
4%
12%
84%
0.4669
5.5%
98%
39%
58%
5-Year
Glen Cove city, Nassau

County (SD)
27161
9,531
13%
35%
52%
0.5033
5.9%
83%
47%
57%
5-Year
Glen Head CDP, Nassau

County (P)
4575
1,636
4%
28%
68%
0.4386
5.9%
94%
43%
71%
5-Year
Glenwood Landing CDP,

Nassau County (P)
3955
1,386
3%
21%
76%
0.378
7.2%
98%
35%
57%
5-Year
Great Neck Estates village,

Nassau County (P)
2791
915
2%
16%
82%
0.4416
2.5%
97%
42%
31%
5-Year
Great Neck Gardens CDP,

Nassau County (P)
1119
320
16%
17%
67%
0.5235
3.1%
91%
41%
5-Year
Great Neck Plaza village,

Nassau County (P)
6823
3,482
7%
43%
50%
0.5075
9.8%
93%
30%
51%
5-Year
Great Neck village, Nassau

County (P)
10052
3,306
10%
27%
63%
0.4824
10.2%
94%
44%
57%
5-Year
Greenvale CDP, Nassau

County (P)
765
319
9%
31%
60%
0.4093
4.3%
90%
23%
51%
5-Year
Harbor Hills CDP, Nassau

County (P)
535
165
0%
13%
87%
0.3651
0.0%
90%
31%
5-Year
Harbor Isle CDP, Nassau

County (P)
1471
468
2%
23%
75%
0.3749
6.6%
99%
45%
0%
5-Year
Hempstead town, Nassau

County (SD)
765852
242,294
7%
26%
67%
0.4291
7.9%
90%
43%
56%
5-Year
Hempstead village, Nassau

County (P)
54801
16,233
21%
41%
38%
0.4552
10.8%
75%
54%
65%
5-Year
Herricks CDP, Nassau County

(P)
4309
1,276
1%
14%
85%
0.3687
5.1%
95%
41%
0%
5-Year
Hewlett Bay Park village,

Nassau County (P)
397
140
2%
4%
94%
0.4671
2.5%
99%
33%
0%
5-Year
Hewlett CDP, Nassau County

(P)
6481
2,257
4%
23%
73%
0.3889
7.0%
94%
45%
29%
5-Year
Hewlett Harbor village,

Nassau County (P)
1259
405
1%
9%
90%
0.4417
6.3%
99%
54%
86%
5-Year
Hewlett Neck village, Nassau

County (P)
366
122
2%
9%
89%
0.466
4.2%
100%
55%
0%
5-Year
178
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Hicksville CDP, Nassau

County (P)
41784
13,368
5%
25%
70%
0.3904
7.0%
93%
40%
49%
5-Year
Inwood CDP, Nassau County

(P)
9609
2,945
18%
45%
37%
0.4079
12.5%
79%
54%
58%
5-Year
Island Park village, Nassau

County (P)
4686
1,798
17%
35%
48%
0.4291
6.8%
90%
65%
64%
5-Year
Jericho CDP, Nassau County

(P)
13445
4,676
3%
16%
81%
0.4584
5.3%
97%
36%
31%
5-Year
Kensington village, Nassau

County (P)
1116
404
0%
12%
88%
0.4894
3.3%
99%
38%
31%
5-Year
Kings Point village, Nassau

County (P)
5076
1,356
5%
20%
75%
0.5171
3.8%
97%
66%
15%
5-Year
Lake Success village, Nassau

County (P)
2985
802
4%
15%
81%
0.4981
5.8%
99%
41%
46%
5-Year
Lakeview CDP, Nassau

County (P)
6357
1,489
10%
11%
79%
0.3239
9.3%
92%
40%
43%
5-Year
Lattingtown village, Nassau

County (P)
1594
575
4%
20%
76%
0.576
2.6%
97%
47%
17%
5-Year
Laurel Hollow village, Nassau

County (P)
1720
536
4%
11%
85%
0.5264
3.4%
98%
42%
0%
5-Year
Lawrence village, Nassau

County (P)
6511
2,126
1%
19%
80%
0.5051
2.4%
97%
28%
46%
5-Year
Levittown CDP, Nassau

County (P)
52485
16,604
3%
25%
72%
0.3481
6.8%
94%
40%
52%
5-Year
Lido Beach CDP, Nassau

County (P)
2505
993
2%
19%
79%
0.4355
6.9%
98%
31%
32%
5-Year
Locust Valley CDP, Nassau

County (P)
3241
1,251
2%
40%
58%
0.5139
8.4%
89%
45%
62%
5-Year
Long Beach city, Nassau

County (SD)
33522
14,418
8%
32%
60%
0.4311
6.2%
88%
44%
46%
5-Year
Lynbrook village, Nassau

County (P)
19517
7,201
6%
29%
65%
0.4013
9.1%
93%
42%
66%
5-Year
Malverne Park Oaks CDP,

Nassau County (P)
476
180
0%
21%
79%
0.4194
6.0%
100%
28%
5-Year
Malverne village, Nassau

County (P)
8544
3,157
2%
18%
80%
0.3556
8.1%
96%
37%
24%
5-Year
Manhasset CDP, Nassau

County (P)
7929
2,642
7%
24%
69%
0.518
8.7%
96%
42%
47%
5-Year
Manhasset Hills CDP, Nassau

County (P)
3697
1,218
2%
25%
73%
0.4166
5.0%
97%
55%
62%
5-Year
Manorhaven village, Nassau

County (P)
6638
2,397
7%
36%
57%
0.4195
10.6%
84%
44%
67%
5-Year
Massapequa CDP, Nassau

County (P)
22323
7,235
1%
19%
80%
0.3999
5.5%
97%
39%
45%
5-Year
Massapequa Park village,

Nassau County (P)
17137
5,479
2%
21%
77%
0.3658
8.4%
97%
39%
50%
5-Year
886
279
1%
24%
75%
0.5575
2.1%
96%
41%
43%
5-Year
21293
6,961
3%
15%
82%
0.3954
7.5%
97%
38%
39%
5-Year
Matinecock village, Nassau

County (P)
Merrick CDP, Nassau County
(P)
Mill Neck village, Nassau

County (P)
986
368
5%
17%
78%
0.6147
5.9%
97%
36%
39%
5-Year
Mineola village, Nassau

County (P)
18918
7,291
5%
34%
61%
0.4018
4.6%
92%
32%
54%
5-Year
Munsey Park village, Nassau

County (P)
2712
780
2%
10%
88%
0.4489
9.3%
98%
37%
5-Year
Muttontown village, Nassau

County (P)
3581
1,077
3%
6%
91%
0.4841
4.9%
97%
36%
56%
5-Year
New Cassel CDP, Nassau

County (P)
13988
3,086
16%
31%
53%
0.4136
5.5%
77%
43%
59%
5-Year
New Hyde Park village,

Nassau County (P)
9764
3,071
3%
27%
70%
0.3443
6.8%
92%
42%
25%
5-Year
North Bellmore CDP, Nassau

County (P)
20483
6,511
3%
25%
72%
0.3632
7.0%
93%
37%
50%
5-Year
North Hempstead town,

Nassau County (SD)
228245
76,868
5%
24%
71%
0.4907
6.4%
92%
40%
53%
5-Year
North Hills village, Nassau

County (P)
5122
2,287
3%
22%
75%
0.5343
1.6%
98%
48%
75%
5-Year
North Lynbrook CDP, Nassau

County (P)
556
169
11%
18%
71%
0.3829
2.3%
93%
31%
0%
5-Year
18970
6,270
5%
24%
71%
0.3671
4.0%
96%
45%
44%
5-Year
North Massapequa CDP,

Nassau County (P)
179
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
North Merrick CDP, Nassau

County (P)
11772
3,817
3%
21%
76%
0.3601
3.9%
95%
40%
55%
5-Year
North New Hyde Park CDP,

Nassau County (P)
15230
4,698
4%
16%
80%
0.3708
7.5%
95%
39%
46%
5-Year
North Valley Stream CDP,

Nassau County (P)
17247
5,121
7%
25%
68%
0.3571
11.2%
92%
44%
45%
5-Year
North Wantagh CDP, Nassau

County (P)
11773
4,104
3%
24%
73%
0.3624
4.0%
97%
43%
38%
5-Year
Oceanside CDP, Nassau

County (P)
30329
10,743
5%
26%
69%
0.4006
5.8%
95%
43%
50%
5-Year
Old Bethpage CDP, Nassau

County (P)
5501
1,835
2%
23%
75%
0.4244
4.0%
93%
40%
45%
5-Year
Old Brookville village, Nassau

County (P)
2585
783
3%
13%
84%
0.5052
4.0%
97%
46%
43%
5-Year
Old Westbury village, Nassau

County (P)
4599
982
2%
24%
74%
0.5372
5.3%
94%
43%
40%
5-Year
Oyster Bay CDP, Nassau

County (P)
6548
2,669
4%
36%
60%
0.4609
6.5%
93%
38%
58%
5-Year
Oyster Bay Cove village,

Nassau County (P)
2165
681
0%
9%
91%
0.5018
3.3%
98%
46%
29%
5-Year
Oyster Bay town, Nassau

County (SD)
295821
98,801
4%
22%
74%
0.4523
5.7%
95%
40%
47%
5-Year
Plainedge CDP, Nassau

County (P)
9234
2,878
3%
24%
73%
0.3132
3.5%
96%
43%
29%
5-Year
Plainview CDP, Nassau

County (P)
26206
9,009
3%
19%
78%
0.4027
4.7%
97%
39%
57%
5-Year
Plandome Heights village,

Nassau County (P)
956
308
2%
8%
90%
0.3947
7.5%
99%
34%
0%
5-Year
Plandome Manor village,

Nassau County (P)
827
295
1%
21%
78%
0.5585
3.8%
98%
35%
76%
5-Year
Plandome village, Nassau

County (P)
1430
416
4%
7%
89%
0.5063
4.6%
98%
29%
32%
5-Year
Point Lookout CDP, Nassau

County (P)
1246
522
0%
26%
74%
0.3891
3.1%
93%
47%
23%
5-Year
Port Washington CDP, Nassau

County (P)
15847
5,709
5%
23%
72%
0.4857
7.3%
94%
33%
61%
5-Year
Port Washington North

village, Nassau County (P)
3186
1,310
4%
19%
77%
0.4721
5.8%
99%
33%
55%
5-Year
Rockville Centre village,

Nassau County (P)
24128
9,187
6%
25%
69%
0.4779
6.6%
97%
34%
52%
5-Year
Roosevelt CDP, Nassau

County (P)
16554
4,219
19%
33%
48%
0.396
11.2%
79%
62%
63%
5-Year
Roslyn Estates village,

Nassau County (P)
1194
388
2%
9%
89%
0.4891
1.9%
97%
42%
21%
5-Year
Roslyn Harbor village, Nassau

County (P)
946
354
3%
13%
84%
0.5403
8.0%
96%
42%
38%
5-Year
Roslyn Heights CDP, Nassau

County (P)
7243
2,173
4%
21%
75%
0.4692
7.2%
90%
51%
55%
5-Year
Roslyn village, Nassau

County (P)
2798
1,143
5%
29%
66%
0.5654
9.8%
94%
30%
61%
5-Year
Russell Gardens village,

Nassau County (P)
880
333
3%
16%
81%
0.5068
6.8%
98%
39%
25%
5-Year
Saddle Rock Estates CDP,

Nassau County (P)
387
126
0%
4%
96%
0.3536
3.5%
95%
30%
5-Year
Saddle Rock village, Nassau

County (P)
1043
283
1%
23%
76%
0.5586
1.9%
94%
56%
0%
5-Year
Salisbury CDP, Nassau

County (P)
12154
3,911
5%
24%
71%
0.4033
7.5%
94%
45%
54%
5-Year
Sands Point village, Nassau

County (P)
2718
910
2%
7%
91%
0.5114
1.3%
99%
38%
69%
5-Year
Sea Cliff village, Nassau

County (P)
5012
1,980
3%
24%
73%
0.4339
4.2%
96%
37%
24%
5-Year
Seaford CDP, Nassau County

(P)
15405
5,232
3%
22%
75%
0.3677
6.4%
96%
41%
52%
5-Year
Searingtown CDP, Nassau

County (P)
4495
1,441
1%
19%
80%
0.3975
3.2%
98%
44%
50%
5-Year
South Farmingdale CDP,

Nassau County (P)
14576
4,702
3%
23%
74%
0.3549
7.0%
95%
39%
63%
5-Year
South Floral Park village,

Nassau County (P)
2017
618
4%
36%
60%
0.375
9.1%
86%
45%
63%
5-Year
South Hempstead CDP,

Nassau County (P)
3181
1,003
4%
17%
79%
0.3958
6.4%
89%
32%
21%
5-Year
South Valley Stream CDP,

Nassau County (P)
6293
2,003
8%
22%
70%
0.4261
11.4%
91%
49%
54%
5-Year
Stewart Manor village, Nassau

County (P)
2112
745
0%
15%
85%
0.3663
6.1%
93%
27%
38%
5-Year
180
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Syosset CDP, Nassau County

(P)
18872
6,172
5%
14%
81%
0.4398
4.1%
96%
38%
59%
5-Year
Thomaston village, Nassau

County (P)
2630
984
10%
21%
69%
0.5197
6.2%
94%
39%
48%
5-Year
Uniondale CDP, Nassau

County (P)
24787
5,890
10%
37%
53%
0.411
9.2%
80%
50%
62%
5-Year
University Gardens CDP,

Nassau County (P)
4059
1,550
3%
22%
75%
0.4574
5.9%
93%
30%
33%
5-Year
Upper Brookville village,

Nassau County (P)
1447
479
9%
8%
83%
0.5393
6.4%
97%
44%
45%
5-Year
Valley Stream village, Nassau

County (P)
37764
11,422
8%
27%
65%
0.3829
10.3%
87%
46%
53%
5-Year
Wantagh CDP, Nassau County

(P)
19074
5,957
2%
17%
81%
0.4088
5.2%
97%
34%
45%
5-Year
West Hempstead CDP, Nassau

County (P)
18801
5,868
6%
24%
70%
0.4147
8.2%
91%
42%
50%
5-Year
Westbury village, Nassau

County (P)
15201
4,950
6%
31%
63%
0.4161
5.0%
82%
45%
53%
5-Year
Williston Park village, Nassau

County (P)
7319
2,567
4%
23%
73%
0.3773
7.5%
96%
35%
52%
5-Year
Woodbury CDP, Nassau

County (P)
8553
3,018
4%
16%
80%
0.4961
3.5%
99%
37%
40%
5-Year
Woodmere CDP, Nassau

County (P)
17067
5,042
6%
15%
79%
0.4474
5.3%
96%
42%
53%
5-Year
728
264
5%
7%
88%
0.4872
5.8%
99%
40%
38%
5-Year
1618398
745,089
16%
17%
67%
0.5975
8.2%
90%
25%
44%
5-Year
Barker village, Niagara

County (P)
705
211
23%
24%
53%
0.3858
7.7%
92%
18%
35%
5-Year
Cambria town, Niagara

County (SD)
5836
2,213
3%
19%
78%
0.354
5.5%
96%
25%
30%
5-Year
Gasport CDP, Niagara County

(P)
994
393
12%
27%
61%
0.2739
8.2%
98%
21%
25%
5-Year
Hartland town, Niagara

County (SD)
4078
1,616
13%
20%
67%
0.3833
4.7%
95%
16%
44%
5-Year
Lewiston town, Niagara

County (SD)
16188
6,318
7%
23%
70%
0.4256
4.6%
95%
25%
57%
5-Year
Lewiston village, Niagara

County (P)
2702
1,357
11%
25%
64%
0.4142
4.5%
98%
31%
47%
5-Year
Lockport city, Niagara County

(SD)
20957
9,016
18%
32%
50%
0.4456
9.3%
90%
24%
52%
5-Year
Lockport town, Niagara

County (SD)
Woodsburgh village, Nassau

County (P)
Manhattan borough, New York

County (SD)
181
20380
8,212
10%
25%
65%
0.4188
6.7%
93%
20%
33%
5-Year
Middleport village, Niagara

County (P)
1706
686
13%
26%
61%
0.3916
4.8%
95%
23%
35%
5-Year
Newfane CDP, Niagara County

(P)
3600
1,399
12%
21%
67%
0.3629
5.7%
88%
18%
36%
5-Year
Newfane town, Niagara

County (SD)
9560
3,746
10%
24%
66%
0.3696
8.9%
90%
18%
29%
5-Year
Niagara Falls city, Niagara

County (SD)
49679
21,300
25%
32%
43%
0.468
11.6%
92%
22%
54%
5-Year
Niagara town, Niagara County

(SD)
8278
3,575
14%
29%
57%
0.3925
9.2%
90%
23%
40%
5-Year
North Tonawanda city,

Niagara County (SD)
31245
13,939
11%
31%
58%
0.4404
7.7%
93%
19%
44%
5-Year
Olcott CDP, Niagara County

(P)
1188
560
17%
21%
62%
0.3694
15.9%
98%
22%
26%
5-Year
Pendleton town, Niagara

County (SD)
6483
2,318
2%
19%
79%
0.368
6.7%
96%
21%
10%
5-Year
Porter town, Niagara County

(SD)
6708
2,707
6%
19%
75%
0.3954
6.2%
95%
20%
45%
5-Year
Ransomville CDP, Niagara

County (P)
1421
572
8%
15%
77%
0.3721
2.1%
98%
18%
41%
5-Year
Rapids CDP, Niagara County

(P)
1648
644
4%
30%
66%
0.3825
9.4%
87%
19%
0%
5-Year
Royalton town, Niagara

County (SD)
7597
2,667
10%
22%
68%
0.3751
5.0%
96%
26%
26%
5-Year
Sanborn CDP, Niagara County

(P)
1235
544
3%
32%
65%
0.3278
5.0%
95%
18%
51%
5-Year
Somerset town, Niagara

County (SD)
2718
967
14%
25%
61%
0.3728
7.6%
93%
26%
28%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
South Lockport CDP, Niagara

County (P)
8255
3,647
15%
34%
51%
0.4059
9.4%
90%
21%
33%
5-Year
Tuscarora Nation Reservation,

Niagara County (SD)
1061
407
23%
36%
41%
0.4705
14.3%
78%
21%
9%
5-Year
Wheatfield town, Niagara

County (SD)
18249
6,968
9%
19%
72%
0.4041
5.9%
96%
21%
49%
5-Year
Wilson town, Niagara County

(SD)
5956
2,283
9%
23%
68%
0.4447
9.1%
96%
31%
27%
5-Year
Wilson village, Niagara

County (P)
1202
512
12%
22%
66%
0.3897
8.0%
96%
19%
19%
5-Year
Youngstown village, Niagara

County (P)
2002
807
9%
24%
67%
0.4588
10.0%
95%
22%
51%
5-Year
Annsville town, Oneida

County (SD)
2985
1,091
17%
34%
49%
0.372
12.9%
92%
24%
48%
5-Year
Augusta town, Oneida County

(SD)
2366
936
8%
35%
57%
0.4202
7.4%
88%
18%
43%
5-Year
Ava town, Oneida County (SD)
589
233
12%
26%
62%
0.3723
5.4%
92%
22%
9%
5-Year
Barneveld village, Oneida

County (P)
225
104
2%
40%
58%
0.4098
4.7%
97%
14%
0%
5-Year
Boonville town, Oneida

County (SD)
4561
1,764
14%
29%
57%
0.4456
8.1%
89%
17%
34%
5-Year
Boonville village, Oneida

County (P)
2120
873
18%
41%
41%
0.4981
14.4%
92%
25%
39%
5-Year
Bridgewater town, Oneida

County (SD)
1518
543
18%
29%
53%
0.4123
9.4%
91%
25%
52%
5-Year
Bridgewater village, Oneida

County (P)
522
175
28%
19%
53%
0.3554
14.0%
93%
26%
45%
5-Year
Camden town, Oneida County

(SD)
4942
1,998
12%
35%
53%
0.3856
7.5%
92%
18%
44%
5-Year
Camden village, Oneida

County (P)
2398
1,021
13%
39%
48%
0.3953
9.6%
90%
14%
43%
5-Year
Chadwicks CDP, Oneida

County (P)
2087
699
4%
46%
50%
0.5075
9.3%
97%
21%
35%
5-Year
Clark Mills CDP, Oneida

County (P)
2105
1,037
15%
19%
66%
0.3457
7.8%
99%
34%
26%
5-Year
Clayville village, Oneida

County (P)
387
179
8%
41%
51%
0.2873
6.5%
87%
31%
19%
5-Year
Clinton village, Oneida

County (P)
1979
903
9%
24%
67%
0.444
2.0%
98%
17%
40%
5-Year
Deerfield town, Oneida

County (SD)
4295
1,612
8%
15%
77%
0.3417
7.3%
93%
20%
39%
5-Year
Durhamville CDP, Oneida

County (P)
842
281
60%
17%
23%
0.4188
8.1%
99%
56%
80%
5-Year
Florence town, Oneida

County (SD)
1026
385
8%
43%
49%
0.3603
5.0%
91%
24%
30%
5-Year
Floyd town, Oneida County

(SD)
3799
1,455
6%
24%
70%
0.4182
10.0%
90%
26%
27%
5-Year
Forestport town, Oneida

County (SD)
1481
681
14%
25%
61%
0.4084
11.8%
94%
23%
48%
5-Year
Holland Patent village, Oneida

County (P)
376
153
3%
30%
67%
0.3382
1.0%
96%
20%
44%
5-Year
Kirkland town, Oneida County

(SD)
10274
3,548
7%
21%
72%
0.4536
4.4%
96%
23%
36%
5-Year
Lee town, Oneida County (SD)
6476
2,499
3%
22%
75%
0.3533
5.1%
94%
13%
37%
5-Year
Marcy town, Oneida County

(SD)
9121
2,146
5%
18%
77%
0.3436
5.3%
93%
20%
18%
5-Year
Marshall town, Oneida County

(SD)
2074
781
10%
25%
65%
0.4056
8.9%
89%
19%
50%
5-Year
New Hartford town, Oneida

County (SD)
22080
9,367
7%
26%
67%
0.4867
4.9%
96%
18%
48%
5-Year
New Hartford village, Oneida

County (P)
1767
830
10%
25%
65%
0.4579
4.3%
96%
21%
54%
5-Year
New York Mills village, Oneida

County (P)
3001
1,507
22%
44%
34%
0.4531
8.0%
98%
17%
52%
5-Year
Oneida Castle village, Oneida

County (P)
698
297
14%
33%
53%
0.4102
2.8%
90%
23%
30%
5-Year
Oriskany Falls village, Oneida

County (P)
836
333
8%
32%
60%
0.392
11.9%
93%
18%
27%
5-Year
Oriskany village, Oneida

County (P)
1263
512
9%
29%
62%
0.3797
2.5%
94%
17%
53%
5-Year
Paris town, Oneida County

(SD)
4393
1,798
12%
24%
64%
0.4008
6.4%
92%
23%
49%
5-Year
Remsen town, Oneida County

(SD)
1961
806
12%
27%
61%
0.4029
9.0%
92%
22%
60%
5-Year
182
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
534
202
24%
41%
35%
0.4369
23.8%
90%
46%
65%
5-Year
Rome city, Oneida County

(SD)
33161
13,249
15%
31%
54%
0.4292
6.6%
93%
23%
40%
5-Year
Sangerfield town, Oneida

County (SD)
2537
1,025
16%
31%
53%
0.4103
6.7%
93%
22%
37%
5-Year
Sherrill city, Oneida County

(SD)
3072
1,342
7%
31%
62%
0.4499
4.5%
96%
18%
42%
5-Year
Steuben town, Oneida County

(SD)
966
400
11%
29%
60%
0.3706
7.9%
93%
20%
21%
5-Year
Sylvan Beach village, Oneida

County (P)
863
416
12%
41%
47%
0.3448
9.1%
97%
41%
55%
5-Year
Trenton town, Oneida County

(SD)
4480
1,735
8%
21%
71%
0.3816
3.4%
96%
25%
20%
5-Year
Utica city, Oneida County (SD)
61852
23,828
27%
34%
39%
0.4686
12.9%
92%
25%
54%
5-Year
Vernon town, Oneida County

(SD)
5421
2,132
9%
29%
62%
0.3884
3.3%
92%
29%
25%
5-Year
Vernon village, Oneida

County (P)
1079
496
12%
36%
52%
0.3857
4.3%
94%
25%
26%
5-Year
Verona CDP, Oneida County

(P)
576
248
6%
32%
62%
0.2875
20.4%
100%
32%
5-Year
Verona town, Oneida County

(SD)
6291
2,334
14%
21%
65%
0.3555
8.0%
91%
22%
47%
5-Year
Vienna town, Oneida County

(SD)
5475
2,366
16%
31%
53%
0.3692
8.7%
95%
30%
58%
5-Year
Washington Mills CDP, Oneida

County (P)
1191
455
20%
16%
64%
0.4562
2.3%
92%
9%
55%
5-Year
Waterville village, Oneida

County (P)
1618
627
13%
35%
52%
0.4221
8.5%
92%
18%
41%
5-Year
Western town, Oneida County

(SD)
1959
806
7%
20%
73%
0.3688
7.4%
94%
18%
37%
5-Year
Westmoreland CDP, Oneida

County (P)
323
150
0%
26%
74%
0.29
14.5%
100%
8%
100%
5-Year
Westmoreland town, Oneida

County (SD)
6118
2,450
10%
17%
73%
0.3927
6.0%
95%
24%
39%
5-Year
Whitesboro village, Oneida

County (P)
3749
1,679
17%
29%
54%
0.3887
4.6%
96%
31%
32%
5-Year
Whitestown town, Oneida

County (SD)
18671
7,511
11%
26%
63%
0.4144
6.8%
95%
22%
39%
5-Year
Yorkville village, Oneida

County (P)
2677
1,081
16%
28%
56%
0.3598
12.0%
92%
34%
39%
5-Year
Baldwinsville village,
Onondaga County (P)
7655
3,156
12%
31%
57%
0.409
6.8%
94%
18%
49%
5-Year
Brewerton CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
4289
1,694
15%
27%
58%
0.4137
13.1%
94%
31%
41%
5-Year
Bridgeport CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
1583
678
13%
36%
51%
0.4351
11.5%
90%
19%
38%
5-Year
Camillus town, Onondaga

County (SD)
24259
9,783
6%
21%
73%
0.3863
6.2%
94%
22%
40%
5-Year
Camillus village, Onondaga

County (P)
1235
572
11%
31%
58%
0.3805
9.2%
93%
12%
55%
5-Year
Cicero town, Onondaga

County (SD)
31672
12,334
7%
20%
73%
0.3865
7.3%
96%
21%
40%
5-Year
Clay town, Onondaga County

(SD)
58945
23,468
7%
20%
73%
0.3703
5.5%
94%
21%
43%
5-Year
De Witt town, Onondaga

County (SD)
25786
10,095
9%
24%
67%
0.4772
7.1%
91%
23%
40%
5-Year
East Syracuse village,

Onondaga County (P)
3051
1,419
19%
45%
36%
0.4235
8.9%
87%
40%
50%
5-Year
Elbridge town, Onondaga

County (SD)
5881
2,246
8%
23%
69%
0.3663
7.1%
89%
17%
29%
5-Year
Elbridge village, Onondaga

County (P)
1001
359
1%
19%
80%
0.3659
6.0%
90%
13%
26%
5-Year
Fabius town, Onondaga

County (SD)
2206
774
4%
20%
76%
0.3757
3.2%
84%
18%
11%
5-Year
Fabius village, Onondaga

County (P)
368
149
7%
17%
76%
0.3392
6.2%
92%
18%
16%
5-Year
Fairmount CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
10120
4,092
6%
21%
73%
0.3356
7.0%
94%
21%
39%
5-Year
Fayetteville village, Onondaga

County (P)
4342
2,038
3%
21%
76%
0.4064
1.5%
91%
15%
28%
5-Year
Galeville CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
4676
2,112
13%
35%
52%
0.3796
8.5%
94%
30%
59%
5-Year
Remsen village, Oneida

County (P)
183
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Geddes town, Onondaga

County (SD)
17003
7,116
8%
29%
63%
0.4109
6.3%
94%
20%
38%
5-Year
Jordan village, Onondaga

County (P)
1390
511
8%
27%
65%
0.393
8.7%
88%
17%
27%
5-Year
LaFayette town, Onondaga

County (SD)
4943
1,956
8%
23%
69%
0.374
8.1%
92%
16%
22%
5-Year
Lakeland CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
2580
1,088
7%
28%
65%
0.3555
7.0%
90%
17%
70%
5-Year
Liverpool village, Onondaga

County (P)
2240
1,132
7%
26%
67%
0.3738
6.0%
93%
16%
43%
5-Year
Lyncourt CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
4267
1,868
12%
32%
56%
0.3602
15.3%
91%
25%
43%
5-Year
Lysander town, Onondaga

County (SD)
22175
8,579
7%
17%
76%
0.4088
5.4%
95%
19%
40%
5-Year
Manlius town, Onondaga

County (SD)
32391
13,241
6%
18%
76%
0.4383
5.5%
95%
19%
40%
5-Year
Manlius village, Onondaga

County (P)
4691
1,886
7%
22%
71%
0.4497
3.4%
97%
19%
53%
5-Year
Marcellus town, Onondaga

County (SD)
6210
2,423
6%
20%
74%
0.4144
4.4%
92%
21%
43%
5-Year
Marcellus village, Onondaga

County (P)
1700
739
6%
32%
62%
0.5373
7.5%
93%
16%
39%
5-Year
Mattydale CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
6741
2,621
15%
33%
52%
0.3762
8.3%
89%
23%
51%
5-Year
Minoa village, Onondaga

County (P)
3492
1,467
3%
25%
72%
0.3498
5.2%
97%
18%
50%
5-Year
Nedrow CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
2267
893
11%
28%
61%
0.3524
4.3%
87%
17%
60%
5-Year
North Syracuse village,

Onondaga County (P)
6659
3,171
8%
31%
61%
0.3868
8.9%
93%
27%
44%
5-Year
Onondaga town, Onondaga

County (SD)
23111
8,607
6%
18%
76%
0.4149
5.4%
95%
18%
34%
5-Year
Otisco town, Onondaga

County (SD)
2556
1,031
7%
25%
68%
0.4206
5.2%
94%
26%
63%
5-Year
Pompey town, Onondaga

County (SD)
7223
2,533
4%
14%
82%
0.4683
2.6%
95%
29%
42%
5-Year
Salina town, Onondaga

County (SD)
33673
14,872
10%
27%
63%
0.3992
7.5%
92%
23%
40%
5-Year
Seneca Knolls CDP,

Onondaga County (P)
1936
858
4%
33%
63%
0.3509
7.8%
95%
17%
0%
5-Year
Skaneateles town, Onondaga

County (SD)
7216
3,061
5%
17%
78%
0.4849
4.9%
96%
21%
33%
5-Year
Skaneateles village,
Onondaga County (P)
2513
1,181
8%
19%
73%
0.506
5.5%
96%
26%
30%
5-Year
Solvay village, Onondaga

County (P)
6514
2,981
14%
36%
50%
0.4176
6.9%
91%
27%
39%
5-Year
Spafford town, Onondaga

County (SD)
1719
688
5%
21%
74%
0.4379
7.6%
96%
28%
26%
5-Year
Syracuse city, Onondaga

County (SD)
144648
55,279
31%
30%
39%
0.5097
12.5%
89%
23%
54%
5-Year
Syracuse city, Onondaga

County (P)
144263
54,712
30%
30%
40%
0.4969
11.2%
93%
21%
55%
1-Year
Tully town, Onondaga County

(SD)
2743
1,102
7%
17%
76%
0.4348
4.7%
95%
25%
29%
5-Year
Tully village, Onondaga

County (P)
1037
435
12%
27%
61%
0.4221
7.6%
92%
42%
37%
5-Year
Van Buren town, Onondaga

County (SD)
13302
5,858
6%
27%
67%
0.4002
5.8%
94%
15%
40%
5-Year
Village Green CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
3722
1,919
7%
27%
66%
0.4404
2.4%
96%
12%
44%
5-Year
Westvale CDP, Onondaga

County (P)
5111
2,075
3%
19%
78%
0.3783
4.5%
98%
20%
24%
5-Year
Bloomfield village, Ontario

County (P)
1581
633
16%
25%
59%
0.4161
7.2%
91%
18%
51%
5-Year
Bristol town, Ontario County

(SD)
2294
889
9%
22%
69%
0.3443
6.4%
96%
26%
12%
5-Year
Canadice town, Ontario

County (SD)
1680
777
7%
34%
59%
0.3975
8.0%
91%
26%
25%
5-Year
Canandaigua city, Ontario

County (SD)
10532
4,846
14%
35%
51%
0.4655
8.4%
92%
20%
43%
5-Year
Canandaigua town, Ontario

County (SD)
10285
4,362
8%
26%
66%
0.4399
7.2%
96%
28%
57%
5-Year
Clifton Springs village,

Ontario County (P)
2293
840
15%
30%
55%
0.4031
5.1%
95%
26%
38%
5-Year
Crystal Beach CDP, Ontario

County (P)
643
326
22%
34%
44%
0.439
3.9%
88%
8%
43%
5-Year
184
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
East Bloomfield town, Ontario

County (SD)
3618
1,460
8%
20%
72%
0.4961
9.7%
89%
17%
43%
5-Year
Farmington town, Ontario

County (SD)
12501
4,755
8%
24%
68%
0.3589
6.2%
91%
23%
42%
5-Year
Geneva city, Ontario County

(SD)
13202
4,767
20%
35%
45%
0.445
6.3%
91%
17%
46%
5-Year
Geneva town, Ontario County

(SD)
3252
1,441
5%
29%
66%
0.4249
9.7%
97%
16%
61%
5-Year
Gorham CDP, Ontario County

(P)
710
237
0%
43%
57%
0.2588
17.2%
96%
15%
11%
5-Year
Gorham town, Ontario County

(SD)
4258
1,799
9%
27%
64%
0.3648
6.0%
88%
28%
35%
5-Year
Honeoye CDP, Ontario County

(P)
631
286
11%
48%
41%
0.3274
0.0%
93%
45%
100%
5-Year
Hopewell town, Ontario

County (SD)
3732
1,301
4%
26%
70%
0.32
4.5%
90%
14%
59%
5-Year
Manchester town, Ontario

County (SD)
9439
3,827
9%
34%
57%
0.3925
6.3%
91%
24%
41%
5-Year
Manchester village, Ontario

County (P)
1691
789
12%
32%
56%
0.3716
4.3%
94%
26%
43%
5-Year
Naples town, Ontario County

(SD)
2505
998
11%
36%
53%
0.3821
7.5%
93%
31%
28%
5-Year
Naples village, Ontario

County (P)
1187
444
13%
34%
53%
0.3738
7.4%
94%
22%
32%
5-Year
Phelps town, Ontario County

(SD)
7039
3,002
7%
34%
59%
0.4111
4.4%
90%
20%
59%
5-Year
Phelps village, Ontario

County (P)
2008
912
9%
32%
59%
0.3882
3.7%
93%
17%
56%
5-Year
Port Gibson CDP, Ontario

County (P)
482
203
5%
44%
51%
0.3756
4.0%
99%
9%
64%
5-Year
Richmond town, Ontario

County (SD)
3333
1,484
2%
30%
68%
0.3165
4.3%
96%
23%
61%
5-Year
Seneca town, Ontario County

(SD)
2742
1,005
3%
24%
73%
0.3041
6.5%
87%
14%
10%
5-Year
Shortsville village, Ontario

County (P)
1387
578
11%
27%
62%
0.436
8.3%
90%
21%
46%
5-Year
South Bristol town, Ontario

County (SD)
1643
722
9%
20%
71%
0.4378
6.2%
96%
30%
38%
5-Year
Victor town, Ontario County

(SD)
14387
5,688
3%
23%
74%
0.4316
6.7%
96%
22%
62%
5-Year
Victor village, Ontario County

(P)
2798
995
6%
24%
70%
0.3911
5.1%
94%
22%
39%
5-Year
West Bloomfield town,

Ontario County (SD)
2533
1,075
9%
33%
58%
0.4431
6.3%
86%
21%
28%
5-Year
Balmville CDP, Orange County

(P)
3072
1,150
13%
19%
68%
0.4132
8.2%
89%
47%
69%
5-Year
Beaver Dam Lake CDP,

Orange County (P)
2493
832
2%
20%
78%
0.2706
4.0%
99%
29%
0%
5-Year
Blooming Grove town, Orange

County (SD)
17876
6,146
5%
26%
69%
0.3896
5.9%
94%
43%
38%
5-Year
Chester town, Orange County

(SD)
11938
4,161
4%
24%
72%
0.3698
6.4%
93%
43%
47%
5-Year
Chester village, Orange

County (P)
3943
1,665
8%
35%
57%
0.3926
10.6%
86%
50%
50%
5-Year
Cornwall town, Orange

County (SD)
12565
4,714
6%
21%
73%
0.4001
6.7%
95%
34%
52%
5-Year
Cornwall-on-Hudson village,
Orange County (P)
2998
1,171
5%
16%
79%
0.4272
4.2%
92%
30%
48%
5-Year
Crawford town, Orange

County (SD)
9291
3,142
5%
27%
68%
0.4143
6.5%
93%
41%
43%
5-Year
Deerpark town, Orange

County (SD)
7843
3,122
13%
45%
42%
0.4324
8.2%
90%
48%
44%
5-Year
Firthcliffe CDP, Orange

County (P)
4957
1,962
5%
30%
65%
0.3837
5.3%
96%
35%
48%
5-Year
Florida village, Orange

County (P)
2842
1,069
3%
27%
70%
0.3625
9.8%
94%
42%
37%
5-Year
Fort Montgomery CDP,

Orange County (P)
1385
537
7%
17%
76%
0.3356
10.2%
90%
36%
44%
5-Year
Gardnertown CDP, Orange

County (P)
4498
1,653
2%
27%
71%
0.3254
9.4%
86%
39%
63%
5-Year
Goshen town, Orange County

(SD)
13671
4,561
6%
24%
70%
0.4456
8.9%
93%
37%
53%
5-Year
185
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Goshen village, Orange

County (P)
5417
2,080
6%
31%
63%
0.4112
6.4%
95%
35%
58%
5-Year
Greenville town, Orange

County (SD)
4637
1,505
4%
24%
72%
0.3811
6.6%
91%
30%
9%
5-Year
Greenwood Lake village,

Orange County (P)
3129
1,159
8%
26%
66%
0.4583
7.0%
93%
57%
45%
5-Year
Hamptonburgh town, Orange

County (SD)
5546
1,624
4%
21%
75%
0.3769
6.4%
96%
41%
30%
5-Year
Harriman village, Orange

County (P)
2771
1,052
6%
34%
60%
0.3725
4.6%
93%
59%
54%
5-Year
Highland Falls village, Orange

County (P)
3852
1,715
6%
37%
57%
0.3773
8.3%
92%
30%
42%
5-Year
Highlands town, Orange

County (SD)
12327
3,111
6%
28%
66%
0.3829
7.8%
94%
32%
46%
5-Year
Kiryas Joel village, Orange

County (P)
21201
3,772
55%
23%
22%
0.5014
6.5%
98%
65%
76%
5-Year
Maybrook village, Orange

County (P)
3022
1,124
14%
38%
48%
0.4293
14.0%
90%
37%
51%
5-Year
Mechanicstown CDP, Orange

County (P)
7030
2,738
13%
38%
49%
0.4395
10.9%
88%
24%
64%
5-Year
Middletown city, Orange

County (SD)
27904
9,976
18%
38%
44%
0.4269
11.0%
85%
41%
55%
5-Year
Minisink town, Orange County

(SD)
4507
1,450
7%
22%
71%
0.3677
8.4%
91%
45%
35%
5-Year
Monroe town, Orange County

(SD)
41159
10,172
23%
20%
57%
0.475
6.1%
95%
41%
67%
5-Year
Monroe village, Orange

County (P)
8493
2,692
8%
19%
73%
0.4405
6.3%
95%
32%
54%
5-Year
Montgomery town, Orange

County (SD)
22993
8,013
11%
29%
60%
0.4084
8.3%
92%
38%
48%
5-Year
Montgomery village, Orange

County (P)
4159
1,429
4%
30%
66%
0.3387
6.0%
96%
29%
43%
5-Year
Mount Hope town, Orange

County (SD)
7043
1,761
10%
28%
62%
0.381
6.3%
94%
37%
64%
5-Year
Mountain Lodge Park CDP,

Orange County (P)
1983
701
0%
27%
73%
0.2896
0.0%
92%
24%
0%
5-Year
New Windsor CDP, Orange

County (P)
8520
3,358
5%
38%
57%
0.3915
8.7%
90%
39%
57%
5-Year
New Windsor town, Orange

County (SD)
25717
9,272
5%
35%
60%
0.3921
6.5%
91%
37%
56%
5-Year
Newburgh city, Orange

County (SD)
28614
8,762
34%
34%
32%
0.4887
11.5%
78%
43%
68%
5-Year
Newburgh town, Orange

County (SD)
30485
10,826
7%
28%
65%
0.392
7.5%
91%
37%
54%
5-Year
Orange Lake CDP, Orange

County (P)
7606
2,600
9%
25%
66%
0.3914
5.4%
93%
32%
33%
5-Year
Otisville village, Orange

County (P)
1245
429
11%
28%
61%
0.4384
8.6%
88%
32%
62%
5-Year
Pine Bush CDP, Orange

County (P)
1564
683
11%
55%
34%
0.4533
6.6%
86%
51%
51%
5-Year
Port Jervis city, Orange

County (SD)
8736
3,413
17%
49%
34%
0.4723
10.3%
88%
36%
59%
5-Year
Salisbury Mills CDP, Orange

County (P)
328
103
0%
31%
69%
0.2974
34.8%
91%
58%
42%
5-Year
Scotchtown CDP, Orange

County (P)
9132
3,151
7%
30%
63%
0.3581
8.4%
91%
35%
45%
5-Year
South Blooming Grove

village, Orange County (P)
3212
1,143
8%
29%
63%
0.3753
5.3%
94%
45%
46%
5-Year
Tuxedo Park village, Orange

County (P)
538
222
4%
9%
87%
0.5563
2.5%
98%
60%
36%
5-Year
Tuxedo town, Orange County

(SD)
3602
1,560
2%
23%
75%
0.4473
3.6%
97%
48%
37%
5-Year
Unionville village, Orange

County (P)
613
230
9%
31%
60%
0.3457
9.5%
80%
39%
100%
5-Year
Vails Gate CDP, Orange

County (P)
3477
1,486
11%
61%
28%
0.4391
7.2%
85%
48%
63%
5-Year
Walden village, Orange

County (P)
6919
2,458
16%
28%
56%
0.4112
9.6%
92%
40%
54%
5-Year
Wallkill town, Orange County

(SD)
27832
9,962
9%
30%
61%
0.3963
9.3%
90%
36%
52%
5-Year
Walton Park CDP, Orange

County (P)
2669
762
1%
11%
88%
0.2813
4.6%
95%
42%
50%
5-Year
Warwick town, Orange County

(SD)
31581
11,727
6%
23%
71%
0.4405
8.3%
93%
40%
47%
5-Year
Warwick village, Orange

County (P)
6783
2,856
8%
30%
62%
0.4484
9.1%
96%
35%
63%
5-Year
186
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Washington Heights CDP,

Orange County (P)
2218
732
4%
22%
74%
0.3115
8.5%
84%
42%
39%
5-Year
Washingtonville village,
Orange County (P)
5837
2,111
6%
31%
63%
0.4519
6.3%
95%
55%
52%
5-Year
Wawayanda town, Orange

County (SD)
7263
2,335
8%
21%
71%
0.3834
7.5%
93%
26%
47%
5-Year
West Point CDP, Orange

County (P)
6892
777
4%
18%
78%
0.3813
5.3%
99%
0%
51%
5-Year
Woodbury town, Orange

County (SD)
11388
3,586
5%
15%
80%
0.3631
6.3%
96%
34%
48%
5-Year
Woodbury village, Orange

County (P)
10638
3,358
4%
14%
82%
0.3587
6.7%
96%
33%
49%
5-Year
Albion town, Orleans County

(SD)
8442
2,343
26%
25%
49%
0.4815
11.2%
86%
19%
62%
5-Year
Albion village, Orleans

County (P)
5799
2,332
28%
32%
40%
0.4865
12.5%
86%
30%
66%
5-Year
Barre town, Orleans County

(SD)
2052
742
10%
27%
63%
0.363
8.1%
89%
24%
50%
5-Year
Carlton town, Orleans County

(SD)
2981
1,254
9%
31%
60%
0.359
9.1%
91%
34%
85%
5-Year
Clarendon town, Orleans

County (SD)
3645
1,518
11%
26%
63%
0.3499
5.8%
94%
36%
18%
5-Year
Gaines town, Orleans County

(SD)
3345
1,412
12%
42%
46%
0.4237
13.8%
96%
31%
43%
5-Year
Holley village, Orleans County

(P)
2011
876
22%
41%
37%
0.434
17.9%
92%
31%
50%
5-Year
Kendall town, Orleans County

(SD)
2695
1,060
8%
25%
67%
0.3642
6.6%
96%
23%
42%
5-Year
Lyndonville village, Orleans

County (P)
797
317
7%
34%
59%
0.4053
8.0%
91%
22%
57%
5-Year
Medina village, Orleans

County (P)
5962
2,407
18%
34%
48%
0.4324
15.5%
90%
24%
51%
5-Year
Murray town, Orleans County

(SD)
4917
2,081
16%
35%
49%
0.3952
13.9%
93%
35%
43%
5-Year
Ridgeway town, Orleans

County (SD)
6687
2,586
13%
27%
60%
0.3985
12.9%
89%
23%
51%
5-Year
Shelby town, Orleans County

(SD)
5260
1,993
19%
33%
48%
0.435
12.5%
89%
23%
54%
5-Year
Yates town, Orleans County

(SD)
2468
905
6%
30%
64%
0.3613
3.6%
83%
28%
36%
5-Year
Albion town, Oswego County

(SD)
2087
730
19%
31%
50%
0.3981
11.5%
87%
26%
72%
5-Year
Altmar village, Oswego

County (P)
372
143
29%
44%
27%
0.4284
12.9%
88%
29%
95%
5-Year
Amboy town, Oswego County

(SD)
1350
492
10%
28%
62%
0.3695
13.3%
84%
30%
59%
5-Year
Boylston town, Oswego

County (SD)
526
195
13%
30%
57%
0.3764
12.9%
85%
19%
15%
5-Year
Central Square village,

Oswego County (P)
1944
783
15%
31%
54%
0.4361
7.4%
98%
21%
49%
5-Year
Cleveland village, Oswego

County (P)
813
308
12%
34%
54%
0.3923
15.0%
90%
23%
77%
5-Year
Constantia CDP, Oswego

County (P)
972
396
4%
41%
55%
0.4224
12.3%
91%
26%
19%
5-Year
Constantia town, Oswego

County (SD)
4961
1,874
10%
35%
55%
0.4197
11.8%
89%
28%
69%
5-Year
Fulton city, Oswego County

(SD)
11786
4,532
25%
36%
39%
0.4366
15.7%
91%
25%
55%
5-Year
Granby town, Oswego County

(SD)
6760
2,387
15%
28%
57%
0.5086
11.4%
92%
20%
46%
5-Year
Hannibal town, Oswego

County (SD)
4805
1,890
19%
29%
52%
0.3827
13.4%
90%
26%
41%
5-Year
Hannibal village, Oswego

County (P)
632
250
14%
29%
57%
0.3328
8.0%
96%
18%
46%
5-Year
Hastings town, Oswego

County (SD)
9438
3,390
15%
26%
59%
0.4131
10.6%
95%
30%
46%
5-Year
Lacona village, Oswego

County (P)
621
243
17%
25%
58%
0.3898
13.6%
94%
15%
57%
5-Year
Mexico town, Oswego County

(SD)
5192
1,989
17%
21%
62%
0.4088
7.4%
96%
23%
36%
5-Year
Mexico village, Oswego

County (P)
1765
693
14%
28%
58%
0.44
7.3%
94%
7%
41%
5-Year
187
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Minetto CDP, Oswego County

(P)
979
405
14%
18%
68%
0.3907
3.9%
94%
16%
83%
5-Year
Minetto town, Oswego County

(SD)
1599
653
10%
23%
67%
0.4018
5.7%
93%
14%
68%
5-Year
New Haven town, Oswego

County (SD)
2867
1,059
11%
25%
64%
0.3725
9.1%
92%
21%
67%
5-Year
Orwell town, Oswego County

(SD)
1307
414
12%
26%
62%
0.3613
14.1%
88%
12%
45%
5-Year
Oswego city, Oswego County

(SD)
18119
7,669
25%
28%
47%
0.4757
9.1%
92%
18%
48%
5-Year
Oswego town, Oswego

County (SD)
7904
1,590
7%
14%
79%
0.3463
7.5%
96%
17%
51%
5-Year
Palermo town, Oswego

County (SD)
3670
1,348
15%
32%
53%
0.3961
7.5%
89%
22%
50%
5-Year
Parish town, Oswego County

(SD)
2530
913
11%
28%
61%
0.3634
14.7%
88%
29%
49%
5-Year
Parish village, Oswego

County (P)
529
197
12%
19%
69%
0.3544
10.5%
93%
15%
34%
5-Year
Phoenix village, Oswego

County (P)
2497
968
22%
34%
44%
0.4001
13.4%
89%
21%
50%
5-Year
Pulaski village, Oswego

County (P)
2200
943
22%
30%
48%
0.5213
19.4%
94%
19%
52%
5-Year
Redfield town, Oswego

County (SD)
534
214
14%
33%
53%
0.4216
9.3%
89%
19%
7%
5-Year
Richland town, Oswego

County (SD)
5723
2,171
17%
32%
51%
0.4605
12.4%
87%
29%
44%
5-Year
Sand Ridge CDP, Oswego

County (P)
845
393
15%
36%
49%
0.4129
6.2%
88%
35%
49%
5-Year
Sandy Creek town, Oswego

County (SD)
3913
1,565
16%
31%
53%
0.4117
9.6%
90%
25%
53%
5-Year
Sandy Creek village, Oswego

County (P)
799
264
21%
25%
54%
0.4008
3.9%
94%
14%
49%
5-Year
Schroeppel town, Oswego

County (SD)
8447
3,259
11%
27%
62%
0.3865
6.8%
92%
26%
49%
5-Year
Scriba town, Oswego County

(SD)
6792
2,818
13%
23%
64%
0.377
5.2%
95%
14%
29%
5-Year
Volney town, Oswego County

(SD)
5884
2,136
12%
27%
61%
0.4088
14.7%
89%
17%
68%
5-Year
West Monroe town, Oswego

County (SD)
4242
1,596
15%
27%
58%
0.3925
9.6%
91%
36%
31%
5-Year
Williamstown town, Oswego

County (SD)
1223
416
16%
30%
54%
0.3776
12.2%
92%
20%
30%
5-Year
Burlington town, Otsego

County (SD)
1154
453
11%
30%
59%
0.3766
6.4%
82%
18%
10%
5-Year
Butternuts town, Otsego

County (SD)
1991
852
15%
27%
58%
0.3847
10.9%
91%
28%
44%
5-Year
Cherry Valley town, Otsego

County (SD)
1282
582
15%
28%
57%
0.3933
5.2%
89%
27%
40%
5-Year
Cherry Valley village, Otsego

County (P)
537
257
19%
31%
50%
0.4094
7.3%
92%
26%
50%
5-Year
Cooperstown village, Otsego

County (P)
2133
1,014
11%
31%
58%
0.5098
7.3%
94%
40%
41%
5-Year
Decatur town, Otsego County

(SD)
321
142
18%
39%
43%
0.4787
21.3%
88%
32%
67%
5-Year
Edmeston CDP, Otsego

County (P)
809
297
8%
34%
58%
0.4182
7.3%
93%
17%
31%
5-Year
Edmeston town, Otsego

County (SD)
1874
702
14%
25%
61%
0.3926
11.5%
90%
16%
46%
5-Year
Exeter town, Otsego County

(SD)
943
363
16%
29%
55%
0.431
10.1%
92%
14%
18%
5-Year
Gilbertsville village, Otsego

County (P)
354
157
20%
35%
45%
0.4944
8.3%
95%
28%
60%
5-Year
Hartwick CDP, Otsego County

(P)
583
254
15%
32%
53%
0.4297
7.5%
95%
25%
32%
5-Year
Hartwick town, Otsego

County (SD)
1958
807
13%
27%
60%
0.4196
5.0%
93%
25%
36%
5-Year
Laurens town, Otsego County

(SD)
2721
1,119
18%
31%
51%
0.3825
9.6%
90%
29%
52%
5-Year
Laurens village, Otsego

County (P)
237
104
16%
40%
44%
0.3549
15.4%
85%
20%
58%
5-Year
Maryland town, Otsego

County (SD)
1854
762
19%
32%
49%
0.3758
6.2%
94%
39%
54%
5-Year
Middlefield town, Otsego

County (SD)
1965
858
4%
31%
65%
0.4253
4.9%
93%
22%
28%
5-Year
Milford town, Otsego County

(SD)
3027
1,337
12%
34%
54%
0.4342
4.8%
95%
26%
58%
5-Year
188
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Milford village, Otsego

County (P)
420
197
14%
41%
45%
0.4251
10.4%
95%
36%
53%
5-Year
Morris town, Otsego County

(SD)
1551
671
12%
31%
57%
0.3932
12.2%
93%
18%
51%
5-Year
Morris village, Otsego County

(P)
387
212
9%
35%
56%
0.3795
7.1%
95%
14%
69%
5-Year
New Lisbon town, Otsego

County (SD)
918
407
7%
32%
61%
0.3522
9.8%
94%
29%
56%
5-Year
Oneonta city, Otsego County

(SD)
13906
4,105
28%
29%
43%
0.515
9.0%
92%
18%
63%
5-Year
Oneonta town, Otsego County

(SD)
5176
1,985
13%
28%
59%
0.4405
9.0%
90%
23%
52%
5-Year
Otego town, Otsego County

(SD)
3073
1,273
11%
33%
56%
0.3964
4.6%
90%
18%
55%
5-Year
Otego village, Otsego County

(P)
1179
457
10%
19%
71%
0.3845
6.2%
85%
24%
57%
5-Year
Otsego town, Otsego County

(SD)
3867
1,613
9%
30%
61%
0.4999
4.5%
95%
31%
49%
5-Year
Pittsfield town, Otsego

County (SD)
1295
500
12%
36%
52%
0.3663
13.8%
93%
19%
54%
5-Year
Plainfield town, Otsego

County (SD)
902
347
12%
33%
55%
0.365
9.1%
93%
24%
33%
5-Year
Richfield Springs village,

Otsego County (P)
1193
560
17%
45%
38%
0.4059
8.7%
85%
30%
50%
5-Year
Richfield town, Otsego

County (SD)
2304
997
13%
37%
50%
0.4065
5.6%
88%
24%
43%
5-Year
Roseboom town, Otsego

County (SD)
619
288
7%
35%
58%
0.3518
4.7%
93%
24%
52%
5-Year
Schenevus CDP, Otsego

County (P)
361
145
17%
40%
43%
0.4226
1.6%
100%
48%
50%
5-Year
Springfield town, Otsego

County (SD)
1397
555
13%
31%
56%
0.3769
4.6%
83%
24%
38%
5-Year
Unadilla town, Otsego County

(SD)
4343
1,753
14%
35%
51%
0.3955
7.1%
93%
16%
35%
5-Year
Unadilla village, Otsego

County (P)
975
428
11%
50%
39%
0.381
10.0%
90%
23%
54%
5-Year
West End CDP, Otsego

County (P)
1555
768
20%
29%
51%
0.469
12.7%
91%
25%
25%
5-Year
Westford town, Otsego

County (SD)
914
349
11%
35%
54%
0.3706
7.4%
93%
27%
19%
5-Year
Worcester CDP, Otsego

County (P)
1223
458
16%
20%
64%
0.3967
6.6%
92%
28%
33%
5-Year
Worcester town, Otsego

County (SD)
2423
978
15%
25%
60%
0.3869
8.8%
93%
24%
42%
5-Year
Brewster Hill CDP, Putnam

County (P)
1381
474
9%
21%
70%
0.3428
4.1%
91%
34%
100%
5-Year
Brewster village, Putnam

County (P)
2350
869
17%
54%
29%
0.439
14.5%
63%
50%
53%
5-Year
Carmel Hamlet CDP, Putnam

County (P)
6824
2,227
7%
32%
61%
0.4792
7.1%
91%
47%
56%
5-Year
Carmel town, Putnam County

(SD)
34392
11,327
4%
28%
68%
0.4174
8.1%
92%
37%
63%
5-Year
Cold Spring village, Putnam

County (P)
1831
891
8%
38%
54%
0.4594
2.1%
93%
37%
44%
5-Year
Kent town, Putnam County

(SD)
13460
4,583
6%
29%
65%
0.4109
7.1%
92%
41%
34%
5-Year
Lake Carmel CDP, Putnam

County (P)
8127
2,798
7%
32%
61%
0.3629
7.0%
90%
44%
37%
5-Year
Mahopac CDP, Putnam

County (P)
7755
2,852
8%
28%
64%
0.4366
9.6%
88%
33%
57%
5-Year
Nelsonville village, Putnam

County (P)
189
804
253
1%
38%
61%
0.4412
4.9%
94%
54%
44%
5-Year
Patterson town, Putnam

County (SD)
12032
3,835
4%
32%
64%
0.3659
7.4%
87%
38%
62%
5-Year
Peach Lake CDP, Putnam

County (P)
1665
631
4%
34%
62%
0.357
10.4%
95%
29%
87%
5-Year
Philipstown town, Putnam

County (SD)
9698
3,681
5%
28%
67%
0.4583
6.3%
95%
36%
43%
5-Year
Putnam Lake CDP, Putnam

County (P)
4010
1,474
5%
29%
66%
0.3472
8.2%
94%
29%
67%
5-Year
Putnam Valley town, Putnam

County (SD)
11780
4,188
6%
26%
68%
0.3985
8.1%
95%
40%
38%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Southeast town, Putnam

County (SD)
18335
6,550
7%
31%
62%
0.43
8.6%
89%
36%
47%
5-Year
Queens borough, Queens

County (SD)
2280602
780,069
15%
35%
50%
0.4457
9.5%
83%
42%
54%
5-Year
Averill Park CDP, Rensselaer

County (P)
1781
682
4%
17%
79%
0.3332
3.7%
98%
22%
0%
5-Year
Berlin town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
1853
745
7%
24%
69%
0.3289
7.3%
92%
22%
47%
5-Year
Brunswick town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
12124
5,151
2%
18%
80%
0.3569
4.4%
95%
22%
17%
5-Year
Castleton-on-Hudson village,
Rensselaer County (P)
1337
501
5%
29%
66%
0.3716
4.1%
93%
31%
30%
5-Year
East Greenbush CDP,

4641
1,808
4%
10%
86%
0.364
1.1%
99%
9%
47%
5-Year
East Greenbush town,

Rensselaer County (SD)
16437
6,617
6%
19%
75%
0.3932
4.1%
96%
23%
42%
5-Year
East Nassau village,

636
241
6%
37%
57%
0.3481
8.6%
88%
43%
40%
5-Year
Grafton town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
1958
854
3%
24%
73%
0.3537
7.0%
94%
23%
0%
5-Year
Hampton Manor CDP,

2129
999
16%
34%
50%
0.4053
3.3%
98%
31%
31%
5-Year
Hoosick Falls village,

3459
1,405
12%
37%
51%
0.3911
7.2%
91%
29%
46%
5-Year
Hoosick town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
6865
2,767
12%
29%
59%
0.3918
6.1%
91%
25%
50%
5-Year
Nassau town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
4804
2,043
8%
33%
59%
0.413
7.4%
94%
38%
46%
5-Year
Nassau village, Rensselaer

County (P)
1103
508
4%
39%
57%
0.3533
7.7%
97%
28%
33%
5-Year
12078
4,693
5%
20%
75%
0.3921
5.4%
95%
22%
37%
5-Year
Petersburgh town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
1711
661
9%
33%
58%
0.3799
5.5%
93%
16%
22%
5-Year
Pittstown town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
5731
2,256
8%
28%
64%
0.378
9.8%
93%
34%
30%
5-Year
Poestenkill CDP, Rensselaer

County (P)
969
385
0%
32%
68%
0.3016
6.5%
98%
31%
75%
5-Year
Poestenkill town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
4531
1,632
3%
16%
81%
0.2911
4.6%
98%
27%
36%
5-Year
Rensselaer city, Rensselaer

County (SD)
9476
4,279
17%
33%
50%
0.4519
12.2%
91%
21%
49%
5-Year
Sand Lake town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
8532
3,266
3%
14%
83%
0.3452
4.6%
96%
26%
9%
5-Year
Schaghticoke town,
7662
2,785
9%
21%
70%
0.3882
6.9%
93%
29%
44%
5-Year
Schaghticoke village,
608
225
12%
34%
54%
0.5011
6.7%
93%
28%
64%
5-Year
Schodack town, Rensselaer

County (SD)
12984
5,097
6%
23%
71%
0.4262
8.6%
95%
26%
35%
5-Year
Stephentown town,
2889
1,187
11%
24%
65%
0.3919
17.1%
93%
20%
39%
5-Year
Troy city, Rensselaer County

(SD)
North Greenbush town,

49965
19,962
24%
33%
43%
0.4509
12.1%
92%
26%
51%
5-Year
Valley Falls village,

502
191
9%
16%
75%
0.4007
5.9%
95%
21%
33%
5-Year
West Sand Lake CDP,

2791
1,010
2%
11%
87%
0.31
3.9%
97%
31%
0%
5-Year
Wynantskill CDP, Rensselaer

County (P)
2946
1,220
6%
22%
72%
0.3506
7.9%
97%
20%
61%
5-Year
471522
165,079
12%
27%
61%
0.441
7.6%
92%
40%
50%
5-Year
Airmont village, Rockland

County (P)
8770
2,711
9%
28%
63%
0.4368
4.4%
97%
50%
66%
5-Year
Bardonia CDP, Rockland

County (P)
3721
1,331
5%
27%
68%
0.4617
2.9%
95%
38%
54%
5-Year
Blauvelt CDP, Rockland

County (P)
5868
1,715
7%
20%
73%
0.4439
7.8%
91%
38%
57%
5-Year
Chestnut Ridge village,

Rockland County (P)
8035
2,551
7%
26%
67%
0.3841
6.1%
92%
42%
68%
5-Year
Clarkstown town, Rockland

County (SD)
85801
29,238
5%
25%
70%
0.4204
7.6%
93%
38%
53%
5-Year
Congers CDP, Rockland

County (P)
8496
2,867
4%
26%
70%
0.3969
7.8%
94%
42%
55%
5-Year
Grand View-on-Hudson
village, Rockland County (P)
317
136
4%
16%
80%
0.4876
1.5%
98%
61%
45%
5-Year
Staten Island borough,

Richmond County (SD)
190
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Haverstraw town, Rockland

County (SD)
37138
11,842
9%
37%
54%
0.4233
9.2%
87%
41%
55%
5-Year
Haverstraw village, Rockland

County (P)
12060
3,647
15%
45%
40%
0.4827
9.2%
83%
41%
59%
5-Year
Hillburn village, Rockland

County (P)
878
292
9%
28%
63%
0.3983
8.4%
90%
35%
68%
5-Year
Hillcrest CDP, Rockland

County (P)
7566
1,900
4%
23%
73%
0.3115
7.5%
85%
50%
43%
5-Year
Kaser village, Rockland

County (P)
4919
949
68%
23%
9%
0.5198
5.0%
97%
50%
70%
5-Year
Monsey CDP, Rockland

County (P)
20171
3,733
42%
31%
27%
0.5138
9.8%
94%
64%
65%
5-Year
Montebello village, Rockland

County (P)
4588
1,499
1%
14%
85%
0.4597
4.6%
97%
42%
59%
5-Year
Mount Ivy CDP, Rockland

County (P)
6926
2,706
8%
44%
48%
0.3744
12.7%
87%
35%
57%
5-Year
Nanuet CDP, Rockland County

(P)
18366
6,698
6%
30%
64%
0.3851
8.3%
93%
43%
58%
5-Year
New City CDP, Rockland

County (P)
33874
11,005
4%
19%
77%
0.4018
7.1%
96%
34%
51%
5-Year
New Hempstead village,

Rockland County (P)
5240
1,169
2%
18%
80%
0.357
9.5%
86%
38%
23%
5-Year
New Square village, Rockland

County (P)
7328
1,228
63%
30%
7%
0.4014
11.8%
97%
65%
80%
5-Year
Nyack village, Rockland

County (P)
6857
3,295
10%
45%
45%
0.465
5.3%
89%
45%
47%
5-Year
Orangeburg CDP, Rockland

County (P)
4129
1,368
12%
33%
55%
0.4708
11.1%
95%
34%
61%
5-Year
Orangetown town, Rockland

County (SD)
49905
17,914
7%
28%
65%
0.4536
6.6%
94%
37%
50%
5-Year
Pearl River CDP, Rockland

County (P)
15901
5,628
7%
26%
67%
0.4324
4.8%
95%
34%
61%
5-Year
Piermont village, Rockland

County (P)
2541
1,258
5%
22%
73%
0.4845
7.3%
95%
38%
21%
5-Year
Pomona village, Rockland

County (P)
3060
928
2%
17%
81%
0.3554
6.5%
92%
40%
17%
5-Year
130064
34,365
18%
33%
49%
0.4741
8.8%
88%
45%
62%
5-Year
Sloatsburg village, Rockland

County (P)
3086
1,075
6%
32%
62%
0.3466
8.7%
90%
51%
32%
5-Year
South Nyack village,

Rockland County (P)
3554
1,267
9%
22%
69%
0.4445
11.6%
95%
43%
39%
5-Year
Sparkill CDP, Rockland

County (P)
1439
503
15%
22%
63%
0.4356
5.4%
97%
41%
100%
5-Year
Spring Valley village,

Rockland County (P)
32007
8,604
22%
48%
30%
0.484
13.5%
74%
46%
60%
5-Year
Stony Point CDP, Rockland

County (P)
12854
4,182
5%
28%
67%
0.3945
8.5%
92%
39%
57%
5-Year
Stony Point town, Rockland

County (SD)
15278
5,035
5%
26%
69%
0.3954
8.3%
93%
40%
55%
5-Year
Suffern village, Rockland

County (P)
10864
4,334
7%
36%
57%
0.3883
8.4%
93%
32%
44%
5-Year
Tappan CDP, Rockland

County (P)
7071
2,284
1%
19%
80%
0.3568
4.0%
95%
34%
36%
5-Year
Thiells CDP, Rockland County

(P)
5295
1,588
4%
19%
77%
0.3198
7.1%
95%
34%
32%
5-Year
Upper Nyack village,

Rockland County (P)
2020
741
2%
28%
70%
0.5065
5.2%
96%
49%
44%
5-Year
Valley Cottage CDP, Rockland

County (P)
10185
3,485
4%
25%
71%
0.3712
7.2%
92%
40%
35%
5-Year
Viola CDP, Rockland County

(P)
6558
1,690
21%
30%
49%
0.5203
7.4%
93%
37%
76%
5-Year
Wesley Hills village, Rockland

County (P)
5779
1,639
3%
30%
67%
0.4341
7.5%
92%
48%
18%
5-Year
West Haverstraw village,

Rockland County (P)
10308
2,963
7%
32%
61%
0.3606
8.2%
87%
48%
52%
5-Year
West Nyack CDP, Rockland

County (P)
3385
1,241
1%
28%
71%
0.4018
3.6%
95%
37%
47%
5-Year
Ballston Spa village, Saratoga

County (P)
5298
2,499
13%
30%
57%
0.4174
10.3%
88%
26%
50%
5-Year
Ballston town, Saratoga

County (SD)
10034
3,620
6%
16%
78%
0.3528
8.0%
98%
22%
34%
5-Year
Ramapo town, Rockland

County (SD)
191
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Charlton town, Saratoga

County (SD)
4162
1,604
5%
13%
82%
0.4006
7.7%
96%
22%
21%
5-Year
Clifton Park town, Saratoga

County (SD)
36955
14,537
3%
14%
83%
0.3586
4.0%
97%
20%
40%
5-Year
Corinth town, Saratoga

County (SD)
6518
2,397
13%
30%
57%
0.3823
3.4%
95%
26%
50%
5-Year
Corinth village, Saratoga

County (P)
2554
970
14%
39%
47%
0.3841
3.4%
94%
33%
47%
5-Year
Country Knolls CDP, Saratoga

County (P)
2186
773
0%
1%
99%
0.2508
2.9%
100%
13%
0%
5-Year
Day town, Saratoga County

(SD)
887
397
12%
27%
61%
0.4033
6.5%
88%
22%
15%
5-Year
Edinburg town, Saratoga

County (SD)
1427
661
12%
33%
55%
0.4078
8.1%
92%
23%
34%
5-Year
Galway town, Saratoga

County (SD)
3550
1,460
8%
19%
73%
0.429
6.0%
94%
24%
33%
5-Year
Greenfield town, Saratoga

County (SD)
7780
3,228
12%
25%
63%
0.4188
7.3%
93%
32%
46%
5-Year
Hadley CDP, Saratoga County

(P)
857
424
13%
34%
53%
0.3822
17.1%
89%
29%
48%
5-Year
Hadley town, Saratoga

County (SD)
1714
769
12%
31%
57%
0.4068
15.0%
92%
35%
42%
5-Year
Halfmoon town, Saratoga

County (SD)
22416
9,487
6%
25%
69%
0.4342
4.6%
92%
22%
39%
5-Year
Malta town, Saratoga County

(SD)
14851
6,353
4%
17%
79%
0.3558
5.6%
96%
23%
35%
5-Year
Mechanicville city, Saratoga

County (SD)
5207
2,272
19%
33%
48%
0.4219
7.4%
88%
25%
40%
5-Year
Milton CDP (Saratoga

County), Saratoga County (P)
3340
1,214
4%
19%
77%
0.3474
12.5%
95%
20%
40%
5-Year
Milton town, Saratoga County

(SD)
18784
7,374
8%
27%
65%
0.3926
9.3%
92%
25%
41%
5-Year
Moreau town, Saratoga

County (SD)
15049
5,834
8%
29%
63%
0.3816
7.4%
92%
20%
36%
5-Year
North Ballston Spa CDP,

Saratoga County (P)
1489
558
2%
35%
63%
0.3979
8.0%
93%
34%
0%
5-Year
Northumberland town,
Saratoga County (SD)
5147
1,888
6%
22%
72%
0.4124
3.8%
96%
22%
26%
5-Year
Providence town, Saratoga

County (SD)
2120
813
6%
25%
69%
0.3641
5.3%
93%
29%
36%
5-Year
Round Lake village, Saratoga

County (P)
576
260
3%
20%
77%
0.3014
3.3%
97%
31%
30%
5-Year
Saratoga Springs city,

Saratoga County (SD)
26998
11,590
9%
24%
67%
0.4689
7.5%
94%
25%
41%
5-Year
Saratoga town, Saratoga

County (SD)
5676
2,283
8%
26%
66%
0.4463
7.7%
93%
26%
38%
5-Year
Schuylerville village, Saratoga

County (P)
1667
666
9%
35%
56%
0.3519
9.4%
94%
25%
36%
5-Year
South Glens Falls village,

Saratoga County (P)
3575
1,672
11%
35%
54%
0.3724
8.5%
92%
20%
41%
5-Year
Stillwater town, Saratoga

County (SD)
8357
3,063
4%
23%
73%
0.4063
10.0%
95%
23%
45%
5-Year
Stillwater village, Saratoga

County (P)
1880
651
10%
23%
67%
0.338
6.5%
94%
25%
40%
5-Year
Victory village, Saratoga

County (P)
499
190
8%
36%
56%
0.3703
5.1%
88%
28%
45%
5-Year
Waterford town, Saratoga

County (SD)
8418
3,737
8%
29%
63%
0.3707
5.7%
95%
26%
49%
5-Year
Waterford village, Saratoga

County (P)
2344
1,034
8%
39%
53%
0.3733
7.6%
90%
24%
38%
5-Year
Wilton town, Saratoga County

(SD)
16462
6,509
7%
24%
69%
0.4221
5.8%
95%
27%
54%
5-Year
Delanson village,
Schenectady County (P)
367
131
2%
27%
71%
0.2811
0.0%
98%
31%
10%
5-Year
Duane Lake CDP,

392
185
0%
0%
100%
0.2005
4.8%
97%
23%
5-Year
Duanesburg CDP,
448
120
28%
0%
72%
0.3372
17.3%
100%
20%
100%
5-Year
Duanesburg town,
Schenectady County (SD)
6218
2,159
4%
19%
77%
0.3274
7.0%
94%
21%
72%
5-Year
East Glenville CDP,

6772
2,607
6%
29%
65%
0.3638
7.5%
97%
32%
48%
5-Year
Glenville town, Schenectady

County (SD)
29560
11,368
6%
29%
65%
0.3776
6.7%
96%
24%
49%
5-Year
727
237
10%
24%
66%
0.3671
18.4%
92%
32%
5-Year
Mariaville Lake CDP,

192
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Niskayuna CDP, Schenectady

County (P)
5129
1,806
5%
11%
84%
0.3469
4.0%
98%
13%
41%
5-Year
Niskayuna town, Schenectady

County (SD)
22022
7,904
5%
19%
76%
0.4191
4.1%
97%
22%
46%
5-Year
Princetown town,
2124
749
7%
25%
68%
0.3859
3.8%
92%
23%
61%
5-Year
Rotterdam CDP, Schenectady

County (P)
20956
7,959
7%
37%
56%
0.3822
7.7%
93%
25%
51%
5-Year
Rotterdam town, Schenectady

County (SD)
29199
11,109
6%
34%
60%
0.3793
6.3%
94%
24%
45%
5-Year
Schenectady city,
66055
24,557
20%
44%
36%
0.433
12.0%
88%
31%
52%
5-Year
Schenectady city,
65930
24,127
18%
45%
37%
0.4335
9.6%
90%
33%
49%
1-Year
Scotia village, Schenectady

County (P)
7742
2,946
8%
36%
56%
0.387
6.5%
96%
19%
50%
5-Year
Blenheim town, Schoharie

County (SD)
382
155
13%
20%
67%
0.3559
13.0%
94%
28%
35%
5-Year
Broome town, Schoharie

County (SD)
890
413
14%
34%
52%
0.4366
8.2%
92%
38%
11%
5-Year
Carlisle town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1848
693
13%
22%
65%
0.3559
10.1%
91%
32%
31%
5-Year
Central Bridge CDP,

Schoharie County (P)
405
218
22%
17%
61%
0.2485
0.0%
100%
0%
44%
5-Year
Cobleskill town, Schoharie

County (SD)
6525
2,387
19%
27%
54%
0.4902
15.5%
95%
19%
56%
5-Year
Cobleskill village, Schoharie

County (P)
4489
1,579
27%
28%
45%
0.5483
17.6%
93%
33%
62%
5-Year
Conesville town, Schoharie

County (SD)
785
329
16%
20%
64%
0.4025
8.5%
88%
32%
50%
5-Year
Esperance town, Schoharie

County (SD)
2005
775
8%
25%
67%
0.3703
9.0%
92%
23%
38%
5-Year
Esperance village, Schoharie

County (P)
393
134
7%
24%
69%
0.2967
8.7%
91%
27%
33%
5-Year
Fulton town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1191
514
12%
32%
56%
0.4187
10.7%
92%
37%
43%
5-Year
Gilboa town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1342
506
7%
23%
70%
0.348
13.7%
88%
22%
14%
5-Year
Jefferson town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1573
635
12%
26%
62%
0.3783
8.5%
91%
27%
58%
5-Year
Middleburgh town, Schoharie

County (SD)
3685
1,499
16%
30%
54%
0.4412
16.9%
92%
28%
43%
5-Year
Middleburgh village,
1458
630
20%
29%
51%
0.3787
10.6%
85%
35%
49%
5-Year
Richmondville town,
Schoharie County (SD)
2554
1,023
15%
33%
52%
0.3949
13.1%
93%
29%
40%
5-Year
Richmondville village,
996
360
14%
33%
53%
0.3892
14.4%
92%
26%
44%
5-Year
Schoharie town, Schoharie

County (SD)
3126
1,420
11%
25%
64%
0.4618
3.3%
95%
23%
35%
5-Year
Schoharie village, Schoharie

County (P)
855
421
19%
30%
51%
0.4738
2.1%
95%
22%
38%
5-Year
Seward town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1600
600
3%
28%
69%
0.3401
8.0%
93%
26%
26%
5-Year
Sharon Springs village,

477
213
12%
41%
47%
0.4197
14.0%
91%
44%
45%
5-Year
Sharon town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1744
693
16%
36%
48%
0.4084
12.6%
88%
35%
46%
5-Year
Summit town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1130
454
15%
25%
60%
0.3728
19.2%
91%
27%
32%
5-Year
Wright town, Schoharie

County (SD)
1773
643
6%
21%
73%
0.3609
4.7%
95%
27%
10%
5-Year
Burdett village, Schuyler

County (P)
332
161
18%
17%
65%
0.3767
4.4%
83%
26%
52%
5-Year
Catharine town, Schuyler

County (SD)
1763
718
15%
22%
63%
0.3709
5.6%
89%
23%
57%
5-Year
Cayuta town, Schuyler

County (SD)
407
155
15%
23%
62%
0.3665
14.3%
94%
21%
41%
5-Year
Dix town, Schuyler County

(SD)
3904
1,669
15%
29%
56%
0.4204
6.2%
89%
13%
34%
5-Year
Hector town, Schuyler County

(SD)
4968
2,136
4%
20%
76%
0.3222
5.2%
86%
16%
29%
5-Year
193
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Montour Falls village,

Schuyler County (P)
1932
824
22%
28%
50%
0.4204
11.7%
90%
24%
33%
5-Year
Montour town, Schuyler

County (SD)
2398
1,105
18%
24%
58%
0.4191
9.5%
91%
20%
34%
5-Year
Odessa village, Schuyler

County (P)
666
281
19%
23%
58%
0.4291
2.9%
88%
32%
49%
5-Year
Orange town, Schuyler

County (SD)
1796
637
15%
22%
63%
0.3836
3.8%
93%
28%
33%
5-Year
Reading town, Schuyler

County (SD)
1578
648
5%
23%
72%
0.3772
3.6%
93%
19%
38%
5-Year
Tyrone town, Schuyler County

(SD)
1644
691
17%
22%
61%
0.4118
10.9%
89%
19%
39%
5-Year
Watkins Glen village,

Schuyler County (P)
1847
864
15%
31%
54%
0.4143
8.0%
89%
12%
40%
5-Year
Covert town, Seneca County

(SD)
2213
934
6%
31%
63%
0.3978
4.3%
90%
15%
28%
5-Year
Fayette town, Seneca County

(SD)
3928
1,487
11%
20%
69%
0.4007
3.7%
86%
23%
23%
5-Year
Interlaken village, Seneca

County (P)
638
248
13%
35%
52%
0.3823
3.1%
91%
16%
43%
5-Year
Junius town, Seneca County

(SD)
1408
543
14%
28%
58%
0.3477
3.7%
74%
22%
8%
5-Year
Lodi town, Seneca County

(SD)
1686
649
10%
30%
60%
0.4099
4.2%
89%
22%
41%
5-Year
Lodi village, Seneca County

(P)
418
163
15%
39%
46%
0.3847
8.5%
90%
27%
48%
5-Year
Ovid town, Seneca County

(SD)
2226
922
13%
36%
51%
0.4645
8.3%
87%
30%
48%
5-Year
Ovid village, Seneca County

(P)
620
286
9%
42%
49%
0.4835
12.1%
88%
32%
40%
5-Year
Romulus CDP, Seneca County

(P)
619
191
7%
42%
51%
0.3316
2.9%
87%
21%
100%
5-Year
Romulus town, Seneca

County (SD)
4353
831
9%
29%
62%
0.36
7.6%
83%
29%
49%
5-Year
Seneca Falls CDP, Seneca

County (P)
6533
2,895
17%
26%
57%
0.441
8.2%
94%
16%
55%
5-Year
Seneca Falls town, Seneca

County (SD)
8986
3,929
16%
28%
56%
0.4461
7.6%
93%
18%
56%
5-Year
Tyre town, Seneca County

(SD)
923
373
14%
30%
56%
0.4217
4.5%
84%
29%
35%
5-Year
Varick town, Seneca County

(SD)
1914
699
7%
25%
68%
0.4199
5.9%
83%
23%
36%
5-Year
Waterloo town, Seneca

County (SD)
7595
3,118
12%
37%
51%
0.3824
6.7%
92%
20%
43%
5-Year
Waterloo village, Seneca

County (P)
5178
2,011
13%
31%
56%
0.3844
3.4%
93%
17%
40%
5-Year
Brasher Falls CDP, St.

Lawrence County (P)
449
215
14%
40%
46%
0.4112
1.1%
94%
16%
44%
5-Year
Brasher town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
2129
852
18%
34%
48%
0.4111
8.4%
91%
19%
52%
5-Year
Canton town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
11233
3,437
17%
28%
55%
0.422
8.9%
90%
25%
32%
5-Year
Canton village, St. Lawrence

County (P)
6600
1,683
14%
33%
53%
0.4538
11.8%
94%
28%
29%
5-Year
Clifton town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
865
352
16%
40%
44%
0.4409
24.0%
90%
17%
50%
5-Year
Colton CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
394
181
19%
32%
49%
0.4018
7.1%
87%
28%
63%
5-Year
Colton town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1618
765
13%
31%
56%
0.3741
13.1%
87%
25%
48%
5-Year
De Kalb town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
2182
786
15%
30%
55%
0.3942
11.1%
80%
19%
29%
5-Year
De Peyster town, St.

Lawrence County (SD)
1215
334
23%
37%
40%
0.3872
5.8%
55%
15%
34%
5-Year
DeKalb Junction CDP, St.

Lawrence County (P)
398
139
12%
22%
66%
0.3531
12.7%
78%
17%
25%
5-Year
Edwards CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
311
142
16%
54%
30%
0.3729
11.0%
88%
24%
53%
5-Year
Edwards town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
827
357
16%
51%
33%
0.3817
7.7%
89%
24%
55%
5-Year
Fine town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1506
556
16%
37%
47%
0.4131
10.1%
93%
28%
76%
5-Year
Fowler town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
2162
802
16%
31%
53%
0.4065
17.4%
92%
17%
38%
5-Year
Gouverneur town, St.

7021
2,415
24%
34%
42%
0.4904
12.9%
88%
23%
59%
5-Year
194
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Gouverneur village, St.

Lawrence County (P)
3915
1,620
27%
34%
39%
0.4053
12.2%
89%
28%
59%
5-Year
Hailesboro CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
590
233
21%
36%
43%
0.4111
16.0%
90%
11%
36%
5-Year
Hammond town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1551
598
19%
34%
47%
0.4716
9.1%
85%
26%
49%
5-Year
Hammond village, St.

Lawrence County (P)
377
135
25%
41%
34%
0.4681
10.7%
88%
17%
73%
5-Year
Hannawa Falls CDP, St.

Lawrence County (P)
980
446
9%
28%
63%
0.3656
9.2%
98%
28%
41%
5-Year
Hermon town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1082
418
22%
29%
49%
0.397
8.9%
88%
27%
57%
5-Year
Hermon village, St. Lawrence

County (P)
393
170
21%
44%
35%
0.394
9.2%
88%
44%
38%
5-Year
Heuvelton village, St.

Lawrence County (P)
743
287
16%
27%
57%
0.375
7.7%
95%
16%
21%
5-Year
Hopkinton town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1007
410
15%
47%
38%
0.4459
9.4%
88%
28%
58%
5-Year
Lawrence town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
2028
674
16%
27%
57%
0.3702
8.4%
83%
21%
34%
5-Year
Lisbon town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
4095
1,540
10%
32%
58%
0.5035
8.6%
83%
22%
42%
5-Year
Louisville town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
3141
1,348
11%
40%
49%
0.4246
8.9%
93%
28%
43%
5-Year
Macomb town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
843
312
15%
28%
57%
0.3765
11.2%
90%
18%
37%
5-Year
Madrid CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
715
259
17%
37%
46%
0.4143
8.5%
91%
33%
59%
5-Year
Madrid town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1708
664
22%
29%
49%
0.5137
10.3%
88%
32%
48%
5-Year
Massena town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
12794
5,848
20%
38%
42%
0.4356
16.3%
90%
18%
46%
5-Year
Massena village, St. Lawrence

County (P)
10937
4,933
20%
39%
41%
0.4498
14.4%
89%
19%
48%
5-Year
Morristown town, St.

2242
869
13%
26%
61%
0.4917
10.7%
86%
20%
46%
5-Year
Morristown village, St.

Lawrence County (P)
428
179
7%
22%
71%
0.3065
8.9%
92%
15%
48%
5-Year
Norfolk CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
1417
583
23%
32%
45%
0.4163
10.4%
91%
19%
47%
5-Year
Norfolk town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
4651
1,839
22%
31%
47%
0.4032
9.5%
91%
28%
50%
5-Year
Norwood village, St. Lawrence

County (P)
1498
637
17%
38%
45%
0.383
13.9%
87%
21%
37%
5-Year
Ogdensburg city, St.

11029
4,170
19%
36%
45%
0.5199
9.3%
92%
19%
55%
5-Year
Oswegatchie town, St.

4421
1,502
17%
30%
53%
0.4443
6.9%
78%
19%
22%
5-Year
Parishville CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
750
331
6%
56%
38%
0.3828
12.5%
96%
38%
19%
5-Year
Parishville town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
2068
886
9%
45%
46%
0.4006
12.1%
88%
29%
41%
5-Year
Piercefield town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
330
136
13%
35%
52%
0.3696
13.8%
92%
30%
38%
5-Year
Pierrepont town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
2580
1,035
11%
28%
61%
0.3751
9.9%
92%
29%
19%
5-Year
Pitcairn town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
730
268
14%
30%
56%
0.3637
13.3%
89%
28%
83%
5-Year
Potsdam town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
16172
4,931
20%
29%
51%
0.4943
9.9%
93%
17%
47%
5-Year
Potsdam village, St. Lawrence

County (P)
9577
2,425
27%
31%
42%
0.5644
10.7%
93%
12%
50%
5-Year
Rensselaer Falls village, St.

Lawrence County (P)
390
143
17%
39%
44%
0.4371
16.8%
84%
25%
31%
5-Year
Richville village, St. Lawrence

County (P)
413
129
14%
36%
50%
0.4128
8.8%
94%
14%
50%
5-Year
Rossie town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
787
314
17%
35%
48%
0.4055
23.7%
85%
31%
21%
5-Year
Russell town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
1869
768
13%
38%
49%
0.3825
9.9%
91%
22%
35%
5-Year
Star Lake CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
921
314
19%
39%
42%
0.424
10.4%
94%
31%
62%
5-Year
195
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Stockholm town, St. Lawrence

County (SD)
3678
1,454
13%
41%
46%
0.4771
8.5%
93%
29%
24%
5-Year
Waddington town, St.

2330
896
13%
23%
64%
0.3784
8.2%
88%
22%
47%
5-Year
Waddington village, St.

Lawrence County (P)
813
384
13%
30%
57%
0.3963
8.4%
94%
20%
52%
5-Year
Winthrop CDP, St. Lawrence

County (P)
301
149
17%
28%
55%
0.5074
13.1%
79%
44%
0%
5-Year
Addison town, Steuben

County (SD)
2583
1,052
15%
20%
65%
0.4026
5.6%
87%
23%
36%
5-Year
Addison village, Steuben

County (P)
1809
745
17%
18%
65%
0.3931
4.0%
88%
20%
35%
5-Year
Arkport village, Steuben

County (P)
785
338
9%
26%
65%
0.3761
3.2%
96%
16%
51%
5-Year
Avoca town, Steuben County

(SD)
2271
939
22%
20%
58%
0.4296
12.0%
88%
19%
47%
5-Year
Avoca village, Steuben

County (P)
957
380
16%
22%
62%
0.4139
7.5%
94%
20%
57%
5-Year
Bath town, Steuben County

(SD)
12306
5,234
19%
26%
55%
0.43
7.8%
92%
23%
34%
5-Year
Bath village, Steuben County

(P)
5747
2,810
18%
30%
52%
0.4258
7.8%
91%
21%
32%
5-Year
Bradford town, Steuben

County (SD)
759
291
16%
22%
62%
0.358
14.4%
93%
29%
53%
5-Year
Cameron town, Steuben

County (SD)
931
343
16%
33%
51%
0.3412
9.9%
85%
23%
33%
5-Year
Campbell CDP, Steuben

County (P)
763
305
19%
35%
46%
0.3876
3.6%
93%
21%
61%
5-Year
Campbell town, Steuben

County (SD)
3378
1,422
11%
28%
61%
0.4253
8.6%
93%
18%
56%
5-Year
Canisteo town, Steuben

County (SD)
3364
1,320
15%
20%
65%
0.3611
13.4%
91%
11%
53%
5-Year
Canisteo village, Steuben

County (P)
2304
890
19%
23%
58%
0.3877
15.9%
90%
10%
50%
5-Year
Caton town, Steuben County

(SD)
2108
828
7%
20%
73%
0.3538
6.2%
93%
19%
38%
5-Year
Cohocton town, Steuben

County (SD)
2567
974
13%
28%
59%
0.3707
7.2%
92%
27%
38%
5-Year
Cohocton village, Steuben

County (P)
1094
368
14%
31%
55%
0.3528
15.7%
86%
29%
36%
5-Year
Coopers Plains CDP, Steuben

County (P)
429
231
6%
53%
41%
0.3989
7.7%
93%
29%
0%
5-Year
Corning city, Steuben County

(SD)
11108
5,239
17%
22%
61%
0.4523
7.7%
89%
19%
31%
5-Year
Corning town, Steuben

County (SD)
6323
2,535
7%
21%
72%
0.4528
5.9%
88%
17%
37%
5-Year
Dansville town, Steuben

County (SD)
1566
664
10%
32%
58%
0.3897
12.7%
87%
32%
50%
5-Year
Erwin town, Steuben County

(SD)
8303
3,531
9%
19%
72%
0.4747
4.3%
95%
15%
30%
5-Year
Fremont town, Steuben

County (SD)
1012
440
6%
25%
69%
0.3365
6.9%
88%
15%
39%
5-Year
Gang Mills CDP, Steuben

County (P)
4399
1,764
10%
15%
75%
0.5018
2.9%
97%
14%
30%
5-Year
Greenwood town, Steuben

County (SD)
758
304
10%
16%
74%
0.3738
7.6%
81%
12%
56%
5-Year
Hammondsport village,
Steuben County (P)
708
357
10%
25%
65%
0.4263
3.2%
94%
11%
40%
5-Year
Hartsville town, Steuben

County (SD)
579
259
10%
17%
73%
0.3093
10.6%
94%
27%
18%
5-Year
Hornby town, Steuben County

(SD)
1687
651
10%
20%
70%
0.38
10.9%
92%
20%
29%
5-Year
Hornell city, Steuben County

(SD)
8508
3,621
20%
30%
50%
0.3949
10.1%
91%
15%
49%
5-Year
Hornellsville town, Steuben

County (SD)
4134
1,922
20%
27%
53%
0.4944
11.9%
94%
19%
39%
5-Year
Howard town, Steuben

County (SD)
1391
542
12%
31%
57%
0.4496
13.6%
91%
19%
44%
5-Year
Jasper town, Steuben County

(SD)
1301
417
14%
27%
59%
0.3876
9.3%
65%
26%
10%
5-Year
Lindley town, Steuben County

(SD)
2064
783
14%
16%
70%
0.4012
7.2%
88%
22%
23%
5-Year
North Hornell village, Steuben

County (P)
748
338
10%
22%
68%
0.481
3.0%
94%
18%
33%
5-Year
Painted Post village, Steuben

County (P)
1732
811
10%
26%
64%
0.411
4.0%
93%
21%
39%
5-Year
196
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Prattsburgh CDP, Steuben

County (P)
800
310
13%
28%
59%
0.3337
8.0%
82%
29%
4%
5-Year
Prattsburgh town, Steuben

County (SD)
2389
953
15%
23%
62%
0.3934
11.7%
85%
17%
15%
5-Year
Pulteney town, Steuben

County (SD)
1303
553
16%
22%
62%
0.4306
10.3%
84%
27%
49%
5-Year
Rathbone town, Steuben

County (SD)
1195
383
21%
22%
57%
0.3716
9.6%
67%
27%
22%
5-Year
Riverside village, Steuben

County (P)
631
238
16%
23%
61%
0.3699
8.1%
88%
22%
70%
5-Year
Savona village, Steuben

County (P)
748
295
12%
23%
65%
0.3376
8.7%
87%
25%
32%
5-Year
South Corning village,

Steuben County (P)
1029
464
7%
27%
66%
0.3723
5.5%
88%
16%
31%
5-Year
Thurston town, Steuben

County (SD)
1266
491
11%
18%
71%
0.369
13.4%
91%
17%
58%
5-Year
Troupsburg town, Steuben

County (SD)
1333
416
18%
25%
57%
0.3556
9.1%
72%
36%
22%
5-Year
Tuscarora town, Steuben

County (SD)
1413
573
23%
23%
54%
0.4949
14.6%
88%
26%
31%
5-Year
Urbana town, Steuben County

(SD)
2234
996
6%
26%
68%
0.4387
7.1%
94%
13%
42%
5-Year
Wayland town, Steuben

County (SD)
4077
1,795
14%
30%
56%
0.4131
9.9%
92%
25%
42%
5-Year
Wayland village, Steuben

County (P)
1806
812
14%
35%
51%
0.435
10.8%
92%
28%
46%
5-Year
Wayne town, Steuben County

(SD)
1042
477
6%
26%
68%
0.4501
5.0%
90%
27%
39%
5-Year
West Union town, Steuben

County (SD)
375
157
18%
32%
50%
0.4585
5.8%
80%
27%
53%
5-Year
Wheeler town, Steuben

County (SD)
1186
470
10%
26%
64%
0.3535
10.2%
81%
29%
30%
5-Year
Woodhull town, Steuben

County (SD)
2103
710
25%
20%
55%
0.3968
8.8%
75%
28%
40%
5-Year
Amagansett CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1355
502
8%
27%
65%
0.5353
2.5%
95%
45%
32%
5-Year
Amityville village, Suffolk

County (P)
9551
3,449
9%
31%
60%
0.4045
5.8%
89%
44%
58%
5-Year
Aquebogue CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
2012
751
8%
49%
43%
0.3663
28.3%
78%
34%
53%
5-Year
Asharoken village, Suffolk

County (P)
552
215
6%
15%
79%
0.5565
7.8%
97%
57%
15%
5-Year
Babylon town, Suffolk County

(SD)
214194
69,634
7%
34%
59%
0.3891
7.3%
89%
47%
56%
5-Year
Babylon village, Suffolk

County (P)
12177
4,510
5%
27%
68%
0.4002
6.6%
95%
44%
37%
5-Year
Baiting Hollow CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1508
644
3%
30%
67%
0.3942
11.9%
99%
48%
18%
5-Year
Bay Shore CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
28883
9,598
11%
40%
49%
0.4287
8.5%
86%
49%
57%
5-Year
Bayport CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
8355
3,131
7%
37%
56%
0.4629
7.1%
96%
43%
58%
5-Year
Baywood CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
7681
2,201
6%
39%
55%
0.3431
6.4%
82%
46%
53%
5-Year
Belle Terre village, Suffolk

County (P)
834
286
5%
3%
92%
0.4513
3.4%
96%
31%
100%
5-Year
Bellport village, Suffolk

County (P)
1970
967
4%
33%
63%
0.4822
5.9%
96%
39%
51%
5-Year
Blue Point CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
4602
1,639
5%
27%
68%
0.3833
5.3%
93%
39%
43%
5-Year
Bohemia CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
10275
3,569
5%
33%
62%
0.3863
8.9%
96%
45%
50%
5-Year
Brentwood CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
68580
13,882
10%
41%
49%
0.4265
6.4%
82%
52%
58%
5-Year
Bridgehampton CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1416
599
5%
29%
66%
0.5226
1.7%
90%
44%
49%
5-Year
Brightwaters village, Suffolk

County (P)
3117
1,069
1%
17%
82%
0.4123
5.2%
95%
42%
44%
5-Year
Brookhaven CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
3337
1,086
5%
34%
61%
0.4686
9.7%
94%
42%
47%
5-Year
Brookhaven town, Suffolk

County (SD)
488485
162,015
7%
32%
61%
0.4054
6.6%
92%
43%
58%
5-Year
197
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Calverton CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
6372
2,953
9%
50%
41%
0.4729
10.1%
92%
45%
51%
5-Year
Center Moriches CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
8363
2,818
4%
40%
56%
0.3668
5.0%
93%
52%
45%
5-Year
Centereach CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
32270
9,888
5%
26%
69%
0.357
5.6%
93%
44%
53%
5-Year
Centerport CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
5717
1,943
2%
27%
71%
0.4342
7.7%
97%
43%
61%
5-Year
Central Islip CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
36233
9,728
15%
40%
45%
0.4064
8.5%
78%
50%
60%
5-Year
Cold Spring Harbor CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
5041
1,733
3%
13%
84%
0.4552
4.4%
97%
39%
56%
5-Year
Commack CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
35487
11,770
4%
24%
72%
0.4046
7.3%
96%
40%
57%
5-Year
Copiague CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
22527
7,495
8%
42%
50%
0.4061
8.0%
85%
46%
62%
5-Year
Coram CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
40637
14,844
7%
37%
56%
0.3869
7.4%
92%
46%
58%
5-Year
Cutchogue CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
3202
1,253
1%
37%
62%
0.4061
4.8%
93%
48%
61%
5-Year
Deer Park CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
27290
9,345
7%
33%
60%
0.391
6.9%
93%
45%
53%
5-Year
Dix Hills CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
26969
8,270
3%
18%
79%
0.4525
5.7%
96%
42%
45%
5-Year
East Farmingdale CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
6389
2,003
7%
35%
58%
0.4418
4.6%
86%
44%
64%
5-Year
East Hampton North CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
4201
1,637
8%
45%
47%
0.4669
13.2%
80%
41%
65%
5-Year
East Hampton town, Suffolk

County (SD)
21726
9,207
8%
34%
58%
0.5114
7.4%
88%
42%
51%
5-Year
East Hampton village, Suffolk

County (P)
1159
590
7%
28%
65%
0.6054
3.3%
92%
37%
43%
5-Year
East Islip CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
13989
4,407
5%
21%
74%
0.3778
5.9%
96%
39%
50%
5-Year
East Marion CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
932
450
1%
44%
55%
0.4159
16.3%
86%
42%
35%
5-Year
East Moriches CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
5074
1,892
9%
28%
63%
0.4167
6.1%
94%
37%
54%
5-Year
East Northport CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
19708
6,990
6%
27%
67%
0.3869
7.6%
96%
37%
56%
5-Year
East Patchogue CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
22203
8,429
11%
41%
48%
0.4091
6.7%
88%
46%
58%
5-Year
East Quogue CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
4355
1,699
3%
33%
64%
0.4438
3.9%
96%
36%
47%
5-Year
East Shoreham CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
6636
2,033
3%
13%
84%
0.2844
7.1%
98%
35%
41%
5-Year
Eastport CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
1679
675
3%
37%
60%
0.4309
6.4%
87%
48%
48%
5-Year
Eatons Neck CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1374
529
4%
24%
72%
0.4645
8.3%
99%
44%
100%
5-Year
Elwood CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
10833
3,543
4%
22%
74%
0.4027
8.0%
95%
44%
61%
5-Year
Farmingville CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
16097
4,782
5%
28%
67%
0.371
5.9%
90%
41%
58%
5-Year
Fire Island CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
319
103
0%
36%
64%
0.3284
4.1%
86%
40%
18%
5-Year
Fishers Island CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
296
132
1%
8%
91%
0.2564
0.0%
98%
2%
0%
5-Year
Flanders CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
4851
1,402
13%
37%
50%
0.4198
2.6%
71%
44%
64%
5-Year
Fort Salonga CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
9895
3,303
5%
19%
76%
0.4429
9.2%
98%
43%
56%
5-Year
Gordon Heights CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
3918
1,173
14%
37%
49%
0.3618
15.3%
89%
40%
65%
5-Year
Great River CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1636
541
3%
19%
78%
0.3583
3.6%
95%
46%
41%
5-Year
Greenlawn CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
14189
4,528
5%
34%
61%
0.4715
8.3%
92%
41%
53%
5-Year
Greenport village, Suffolk

County (P)
2369
906
13%
45%
42%
0.4656
5.6%
72%
37%
48%
5-Year
Greenport West CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1936
929
10%
44%
46%
0.5588
7.9%
95%
31%
53%
5-Year
Halesite CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
2773
1,075
2%
14%
84%
0.3848
4.0%
97%
26%
0%
5-Year
Hampton Bays CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
12712
5,085
6%
41%
53%
0.4221
5.9%
82%
44%
68%
5-Year
198
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Hauppauge CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
20617
7,117
3%
28%
69%
0.3679
5.3%
96%
37%
45%
5-Year
Head of the Harbor village,

Suffolk County (P)
1286
475
6%
18%
76%
0.552
7.4%
94%
44%
46%
5-Year
Holbrook CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
27765
9,151
4%
28%
68%
0.3676
7.4%
93%
38%
55%
5-Year
Holtsville CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
20054
6,754
6%
29%
65%
0.3864
5.7%
92%
39%
57%
5-Year
Huntington Bay village,

Suffolk County (P)
1441
572
7%
15%
78%
0.5312
7.1%
98%
46%
38%
5-Year
Huntington CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
18378
7,019
5%
24%
71%
0.4575
5.9%
95%
39%
46%
5-Year
Huntington Station CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
34005
10,364
12%
34%
54%
0.4176
8.3%
83%
43%
53%
5-Year
Huntington town, Suffolk

County (SD)
204088
69,026
6%
25%
69%
0.4593
7.2%
93%
40%
51%
5-Year
Islandia village, Suffolk

County (P)
3346
1,012
6%
26%
68%
0.3551
4.9%
92%
39%
48%
5-Year
Islip CDP, Suffolk County (P)
18229
6,292
3%
26%
71%
0.3914
6.4%
93%
42%
41%
5-Year
Islip Terrace CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
5132
1,679
4%
28%
68%
0.3234
6.2%
93%
45%
50%
5-Year
Islip town, Suffolk County

(SD)
336758
102,716
7%
33%
60%
0.4006
7.7%
88%
45%
54%
5-Year
Jamesport CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1573
564
8%
29%
63%
0.3753
8.0%
87%
36%
67%
5-Year
Kings Park CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
17694
6,099
4%
27%
69%
0.3924
7.2%
96%
34%
46%
5-Year
Lake Grove village, Suffolk

County (P)
11235
3,695
10%
28%
62%
0.4371
5.0%
92%
41%
51%
5-Year
Lake Ronkonkoma CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
19933
6,782
5%
30%
65%
0.371
6.6%
94%
39%
59%
5-Year
Laurel CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
1242
481
0%
22%
78%
0.3943
9.3%
94%
32%
0%
5-Year
Lindenhurst village, Suffolk

County (P)
27303
9,012
5%
33%
62%
0.3747
6.4%
90%
51%
43%
5-Year
Lloyd Harbor village, Suffolk

County (P)
3684
1,147
5%
9%
86%
0.5146
3.4%
95%
41%
23%
5-Year
Manorville CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
14169
4,729
3%
31%
66%
0.3766
5.9%
95%
49%
35%
5-Year
Mastic Beach village, Suffolk

County (P)
14880
4,786
16%
39%
45%
0.3915
11.0%
90%
45%
76%
5-Year
Mastic CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
16274
5,024
12%
41%
47%
0.3972
6.2%
86%
58%
76%
5-Year
Mattituck CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
4391
1,860
5%
38%
57%
0.4485
7.8%
95%
29%
51%
5-Year
Medford CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
24535
7,823
7%
31%
62%
0.3778
5.9%
91%
48%
46%
5-Year
Melville CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
19228
6,883
6%
19%
75%
0.4778
6.1%
97%
34%
38%
5-Year
Middle Island CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
10030
4,120
9%
41%
50%
0.3786
5.9%
93%
45%
53%
5-Year
Miller Place CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
11783
3,929
4%
22%
74%
0.381
6.3%
97%
39%
33%
5-Year
Montauk CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
3471
1,742
11%
37%
52%
0.4846
4.0%
88%
50%
51%
5-Year
Moriches CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
2254
1,129
3%
53%
44%
0.3921
8.8%
85%
38%
60%
5-Year
Mount Sinai CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
12620
4,251
5%
24%
71%
0.4106
2.4%
96%
38%
70%
5-Year
Nesconset CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
199
14080
4,474
5%
19%
76%
0.3559
6.1%
95%
38%
36%
5-Year
New Suffolk CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
298
161
4%
42%
54%
0.4341
10.4%
86%
36%
37%
5-Year
Nissequogue village, Suffolk

County (P)
1692
560
3%
9%
88%
0.4561
1.5%
98%
49%
33%
5-Year
North Amityville CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
19608
5,378
10%
38%
52%
0.3916
5.7%
81%
51%
62%
5-Year
North Babylon CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
17262
5,972
4%
31%
65%
0.3459
7.0%
93%
48%
49%
5-Year
North Bay Shore CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
19995
4,740
9%
42%
49%
0.378
9.1%
85%
48%
55%
5-Year
North Bellport CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
11680
3,490
17%
37%
46%
0.4157
6.7%
86%
49%
57%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
North Great River CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
4133
1,290
4%
24%
72%
0.3462
5.8%
96%
41%
60%
5-Year
North Haven village, Suffolk

County (P)
924
381
2%
25%
73%
0.617
5.6%
96%
37%
24%
5-Year
North Lindenhurst CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
11334
3,678
8%
39%
53%
0.3806
10.1%
88%
50%
55%
5-Year
North Patchogue CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
6735
2,267
7%
33%
60%
0.3538
5.1%
93%
48%
42%
5-Year
North Sea CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
4134
1,708
7%
35%
58%
0.5314
9.2%
89%
33%
61%
5-Year
Northampton CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
548
244
25%
58%
17%
0.4911
0.0%
84%
34%
73%
5-Year
Northport village, Suffolk

County (P)
7417
2,933
2%
28%
70%
0.4388
7.4%
97%
33%
50%
5-Year
Northville CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1574
670
4%
38%
58%
0.3345
0.0%
99%
47%
74%
5-Year
Northwest Harbor CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
3909
1,669
6%
29%
65%
0.4804
7.5%
88%
41%
67%
5-Year
Noyack CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
3908
1,621
7%
37%
56%
0.4847
6.5%
74%
44%
77%
5-Year
Oak Beach-Captree CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
363
181
0%
39%
61%
0.2394
2.1%
100%
39%
5-Year
Oakdale CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
7551
2,852
5%
35%
60%
0.4311
6.8%
93%
46%
73%
5-Year
Old Field village, Suffolk

County (P)
919
329
3%
7%
90%
0.513
6.8%
99%
29%
14%
5-Year
Orient CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
713
359
1%
25%
74%
0.3704
4.9%
98%
27%
0%
5-Year
Patchogue village, Suffolk

County (P)
12045
4,616
16%
37%
47%
0.4439
5.1%
83%
37%
61%
5-Year
Peconic CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
452
262
0%
36%
64%
0.5917
4.7%
95%
15%
100%
5-Year
Poospatuck Reservation,
Suffolk County (SD)
488
146
32%
46%
22%
0.6588
12.7%
73%
44%
89%
5-Year
Poquott village, Suffolk

County (P)
958
361
2%
23%
75%
0.4422
7.4%
93%
34%
53%
5-Year
Port Jefferson Station CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
8828
2,820
12%
28%
60%
0.4367
12.8%
91%
35%
71%
5-Year
Port Jefferson village, Suffolk

County (P)
7789
3,044
6%
24%
70%
0.3966
6.9%
96%
32%
49%
5-Year
Quiogue CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
651
236
4%
32%
64%
0.2727
3.2%
95%
26%
49%
5-Year
Quogue village, Suffolk

County (P)
888
404
3%
29%
68%
0.4654
2.0%
94%
31%
82%
5-Year
Remsenburg-Speonk CDP,
Suffolk County (P)
2317
914
10%
32%
58%
0.443
0.9%
88%
33%
74%
5-Year
Ridge CDP, Suffolk County (P)
12921
5,372
8%
45%
47%
0.4645
6.6%
97%
41%
63%
5-Year
Riverhead CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
14354
4,927
13%
44%
43%
0.4561
9.8%
72%
44%
66%
5-Year
Riverhead town, Suffolk

County (SD)
33715
12,685
9%
38%
53%
0.4414
9.5%
85%
41%
58%
5-Year
Riverside CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
4995
773
21%
65%
14%
0.3362
15.2%
65%
73%
90%
5-Year
Rocky Point CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
14145
4,737
4%
30%
66%
0.3636
9.5%
92%
47%
48%
5-Year
Ronkonkoma CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
18978
6,342
5%
33%
62%
0.3575
8.6%
91%
45%
41%
5-Year
Sag Harbor village, Suffolk

County (P)
1954
841
10%
23%
67%
0.5117
6.4%
90%
32%
41%
5-Year
Sagaponack village, Suffolk

County (P)
232
111
2%
7%
91%
0.5457
0.0%
88%
16%
0%
5-Year
Sayville CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
16311
5,759
4%
26%
70%
0.4068
7.2%
97%
38%
50%
5-Year
Selden CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
20390
6,316
8%
32%
60%
0.3569
6.7%
92%
45%
47%
5-Year
Setauket-East Setauket CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
14293
5,089
2%
20%
78%
0.3881
4.2%
98%
36%
31%
5-Year
Shelter Island CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1270
524
0%
37%
63%
0.4449
8.5%
83%
19%
44%
5-Year
Shelter Island Heights CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
1394
536
0%
22%
78%
0.3755
0.9%
97%
36%
0%
5-Year
Shelter Island town, Suffolk

County (SD)
2669
1,063
0%
29%
71%
0.4154
5.2%
91%
28%
30%
5-Year
Shinnecock Hills CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
2019
736
16%
35%
49%
0.5472
9.2%
77%
40%
47%
5-Year
200
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
25931
7,778
8%
35%
57%
0.3519
5.5%
88%
49%
70%
5-Year
468
188
2%
17%
81%
0.4469
1.4%
97%
36%
33%
5-Year
Smithtown CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
26408
8,649
5%
22%
73%
0.415
7.9%
96%
35%
51%
5-Year
Smithtown town, Suffolk

County (SD)
118337
39,431
4%
23%
73%
0.4047
6.5%
96%
38%
47%
5-Year
Sound Beach CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
7480
2,488
6%
36%
58%
0.3781
6.4%
95%
42%
70%
5-Year
South Huntington CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
9462
3,359
6%
29%
65%
0.3948
9.2%
95%
48%
66%
5-Year
Southampton town, Suffolk

County (SD)
57515
21,378
8%
36%
56%
0.5104
5.5%
84%
41%
63%
5-Year
Southampton village, Suffolk

County (P)
3154
1,260
11%
28%
61%
0.6047
5.0%
92%
39%
39%
5-Year
Southold CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
6323
2,618
2%
28%
70%
0.3998
8.6%
96%
31%
25%
5-Year
Southold town, Suffolk

County (SD)
22154
9,411
4%
35%
61%
0.4472
7.6%
92%
33%
44%
5-Year
Springs CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
5855
2,314
9%
31%
60%
0.4877
7.6%
90%
39%
39%
5-Year
St. James CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
13274
4,535
5%
28%
67%
0.4158
5.1%
96%
43%
50%
5-Year
Stony Brook CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
13936
4,846
4%
14%
82%
0.3845
6.0%
97%
32%
62%
5-Year
Terryville CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
11686
3,684
4%
32%
64%
0.3688
6.7%
94%
44%
68%
5-Year
Tuckahoe CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
1426
518
6%
36%
58%
0.5406
5.3%
86%
31%
78%
5-Year
Village of the Branch village,

Suffolk County (P)
1965
591
2%
15%
83%
0.3629
3.1%
98%
34%
95%
5-Year
Wading River CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
7694
2,707
7%
19%
74%
0.373
3.6%
96%
35%
5%
5-Year
Wainscott CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
719
301
10%
37%
53%
0.5238
0.9%
87%
43%
49%
5-Year
Water Mill CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
2217
959
2%
26%
72%
0.4795
1.6%
97%
44%
19%
5-Year
West Babylon CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
43725
14,039
6%
32%
62%
0.3642
7.7%
92%
47%
57%
5-Year
West Bay Shore CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
4571
1,652
3%
23%
74%
0.3873
4.7%
96%
45%
67%
5-Year
West Hills CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
5124
1,952
3%
27%
70%
0.4415
4.7%
97%
34%
68%
5-Year
West Islip CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
27545
8,855
4%
24%
72%
0.3882
5.7%
96%
46%
50%
5-Year
West Sayville CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
4685
1,596
2%
23%
75%
0.3424
10.3%
94%
31%
33%
5-Year
Westhampton Beach village,

Suffolk County (P)
1817
849
9%
32%
59%
0.5813
10.8%
94%
37%
57%
5-Year
Westhampton CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
2978
1,107
3%
36%
61%
0.469
7.9%
88%
45%
85%
5-Year
Wheatley Heights CDP,

Suffolk County (P)
5211
1,435
5%
28%
67%
0.3973
5.9%
91%
46%
51%
5-Year
Wyandanch CDP, Suffolk

County (P)
11187
3,040
12%
43%
45%
0.3997
12.2%
81%
53%
73%
5-Year
Yaphank CDP, Suffolk County

(P)
5906
1,771
8%
25%
67%
0.3555
5.3%
92%
42%
68%
5-Year
Bethel town, Sullivan County

(SD)
4221
1,749
7%
29%
64%
0.4059
17.0%
86%
38%
27%
5-Year
Bloomingburg village,
Sullivan County (P)
453
165
16%
39%
45%
0.4024
24.8%
88%
39%
60%
5-Year
Callicoon town, Sullivan

County (SD)
3023
1,225
9%
28%
63%
0.3548
12.1%
89%
28%
53%
5-Year
Cochecton town, Sullivan

County (SD)
1350
593
9%
31%
60%
0.3883
7.0%
89%
28%
27%
5-Year
Delaware town, Sullivan

County (SD)
2638
1,067
12%
27%
61%
0.4405
8.4%
93%
30%
27%
5-Year
Fallsburg town, Sullivan

County (SD)
12900
3,786
22%
28%
50%
0.4309
13.4%
84%
36%
55%
5-Year
868
368
5%
28%
67%
0.4704
1.7%
95%
23%
52%
5-Year
Shirley CDP, Suffolk County
(P)
Shoreham village, Suffolk

County (P)
Forestburgh town, Sullivan

County (SD)
201
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Fremont town, Sullivan

County (SD)
1530
619
9%
34%
57%
0.4817
19.6%
87%
23%
55%
5-Year
Highland town, Sullivan

County (SD)
2400
1,065
14%
34%
52%
0.5001
10.9%
82%
22%
50%
5-Year
Hortonville CDP, Sullivan

County (P)
322
107
0%
12%
88%
0.1522
28.8%
100%
31%
0%
5-Year
Jeffersonville village, Sullivan

County (P)
334
139
14%
24%
62%
0.3632
7.3%
77%
29%
47%
5-Year
Liberty town, Sullivan County

(SD)
9719
3,567
19%
35%
46%
0.507
12.5%
87%
38%
51%
5-Year
Liberty village, Sullivan

County (P)
4281
1,589
24%
38%
38%
0.5557
17.5%
79%
34%
53%
5-Year
Livingston Manor CDP,

Sullivan County (P)
967
440
17%
42%
41%
0.3814
0.0%
87%
19%
71%
5-Year
Loch Sheldrake CDP, Sullivan

County (P)
1083
295
15%
21%
64%
0.3153
24.9%
89%
41%
43%
5-Year
Lumberland town, Sullivan

County (SD)
2555
988
14%
27%
59%
0.424
14.9%
88%
49%
45%
5-Year
Mamakating town, Sullivan

County (SD)
11909
4,475
11%
32%
57%
0.4128
14.0%
87%
41%
37%
5-Year
Monticello village, Sullivan

County (P)
6780
2,785
35%
37%
28%
0.4935
17.9%
85%
38%
58%
5-Year
Narrowsburg CDP, Sullivan

County (P)
422
204
11%
44%
45%
0.417
7.0%
79%
33%
45%
5-Year
Neversink town, Sullivan

County (SD)
3530
1,467
12%
33%
55%
0.4017
9.9%
95%
31%
32%
5-Year
Rock Hill CDP, Sullivan

County (P)
1347
536
9%
15%
76%
0.3607
5.0%
96%
42%
41%
5-Year
Rockland town, Sullivan

County (SD)
3722
1,544
15%
34%
51%
0.5145
11.1%
89%
25%
50%
5-Year
Roscoe CDP, Sullivan County

(P)
652
295
12%
49%
39%
0.5475
19.9%
76%
45%
31%
5-Year
South Fallsburg CDP, Sullivan

County (P)
3131
806
35%
28%
37%
0.4342
9.1%
85%
54%
55%
5-Year
Thompson town, Sullivan

County (SD)
15202
5,827
25%
32%
43%
0.4698
13.0%
87%
39%
56%
5-Year
Tusten town, Sullivan County

(SD)
1325
614
9%
39%
52%
0.4876
6.0%
87%
36%
35%
5-Year
Woodridge village, Sullivan

County (P)
831
303
28%
37%
35%
0.4753
27.6%
85%
37%
47%
5-Year
Wurtsboro village, Sullivan

County (P)
1086
506
11%
31%
58%
0.4083
11.5%
90%
39%
45%
5-Year
Apalachin CDP, Tioga County

(P)
1448
492
15%
22%
63%
0.3669
12.8%
91%
23%
31%
5-Year
Barton town, Tioga County

(SD)
8751
3,553
15%
26%
59%
0.4437
8.9%
92%
19%
45%
5-Year
Berkshire town, Tioga County

(SD)
1526
566
11%
29%
60%
0.3624
3.9%
92%
31%
50%
5-Year
Candor town, Tioga County

(SD)
5215
1,995
11%
27%
62%
0.44
6.0%
92%
21%
54%
5-Year
Candor village, Tioga County

(P)
722
283
17%
16%
67%
0.3765
7.9%
94%
21%
36%
5-Year
Newark Valley town, Tioga

County (SD)
3892
1,692
7%
32%
61%
0.519
5.1%
87%
22%
38%
5-Year
Newark Valley village, Tioga

County (P)
1093
449
11%
33%
56%
0.4263
7.4%
93%
30%
47%
5-Year
Nichols town, Tioga County

(SD)
2519
931
14%
26%
60%
0.3947
9.3%
92%
21%
28%
5-Year
Nichols village, Tioga County

(P)
484
172
22%
14%
64%
0.4441
7.3%
95%
10%
54%
5-Year
Owego town, Tioga County

(SD)
19595
7,665
7%
21%
72%
0.3959
7.1%
93%
20%
37%
5-Year
Owego village, Tioga County

(P)
3819
1,699
14%
34%
52%
0.4512
7.2%
86%
29%
48%
5-Year
Richford town, Tioga County

(SD)
1033
480
14%
35%
51%
0.4314
9.1%
93%
20%
14%
5-Year
Spencer town, Tioga County

(SD)
3102
1,262
15%
36%
49%
0.3826
7.4%
91%
27%
47%
5-Year
Spencer village, Tioga County

(P)
981
391
21%
33%
46%
0.4203
9.7%
83%
20%
42%
5-Year
Tioga town, Tioga County

(SD)
4831
2,034
8%
33%
59%
0.4429
10.3%
94%
24%
64%
5-Year
Waverly village, Tioga County

(P)
4362
1,885
14%
31%
55%
0.441
6.1%
93%
16%
46%
5-Year
Caroline town, Tompkins

County (SD)
3327
1,451
5%
36%
59%
0.4077
13.2%
95%
23%
29%
5-Year
202
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Cayuga Heights village,

Tompkins County (P)
3756
1,571
16%
18%
66%
0.473
7.7%
96%
14%
56%
5-Year
Danby town, Tompkins

County (SD)
3417
1,462
11%
30%
59%
0.4562
3.0%
94%
31%
70%
5-Year
Dryden town, Tompkins

County (SD)
14723
6,120
12%
34%
54%
0.451
4.2%
93%
18%
42%
5-Year
Dryden village, Tompkins

County (P)
2100
889
12%
39%
49%
0.4231
5.9%
95%
21%
44%
5-Year
East Ithaca CDP, Tompkins

County (P)
2441
1,194
26%
35%
39%
0.5592
1.3%
95%
16%
60%
5-Year
Enfield town, Tompkins

County (SD)
3593
1,507
17%
36%
47%
0.414
5.9%
93%
26%
70%
5-Year
Forest Home CDP, Tompkins

County (P)
575
298
24%
50%
26%
0.598
3.6%
98%
0%
54%
5-Year
Freeville village, Tompkins

County (P)
558
237
15%
35%
50%
0.3984
4.4%
90%
17%
47%
5-Year
Groton town, Tompkins

County (SD)
6067
2,540
13%
39%
48%
0.3688
8.6%
89%
17%
42%
5-Year
Groton village, Tompkins

County (P)
2469
1,033
15%
47%
38%
0.4013
9.2%
88%
19%
32%
5-Year
Ithaca city, Tompkins County

(SD)
30399
9,489
39%
31%
30%
0.568
7.1%
95%
26%
59%
5-Year
Ithaca town, Tompkins County

(SD)
20141
6,994
18%
31%
51%
0.5123
5.4%
97%
18%
58%
5-Year
Lansing town, Tompkins

County (SD)
11259
4,745
6%
30%
64%
0.4746
2.6%
96%
19%
41%
5-Year
Lansing village, Tompkins

County (P)
3614
1,684
12%
36%
52%
0.4946
2.9%
94%
36%
42%
5-Year
Newfield Hamlet CDP,

Tompkins County (P)
659
333
8%
40%
52%
0.3973
3.7%
96%
30%
0%
5-Year
Newfield town, Tompkins

County (SD)
5258
2,025
11%
35%
54%
0.3585
5.9%
89%
32%
25%
5-Year
Northeast Ithaca CDP,

Tompkins County (P)
3092
1,167
16%
33%
51%
0.4761
6.2%
96%
26%
60%
5-Year
Northwest Ithaca CDP,

Tompkins County (P)
1156
498
22%
30%
48%
0.5744
4.2%
97%
17%
56%
5-Year
South Hill CDP, Tompkins

County (P)
6380
1,022
7%
33%
60%
0.4102
7.8%
98%
20%
64%
5-Year
Trumansburg village,
Tompkins County (P)
1723
709
19%
37%
44%
0.4976
11.8%
88%
30%
53%
5-Year
Ulysses town, Tompkins

County (SD)
4995
2,007
12%
30%
58%
0.4422
5.9%
91%
25%
48%
5-Year
Accord CDP, Ulster County (P)
765
187
7%
0%
93%
0.317
0.3%
99%
0%
0%
5-Year
Clintondale CDP, Ulster

County (P)
1152
540
19%
30%
51%
0.4211
6.0%
92%
48%
42%
5-Year
Cragsmoor CDP, Ulster

County (P)
658
289
7%
24%
69%
0.3728
7.3%
89%
2%
51%
5-Year
Denning town, Ulster County

(SD)
712
242
9%
28%
63%
0.3648
5.1%
93%
39%
36%
5-Year
Ellenville village, Ulster

County (P)
4126
1,490
14%
41%
45%
0.4363
12.3%
93%
35%
64%
5-Year
Esopus town, Ulster County

(SD)
8984
3,294
4%
32%
64%
0.3883
10.8%
89%
28%
51%
5-Year
Gardiner CDP, Ulster County

(P)
691
301
20%
25%
55%
0.3658
12.9%
88%
50%
27%
5-Year
Gardiner town, Ulster County

(SD)
5703
2,124
16%
19%
65%
0.4617
7.8%
91%
38%
61%
5-Year
Glasco CDP, Ulster County (P)
2465
953
7%
32%
61%
0.4295
7.9%
95%
32%
54%
5-Year
High Falls CDP, Ulster County

(P)
738
364
5%
45%
50%
0.3897
6.7%
71%
47%
92%
5-Year
Highland CDP, Ulster County

(P)
5315
2,228
14%
33%
53%
0.4028
9.8%
96%
31%
68%
5-Year
Hillside CDP, Ulster County

(P)
845
310
2%
10%
88%
0.3791
4.2%
97%
17%
0%
5-Year
Hurley CDP, Ulster County (P)
3407
1,370
8%
30%
62%
0.4627
7.4%
93%
37%
29%
5-Year
Hurley town, Ulster County

(SD)
6256
2,659
8%
30%
62%
0.4633
8.4%
92%
32%
51%
5-Year
Kerhonkson CDP, Ulster

County (P)
2002
651
15%
31%
54%
0.3794
21.0%
90%
38%
29%
5-Year
Kingston city, Ulster County

(SD)
23707
9,834
16%
45%
39%
0.4432
9.5%
89%
38%
59%
5-Year
203
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Kingston town, Ulster County

(SD)
982
435
10%
40%
50%
0.425
4.9%
88%
41%
64%
5-Year
Lake Katrine CDP, Ulster

County (P)
2374
824
23%
38%
39%
0.4631
15.4%
95%
40%
60%
5-Year
Lincoln Park CDP, Ulster

County (P)
2275
1,075
14%
51%
35%
0.4442
13.1%
92%
28%
74%
5-Year
Lloyd town, Ulster County

(SD)
10742
4,182
10%
31%
59%
0.3978
10.4%
95%
33%
59%
5-Year
Malden-on-Hudson CDP,
Ulster County (P)
417
145
0%
54%
46%
0.3891
0.0%
82%
38%
0%
5-Year
Marbletown town, Ulster

County (SD)
5581
2,466
5%
38%
57%
0.4801
10.7%
96%
36%
55%
5-Year
Marlboro CDP, Ulster County

(P)
3373
1,375
5%
38%
57%
0.3837
9.4%
95%
46%
52%
5-Year
Marlborough town, Ulster

County (SD)
8788
3,383
9%
36%
55%
0.4077
10.7%
89%
44%
49%
5-Year
Milton CDP (Ulster County),

Ulster County (P)
1529
549
7%
40%
53%
0.341
17.2%
94%
39%
47%
5-Year
Napanoch CDP, Ulster County

(P)
1079
465
14%
41%
45%
0.356
6.2%
89%
35%
32%
5-Year
New Paltz town, Ulster County

(SD)
14092
4,480
17%
25%
58%
0.4715
11.2%
94%
34%
60%
5-Year
New Paltz village, Ulster

County (P)
6945
1,994
26%
31%
43%
0.5045
12.4%
93%
45%
57%
5-Year
Olive town, Ulster County

(SD)
4389
2,147
14%
30%
56%
0.4973
10.1%
93%
37%
49%
5-Year
Phoenicia CDP, Ulster County

(P)
305
204
8%
61%
31%
0.3063
0.0%
93%
8%
56%
5-Year
Pine Hill CDP, Ulster County

(P)
205
105
34%
30%
36%
0.7079
0.0%
93%
8%
0%
5-Year
Plattekill CDP, Ulster County

(P)
1463
497
27%
26%
47%
0.471
21.1%
84%
71%
46%
5-Year
Plattekill town, Ulster County

(SD)
10390
3,965
13%
31%
56%
0.4138
8.0%
90%
42%
45%
5-Year
Port Ewen CDP, Ulster County

(P)
3393
1,528
6%
38%
56%
0.4071
9.6%
93%
33%
60%
5-Year
Rifton CDP, Ulster County (P)
873
278
12%
45%
43%
0.3175
9.4%
82%
66%
100%
5-Year
Rochester town, Ulster

County (SD)
7275
2,741
11%
22%
67%
0.4925
17.5%
89%
36%
31%
5-Year
Rosendale Hamlet CDP, Ulster

County (P)
1495
609
7%
36%
57%
0.3384
10.6%
87%
15%
43%
5-Year
Rosendale town, Ulster

County (SD)
6043
2,457
8%
39%
53%
0.4266
11.3%
85%
31%
48%
5-Year
Saugerties South CDP, Ulster

County (P)
1977
777
3%
26%
71%
0.3743
7.9%
95%
34%
35%
5-Year
Saugerties town, Ulster

County (SD)
19362
7,444
8%
36%
56%
0.4526
9.3%
91%
36%
52%
5-Year
Saugerties village, Ulster

County (P)
3930
1,683
10%
46%
44%
0.4371
13.3%
89%
28%
52%
5-Year
Shandaken town, Ulster

County (SD)
2866
1,497
13%
43%
44%
0.5264
3.3%
85%
28%
56%
5-Year
Shawangunk town, Ulster

County (SD)
14224
3,730
5%
23%
72%
0.3511
7.6%
80%
37%
35%
5-Year
Shokan CDP, Ulster County

(P)
941
491
10%
40%
50%
0.4646
12.5%
95%
26%
56%
5-Year
Stone Ridge CDP, Ulster

County (P)
1454
451
4%
27%
69%
0.3783
17.6%
95%
17%
100%
5-Year
Tillson CDP, Ulster County (P)
1604
638
6%
32%
62%
0.4017
10.6%
93%
31%
32%
5-Year
Ulster town, Ulster County

(SD)
12245
4,840
13%
41%
46%
0.4654
12.7%
90%
34%
62%
5-Year
Walker Valley CDP, Ulster

County (P)
606
260
17%
11%
72%
0.3548
0.0%
100%
17%
0%
5-Year
Wallkill CDP, Ulster County (P)
2254
835
5%
31%
64%
0.3482
6.3%
92%
29%
48%
5-Year
Wawarsing town, Ulster

County (SD)
13189
4,370
12%
38%
50%
0.4072
12.9%
91%
31%
49%
5-Year
West Hurley CDP, Ulster

County (P)
1915
913
9%
38%
53%
0.445
5.9%
95%
31%
66%
5-Year
Woodstock CDP, Ulster

County (P)
1922
1,104
19%
21%
60%
0.5757
6.1%
88%
33%
42%
5-Year
Woodstock town, Ulster

County (SD)
5893
3,004
15%
24%
61%
0.5425
7.7%
90%
36%
59%
5-Year
Zena CDP, Ulster County (P)
1264
479
5%
20%
75%
0.3934
3.1%
94%
37%
100%
5-Year
204
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Bolton Landing CDP, Warren

County (P)
620
266
5%
26%
69%
0.4635
0.0%
89%
30%
19%
5-Year
Bolton town, Warren County

(SD)
2394
1,069
7%
24%
69%
0.4324
2.7%
91%
35%
21%
5-Year
Chester town, Warren County

(SD)
3335
1,210
15%
34%
51%
0.4292
7.3%
90%
40%
50%
5-Year
Chestertown CDP, Warren

County (P)
1033
368
10%
40%
50%
0.3109
5.6%
90%
47%
34%
5-Year
Glens Falls city, Warren

County (SD)
14574
6,747
16%
36%
48%
0.4559
8.8%
89%
24%
51%
5-Year
Glens Falls North CDP,

Warren County (P)
8645
3,737
12%
24%
64%
0.4597
4.0%
93%
23%
54%
5-Year
Hague town, Warren County

(SD)
809
373
7%
25%
68%
0.3594
11.3%
86%
31%
28%
5-Year
Horicon town, Warren County

(SD)
1724
763
9%
24%
67%
0.3834
8.0%
94%
19%
34%
5-Year
Johnsburg town, Warren

County (SD)
1773
743
15%
35%
50%
0.403
11.2%
85%
44%
25%
5-Year
Lake George town, Warren

County (SD)
3500
1,555
11%
23%
66%
0.4622
5.3%
89%
30%
44%
5-Year
Lake George village, Warren

County (P)
932
418
8%
33%
59%
0.4921
3.1%
87%
21%
47%
5-Year
Lake Luzerne CDP, Warren

County (P)
1142
410
9%
20%
71%
0.33
4.4%
85%
29%
33%
5-Year
Lake Luzerne town, Warren

County (SD)
3342
1,285
8%
26%
66%
0.3502
5.6%
89%
27%
30%
5-Year
North Creek CDP, Warren

County (P)
406
184
25%
40%
35%
0.4646
15.1%
81%
57%
41%
5-Year
Queensbury town, Warren

County (SD)
27793
11,412
9%
22%
69%
0.4199
4.8%
94%
22%
50%
5-Year
Stony Creek town, Warren

County (SD)
850
349
12%
36%
52%
0.373
14.6%
85%
22%
55%
5-Year
Thurman town, Warren

County (SD)
1223
480
11%
39%
50%
0.3794
7.4%
88%
29%
20%
5-Year
Warrensburg CDP, Warren

County (P)
3226
1,321
13%
38%
49%
0.4358
11.4%
88%
19%
73%
5-Year
Warrensburg town, Warren

County (SD)
4071
1,713
12%
34%
54%
0.4319
11.5%
90%
17%
67%
5-Year
West Glens Falls CDP, Warren

County (P)
7359
2,843
12%
24%
64%
0.4173
7.4%
93%
19%
44%
5-Year
Argyle town, Washington

County (SD)
3758
1,449
7%
24%
69%
0.3795
4.3%
92%
21%
41%
5-Year
Argyle village, Washington

County (P)
318
133
11%
36%
53%
0.4146
6.7%
87%
16%
67%
5-Year
Cambridge town, Washington

County (SD)
1974
844
13%
21%
66%
0.3955
8.0%
95%
31%
61%
5-Year
Cambridge village,
Washington County (P)
1602
730
14%
44%
42%
0.4067
8.8%
89%
33%
67%
5-Year
Dresden town, Washington

County (SD)
545
240
9%
40%
51%
0.3731
25.0%
91%
49%
26%
5-Year
Easton town, Washington

County (SD)
2375
926
4%
27%
69%
0.3861
4.4%
94%
25%
14%
5-Year
Fort Ann town, Washington

County (SD)
6175
1,447
9%
30%
61%
0.4019
7.2%
90%
24%
57%
5-Year
Fort Ann village, Washington

County (P)
571
195
5%
22%
73%
0.2918
13.4%
78%
22%
40%
5-Year
Fort Edward town,

Washington County (SD)
6275
2,337
11%
35%
54%
0.3407
13.4%
95%
27%
45%
5-Year
Fort Edward village,

3326
1,353
11%
31%
58%
0.3552
11.4%
95%
27%
41%
5-Year
Granville town, Washington

County (SD)
6604
2,502
14%
36%
50%
0.4025
14.3%
86%
29%
45%
5-Year
Granville village, Washington

County (P)
2544
1,079
23%
38%
39%
0.469
15.0%
84%
28%
58%
5-Year
Greenwich town, Washington

County (SD)
4929
2,018
9%
30%
61%
0.4018
9.4%
86%
28%
55%
5-Year
Greenwich village,
1947
779
12%
34%
54%
0.442
7.1%
88%
29%
54%
5-Year
Hampton town, Washington

County (SD)
969
382
11%
35%
54%
0.3868
7.7%
96%
31%
38%
5-Year
Hartford town, Washington

County (SD)
2337
889
8%
27%
65%
0.3316
12.7%
93%
25%
60%
5-Year
205
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Hebron town, Washington

County (SD)
1713
746
16%
29%
55%
0.4176
16.9%
89%
34%
40%
5-Year
Hudson Falls village,

7266
2,851
25%
30%
45%
0.4252
12.6%
86%
26%
47%
5-Year
Jackson town, Washington

County (SD)
1799
790
11%
30%
59%
0.3889
7.6%
94%
33%
52%
5-Year
Kingsbury town, Washington

County (SD)
12696
5,078
17%
33%
50%
0.3984
9.8%
86%
26%
50%
5-Year
Putnam town, Washington

County (SD)
698
304
4%
26%
70%
0.4165
12.7%
91%
21%
29%
5-Year
Salem town, Washington

County (SD)
2708
1,155
10%
35%
55%
0.3564
6.7%
89%
26%
39%
5-Year
Salem village, Washington

County (P)
833
368
7%
41%
52%
0.3598
5.5%
86%
25%
40%
5-Year
White Creek town,

Washington County (SD)
3342
1,393
9%
42%
49%
0.3754
4.4%
92%
38%
52%
5-Year
Whitehall town, Washington

County (SD)
4013
1,665
24%
29%
47%
0.4143
11.2%
88%
31%
52%
5-Year
Whitehall village, Washington

County (P)
2791
1,180
29%
32%
39%
0.4153
12.5%
86%
32%
52%
5-Year
Arcadia town, Wayne County

(SD)
14078
5,784
16%
33%
51%
0.4064
8.3%
93%
23%
51%
5-Year
Butler town, Wayne County

(SD)
2003
734
13%
36%
51%
0.3475
11.9%
80%
23%
29%
5-Year
Clyde village, Wayne County

(P)
1987
660
16%
36%
48%
0.4051
9.1%
91%
20%
43%
5-Year
Galen town, Wayne County

(SD)
4223
1,458
11%
25%
64%
0.3606
8.3%
78%
18%
37%
5-Year
Huron town, Wayne County

(SD)
2280
862
9%
25%
66%
0.3812
6.1%
93%
23%
53%
5-Year
Lyons town, Wayne County

(SD)
5596
2,300
17%
32%
51%
0.4161
13.7%
92%
19%
59%
5-Year
Lyons village, Wayne County

(P)
3343
1,525
19%
37%
44%
0.4515
16.0%
92%
23%
63%
5-Year
Macedon town, Wayne County

(SD)
9085
3,426
6%
28%
66%
0.382
5.9%
90%
18%
50%
5-Year
Macedon village, Wayne

County (P)
1648
581
7%
22%
71%
0.3477
5.9%
95%
19%
53%
5-Year
Marion CDP, Wayne County

(P)
1522
656
9%
42%
49%
0.3876
7.2%
97%
15%
57%
5-Year
Marion town, Wayne County

(SD)
4702
1,930
7%
25%
68%
0.349
6.8%
93%
16%
49%
5-Year
Newark village, Wayne County

(P)
9019
3,793
18%
36%
46%
0.4333
11.2%
93%
24%
50%
5-Year
North Rose CDP, Wayne

County (P)
694
291
4%
50%
46%
0.2885
11.2%
91%
8%
0%
5-Year
Ontario CDP, Wayne County

(P)
2188
1,006
17%
42%
41%
0.4662
14.1%
82%
17%
14%
5-Year
Ontario town, Wayne County

(SD)
10129
4,218
6%
29%
65%
0.3952
4.7%
93%
22%
51%
5-Year
Palmyra town, Wayne County

(SD)
7845
3,217
16%
32%
52%
0.4134
7.0%
89%
23%
60%
5-Year
Palmyra village, Wayne

County (P)
3473
1,426
21%
29%
50%
0.4111
8.4%
88%
23%
58%
5-Year
Pultneyville CDP, Wayne

County (P)
598
236
0%
12%
88%
0.3098
2.4%
100%
10%
0%
5-Year
Red Creek village, Wayne

County (P)
629
222
12%
38%
50%
0.4432
10.7%
82%
14%
68%
5-Year
Rose town, Wayne County

(SD)
2540
925
8%
37%
55%
0.3655
12.4%
88%
16%
28%
5-Year
Savannah CDP, Wayne

County (P)
426
194
13%
39%
48%
0.3751
12.2%
86%
15%
34%
5-Year
Savannah town, Wayne

County (SD)
1340
575
13%
37%
50%
0.3944
11.1%
88%
24%
37%
5-Year
Sodus Point village, Wayne

County (P)
1093
446
11%
25%
64%
0.3995
8.9%
95%
30%
38%
5-Year
Sodus town, Wayne County

(SD)
8306
3,256
13%
30%
57%
0.384
8.3%
90%
25%
56%
5-Year
Sodus village, Wayne County

(P)
2226
818
20%
33%
47%
0.4083
7.6%
92%
27%
62%
5-Year
Walworth town, Wayne

County (SD)
9415
3,432
3%
23%
74%
0.3713
4.1%
98%
23%
56%
5-Year
Williamson CDP, Wayne

County (P)
2252
961
9%
33%
58%
0.3566
1.8%
94%
19%
36%
5-Year
206
Population

Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Williamson town, Wayne

County (SD)
6918
2,585
8%
26%
66%
0.4284
8.0%
93%
23%
44%
5-Year
Wolcott town, Wayne County

(SD)
4427
1,777
12%
40%
48%
0.3767
7.1%
86%
18%
35%
5-Year
Wolcott village, Wayne

County (P)
1698
750
25%
36%
39%
0.4155
7.4%
89%
21%
38%
5-Year
Ardsley village, Westchester

County (P)
4519
1,535
2%
20%
78%
0.459
5.9%
93%
40%
59%
5-Year
Armonk CDP, Westchester

County (P)
4535
1,375
1%
12%
87%
0.5452
4.9%
96%
37%
12%
5-Year
Bedford CDP, Westchester

County (P)
2248
748
2%
20%
78%
0.4863
2.3%
98%
27%
39%
5-Year
Bedford Hills CDP,

Westchester County (P)
3146
1,171
5%
51%
44%
0.428
19.2%
69%
28%
83%
5-Year
Bedford town, Westchester

County (SD)
17643
5,467
5%
21%
74%
0.5566
7.5%
88%
32%
57%
5-Year
Briarcliff Manor village,

7783
2,599
6%
13%
81%
0.4959
4.4%
97%
36%
55%
5-Year
Bronxville village,
6378
2,204
2%
15%
83%
0.5411
8.6%
99%
28%
37%
5-Year
Buchanan village,
2330
862
5%
18%
77%
0.512
9.6%
93%
37%
27%
5-Year
Chappaqua CDP, Westchester

County (P)
1170
497
3%
33%
64%
0.4487
2.3%
93%
42%
74%
5-Year
Cortlandt town, Westchester

County (SD)
42247
15,196
5%
22%
73%
0.4582
8.1%
92%
37%
52%
5-Year
Crompond CDP, Westchester

County (P)
2364
804
1%
19%
80%
0.4497
3.8%
95%
44%
0%
5-Year
Croton-on-Hudson village,
8168
2,934
4%
18%
78%
0.4544
8.6%
89%
32%
49%
5-Year
Crugers CDP, Westchester

County (P)
1781
834
10%
53%
37%
0.431
4.7%
82%
41%
60%
5-Year
Dobbs Ferry village,

11001
3,717
3%
19%
78%
0.4481
6.3%
93%
34%
43%
5-Year
Eastchester CDP, Westchester

County (P)
19800
7,813
4%
19%
77%
0.4628
4.8%
96%
37%
49%
5-Year
Eastchester town,
Westchester County (SD)
32737
12,786
4%
19%
77%
0.5268
6.2%
96%
36%
49%
5-Year
Elmsford village, Westchester

County (P)
4719
1,491
8%
17%
75%
0.3218
4.9%
83%
61%
38%
5-Year
Fairview CDP (Westchester

County), Westchester County
(P)
2978
933
21%
32%
47%
0.4651
5.0%
82%
45%
61%
5-Year
Golden's Bridge CDP,

1559
601
2%
22%
76%
0.4503
10.7%
97%
43%
71%
5-Year
Greenburgh town,
90135
32,922
4%
19%
77%
0.4813
6.6%
93%
36%
46%
5-Year
Greenville CDP (Westchester

County), Westchester County
(P)
7138
2,314
3%
11%
86%
0.4919
5.6%
97%
29%
60%
5-Year
Harrison town, Westchester

County (SD)
27822
8,299
7%
20%
73%
0.5811
7.0%
92%
41%
46%
5-Year
Hartsdale CDP, Westchester

County (P)
5346
2,571
5%
23%
72%
0.4654
7.4%
95%
24%
35%
5-Year
Hastings-on-Hudson village,
7905
2,964
7%
15%
78%
0.4684
6.6%
97%
30%
50%
5-Year
Hawthorne CDP, Westchester

County (P)
4545
1,526
5%
11%
84%
0.3808
7.5%
95%
46%
16%
5-Year
Heritage Hills CDP,

4174
2,429
4%
21%
75%
0.4178
13.2%
98%
37%
37%
5-Year
Irvington village, Westchester

County (P)
6506
2,462
4%
15%
81%
0.5358
4.3%
96%
28%
39%
5-Year
Jefferson Valley-Yorktown
CDP, Westchester County (P)
14682
5,252
2%
27%
71%
0.4044
7.2%
96%
41%
70%
5-Year
Katonah CDP, Westchester

County (P)
1781
581
8%
18%
74%
0.4211
2.6%
91%
44%
62%
5-Year
Lake Mohegan CDP,

5514
2,023
7%
21%
72%
0.3966
10.1%
94%
41%
39%
5-Year
Larchmont village,
5952
2,125
4%
13%
83%
0.4926
6.3%
98%
28%
33%
5-Year
Lewisboro town, Westchester

County (SD)
12576
4,432
2%
15%
83%
0.4791
7.6%
95%
39%
47%
5-Year
207
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Lincolndale CDP, Westchester

County (P)
1629
489
2%
3%
95%
0.2858
6.2%
94%
35%
42%
5-Year
Mamaroneck town,
29501
11,019
7%
18%
75%
0.5341
7.4%
94%
34%
45%
5-Year
Mamaroneck village,
19133
7,380
10%
25%
65%
0.5238
8.4%
91%
37%
52%
5-Year
Montrose CDP, Westchester

County (P)
2681
1,069
4%
23%
73%
0.417
4.9%
94%
39%
76%
5-Year
Mount Kisco town,

11016
4,085
11%
31%
58%
0.4413
7.9%
80%
31%
55%
5-Year
Mount Pleasant town,

44249
14,069
8%
17%
75%
0.485
6.7%
93%
38%
49%
5-Year
Mount Vernon city,

67962
25,750
16%
39%
45%
0.4697
13.4%
87%
49%
59%
5-Year
Mount Vernon city,

68455
24,538
15%
40%
45%
0.4667
10.3%
86%
43%
59%
1-Year
New Castle town, Westchester

County (SD)
17786
5,815
2%
9%
89%
0.4673
3.3%
97%
34%
32%
5-Year
New Rochelle city,

78476
28,251
10%
31%
59%
0.5272
8.3%
88%
42%
57%
5-Year
New Rochelle city,

79630
27,841
13%
27%
60%
0.5289
6.8%
90%
35%
55%
1-Year
North Castle town,

12054
3,805
3%
12%
85%
0.5638
5.9%
95%
40%
34%
5-Year
North Salem town,

5162
1,858
2%
18%
80%
0.4911
5.7%
98%
31%
51%
5-Year
Ossining town, Westchester

County (SD)
37998
11,818
12%
21%
67%
0.4973
7.8%
83%
44%
57%
5-Year
Ossining village, Westchester

County (P)
25232
7,449
15%
26%
59%
0.446
8.9%
76%
47%
58%
5-Year
Peekskill city, Westchester

County (SD)
23875
9,088
15%
37%
48%
0.4788
12.9%
84%
45%
59%
5-Year
Pelham Manor village,

5539
1,759
2%
11%
87%
0.5009
2.5%
95%
32%
42%
5-Year
Pelham town, Westchester

County (SD)
12523
3,945
2%
13%
85%
0.5164
3.7%
95%
37%
42%
5-Year
Pelham village, Westchester

County (P)
6984
2,186
2%
15%
83%
0.5225
4.5%
95%
43%
41%
5-Year
Pleasantville village,
7090
2,586
4%
18%
78%
0.4592
9.1%
96%
33%
50%
5-Year
Port Chester village,

29275
9,251
15%
34%
51%
0.4605
7.7%
71%
52%
63%
5-Year
Pound Ridge town,

5170
1,908
3%
14%
83%
0.5205
5.0%
95%
36%
27%
5-Year
Rye Brook village,

9456
3,444
5%
14%
81%
0.5064
9.8%
92%
41%
56%
5-Year
Rye city, Westchester County

(SD)
15892
5,460
5%
14%
81%
0.5477
5.9%
96%
34%
34%
5-Year
Rye town, Westchester

County (SD)
46423
15,488
11%
28%
61%
0.5188
7.8%
79%
45%
61%
5-Year
Scarsdale town, Westchester

County (SD)
17471
5,394
2%
5%
93%
0.4803
5.5%
98%
33%
33%
5-Year
Scotts Corners CDP,

740
320
5%
28%
67%
0.5271
7.6%
92%
34%
62%
5-Year
Shenorock CDP, Westchester

County (P)
1589
628
2%
33%
65%
0.3683
2.3%
97%
29%
46%
5-Year
Shrub Oak CDP, Westchester

County (P)
2044
864
0%
41%
59%
0.382
2.2%
94%
56%
63%
5-Year
Sleepy Hollow village,

10002
3,662
17%
29%
54%
0.5744
8.8%
84%
43%
58%
5-Year
Somers town, Westchester

County (SD)
20876
7,668
3%
15%
82%
0.4536
6.1%
97%
34%
40%
5-Year
Tarrytown village,
11423
4,471
4%
28%
68%
0.4574
8.9%
94%
46%
55%
5-Year
Thornwood CDP, Westchester

County (P)
4248
1,306
5%
16%
79%
0.3983
5.3%
92%
38%
40%
5-Year
Tuckahoe village, Westchester

County (P)
6559
2,769
8%
25%
67%
0.5197
8.2%
94%
43%
54%
5-Year
Valhalla CDP, Westchester

County (P)
3219
1,118
2%
18%
80%
0.4088
3.9%
96%
31%
42%
5-Year
Verplanck CDP, Westchester

County (P)
1634
637
10%
38%
52%
0.3779
16.6%
89%
39%
58%
5-Year
White Plains city, Westchester

County (SD)
57505
22,033
9%
27%
64%
0.5008
6.9%
85%
33%
52%
5-Year
208
Population
209
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Yonkers city, Westchester

County (SD)
198654
73,357
15%
31%
54%
0.463
9.5%
87%
41%
52%
5-Year
Yonkers city, Westchester

County (P)
200665
74,187
16%
29%
55%
0.4756
9.3%
88%
38%
51%
1-Year
Yorktown Heights CDP,

2290
698
1%
16%
83%
0.5605
8.4%
97%
38%
42%
5-Year
Yorktown town, Westchester

County (SD)
36566
13,043
3%
23%
74%
0.4368
6.7%
95%
42%
52%
5-Year
Arcade town, Wyoming

County (SD)
4177
1,837
12%
36%
52%
0.3926
7.8%
94%
26%
36%
5-Year
Arcade village, Wyoming

County (P)
2187
931
13%
35%
52%
0.4157
7.2%
93%
24%
36%
5-Year
Attica town, Wyoming County

(SD)
7564
1,656
6%
24%
70%
0.3416
5.1%
94%
19%
31%
5-Year
Attica village, Wyoming

County (P)
2609
1,080
8%
28%
64%
0.3456
7.1%
93%
15%
28%
5-Year
Bennington town, Wyoming

County (SD)
3338
1,234
6%
24%
70%
0.346
4.0%
96%
19%
32%
5-Year
Bliss CDP, Wyoming County

(P)
557
216
8%
36%
56%
0.3691
14.8%
91%
15%
90%
5-Year
Castile town, Wyoming

County (SD)
2873
1,203
10%
23%
67%
0.3524
4.6%
94%
17%
38%
5-Year
Castile village, Wyoming

County (P)
969
403
13%
23%
64%
0.3538
7.4%
93%
9%
34%
5-Year
Covington town, Wyoming

County (SD)
1120
436
6%
19%
75%
0.315
10.1%
95%
18%
42%
5-Year
Eagle town, Wyoming County

(SD)
1194
470
6%
33%
61%
0.353
11.9%
91%
17%
46%
5-Year
Gainesville town, Wyoming

County (SD)
2267
846
8%
24%
68%
0.3464
6.1%
90%
15%
39%
5-Year
Gainesville village, Wyoming

County (P)
228
103
4%
38%
58%
0.3111
12.3%
93%
14%
9%
5-Year
Genesee Falls town, Wyoming

County (SD)
395
202
13%
43%
44%
0.3862
3.7%
86%
24%
43%
5-Year
Java town, Wyoming County

(SD)
1958
791
4%
34%
62%
0.3941
3.5%
90%
26%
13%
5-Year
Middlebury town, Wyoming

County (SD)
1437
587
11%
20%
69%
0.3812
7.0%
90%
24%
39%
5-Year
Orangeville town, Wyoming

County (SD)
1573
602
7%
16%
77%
0.3247
6.7%
97%
21%
50%
5-Year
Perry town, Wyoming County

(SD)
4534
1,858
12%
30%
58%
0.3816
13.4%
89%
13%
51%
5-Year
Perry village, Wyoming

County (P)
3383
1,433
14%
34%
52%
0.4199
13.8%
90%
17%
51%
5-Year
Pike CDP, Wyoming County

(P)
330
122
25%
23%
52%
0.3821
1.3%
89%
35%
19%
5-Year
Pike town, Wyoming County

(SD)
1088
415
19%
24%
57%
0.3603
11.0%
91%
29%
27%
5-Year
Sheldon town, Wyoming

County (SD)
2328
973
11%
23%
66%
0.3909
5.5%
94%
14%
31%
5-Year
Silver Springs village,

Wyoming County (P)
787
320
11%
29%
60%
0.3618
7.9%
86%
14%
52%
5-Year
Strykersville CDP, Wyoming

County (P)
621
239
1%
35%
64%
0.3433
5.7%
97%
27%
32%
5-Year
Warsaw town, Wyoming

County (SD)
4987
2,259
16%
32%
52%
0.4845
8.3%
89%
14%
58%
5-Year
Warsaw village, Wyoming

County (P)
3591
1,613
17%
35%
48%
0.4217
9.1%
92%
12%
55%
5-Year
Wethersfield town, Wyoming

County (SD)
846
322
10%
26%
64%
0.3744
10.1%
93%
16%
21%
5-Year
Wyoming village, Wyoming

County (P)
386
159
13%
23%
64%
0.3863
10.5%
94%
23%
42%
5-Year
Barrington town, Yates

County (SD)
1445
575
9%
26%
65%
0.3931
4.0%
75%
25%
53%
5-Year
Benton town, Yates County

(SD)
2842
912
7%
26%
67%
0.3672
4.2%
64%
23%
42%
5-Year
Dresden village, Yates County

(P)
442
147
22%
26%
52%
0.4163
13.0%
84%
25%
32%
5-Year
Dundee village, Yates County

(P)
1508
706
14%
41%
45%
0.4265
10.5%
89%
21%
40%
5-Year
Italy town, Yates County (SD)
1160
519
18%
18%
64%
0.3903
8.8%
90%
23%
21%
5-Year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Threshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage %
Housing
Burden: Owner
Over 30%
Housing
Burden: Renter
Over 30%
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Jerusalem town, Yates County

(SD)
4487
1,569
8%
26%
66%
0.4281
5.2%
91%
22%
41%
5-Year
Middlesex town, Yates County

(SD)
1334
574
8%
23%
69%
0.3752
8.2%
92%
28%
39%
5-Year
Milo town, Yates County (SD)
6924
2,886
20%
25%
55%
0.51
7.8%
80%
27%
51%
5-Year
Penn Yan village, Yates

County (P)
5011
2,078
24%
29%
47%
0.4528
7.4%
87%
26%
54%
5-Year
Potter town, Yates County

(SD)
2018
732
16%
27%
57%
0.4342
12.0%
74%
20%
45%
5-Year
Rushville village, Yates

County (P)
692
270
21%
25%
54%
0.4081
15.8%
83%
16%
37%
5-Year
Starkey town, Yates County

(SD)
3548
1,310
12%
31%
57%
0.4112
7.0%
82%
16%
45%
5-Year
Torrey town, Yates County

(SD)
1523
565
10%
21%
69%
0.3727
7.3%
77%
29%
29%
5-Year
Pike town, Wyoming County

(SD)
1,088
415
19%
24%
57%
0.36
11.0%
91%
29%
27%
5-Year
Sheldon town, Wyoming

County (SD)
2,328
973
11%
23%
66%
0.39
5.5%
94%
14%
31%
5-Year
Silver Springs village,

Wyoming County (P)
787
320
11%
29%
60%
0.36
7.9%
86%
14%
52%
5-Year
Strykersville CDP, Wyoming

County (P)
621
239
1%
35%
64%
0.34
5.7%
97%
27%
32%
5-Year
Warsaw town, Wyoming

County (SD)
4,987
2,259
16%
32%
52%
0.48
8.3%
89%
14%
58%
5-Year
Warsaw village, Wyoming

County (P)
3,591
1,613
17%
35%
48%
0.42
9.1%
92%
12%
55%
5-Year
Wethersfield town, Wyoming

County (SD)
846
322
10%
26%
64%
0.37
10.1%
93%
16%
21%
5-Year
Wyoming village, Wyoming

County (P)
386
159
0.13
0.23
64%
0.39
10.5%
94%
0.23
0.42
5-Year
Barrington town, Yates

County (SD)
1,445
575
0.09
0.26
65%
0.39
4.0%
75%
0.25
0.53
5-Year
Benton town, Yates County

(SD)
2,842
912
0.07
0.26
67%
0.37
4.2%
64%
0.23
0.42
5-Year
Dresden village, Yates County

(P)
442
147
0.22
0.26
52%
0.42
13.0%
84%
0.25
0.32
5-Year
Dundee village, Yates County

(P)
1,508
706
0.14
0.41
45%
0.43
10.5%
89%
0.21
0.4
5-Year
Italy town, Yates County (SD)
1,160
519
0.18
0.18
64%
0.39
8.8%
90%
0.23
0.21
5-Year
Jerusalem town, Yates County

(SD)
4,487
1569
0.08
0.26
66%
0.43
5.2%
91%
0.22
0.41
5-Year
Middlesex town, Yates County

(SD)
1,334
574
0.08
0.23
69%
0.38
8.2%
92%
0.28
0.39
5-Year
Milo town, Yates County (SD)
6,924
2886
0.2
0.25
55%
0.51
7.8%
80%
0.27
0.51
5-Year
Penn Yan village, Yates

County (P)
5,011
2078
0.24
0.29
47%
0.45
7.4%
87%
0.26
0.54
5-Year
Potter town, Yates County

(SD)
2,018
732
0.16
0.27
57%
0.43
12.0%
74%
0.2
0.45
5-Year
692
270
0.21
0.25
54%
0.41
15.8%
83%
0.16
0.37
5-Year
Starkey town, Yates County

(SD)
3,548
1310
0.12
0.31
57%
0.41
7.0%
82%
0.16
0.45
5-Year
Torrey town, Yates County

(SD)
1,523
565
0.1
0.21
69%
0.37
7.3%
77%
0.29
0.29
5-Year
Rushville village, Yates

County (P)
210
Population
APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLDS BY
INCOME
This table presents the total number of households in each county in 2014, 2012, 2010, and 2007, as well as
the percent of households in poverty and ALICE. These numbers reflect the improvements to the Household
Survival Budget and the ALICE Threshold.
Missing data for 2007 is due to the fact that in that year, the American Community Survey did not report data for
counties with populations of less than 20,000.
ALICE Households, New York, 20072014

2014
County
Albany
211
2012
2010
2007
Total
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Total
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Total
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Total
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
124,716
12%
26%
121,119
13%
26%
120,485
13%
28%
122,807
11%
24%
1-Year
Allegany
18,407
16%
31%
18,572
17%
30%
18,844
16%
29%
18,574
16%
29%
5-Year
Bronx
492,481
31%
40%
475,978
31%
41%
471,912
29%
36%
469,446
26%
38%
1-Year
Broome
78,810
16%
26%
81,687
16%
25%
80,018
16%
24%
79,790
15%
22%
1-Year
Cattaraugus
30,735
15%
30%
32,347
15%
29%
32,183
13%
31%
32,070
15%
23%
1-Year
Cayuga
31,290
13%
25%
30,354
10%
28%
30,975
11%
26%
31,468
11%
21%
1-Year
Chautauqua
52,916
17%
30%
51,814
19%
29%
55,362
16%
30%
54,556
15%
24%
1-Year
Chemung
34,617
19%
21%
34,867
14%
31%
35,534
12%
29%
34,726
15%
30%
1-Year
Chenango
19,560
15%
30%
19,371
14%
30%
19,922
14%
27%
19,783
12%
28%
5-Year
Clinton
31,426
17%
24%
32,451
14%
24%
31,659
19%
24%
30,408
13%
26%
1-Year
Columbia
25,095
9%
30%
24,953
9%
27%
25,584
8%
31%
25,275
9%
23%
5-Year
Cortland
18,045
13%
33%
17,923
13%
30%
17,795
14%
31%
18,034
13%
26%
5-Year
Delaware
19,370
14%
30%
19,887
14%
31%
20,338
14%
28%
19,030
13%
26%
5-Year
Dutchess
104,190
10%
29%
107,106
9%
31%
106,934
8%
29%
100,671
9%
24%
1-Year
Erie
383,657
15%
26%
379,094
14%
23%
376,954
14%
26%
377,657
14%
21%
1-Year
Essex
15,571
11%
27%
16,523
13%
28%
16,235
9%
31%
15,542
10%
29%
5-Year
Franklin
19,131
17%
27%
19,184
16%
30%
18,790
14%
33%
19,071
17%
25%
5-Year
Fulton
22,440
15%
30%
22,665
14%
24%
22,896
16%
23%
23,126
14%
27%
5-Year
Genesee
23,967
11%
24%
23,840
11%
26%
23,865
12%
26%
22,893
12%
24%
5-Year
Greene
18,102
13%
31%
18,569
14%
28%
18,443
12%
34%
18,609
12%
29%
5-Year
Hamilton
1,639
11%
36%
2,134
9%
24%
2,381
8%
22%
N/A
N/A
N/A
5-Year
Herkimer
26,583
15%
31%
26,951
15%
28%
26,478
15%
29%
25,238
12%
25%
5-Year
14%
32%
45,845
15%
31%
45,163
13%
31%
44,250
14%
28%
1-Year
Jefferson
43,516
Kings
(Brooklyn)
942,402
22%
34%
919,333
22%
30%
905,317
21%
33%
883,481
21%
34%
1-Year
Lewis
10,726
13%
25%
10,885
13%
29%
10,601
13%
29%
11,078
14%
19%
5-Year
Livingston
25,334
16%
23%
24,038
12%
25%
23,854
13%
30%
22,644
15%
22%
1-Year
Madison
25,932
10%
33%
25,991
13%
29%
26,243
10%
29%
26,393
10%
24%
1-Year
Monroe
298,271
13%
29%
298,715
14%
26%
294,661
15%
23%
283,859
14%
24%
1-Year
Montgomery
19,655
17%
31%
19,701
17%
31%
20,196
16%
29%
19,760
13%
25%
5-Year
Nassau
440,168
6%
25%
441,732
6%
28%
442,729
6%
31%
434,063
5%
24%
1-Year
New York
(Manhattan)
762,228
16%
19%
746,686
16%
18%
726,090
15%
19%
735,721
15%
17%
1-Year
Niagara
86,907
14%
26%
88,995
14%
25%
87,627
15%
27%
89,517
12%
25%
1-Year
Oneida
90,583
16%
28%
90,571
16%
27%
89,382
13%
30%
91,101
12%
24%
1-Year
County
Total
Households
Poverty %
2012
ALICE %
Total
Households
Poverty %
2010
ALICE %
Total
Households
Poverty %
2007
ALICE %
Total
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Source, American
Community
Survey Estimate
Onondaga
185,474
15%
24%
185,985
14%
25%
184,589
14%
25%
179,056
12%
21%
1-Year
Ontario
43,581
9%
28%
44,328
11%
27%
43,670
9%
24%
40,840
10%
22%
1-Year
Orange
124,587
12%
29%
125,228
11%
29%
124,627
9%
32%
124,587
8%
34%
1-Year
Orleans
15,894
15%
30%
15,849
13%
27%
15,873
12%
31%
15,119
11%
28%
5-Year
Oswego
45,646
19%
26%
45,480
14%
29%
44,780
17%
30%
45,190
12%
24%
1-Year
Otsego
23,798
15%
31%
23,875
15%
30%
24,862
16%
28%
25,129
13%
25%
5-Year
Putnam
34,234
5%
28%
34,050
6%
30%
34,727
5%
38%
32,596
4%
35%
1-Year
Queens
785,985
15%
35%
780,349
15%
29%
772,332
14%
32%
774,467
12%
33%
1-Year
25%
64,581
11%
24%
65,219
13%
25%
61,172
11%
24%
1-Year
Rensselaer
63,289
13%
Richmond
(Staten Island)
164,971
15%
27%
163,468
12%
23%
163,816
12%
24%
167,637
10%
23%
1-Year
Rockland
98,873
11%
31%
97,934
11%
29%
98,207
9%
32%
94,197
6%
28%
1-Year
Saratoga
90,964
7%
21%
87,414
6%
24%
90,445
7%
21%
85,129
8%
20%
1-Year
Schenectady
56,255
11%
33%
57,463
11%
30%
58,773
11%
27%
55,741
8%
31%
1-Year
Schoharie
12,739
13%
27%
12,942
12%
26%
12,937
11%
27%
12,338
11%
24%
5-Year
Schuyler
7,759
12%
23%
7,570
9%
28%
7,482
9%
30%
N/A
N/A
N/A
5-Year
Seneca
13,485
12%
30%
13,321
13%
29%
13,247
11%
34%
11,862
12%
29%
5-Year
St Lawrence
40,286
17%
35%
42,436
17%
31%
43,123
15%
33%
40,472
16%
29%
1-Year
Steuben
41,046
16%
24%
41,597
15%
25%
41,052
13%
28%
38,658
14%
25%
1-Year
Suffolk
493,287
7%
32%
496,353
7%
32%
496,266
6%
35%
478,332
5%
35%
1-Year
Sullivan
27,524
14%
32%
29,222
18%
25%
31,599
18%
27%
29,507
12%
26%
1-Year
Tioga
20,178
10%
26%
20,135
10%
24%
20,634
10%
25%
19,761
12%
20%
5-Year
Tompkins
38,120
18%
34%
38,269
16%
30%
37,812
19%
26%
37,644
17%
28%
1-Year
Ulster
69,522
12%
33%
70,353
11%
30%
68,581
12%
32%
69,259
10%
27%
1-Year
Warren
26,193
14%
27%
27,530
11%
24%
28,809
8%
26%
27,309
9%
24%
1-Year
Washington
24,165
13%
32%
24,242
11%
29%
24,881
12%
27%
23,853
12%
27%
5-Year
Wayne
35,577
11%
36%
37,027
13%
26%
36,603
9%
28%
36,696
12%
21%
1-Year
Westchester
342,557
10%
24%
340,097
10%
27%
344,475
8%
27%
335,267
7%
29%
1-Year
Wyoming
15,691
10%
28%
15,716
9%
30%
15,242
11%
31%
15,140
9%
26%
5-Year
Yates
9,642
13%
26%
9,466
13%
28%
9,184
14%
32%
9,298
12%
31%
5-Year
212
2014
APPENDIX J ALICE COUNTY PAGES

The following section presents a snapshot of ALICE in each of New Yorks 62 counties, including the number
and percent of households by income, Economic Viability Dashboard scores, Household Survival Budget, key
economic indicators, and data for each municipality in the county (where available).
Because state averages often smooth over local variation, these county pages are crucial to understanding the
unique combination of demographic and economic circumstances in each county in New York.
Building on American Community Survey data, for counties with populations over 65,000, the data are 1-Year
estimates; and for populations under 65,000, data are 5-Year estimates. (Starting in 2014, there are no 3-Year
estimates.)
213
ALICE IN ALBANY COUNTY
Albany County, 2014
Population: 308,171 | Number of Households: 124,716

Median Household Income: $60,655 (state average: $58,878)
Unemployment Rate: 5.9% (state average: 7.3%)
Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.45 (state average: 0.51)

ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited,
Income Constrained, Employed, are
households that earn more than the
U.S. poverty level, but less than the
basic cost of living for the county (the
ALICE Threshold, or AT). Combined,
the number of poverty and ALICE
households equals the total population
struggling to afford basic needs.
36001
12%
26%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Albany (P)
41,262
52%
Albany (SD)
39,903
54%
Altamont (P)
670
34%
Berne (SD)
1,214
32%
Bethlehem (SD)
13,178
20%
Coeymans (SD)
3,017
42%
Cohoes (P)
7,139
53%
Colonie (P)
3,254
26%
Colonie (SD)
31,941
30%
Green Island (SD)
1,058
44%
Guilderland (SD)
14,304
26%
970
29%
Menands (P)
1,701
32%
New Scotland (SD)
3,358
28%
146
27%
1,387
50%
754
42%
Voorheesville (P)
1,092
22%
Watervliet (P)
4,740
55%
Westerlo (SD)
1,369
27%
Westmere CDP (P)
3,215
34%
Town
Knox (SD)
Preston-Potter Hollow
CDP (P)
Ravena (P)
Rensselaerville (SD)
What are the economic conditions?

The Economic Viability Dashboard evaluates community conditions

for ALICE in three core areas. Each is an index with a scale of 1 (worse)
to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (50)
good (63)
fair (55)

This bare-minimum budget does not allow for any savings, leaving a
household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Affording only a very
modest living in each community, this budget is still significantly more than the
U.S. poverty level of $11,670 for a single adult and $23,850 for a family of four.
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$662
$929
Child Care
$1,625
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$167
$524
Taxes
$298
$759
Monthly Total
$1,841
$5,760
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,092
$69,120
Hourly Wage
$11.05
$34.56
Source: American Community Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S.
Census, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, and New York
State Office of Children & Family Services, 2014.
Note: Municipal-level data on this page

is for Census Places (P) and county
subdivisions (SD). Totals will not match
county-level data; municipal-level data
often relies on 5-year averages and is not
available for the smallest towns that do not
report income.
214
Household Survival Budget, Albany County
ALICE IN ALLEGANY COUNTY
Allegany County, 2014

Total HH
Alfred (P)
394
63%
Alfred (SD)
783
50%
Allen (SD)
192
47%
Alma (SD)
347
45%
Almond (P)
208
44%
Almond (SD)
661
33%
Amity (SD)
965
41%
Andover (P)
379
41%
Andover (SD)
701
44%
Angelica (P)
369
47%
Angelica (SD)
569
46%
Belfast (SD)
749
46%
Belfast CDP (P)
425
59%
Belmont (P)
433
41%
Bolivar (P)
495
51%
Bolivar (SD)
932
49%
Burns (SD)
591
54%
Canaseraga (P)
258
65%
Caneadea (SD)
624
38%
Centerville (SD)
287
49%
Clarksville (SD)
402
51%
Cuba (P)
680
44%
Town
Cuba (SD)
1,362
37%
Fillmore CDP (P)
285
55%
Friendship (SD)
823
58%
Friendship CDP (P)
443
65%
Genesee (SD)
572
41%
Granger (SD)
238
46%
Grove (SD)
217
40%
Houghton CDP (P)
270
33%
Hume (SD)
866
56%
Independence (SD)
476
39%
New Hudson (SD)
305
44%
Richburg (P)
252
47%
Rushford (SD)
494
54%
Rushford CDP (P)
136
66%
Scio (SD)
697
45%
Scio CDP (P)
216
33%
Stannards CDP (P)
430
56%
Ward (SD)

% ALICE
&
Poverty
103
36%
Wellsville (P)
1,980
51%
Wellsville (SD)
3,177
51%
West Almond (SD)
128
30%
Willing (SD)
610
50%
Wirt (SD)
441
43%

report income.
215


36003
16%
53%
31%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (58)
poor (44)
poor (48)

Household Survival Budget, Allegany County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$507
$637
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$146
$424
Taxes
$241
$470
Monthly Total
$1,608
$4,662
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,296
$55,944
Hourly Wage
$9.65
$27.97
ALICE IN BRONX COUNTY
Bronx County, 2014
Population: 1,438,159 | Number of Households: 492,481

Town
Bronx (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
480,323
70%

36005
29%
31%
40%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (39)
poor (37)
poor (20)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$1,354
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$207
$486
Taxes
$463
$751
Monthly Total
$2,274
$5,341
ANNUAL TOTAL
$27,288
$64,092
Hourly Wage
$13.64
$32.05

report income.
216
Household Survival Budget, Bronx County
ALICE IN BROOME COUNTY
Broome County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Barker (SD)
1,000
42%
Binghamton (P)
19,902
59%
Binghamton (SD)
1,872
24%
Chenango (SD)
4,478
30%
Chenango Bridge
CDP (P)
1,127
24%
Colesville (SD)
1,901
40%
Conklin (SD)
2,035
35%
765
53%
Dickinson (SD)
1,932
37%
Endicott (P)
5,985
61%
Endwell CDP (P)
4,942
34%
Fenton (SD)
2,691
40%
Town
Deposit (P)
Glen Aubrey CDP (P)
162
33%
Johnson (P)
6,545
51%
Kirkwood (SD)
2,371
38%
129
43%
Lisle (SD)
1,014
37%
Maine (SD)
1,833
35%
Nanticoke (SD)
592
37%
Port Dickinson (P)
700
42%
1,070
44%
Triangle (SD)
1,107
36%
Union (SD)
24,367
44%
Vestal (SD)
8,915
28%
407
48%
373
37%
2,358
32%
Lisle (P)
Sanford (SD)
Whitney Point (P)

Windsor (P)
Windsor (SD)


36007
16%
26%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (51)
fair (51)
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Broome County

report income.
217
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$512
$692
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$147
$432
Taxes
$242
$492
Monthly Total
$1,615
$4,747
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,380
$56,964
Hourly Wage
$9.69
$28.48
ALICE IN CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

Town
Allegany (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
718
44%
2,699
41%
Allegany Reservation
(SD)
373
58%
Ashford (SD)
860
37%
Carrollton (SD)
517
50%
Cattaraugus (P)
450
45%
Cattaraugus
Reservation (SD)
112
78%
Coldspring (SD)
260
47%
Conewango (SD)
561
52%
Dayton (SD)
795
38%
Delevan (P)
444
48%
East Otto (SD)
400
35%
East Randolph CDP (P)
181
60%
Ellicottville (P)
142
51%
Ellicottville (SD)
634
44%
Farmersville (SD)
407
45%
Franklinville (P)
708
55%
1,187
46%
Freedom (SD)
983
47%
Gowanda (P)
1,104
51%
Great Valley (SD)
894
38%
Hinsdale (SD)
750
50%
Humphrey (SD)
289
45%
Ischua (SD)
364
42%
Leon (SD)
352
49%
Lime Lake CDP (P)
230
36%
Limestone CDP (P)
149
44%
Little Valley (P)
409
57%
Little Valley (SD)
643
52%
Lyndon (SD)
327
51%
Machias (SD)
817
40%
Machias CDP (P)
214
39%
Mansfield (SD)
376
33%
Napoli (SD)
404
43%
New Albion (SD)
830
51%
6,222
50%
Olean (SD)
794
42%
Otto (SD)
316
41%
Perrysburg (SD)
662
33%
Perrysburg CDP (P)
135
44%
Persia (SD)
951
46%
Portville (P)
444
35%
1,547
29%

36009
15%
55%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (56)
fair (53)
fair (56)
Household Survival Budget, Cattaraugus County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Allegany (SD)
Franklinville (SD)
Olean (P)
Housing
$479
$662
Child Care
$1,208
Portville (SD)
Randolph (SD)
995
45%
Randolph CDP (P)
518
52%
2,384
63%
Salamanca (SD)
212
38%
South Dayton (P)
318
54%
South Valley (SD)
113
37%
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Salamanca (P)
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$143
$427
Taxes
$232
$480
St. Bonaventure CDP (P)
266
46%
Monthly Total
$1,568
$4,700
West Valley CDP (P)
196
50%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,816
$56,400
Hourly Wage
$9.41
$28.20

Weston Mills CDP (P)
581
32%
Yorkshire (SD)(SD). Totals will
1,754
58%
subdivisions
not match
Yorkshire CDP
(P) municipal-level
635
county-level
data;
data72%
report income.
218
Cattaraugus County, 2014
ALICE IN CAYUGA COUNTY
Cayuga County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Auburn (P)
11,119
53%
Aurelius (SD)
1,133
30%
146
23%
1,882
38%
238
49%
1,006
29%
Cayuga (P)
216
32%
Conquest (SD)
612
40%
Fair Haven (P)
332
40%
Fleming (SD)
Town
Aurora (P)
Brutus (SD)
Cato (P)
Cato (SD)
1,069
27%
Genoa (SD)
732
34%
Ira (SD)
838
31%
Ledyard (SD)
578
26%
Locke (SD)
719
31%
Melrose Park CDP (P)
802
20%
Mentz (SD)
965
48%
Montezuma (SD)
471
43%
Moravia (P)
594
38%
1,075
34%
471
27%
Moravia (SD)
Niles (SD)
Owasco (SD)
1,506
23%
Port Byron (P)
494
48%
Scipio (SD)
650
23%
Sempronius (SD)
363
34%
1,222
18%
941
27%
Sennett (SD)
Springport (SD)
Sterling (SD)
1,245
39%
Summerhill (SD)
404
31%
Throop (SD)
748
21%
Union Springs (P)
475
36%
Venice (SD)
485
36%
Victory (SD)
673
44%
Weedsport (P)
791
31%


36011
13%
25%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (60)
good (59)
good (63)

Household Survival Budget, Cayuga County

report income.
219
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$551
$746
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$152
$439
Taxes
$255
$514
Monthly Total
$1,672
$4,830
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,064
$57,960
Hourly Wage
$10.03
$28.98
ALICE IN CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Arkwright (SD)
399
34%
Bemus Point (P)
100
51%
Brocton (P)
676
52%
3,089
38%
139
37%
1,542
37%
Cassadaga (P)
235
37%
Celoron (P)
509
46%
Charlotte (SD)
701
51%
1,701
35%
Chautauqua CDP (P)
188
21%
Cherry Creek (P)
184
45%
Cherry Creek (SD)
382
37%
Clymer (SD)
554
43%
Dunkirk (P)
5,504
53%
497
44%
Ellery (SD)
1,990
43%
Ellicott (SD)
3,698
37%
634
40%
1,080
53%
287
39%
3,862
45%
French Creek (SD)
337
44%
Frewsburg CDP (P)
941
30%
Gerry (SD)
787
39%
Hanover (SD)
2,886
39%
Harmony (SD)
855
36%
Jamestown (P)
13,108
61%
Jamestown West CDP

(P)
920
26%
Kennedy CDP (P)
188
44%
Kiantone (SD)
560
36%
Lakewood (P)
1,365
39%
Mayville (P)
524
41%
Mina (SD)
394
41%
North Harmony (SD)
917
34%
Panama (P)
200
47%
Poland (SD)
924
37%
Pomfret (SD)
5,302
44%
Portland (SD)
1,698
51%
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Ripley (SD)
853
53%
Ripley CDP (P)
351
60%
Sheridan (SD)
1,099
30%
Sherman (P)
280
54%
Sherman (SD)
586
50%
Silver Creek (P)
1,065
46%
217
49%

Unemployment Rate: 9% (state average: 7.3%)
Carroll (SD)
36013
Chautauqua (SD)
17%
53%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (56)
poor (48)
fair (54)

Household Survival Budget, Chautauqua County

SINGLE ADULT
Busti (SD)
Busti CDP (P)

Town
Housing
$485
$637
Child Care
$1,208
Dunkirk (SD)
Ellington (SD)
Falconer (P)
Forestville (P)
Fredonia (P)
Food
$202
$612
Sinclairville (P)
Transportation
$369
$738
Stockton (SD)
797
47%
Sunset Bay CDP (P)
294
38%
Villenova (SD)
382
40%
Westfield (P)
1,414
45%
Westfield (SD)
2,023
46%
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$143
$424
Taxes
$234
$470
Monthly Total
$1,576
$4,662
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,912
$55,944
Hourly Wage
$9.46
$27.97

report income.
220
Chautauqua County, 2014
ALICE IN CHEMUNG COUNTY
Chemung County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ashland (SD)
647
51%
Baldwin (SD)
382
31%
Big Flats (SD)
3,315
30%
Big Flats CDP (P)
2,138
24%
Breesport CDP (P)
312
26%
1,096
36%
982
45%
Elmira (P)
10,826
59%
Elmira (SD)
2,888
22%
Elmira Heights (P)
Town
Catlin (SD)
Chemung (SD)
1,658
47%
Erin (SD)
801
36%
Erin CDP (P)
187
63%
Horseheads (P)
2,975
36%
Horseheads (SD)
8,148
34%
Horseheads North
CDP (P)
1,130
19%
Millport (P)
133
60%
Pine Valley CDP (P)
423
54%
Southport (SD)
4,367
38%
Southport CDP (P)
3,188
44%
Van Etten (P)
223
48%
Van Etten (SD)
620
41%
Veteran (SD)
1,318
31%
Wellsburg (P)
227
57%
2,155
19%
West Elmira CDP (P)


36015
19%
21%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (57)
good (61)
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Chemung County

report income.
221
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$500
$787
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$145
$445
Taxes
$239
$531
Monthly Total
$1,598
$4,894
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,176
$58,728
Hourly Wage
$9.59
$29.36
ALICE IN CHENANGO COUNTY
Chenango County, 2014


36017
15%
55%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Town
Afton (P)
% ALICE
&
Poverty
437
48%
1,135
51%
573
45%
Bainbridge (SD)
1,348
41%
Columbus (SD)
357
48%
Coventry (SD)
581
45%
German (SD)
150
52%
Greene (P)
717
43%
Greene (SD)
2,114
36%
Guilford (SD)
1,241
43%
Guilford CDP (P)
141
59%
Lincklaen (SD)
156
44%
McDonough (SD)
324
52%
New Berlin (P)
502
57%
1,148
53%
634
34%
Norwich (P)
2,854
56%
Norwich (SD)
1,435
36%
Otselic (SD)
370
45%
Oxford (P)
571
39%
1,475
40%
Pharsalia (SD)
223
33%
Pitcher (SD)
259
39%
Afton (SD)
Bainbridge (P)
New Berlin (SD)

North Norwich (SD)
Total HH

to 100 (better).
Oxford (SD)
Plymouth (SD)
717
43%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (59)
good (57)
poor (45)
Preston (SD)
423
48%
Sherburne (P)
630
53%
Sherburne (SD)
1,585
45%
Smithville (SD)
578
48%
Smithville Flats CDP (P)
189
55%
Smyrna (SD)
453
40%
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$505
$637
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$146
$424
Taxes
$240
$470
Monthly Total
$1,605
$4,662
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,260
$55,944
Hourly Wage
$9.63
$27.97

report income.
222
Household Survival Budget, Chenango County
ALICE IN CLINTON COUNTY
Clinton County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Altona (SD)
973
46%
Altona CDP (P)
157
60%
Au Sable (SD)
1,342
45%
181
42%
2,317
39%
Black Brook (SD)
625
36%
Champlain (P)
477
53%
Champlain (SD)
2,484
41%
Chazy (SD)
1,769
30%
Chazy CDP (P)
169
12%
Clinton (SD)
270
48%
Cumberland Head
CDP (P)
697
27%
Dannemora (P)
380
43%
Dannemora (SD)
737
39%
Ellenburg (SD)
702
45%
Keeseville (P)
808
49%
Lyon Mountain CDP (P)
188
51%
1,512
50%
Mooers CDP (P)
132
72%
Morrisonville CDP (P)
724
37%
2,733
22%
Town
Au Sable Forks CDP (P)

Beekmantown (SD)
Mooers (SD)
Peru (SD)
Peru CDP (P)
481
18%
Plattsburgh (P)
8,005
57%
Plattsburgh (SD)
4,858
35%
613
51%
Plattsburgh West CDP

(P)
Redford CDP (P)
146
0%
Rouses Point (P)
1,076
39%
Saranac (SD)
1,668
29%
Schuyler Falls (SD)
1,981
31%
West Chazy CDP (P)
319
36%


36019
17%
24%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (60)
good (60)
poor (46)

Household Survival Budget, Clinton County

report income.
223
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$567
$814
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$154
$449
Taxes
$261
$542
Monthly Total
$1,696
$4,936
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,352
$59,232
Hourly Wage
$10.18
$29.62
ALICE IN COLUMBIA COUNTY
Columbia County, 2014


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ancram (SD)
633
34%
Austerlitz (SD)
642
39%
Canaan (SD)
623
33%
Chatham (P)
648
50%
Chatham (SD)
1,670
29%
Claverack (SD)
2,584
46%
412
21%
Town
Claverack-Red Mills
CDP (P)
Clermont (SD)
36021
681
34%
1,354
35%
Copake Hamlet CDP (P)
143
40%
Copake Lake CDP (P)
228
27%
Gallatin (SD)
742
34%
Germantown (SD)
844
40%
Germantown CDP (P)
334
30%
2,031
37%
Ghent CDP (P)
163
31%
Greenport (SD)
1,814
48%
670
29%
2,821
61%
611
26%
Kinderhook (SD)
3,197
30%
Livingston (SD)
1,265
38%
998
50%
New Lebanon (SD)
1,056
42%
Niverville CDP (P)
660
30%
Philmont (P)
592
59%
1,138
40%
Stottville CDP (P)
584
50%
Stuyvesant (SD)
824
31%
Taconic Shores CDP (P)
253
45%
Taghkanic (SD)
506
42%
Valatie (P)
564
43%
Copake (SD)
9%
30%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (45)
fair (50)
fair (55)

Ghent (SD)
Hillsdale (SD)
Hudson (P)
Kinderhook (P)
Lorenz Park CDP (P)
Stockport (SD)
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$717
$896
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$175
$492
Taxes
$319
$669
Monthly Total
$1,925
$5,418
ANNUAL TOTAL
$23,100
$65,016
Hourly Wage
$11.55
$32.51

report income.
224
Household Survival Budget, Columbia County
ALICE IN CORTLAND COUNTY
Cortland County, 2014

Town
Cincinnatus (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
357
54%
6,732
58%
541
23%
3,310
38%
Cuyler (SD)
273
52%
Freetown (SD)
265
53%
Harford (SD)
309
41%
Homer (P)
1,292
47%
Homer (SD)
2,543
42%
Lapeer (SD)
245
43%
Marathon (P)
430
52%
Marathon (SD)
799
48%
McGraw (P)
418
44%
Munsons Corners
CDP (P)
968
54%
Preble (SD)
538
37%
Scott (SD)
391
28%
Solon (SD)
377
40%
Taylor (SD)
159
45%
Truxton (SD)
432
33%
Virgil (SD)
897
33%
Virgil CDP (P)
128
37%
Willet (SD)
418
47%
Cortland (P)
Cortland West CDP (P)
Cortlandville (SD)


36023
13%
54%
33%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (54)
fair (53)
fair (54)

Household Survival Budget, Cortland County

report income.
225
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$592
$749
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$158
$440
Taxes
$270
$515
Monthly Total
$1,734
$4,835
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,808
$58,020
Hourly Wage
$10.40
$29.01
ALICE IN DELAWARE COUNTY
Delaware County, 2014

30%
56%
Andes (SD)
525
41%
Bovina (SD)
227
41%
Colchester (SD)
843
47%
Davenport (SD)
1,213
42%
181
36%
Delhi (P)
688
49%
1,446
41%
Deposit (SD)
750
43%
Downsville CDP (P)
263
61%
Fleischmanns (P)
113
64%
Franklin (P)
155
52%
Franklin (SD)
933
32%
Hamden (SD)
518
42%
Hancock (P)
436
58%
1,249
43%
Harpersfield (SD)
655
34%
Hobart (P)
201
48%
Kortright (SD)
544
39%
Margaretville (P)
258
64%
Masonville (SD)
586
37%
Meredith (SD)
662
30%
Middletown (SD)
1,700
41%
Roxbury (SD)
1,002
47%
Sidney (P)
1,836
56%
Sidney (SD)
2,599
52%
Stamford (P)
578
54%
Stamford (SD)
1,021
45%
Tompkins (SD)
431
45%
Walton (P)
1,415
60%
Walton (SD)
2,466
56%
Delhi (SD)
36025
14%
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Davenport Center
CDP (P)

Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (56)
poor (45)
poor (42)

Hancock (SD)
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$525
$667
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$149
$428
Taxes
$247
$482
Monthly Total
$1,635
$4,708
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,620
$56,496
Hourly Wage
$9.81
$28.25

report income.
226
Household Survival Budget, Delaware County
ALICE IN DUTCHESS COUNTY
Dutchess County, 2014

Total HH
1,692
48%
445
57%
Arlington CDP (P)
1,369
58%
Beacon (P)
5,452
46%
Beekman (SD)
4,324
24%
981
23%
Clinton (SD)
1,569
30%
Crown Heights CDP (P)
1,051
28%
Dover (SD)
3,107
42%
Town
Amenia (SD)
Amenia CDP (P)
Brinckerhoff CDP (P)
Dover Plains CDP (P)
613
52%
East Fishkill (SD)
9,483
23%
Fairview CDP (P)
1,730
47%
937
57%
8,653
35%
254
32%
Fishkill (P)
Fishkill (SD)
Freedom Plains CDP (P)
Haviland CDP (P)
1,430
31%
Hillside Lake CDP (P)
387
31%
Hopewell Junction
CDP (P)
213
37%
7,805
36%
842
27%
5,287
22%
Merritt Park CDP (P)
521
12%
Milan (SD)
946
42%
Millbrook (P)
718
47%
Millerton (P)
333
62%
Myers Corner CDP (P)
2,331
22%
North East (SD)
1,207
46%
887
49%
2,995
35%
Pine Plains (SD)
987
38%
Pine Plains CDP (P)
565
49%
Pleasant Valley (SD)
3,809
38%
Hyde Park (SD)

Hyde Park CDP (P)
La Grange (SD)
Pawling (P)
Pawling (SD)
Pleasant Valley CDP (P)
562
47%
Poughkeepsie (P)
12,018
64%
Poughkeepsie (SD)
15,118
40%
838
53%
Red Hook (SD)
3,810
40%
Red Oaks Mill CDP (P)
1,458
28%
Rhinebeck (P)
1,158
48%
Rhinebeck (SD)
3,213
37%
Red Hook (P)
Rhinecliff CDP (P)
206
3%
Spackenkill CDP (P)
1,340
17%
Staatsburg CDP (P)
149
37%


36027
10%
29%
61%

to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (30)
fair (54)
fair (53)

Household Survival Budget, Dutchess County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$886
$1,258
1,387
38%
Child Care
$1,625
236
17%
$612
460
62%
Food
$202
Tivoli (P)
Union Vale (SD)
1,850
28%
Transportation
$338
$676
Wappinger (SD)
10,251
32%
Health Care
$131
$525
Wappingers Falls (P)
2,154
54%
Washington (SD)
1,935
32%
Miscellaneous
$193
$555
Taxes
$370
$850
Monthly Total
$2,120
$6,101
ANNUAL TOTAL
$25,440
$73,212
Hourly Wage
$12.72
$36.61

report income.
227
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Titusville CDP (P)
Stanford (SD)

% ALICE
&
Poverty
ALICE IN ERIE COUNTY


36029
15%
26%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (54)
fair (55)
good (62)

Household Survival Budget, Erie County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$537
$710
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$150
$466
Taxes
$250
$592
Monthly Total
$1,651
$5,129
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,812
$61,548
Hourly Wage
$9.91
$30.77
Town
Akron (P)
Alden (P)
Alden (SD)
Amherst (SD)
Angola (P)
Angola on the Lake
CDP (P)
Aurora (SD)
Billington Heights CDP
(P)
Blasdell (P)
Boston (SD)
Brant (SD)
Buffalo (P)
Buffalo (SD)
Cattaraugus Reservation
(SD)
Cheektowaga (SD)
Cheektowaga CDP (P)
Clarence (SD)
Clarence CDP (P)
Clarence Center CDP (P)
Colden (SD)
Collins (SD)
Concord (SD)
Depew (P)
East Aurora (P)
Eden (SD)
Eden CDP (P)
Eggertsville CDP (P)
Elma (SD)
Elma Center CDP (P)
Evans (SD)
Farnham (P)
Grand Island (SD)
Grandyle CDP (P)
Hamburg (P)
Hamburg (SD)
Harris Hill CDP (P)
Holland (SD)
Holland CDP (P)
Kenmore (P)
Lackawanna (P)
Lake Erie Beach CDP (P)
Lancaster (P)
Lancaster (SD)
Marilla (SD)
Newstead (SD)
North Boston CDP (P)
North Collins (P)
North Collins (SD)
Orchard Park (P)
Orchard Park (SD)
Sardinia (SD)
Sloan (P)
Springville (P)
Tonawanda (P)
Tonawanda (SD)
Tonawanda CDP (P)
Town Line CDP (P)
University at Buffalo
CDP (P)
Wales (SD)
Wanakah CDP (P)
West Seneca CDP (P)
Williamsville (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,228
1,191
3,409
49,174
765
42%
40%
29%
28%
41%
770
43%
5,431
23%
575
36%
1,086
3,265
845
110,070
111,444
47%
30%
33%
60%
60%
716
63%
38,959
34,471
11,371
1,044
750
1,295
1,637
3,601
6,588
2,538
3,019
1,220
6,503
4,599
1,046
6,581
143
7,946
1,877
4,069
23,926
2,182
1,378
467
6,900
7,661
1,650
4,306
16,596
1,960
3,569
1,082
446
1,280
1,383
11,499
1,018
1,725
1,893
6,728
32,594
25,694
948
40%
43%
21%
33%
10%
25%
37%
38%
40%
28%
27%
25%
32%
24%
27%
35%
32%
23%
22%
27%
30%
21%
38%
41%
39%
56%
33%
36%
29%
19%
34%
33%
48%
31%
22%
20%
25%
46%
41%
44%
36%
35%
14%
106
88%
1,228
1,254
19,051
2,566
28%
31%
33%
26%

report income.
228
Erie County, 2014
ALICE IN ESSEX COUNTY
Essex County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Chesterfield (SD)
1,095
32%
Crown Point (SD)
767
43%
Elizabethtown (SD)
502
31%
Elizabethtown CDP (P)
325
32%
Essex (SD)
253
45%
1,096
35%
443
37%
1,196
43%
Lewis (SD)
537
44%
Minerva (SD)
262
38%
Mineville CDP (P)
304
19%
1,685
40%
Newcomb (SD)
208
37%
North Elba (SD)
Town
Jay (SD)
Keene (SD)
Lake Placid (P)
Moriah (SD)
3,181
35%
Port Henry (P)
436
56%
Schroon (SD)
605
39%
Schroon Lake CDP (P)
286
49%
St. Armand (SD)
727
31%
Ticonderoga (SD)
2,220
41%
Ticonderoga CDP (P)
1,413
41%
Westport (SD)
527
45%
Westport CDP (P)
152
46%
Willsboro (SD)
854
41%
Willsboro CDP (P)
332
57%
Wilmington (SD)
531
32%
Wilmington CDP (P)
381
28%
Witherbee CDP (P)
171
65%


36031
11%
27%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (58)
fair (51)
good (58)

Household Survival Budget, Essex County

report income.
229
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$542
$817
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$151
$449
Taxes
$252
$543
Monthly Total
$1,659
$4,940
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,908
$59,280
Hourly Wage
$9.95
$29.64
ALICE IN FRANKLIN COUNTY
Franklin County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bangor (SD)
926
43%
Bellmont (SD)
606
31%
Bombay (SD)
491
48%
Brandon (SD)
280
52%
Brighton (SD)
348
41%
Brushton (P)
216
59%
Burke (SD)
550
41%
Chateaugay (P)
291
45%
Chateaugay (SD)
721
51%
Constable (SD)
516
30%
Dickinson (SD)
357
45%
Fort Covington (SD)
775
54%
Fort Covington Hamlet

CDP (P)
605
51%
Franklin (SD)
512
28%
Harrietstown (SD)
2,662
46%
Malone (P)
2,458
53%
Malone (SD)
4,261
43%
Moira (SD)
1,248
51%
Santa Clara (SD)
175
19%

to 100 (better).
Saranac Lake (P)
2,749
48%
201
64%
St. Regis Mohawk

Reservation (SD)
1,202
54%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (58)
poor (47)
poor (37)
Tupper Lake (P)
1,496
50%
Tupper Lake (SD)
2,335
39%
Waverly (SD)
417
56%
Westville (SD)
676
40%


36033
17%
56%
27%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Town
St. Regis Falls CDP (P)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$553
$716
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$152
$435
Taxes
$255
$502
Monthly Total
$1,674
$4,784
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,088
$57,408
Hourly Wage
$10.04
$28.70

report income.
230
Household Survival Budget, Franklin County
ALICE IN FULTON COUNTY
Fulton County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bleecker (SD)
260
45%
Broadalbin (P)
617
28%
2,180
35%
Caroga (SD)
518
44%
Caroga Lake CDP (P)
254
51%
Ephratah (SD)
600
40%
Gloversville (P)
6,277
55%
Johnstown (P)
3,780
47%
Johnstown (SD)
2,583
41%
Town
Broadalbin (SD)
Mayfield (P)
328
33%
Mayfield (SD)
2,712
39%
Northampton (SD)
1,101
35%
441
40%
Northville (P)
Oppenheim (SD)
Perth (SD)
Stratford (SD)
727
53%
1,450
35%
252
55%


36035
15%
55%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (54)
poor (46)
poor (48)

Household Survival Budget, Fulton County

report income.
231
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$548
$708
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$152
$434
Taxes
$254
$499
Monthly Total
$1,668
$4,772
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,016
$57,264
Hourly Wage
$10.01
$28.63
ALICE IN GENESEE COUNTY
Genesee County, 2014


% ALICE
&
Poverty
Alabama (SD)
682
29%
Alexander (P)
188
34%
Alexander (SD)
964
23%
Batavia (P)
6,432
46%
Batavia (SD)
2,949
30%
450
35%
Bergen (SD)
1,192
37%
Bethany (SD)
692
30%
Byron (SD)
891
24%
Corfu (P)
348
33%
1,165
26%
Elba (P)
242
13%
Elba (SD)
858
21%
Le Roy (P)
1,668
39%
Le Roy (SD)
3,055
34%
Oakfield (P)
689
37%
Oakfield (SD)
1,246
40%
Pavilion (SD)
942
27%
Pavilion CDP (P)
201
27%
1,681
37%
Stafford (SD)
954
31%
Tonawanda Reservation
(SD)
264
51%
Bergen (P)
36037
11%
Total HH
Town
Darien (SD)
24%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).
Pembroke (SD)

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (59)
fair (56)
poor (49)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$471
$765
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$141
$442
Taxes
$229
$522
Monthly Total
$1,555
$4,860
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,660
$58,320
Hourly Wage
$9.33
$29.16

report income.
232
Household Survival Budget, Genesee County
ALICE IN GREENE COUNTY
Greene County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ashland (SD)
347
47%
Athens (P)
602
43%
Athens (SD)
1,488
37%
Cairo (SD)
2,684
45%
564
64%
Catskill (P)
1,491
54%
Catskill (SD)
4,466
49%
992
44%
Coxsackie (SD)
2,365
41%
Durham (SD)
1,090
43%
Greenville (SD)
1,433
45%
Greenville CDP (P)
241
46%
Halcott (SD)
109
37%
Town
Cairo CDP (P)
Coxsackie (P)
Hunter (P)
232
58%
1,073
43%
Jefferson Heights
CDP (P)
304
39%
Jewett (SD)
433
51%
Leeds CDP (P)
130
38%
Lexington (SD)
449
52%
1,181
32%
Palenville CDP (P)
395
60%
Prattsville (SD)
283
57%
Prattsville CDP (P)
102
48%
Tannersville (P)
223
56%
Windham (SD)
701
41%
Windham CDP (P)
205
45%
Hunter (SD)
New Baltimore (SD)


36039
13%
31%
56%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (49)
poor (45)
fair (56)

Household Survival Budget, Greene County

report income.
233
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$582
$781
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$156
$444
Taxes
$267
$528
Monthly Total
$1,719
$4,884
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,628
$58,608
Hourly Wage
$10.31
$29.30
ALICE IN HAMILTON COUNTY
Hamilton County, 2014


36041
11%
53%
36%
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Hope (SD)
145
44%
Indian Lake (SD)
410
46%
Inlet (SD)
183
50%
Lake Pleasant (SD)
254
43%
Long Lake (SD)
185
44%
Long Lake CDP (P)
132
47%
Wells (SD)
298
53%
Wells CDP (P)
263
53%
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (65)
fair (53)
good (74)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$495
$650
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$145
$426
Taxes
$237
$476
Monthly Total
$1,591
$4,683
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,092
$56,196
Hourly Wage
$9.55
$28.10

report income.
234
Household Survival Budget, Hamilton County
ALICE IN HERKIMER COUNTY
Herkimer County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cold Brook (P)
144
62%
Columbia (SD)
590
32%
Danube (SD)
419
39%
Dolgeville (P)
847
49%
Fairfield (SD)
557
34%
Frankfort (P)
1,046
53%
Frankfort (SD)
3,127
44%
German Flatts (SD)
5,638
50%
Herkimer (P)
3,330
55%
Herkimer (SD)
4,294
50%
Ilion (P)
3,471
53%
Litchfield (SD)
606
34%
Little Falls (P)
2,200
58%
Town
Little Falls (SD)

Manheim (SD)
Middleville (P)
632
36%
1,315
49%
213
34%
Mohawk (P)
1,098
49%
Newport (P)
217
66%
Newport (SD)
849
44%
Norway (SD)
355
42%
Ohio (SD)
436
57%
Old Forge CDP (P)
293
66%
Poland (P)
150
32%
1,045
49%
Salisbury (SD)
766
44%
Schuyler (SD)
1,415
40%
Stark (SD)
301
40%
Warren (SD)
387
50%
Webb (SD)
855
34%
West Winfield (P)
348
42%
Winfield (SD)
796
32%
Russia (SD)


36043
15%
54%
31%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (58)
poor (48)
poor (41)

Household Survival Budget, Herkimer County

report income.
235
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$601
$779
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$159
$444
Taxes
$274
$528
Monthly Total
$1,748
$4,882
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,976
$58,584
Hourly Wage
$10.49
$29.29
ALICE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY

Town
Adams (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
719
50%
2,052
42%
804
43%
1,693
56%
Alexandria Bay (P)
451
61%
Antwerp (P)
207
39%
Antwerp (SD)
605
38%
Belleville CDP (P)
102
86%
Black River (P)
522
36%
Brownville (P)
385
46%
Brownville (SD)
2,448
42%
Calcium CDP (P)
1,601
51%
Cape Vincent (P)
344
49%
Cape Vincent (SD)
962
37%
Carthage (P)
1,449
53%
Champion (SD)
1,703
38%
Chaumont (P)
270
49%
Clayton (P)
795
44%
2,027
45%
Deferiet (P)
111
51%

to 100 (better).
Depauville CDP (P)
282
67%
Dexter (P)
530
47%
Ellisburg (P)
101
39%
Ellisburg (SD)
1,358
52%
Evans Mills (P)
210
46%
Felts Mills CDP (P)
138
73%
Fort Drum CDP (P)
3,760
66%
Glen Park (P)
175
47%
Great Bend CDP (P)
373
30%
Henderson (SD)
674
41%
Hounsfield (SD)
1,442
38%
165
44%
6,964
58%
Lorraine (SD)
369
50%
Lyme (SD)
904
42%
Mannsville (P)
119
36%
Natural Bridge CDP (P)
161
56%
Orleans (SD)
1,110
45%
Pamelia (SD)
1,155
32%

36045
14%
54%
32%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (55)
fair (53)
fair (52)

Household Survival Budget, Jefferson County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Adams (SD)
Adams Center CDP (P)
Alexandria (SD)
Clayton (SD)
La Fargeville CDP (P)

Le Ray (SD)
Pamelia Center CDP (P)
133
0%
Philadelphia (P)
437
50%
Philadelphia (SD)
707
49%
Redwood CDP (P)
186
69%
Rodman (SD)
438
36%
Rutland (SD)
1,265
50%
Housing
$676
$1,012
Child Care
$1,208
Sackets Harbor (P)
668
32%
Food
$202
$612
Theresa (P)
329
49%
Theresa (SD)
1,114
39%
Transportation
$369
$738
Watertown (P)
11,865
58%
Health Care
$143
$573
Watertown (SD)
1,594
27%
West Carthage (P)
780
53%
Miscellaneous
$169
$477
2,288
51%
Taxes
$303
$622
Monthly Total
$1,862
$5,242
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,344
$62,904
Hourly Wage
$11.17
$31.45
Wilna (SD)

report income.
236
Jefferson County, 2014
ALICE IN KINGS COUNTY
Kings County, 2014

Town
Brooklyn (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
925,371
58%


36047
44%
22%
34%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (38)
poor (41)
poor (36)

Household Survival Budget, Kings County

report income.
237
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$1,354
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$207
$486
Taxes
$463
$751
Monthly Total
$2,274
$5,341
ANNUAL TOTAL
$27,288
$64,092
Hourly Wage
$13.64
$32.05
ALICE IN LEWIS COUNTY
Lewis County, 2014


36049
13%
25%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Castorland (P)
122
40%
Constableville (P)
112
38%
Copenhagen (P)
244
38%
Croghan (P)
291
49%
Croghan (SD)
1,273
39%
Denmark (SD)
1,059
34%
Diana (SD)
616
50%
Greig (SD)
562
42%
Harrisburg (SD)
149
23%
Harrisville (P)
210
40%
Lewis (SD)
295
43%
Leyden (SD)
745
43%
Lowville (P)
1,679
45%
Lowville (SD)
2,155
43%
Lyons Falls (P)
308
44%
Lyonsdale (SD)
494
46%
Martinsburg (SD)
504
37%
New Bremen (SD)
904
30%
Osceola (SD)
105
28%
Port Leyden (P)
285
51%
Turin (SD)
252
29%
Watson (SD)
747
33%
West Turin (SD)
736
35%
Town

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (62)
fair (52)
poor (42)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$506
$665
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$146
$428
Taxes
$240
$482
Monthly Total
$1,606
$4,706
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,272
$56,472
Hourly Wage
$9.64
$28.24

report income.
238
Household Survival Budget, Lewis County
ALICE IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY
Livingston County, 2014

Total HH
Avon (P)
1,322
29%
Avon (SD)
2,828
32%
989
36%
Caledonia (SD)
1,761
34%
Conesus (SD)
976
31%
Conesus Hamlet CDP

(P)
136
62%
Conesus Lake CDP (P)
1,233
19%
Cuylerville CDP (P)
148
41%
Dalton CDP (P)
129
17%
2,080
51%
226
68%
Geneseo (P)
1,850
58%
Geneseo (SD)
Town
Caledonia (P)
Dansville (P)
East Avon CDP (P)
3,005
46%
Groveland (SD)
575
34%
Groveland Station
CDP (P)
101
41%
Hemlock CDP (P)
215
19%
Lakeville CDP (P)
271
55%
Leicester (P)
198
20%
Leicester (SD)
923
32%
Lima (P)
Lima (SD)
Livonia (P)
992
46%
1,718
41%
564
43%
2,934
30%
104
12%
Mount Morris (P)
1,045
52%
Mount Morris (SD)
1,538
43%
North Dansville (SD)
2,536
51%
614
53%
Nunda (SD)
1,275
48%
Ossian (SD)
310
36%
Piffard CDP (P)
100
36%
Portage (SD)
366
45%
South Lima CDP (P)
115
45%
Sparta (SD)
619
34%
Springwater (SD)
945
42%
Springwater Hamlet
CDP (P)
217
57%
West Sparta (SD)
502
45%
1,431
24%
293
13%
Livonia (SD)
Livonia Center CDP (P)
Nunda (P)
York (SD)
York Hamlet CDP (P)

% ALICE
&
Poverty

report income.
239


36051
16%
23%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (48)
good (58)
good (64)

Household Survival Budget, Livingston County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$563
$834
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$154
$451
Taxes
$259
$550
Monthly Total
$1,690
$4,966
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,280
$59,592
Hourly Wage
$10.14
$29.80
ALICE IN MADISON COUNTY
Madison County, 2014

Town
Brookfield (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
942
53%
Canastota (P)
1,996
45%
Cazenovia (P)
981
43%
Cazenovia (SD)
2,460
31%
Chittenango (P)
1,941
35%
DeRuyter (P)
231
58%
DeRuyter (SD)
685
49%
Earlville (P)
374
51%
Eaton (SD)
1,270
45%
Fenner (SD)
660
36%
Georgetown (SD)
208
46%
Hamilton (P)
762
36%
Hamilton (SD)
1,739
45%
Lebanon (SD)
486
53%
3,794
47%
Lincoln (SD)
707
35%
Madison (P)
139
63%
Madison (SD)
1,188
49%
Morrisville (P)
257
55%
Munnsville (P)
153
43%

to 100 (better).
Nelson (SD)
777
32%
4,340
50%
Smithfield (SD)
422
45%
Stockbridge (SD)
816
42%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (61)
good (57)
poor (44)
Sullivan (SD)
5,913
34%
221
39%

36053
10%
33%
57%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Lenox (SD)
Oneida (P)
Wampsville (P)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$561
$801
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$153
$447
Taxes
$258
$536
Monthly Total
$1,686
$4,915
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,232
$58,980
Hourly Wage
$10.12
$29.49

report income.
240
Household Survival Budget, Madison County
ALICE IN MONROE COUNTY
Monroe County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Brighton CDP (P)
15,762
35%
Brockport (P)
2,414
54%
Chili (SD)
11,130
30%
Churchville (P)
822
38%
Clarkson (SD)
2,296
27%
Clarkson CDP (P)
1,641
28%
East Rochester (SD)
2,889
49%
Fairport (P)
2,480
26%
Gates (SD)
12,054
42%
Gates CDP (P)
2,051
41%
Greece (SD)
39,741
37%
Greece CDP (P)
6,214
40%
Hamlin (SD)
3,299
36%
Hamlin CDP (P)
1,940
40%
Henrietta (SD)
15,054
35%
Hilton (P)
2,268
36%
Honeoye Falls (P)
1,236
34%
Irondequoit CDP (P)
22,315
39%
Mendon (SD)
3,648
20%
North Gates CDP (P)
4,304
55%
Ogden (SD)
7,275
28%
Parma (SD)
5,825
28%
Penfield (SD)
14,519
26%
Perinton (SD)
19,125
26%
643
17%
10,173
13%
Riga (SD)
2,282
43%
Rochester (P)
83,944
69%
Rochester (SD)
86,025
66%
Rush (SD)
1,384
22%
914
38%
Spencerport (P)
1,422
27%
Sweden (SD)
4,899
45%
Webster (P)
2,493
59%
Webster (SD)
17,145
29%
Wheatland (SD)
2,075
38%
Town
Pittsford (P)
Pittsford (SD)
Scottsville (P)


36055
13%
29%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (47)
fair (51)
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Monroe County

report income.
241
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$563
$834
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$154
$484
Taxes
$259
$643
Monthly Total
$1,690
$5,322
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,280
$63,864
Hourly Wage
$10.14
$31.93
ALICE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Montgomery County, 2014


52%
31%
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Amsterdam (P)
7,584
55%
Amsterdam (SD)
2,448
38%
Canajoharie (P)
767
46%
Canajoharie (SD)
1,313
39%
Charleston (SD)
479
36%
1,100
36%
Fonda (P)
277
56%
Fort Johnson (P)
198
33%
Fort Plain (P)
862
57%
Fultonville (P)
253
49%
Glen (SD)
805
38%
Hagaman (P)
524
36%
Minden (SD)
1,657
57%
Mohawk (SD)
1,449
40%
Nelliston (P)
266
56%
Palatine (SD)
1,307
45%
Palatine Bridge (P)
327
50%
Root (SD)
620
41%
St. Johnsville (P)
605
61%
St. Johnsville (SD)
893
59%
Tribes Hill CDP (P)
466
31%
Florida (SD)
36057
17%
Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (51)
poor (46)
poor (45)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$583
$740
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$156
$438
Taxes
$267
$512
Monthly Total
$1,720
$4,821
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,640
$57,852
Hourly Wage
$10.32
$28.93

report income.
242
Household Survival Budget, Montgomery County
ALICE IN NASSAU COUNTY
Nassau County, 2014

Town
Albertson CDP (P)
1,773
29%
Atlantic Beach (P)
688
30%
Baldwin CDP (P)
7,587
33%
Baldwin Harbor CDP (P)
2,577
34%
Barnum Island CDP (P)
844
40%
Baxter Estates (P)
389
28%
Bay Park CDP (P)
711
20%
2,482
32%
Bellerose (P)
346
19%
Bellerose Terrace CDP (P)
588
35%
Bellmore CDP (P)
5,533
25%
Bethpage CDP (P)
5,769
29%
756
6%
Bayville (P)
Brookville (P)
Carle Place CDP (P)
1,829
35%
Cedarhurst (P)
1,932
35%
Centre Island (P)
162
24%
Cove Neck (P)
105
11%
East Atlantic Beach

CDP (P)
880
12%
East Garden CDP (P)
1,336
34%
East Hills (P)
2,289
11%
East Massapequa CDP (P)
6,517
29%
East Meadow CDP (P)
12,386
31%
East Norwich CDP (P)

East Rockaway (P)
East Williston (P)
Elmont CDP (P)
937
25%
3,608
36%
836
16%
9,837
38%
Farmingdale (P)
3,266
49%
Floral Park (P)
5,589
28%
Flower Hill (P)
1,396
18%
Franklin Square CDP (P)
9,859
34%
Freeport (P)
13,557
48%
Garden (P)
7,403
16%
Garden Park CDP (P)
2,546
33%
Garden South CDP (P)
1,317
33%
Glen Cove (P)
9,531
48%
Glen Head CDP (P)
1,636
32%
Glenwood Landing CDP

(P)
1,386
24%
Great Neck (P)
3,306
37%
Great Neck Estates (P)
915
18%
Great Neck Gardens

CDP (P)
320
33%
Great Neck Plaza (P)
3,482
50%
Greenvale CDP (P)
319
40%
Harbor Hills CDP (P)
165
13%


36059
6%
25%
69%

to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (14)
good (61)
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Nassau County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,033
$1,613
468
25%
Child Care
$2,188
16,233
62%
Hempstead (SD)
242,294
33%
Food
$202
$612
Herricks CDP (P)
1,276
15%
Transportation
$108
$173
140
6%
Hewlett Bay Park (P)
2,257
27%
Health Care
$131
$525
Hewlett Harbor (P)
405
10%
Miscellaneous
$181
$613
Hewlett Neck (P)
122
11%
Taxes
$336
$1,021
Monthly Total
$1,991
$6,745
ANNUAL TOTAL
$23,892
$80,940
Hourly Wage
$11.95
$40.47
Hewlett CDP (P)

report income.
243
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Hempstead (P)
Harbor Isle CDP (P)
Total HH

% ALICE
&
Poverty
ALICE IN NASSAU COUNTY

Town
Total HH
Nassau County, 2014

% ALICE
&
Poverty
Town
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Hicksville CDP (P)
13,368
30%
Oyster Bay (SD)
98,801
26%
Inwood CDP (P)
2,945
63%
Oyster Bay CDP (P)
2,669
40%
Island Park (P)
1,798
52%
Oyster Bay Cove (P)
681
9%
Jericho CDP (P)
4,676
19%
Plainedge CDP (P)
2,878
27%
9,009
22%
Kensington (P)
404
12%
Plainview CDP (P)
Kings Point (P)
1,356
25%
Plandome (P)
416
11%
Lake Success (P)
802
19%
Plandome Heights (P)
308
10%
Lakeview CDP (P)
1,489
21%
Plandome Manor (P)
295
22%
575
24%
Point Lookout CDP (P)
522
26%
Lattingtown (P)
536
15%
Port Washington CDP (P)
5,709
28%
Lawrence (P)
Laurel Hollow (P)
2,126
20%
Port Washington North (P)
1,310
23%
Levittown CDP (P)
16,604
28%
Rockville Centre (P)
9,187
31%
993
21%
Roosevelt CDP (P)
4,219
52%
1,143
34%
Lido Beach CDP (P)

Locust Valley CDP (P)
1,251
42%
Roslyn (P)
Long Beach (P)
14,418
40%
Roslyn Estates (P)
388
11%
Lynbrook (P)
7,201
35%
Roslyn Harbor (P)
354
16%
Malverne (P)
3,157
20%
Malverne Park Oaks

CDP (P)
180
21%
Manhasset CDP (P)
2,642
31%
Roslyn Heights CDP (P)
2,173
25%
Russell Gardens (P)
333
19%
Saddle Rock (P)
283
24%
Manhasset Hills CDP (P)
1,218
27%
Saddle Rock Estates

CDP (P)
Manorhaven (P)
2,397
43%
Salisbury CDP (P)
Massapequa CDP (P)
7,235
20%
Sands Point (P)
Massapequa Park (P)
5,479
23%
Sea Cliff (P)
126
4%
3,911
29%
910
9%
1,980
27%
Matinecock (P)
279
25%
Seaford CDP (P)
5,232
25%
Merrick CDP (P)
6,961
18%
Searingtown CDP (P)
1,441
20%
South Farmingdale CDP

(P)
4,702
26%
618
40%
Mill Neck (P)

Mineola (P)
368
22%
7,291
39%
12%
Munsey Park (P)
780
Muttontown (P)
1,077
9%
New Cassel CDP (P)
3,086
47%
New Hyde Park (P)
3,071
30%
North Bellmore CDP (P)
6,511
28%
North Hempstead (SD)
76,868
29%
North Hills (P)
2,287
25%
South Floral Park (P)

South Hempstead CDP (P)
1,003
21%
South Valley Stream

CDP (P)
2,003
30%
Stewart Manor (P)

Syosset CDP (P)
Thomaston (P)
745
15%
6,172
19%
984
31%
Uniondale CDP (P)
5,890
47%
University Gardens
CDP (P)
1,550
25%
North Lynbrook CDP (P)
169
29%
North Massapequa CDP

(P)
6,270
29%
North Merrick CDP (P)
3,817
24%
North New Hyde Park

CDP (P)
4,698
20%
North Valley Stream

CDP (P)
5,121
32%
North Wantagh CDP (P)
4,104
27%
Oceanside CDP (P)
10,743
31%
Woodbury CDP (P)
3,018
20%
Old Bethpage CDP (P)
1,835
25%
Woodmere CDP (P)
5,042
21%
Woodsburgh (P)
264
12%
Old Brookville (P)
783
16%
Old Westbury (P)
982
26%
Upper Brookville (P)

Valley Stream (P)
479
17%
11,422
35%
Wantagh CDP (P)
5,957
19%
West Hempstead CDP (P)
5,868
30%
Westbury (P)
4,950
37%
Williston Park (P)
2,567
27%
244
Nassau County, 2014
NASSAU COUNTY

ALICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY
New York County, 2014

Town
Manhattan (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
745,089
36%


36061
16%
19%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (27)
good (65)
fair (52)

Household Survival Budget, New York County

report income.
245
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$1,354
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$207
$486
Taxes
$463
$751
Monthly Total
$2,274
$5,341
ANNUAL TOTAL
$27,288
$64,092
Hourly Wage
$13.64
$32.05
ALICE IN NIAGARA COUNTY
Niagara County, 2014


36063
14%
26%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (56)
fair (53)
good (62)
Town
Barker (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
211
47%
2,213
22%
393
39%
Hartland (SD)
1,616
33%
Lewiston (P)
1,357
36%
Lewiston (SD)
6,318
30%
Lockport (P)
9,016
50%
Lockport (SD)
8,212
35%
Middleport (P)
686
39%
Newfane (SD)
3,746
34%
Newfane CDP (P)
1,399
33%
Niagara (SD)
3,575
43%
Niagara Falls (P)
21,300
57%
North Tonawanda (P)
13,939
42%
Olcott CDP (P)
560
38%
Pendleton (SD)
2,318
21%
Porter (SD)
2,707
25%
Ransomville CDP (P)
572
23%
Rapids CDP (P)
644
34%
2,667
32%
Sanborn CDP (P)
544
35%
Somerset (SD)
967
39%
3,647
49%
Cambria (SD)
Gasport CDP (P)
Royalton (SD)
South Lockport CDP (P)

Tuscarora Nation
Reservation (SD)
Wheatfield (SD)
Wilson (P)
Wilson (SD)
Youngstown (P)
407
59%
6,968
28%
512
34%
2,283
32%
807
33%
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$537
$710
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$150
$434
Taxes
$250
$500
Monthly Total
$1,651
$4,775
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,812
$57,300
Hourly Wage
$9.91
$28.65

report income.
246
Household Survival Budget, Niagara County
ALICE IN ONEIDA COUNTY
Oneida County, 2014

Town
Total HH
Annsville (SD)
1,091
51%
Augusta (SD)
936
43%
Ava (SD)
233
38%
Barneveld (P)
104
42%
Boonville (P)
873
59%
Boonville (SD)
1,764
43%
Bridgewater (P)
175
47%
Bridgewater (SD)
543
47%
Camden (P)
1,021
52%
Camden (SD)
1,998
47%
Chadwicks CDP (P)
699
50%
Clark Mills CDP (P)
1,037
34%
Clayville (P)
179
49%
Clinton (P)
903
33%
1,612
23%
Durhamville CDP (P)
281
77%
Florence (SD)
385
51%
1,455
30%
Forestport (SD)
681
39%
Holland Patent (P)
153
33%
Kirkland (SD)
3,548
28%
Lee (SD)
2,499
25%
Marcy (SD)
2,146
23%
Marshall (SD)
781
35%
New Hartford (P)
830
35%
New Hartford (SD)
9,367
33%
New York Mills (P)
1,507
66%
Oneida Castle (P)
297
47%
Oriskany (P)
512
38%
Oriskany Falls (P)
333
40%
1,798
36%
Remsen (P)
202
65%
Remsen (SD)
806
39%
13,249
46%
Sangerfield (SD)
1,025
47%
Sherrill (P)
1,342
38%
Steuben (SD)
400
40%
Sylvan Beach (P)
416
53%
Trenton (SD)
1,735
29%
Utica (P)
23,828
61%
496
48%
Vernon (SD)
2,132
38%
Verona (SD)
2,334
35%
Deerfield (SD)
Floyd (SD)
Paris (SD)
Rome (P)
Vernon (P)
Verona CDP (P)


36065
16%
28%
56%

to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (54)
poor (47)
fair (50)

Household Survival Budget, Oneida County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
248
38%
47%
Washington Mills CDP

(P)
Housing
$601
$779
455
36%
Waterville (P)
627
48%
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$159
$444
Taxes
$274
$528
Monthly Total
$1,748
$4,882
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,976
$58,584
Hourly Wage
$10.49
$29.29
Western (SD)
806
27%
2,450
27%
150
26%
Whitesboro (P)
1,679
46%
Whitestown (SD)
7,511
37%
Yorkville (P)
1,081
44%
Westmoreland (SD)
Westmoreland CDP (P)

report income.
247
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
2,366
Vienna (SD)

% ALICE
&
Poverty
ALICE IN ONONDAGA COUNTY
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Baldwinsville (P)
3,156
43%
Brewerton CDP (P)
1,694
42%
Bridgeport CDP (P)
678
49%
Camillus (P)
572
42%
Camillus (SD)
9,783
27%
Cicero (SD)
12,334
27%
Clay (SD)
23,468
27%
De Witt (SD)
10,095
33%
East Syracuse (P)
1,419
64%
359
20%
2,246
31%
Fabius (P)
149
24%
Fabius (SD)
774
24%
Fairmount CDP (P)
4,092
27%
Fayetteville (P)
2,038
24%
Galeville CDP (P)
2,112
48%
Geddes (SD)
7,116
37%
511
35%
LaFayette (SD)
1,956
31%
Lakeland CDP (P)
1,088
35%

to 100 (better).
Liverpool (P)
1,132
33%
Lyncourt CDP (P)
1,868
44%
Lysander (SD)
8,579
24%
Manlius (P)
1,886
29%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (53)
fair (50)
good (60)
Manlius (SD)
13,241
24%
Marcellus (P)
739
38%
Marcellus (SD)
2,423
26%
Mattydale CDP (P)
2,621
48%
Minoa (P)
1,467
28%
893
39%
North Syracuse (P)
3,171
39%
Onondaga (SD)
8,607
24%
Otisco (SD)
1,031
32%
Pompey (SD)
2,533
18%
Salina (SD)
14,872
37%
858
37%
Skaneateles (P)
1,181
27%
Skaneateles (SD)
3,061
22%
Solvay (P)
2,981
50%
Spafford (SD)
688
26%
Syracuse (P)
54,712
60%
Syracuse (SD)
55,279
61%
435
39%
Tully (SD)
1,102
24%
Van Buren (SD)
5,858
33%
Village Green CDP (P)
1,919
34%
Westvale CDP (P)
2,075
22%


36067
Town
Elbridge (P)
Elbridge (SD)
15%
24%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Jordan (P)
Nedrow CDP (P)
Seneca Knolls CDP (P)
Household Survival Budget, Onondaga County

SINGLE ADULT
Housing
$561
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
$801
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$153
$479
Taxes
$258
$630
Monthly Total
$1,686
$5,271
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,232
$63,252
Hourly Wage
$10.12
$31.63
Tully (P)

report income.
248
Onondaga County, 2014
ALICE IN ONTARIO COUNTY
Ontario County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bloomfield (P)
633
41%
Bristol (SD)
889
31%
Canadice (SD)
777
41%
Canandaigua (P)
4,846
49%
Canandaigua (SD)
4,362
34%
Clifton Springs (P)
840
45%
Crystal Beach CDP (P)
326
56%
East Bloomfield (SD)
1,460
28%
Farmington (SD)
4,755
32%
Geneva (P)
4,767
55%
Geneva (SD)
1,441
34%
Gorham (SD)
1,799
36%
237
43%
Town
Gorham CDP (P)

Honeoye CDP (P)
Hopewell (SD)
Manchester (P)
286
59%
1,301
30%
789
44%
3,827
43%
Naples (P)
444
47%
Naples (SD)
998
47%
Phelps (P)
912
41%
3,002
41%
203
49%
Richmond (SD)
1,484
32%
Seneca (SD)
1,005
27%
Shortsville (P)
578
38%
South Bristol (SD)
722
29%
Manchester (SD)
Phelps (SD)
Port Gibson CDP (P)
Victor (P)
995
30%
Victor (SD)
5,688
26%
West Bloomfield (SD)
1,075
42%


36069
9%
28%
63%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (56)
good (57)
good (57)

Household Survival Budget, Ontario County

report income.
249
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$563
$834
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$154
$484
Taxes
$259
$643
Monthly Total
$1,690
$5,322
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,280
$63,864
Hourly Wage
$10.14
$31.93
ALICE IN ORANGE COUNTY


36071
12%
29%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (30)
good (57)
good (57)

Household Survival Budget, Orange County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$886
$1,258
Child Care
$1,625
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$338
$676
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$193
$555
Taxes
$370
$850
Monthly Total
$2,120
$6,101
ANNUAL TOTAL
$25,440
$73,212
Hourly Wage
$12.72
$36.61
Town
Balmville CDP (P)
Beaver Dam Lake CDP
(P)
Blooming Grove (SD)
Chester (P)
Chester (SD)
Cornwall (SD)
Cornwall-on-Hudson (P)
Crawford (SD)
Deerpark (SD)
Firthcliffe CDP (P)
Florida (P)
Fort Montgomery CDP
(P)
Gardnertown CDP (P)
Goshen (P)
Goshen (SD)
Greenville (SD)
Greenwood Lake (P)
Hamptonburgh (SD)
Harriman (P)
Highland Falls (P)
Highlands (SD)
Kiryas Joel (P)
Maybrook (P)
Mechanicstown CDP (P)
Middletown (P)
Minisink (SD)
Monroe (P)
Monroe (SD)
Montgomery (P)
Montgomery (SD)
Mount Hope (SD)
Mountain Lodge Park
CDP (P)
New Windsor (SD)
New Windsor CDP (P)
Newburgh (P)
Newburgh (SD)
Orange Lake CDP (P)
Otisville (P)
Pine Bush CDP (P)
Port Jervis (P)
Salisbury Mills CDP (P)
Scotchtown CDP (P)
South Blooming Grove
(P)
Tuxedo (SD)
Tuxedo Park (P)
Unionville (P)
Vails Gate CDP (P)
Walden (P)
Wallkill (SD)
Walton Park CDP (P)
Warwick (P)
Warwick (SD)
Washington Heights
CDP (P)
Washingtonville (P)
Wawayanda (SD)
West Point CDP (P)
Woodbury (P)
Woodbury (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,150
32%
832
22%
6,146
1,665
4,161
4,714
1,171
3,142
3,122
1,962
1,069
31%
43%
28%
27%
21%
32%
58%
35%
30%
537
24%
1,653
2,080
4,561
1,505
1,159
1,624
1,052
1,715
3,111
3,772
1,124
2,738
9,976
1,450
2,692
10,172
1,429
8,013
1,761
29%
37%
30%
28%
34%
25%
40%
43%
34%
78%
52%
51%
56%
29%
27%
43%
34%
40%
38%
701
27%
9,272
3,358
8,762
10,826
2,600
429
683
3,413
103
3,151
40%
43%
68%
35%
34%
39%
66%
66%
31%
37%
1,143
37%
1,560
222
230
1,486
2,458
9,962
762
2,856
11,727
25%
13%
40%
72%
44%
39%
12%
38%
29%
732
26%
2,111
2,335
777
3,358
3,586
37%
29%
22%
18%
20%

report income.
250
Orange County, 2014
ALICE IN ORLEANS COUNTY
Orleans County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Albion (P)
2,332
60%
Albion (SD)
2,343
51%
Barre (SD)
742
37%
Carlton (SD)
1,254
40%
Clarendon (SD)
1,518
37%
Gaines (SD)
1,412
54%
876
63%
1,060
33%
317
41%
Medina (P)
2,407
52%
Murray (SD)
2,081
51%
Ridgeway (SD)
2,586
40%
Shelby (SD)
1,993
52%
905
36%
Town
Holley (P)
Kendall (SD)
Lyndonville (P)
Yates (SD)


36073
15%
55%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (52)
poor (46)
poor (44)

Household Survival Budget, Orleans County

report income.
251
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$563
$834
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$154
$451
Taxes
$259
$550
Monthly Total
$1,690
$4,966
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,280
$59,592
Hourly Wage
$10.14
$29.80
ALICE IN OSWEGO COUNTY
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Albion (SD)
730
50%
Altmar (P)
143
73%
Amboy (SD)
492
38%
Boylston (SD)
195
43%
Central Square (P)
783
46%
Cleveland (P)
308
46%
1,874
45%
396
45%
Fulton (P)
4,532
61%
Granby (SD)
2,387
43%
Hannibal (P)
250
43%
Hannibal (SD)
1,890
48%
Hastings (SD)
3,390
41%
Lacona (P)
243
42%
Mexico (P)
693
42%
Mexico (SD)
1,989
38%
Minetto (SD)
653
33%
Minetto CDP (P)
405
32%
New Haven (SD)
1,059
36%
Orwell (SD)
414
38%

to 100 (better).
Oswego (P)
7,669
53%
Oswego (SD)
1,590
21%
Palermo (SD)
1,348
47%
Parish (P)
197
31%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (54)
poor (47)
fair (51)
Parish (SD)
913
39%
Phoenix (P)
968
56%
Pulaski (P)
943
52%
Redfield (SD)
214
47%
Richland (SD)
2,171
49%
Sand Ridge CDP (P)
393
51%
Sandy Creek (P)
264
46%
Sandy Creek (SD)
1,565
47%
Schroeppel (SD)
3,259
38%
Scriba (SD)
2,818
36%
Volney (SD)
2,136
39%
West Monroe (SD)
1,596
42%
Williamstown (SD)
416
46%


Constantia (SD)
Constantia CDP (P)
36075
19%
55%
26%
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Household Survival Budget, Oswego County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$561
$801
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$153
$447
Taxes
$258
$536
Monthly Total
$1,686
$4,915
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,232
$58,980
Hourly Wage
$10.12
$29.49

report income.
252
Oswego County, 2014
ALICE IN OTSEGO COUNTY
Otsego County, 2014

Total HH
Burlington (SD)
453
41%
Butternuts (SD)
852
42%
Cherry Valley (P)
257
50%
Cherry Valley (SD)
582
43%
1,014
42%
Decatur (SD)
142
57%
Edmeston (SD)
702
39%
Edmeston CDP (P)
297
42%
Exeter (SD)
363
45%
Gilbertsville (P)
157
55%
Hartwick (SD)
807
40%
Hartwick CDP (P)
254
47%
Laurens (P)
104
56%
Laurens (SD)
1,119
49%
Maryland (SD)
762
51%
Middlefield (SD)
858
35%
Milford (P)
197
55%
1,337
46%
Morris (P)
212
44%
Morris (SD)
671
43%
Town
Cooperstown (P)
Milford (SD)
New Lisbon (SD)
407
39%
Oneonta (P)
4,105
57%
Oneonta (SD)
1,985
41%
457
29%
Otego (SD)
1,273
44%
Otsego (SD)
1,613
39%
Pittsfield (SD)
500
48%
Plainfield (SD)
347
45%
Richfield (SD)
997
50%
Richfield Springs (P)
560
62%
Roseboom (SD)
288
42%
Schenevus CDP (P)
145
57%
Springfield (SD)
555
44%
Otego (P)
Unadilla (P)
428
61%
1,753
49%
West End CDP (P)
768
49%
Westford (SD)
349
46%
Worcester (SD)
978
40%
Worcester CDP (P)
458
36%
Unadilla (SD)

% ALICE
&
Poverty

report income.
253


36077
15%
54%
31%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (55)
fair (50)
fair (52)

Household Survival Budget, Otsego County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$628
$844
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$163
$453
Taxes
$284
$554
Monthly Total
$1,789
$4,982
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,468
$59,784
Hourly Wage
$10.73
$29.89
ALICE IN PUTNAM COUNTY
Putnam County, 2014

% ALICE
&
Poverty
Brewster (P)
869
71%
Brewster Hill CDP (P)
474
30%
Carmel (SD)
11,327
32%
Carmel Hamlet CDP (P)
2,227
39%
891
46%
Kent (SD)
4,583
35%
Lake Carmel CDP (P)
2,798
39%
Mahopac CDP (P)
2,852
36%
Nelsonville (P)
253
39%
Patterson (SD)
3,835
36%
631
38%
Philipstown (SD)
3,681
33%
Putnam Lake CDP (P)
1,474
34%
Putnam Valley (SD)
4,188
32%
Southeast (SD)
6,550
38%
Cold Spring (P)

Total HH
Town
36079
5%
Peach Lake CDP (P)
28%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (24)
good (60)
good (66)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$2,188
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$199
$589
Taxes
$390
$950
Monthly Total
$2,193
$6,477
ANNUAL TOTAL
$26,316
$77,724
Hourly Wage
$13.16
$38.86

report income.
254
Household Survival Budget, Putnam County
ALICE IN QUEENS COUNTY
Queens County, 2014

Town
Queens (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
780,069
51%


36081
15%
50%
35%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (38)
fair (54)
poor (22)

Household Survival Budget, Queens County

report income.
255
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$1,354
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$207
$486
Taxes
$463
$751
Monthly Total
$2,274
$5,341
ANNUAL TOTAL
$27,288
$64,092
Hourly Wage
$13.64
$32.05
ALICE IN RENSSELAER COUNTY
Rensselaer County, 2014


36083
13%
25%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (47)
good (59)
good (59)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Averill Park CDP (P)
682
21%
Berlin (SD)
745
31%
5,151
20%
Castleton-on-Hudson
(P)
501
34%
East Greenbush (SD)
6,617
25%
East Greenbush CDP (P)
1,808
14%
East Nassau (P)
241
43%
Grafton (SD)
854
27%
Hampton Manor CDP (P)
999
50%
Hoosick (SD)
2,767
41%
Hoosick Falls (P)
1,405
49%
508
43%
Nassau (SD)
2,043
41%
North Greenbush (SD)
4,693
25%
661
42%
Pittstown (SD)
2,256
36%
Poestenkill (SD)
1,632
19%
385
32%
Rensselaer (P)
4,279
50%
Sand Lake (SD)
3,266
17%
225
46%
Schaghticoke (SD)
2,785
30%
Schodack (SD)
5,097
29%
Stephentown (SD)
1,187
35%
Troy (P)
19,962
57%
191
25%
West Sand Lake CDP (P)
1,010
13%
Wynantskill CDP (P)
1,220
28%
Town
Brunswick (SD)
Nassau (P)
Petersburgh (SD)
Poestenkill CDP (P)
Schaghticoke (P)
Valley Falls (P)
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$662
$929
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$167
$497
Taxes
$298
$682
Monthly Total
$1,841
$5,469
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,092
$65,628
Hourly Wage
$11.05
$32.81

report income.
256
Household Survival Budget, Rensselaer County
ALICE IN RICHMOND COUNTY
Richmond County, 2014

Town
Staten Island (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
165,079
40%


36085
15%
27%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (39)
fair (52)
poor (49)

Household Survival Budget, Richmond County

report income.
257
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$1,354
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$207
$486
Taxes
$463
$751
Monthly Total
$2,274
$5,341
ANNUAL TOTAL
$27,288
$64,092
Hourly Wage
$13.64
$32.05
ALICE IN ROCKLAND COUNTY


Airmont (P)
2,711
37%
Bardonia CDP (P)
1,331
32%
Blauvelt CDP (P)
1,715
27%
Chestnut Ridge (P)
2,551
33%
Clarkstown (SD)
29,238
30%
Congers CDP (P)
2,867
30%
136
20%
Haverstraw (P)
3,647
60%
Haverstraw (SD)
11,842
46%
292
37%
1,900
27%
949
91%
Monsey CDP (P)
3,733
73%
Montebello (P)
1,499
15%
Mount Ivy CDP (P)
2,706
52%
Nanuet CDP (P)
6,698
36%
New CDP (P)
11,005
23%
New Hempstead (P)
1,169
20%
New Square (P)
1,228
93%
Nyack (P)
3,295
55%
Orangeburg CDP (P)
1,368
45%
Orangetown (SD)
17,914
35%
Pearl River CDP (P)
5,628
33%
Piermont (P)
1,258
27%
Pomona (P)
928
19%
Ramapo (SD)
34,365
51%
Sloatsburg (P)
1,075
38%
South Nyack (P)
1,267
31%
Sparkill CDP (P)
503
37%
Spring Valley (P)
8,604
70%
Stony Point (SD)
5,035
31%
Stony Point CDP (P)
4,182
33%
Suffern (P)
4,334
43%
Tappan CDP (P)
2,284
20%
Thiells CDP (P)
1,588
23%
Upper Nyack (P)
741
30%
Valley Cottage CDP (P)
3,485
29%
Viola CDP (P)
1,690
51%
Wesley Hills (P)
1,639
33%
West Haverstraw (P)
2,963
39%
West Nyack CDP (P)
1,241
29%
Hillburn (P)
11%
31%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (14)
fair (56)
good (59)

Household Survival Budget, Rockland County

SINGLE ADULT
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Grand View-on-Hudson
(P)
36087
58%
Total HH
Town
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,163
$1,440
Child Care
$2,188
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$199
$589
Taxes
$390
$950
Monthly Total
$2,193
$6,477
ANNUAL TOTAL
$26,316
$77,724
Hourly Wage
$13.16
$38.86
Hillcrest CDP (P)

Kaser (P)

report income.
258
Rockland County, 2014
ALICE IN SARATOGA COUNTY
Saratoga County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ballston (SD)
3,620
22%
Ballston Spa (P)
2,499
43%
Charlton (SD)
1,604
18%
Clifton Park (SD)
14,537
17%
970
53%
2,397
43%
Town
Corinth (P)
Corinth (SD)
Country Knolls CDP (P)
773
1%
Day (SD)
397
39%
Edinburg (SD)
661
45%
Galway (SD)
1,460
27%
Greenfield (SD)
3,228
37%
Hadley (SD)
769
43%
Hadley CDP (P)
424
47%
Halfmoon (SD)
9,487
31%
Malta (SD)
6,353
21%
Mechanicville (P)
2,272
52%
Milton (SD)
7,374
35%
Milton CDP (P)
1,214
23%
Moreau (SD)
5,834
37%
558
37%
1,888
28%
Providence (SD)
813
31%
Round Lake (P)
260
23%
Saratoga (SD)
2,283
34%
Saratoga Springs (P)
11,590
33%
North Ballston Spa

CDP (P)
Northumberland (SD)
Schuylerville (P)
666
44%
1,672
46%
651
33%
3,063
27%
190
44%
Waterford (P)
1,034
47%
Waterford (SD)
3,737
37%
Wilton (SD)
6,509
31%
South Glens Falls (P)

Stillwater (P)
Stillwater (SD)
Victory (P)


36091
7%
21%
72%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (53)
good (72)
good (72)

Household Survival Budget, Saratoga County

report income.
259
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$662
$929
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$167
$497
Taxes
$298
$682
Monthly Total
$1,841
$5,469
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,092
$65,628
Hourly Wage
$11.05
$32.81
ALICE IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY
Schenectady County, 2014


33%
56%
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Delanson (P)
131
29%
Duane Lake CDP (P)
185
0%
2,159
23%
Duanesburg (SD)
Duanesburg CDP (P)
120
28%
East Glenville CDP (P)
2,607
35%
Glenville (SD)
11,368
35%
237
34%
Niskayuna (SD)
7,904
24%
Niskayuna CDP (P)
1,806
16%
Princetown (SD)
749
32%
Rotterdam (SD)
11,109
40%
Rotterdam CDP (P)
7,959
44%
Schenectady (P)
24,127
63%
Schenectady (SD)
24,557
64%
Scotia (P)
2,946
44%
Mariaville Lake CDP (P)
36093
11%
Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (52)
good (61)
fair (51)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$662
$929
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$167
$497
Taxes
$298
$682
Monthly Total
$1,841
$5,469
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,092
$65,628
Hourly Wage
$11.05
$32.81

report income.
260
Household Survival Budget, Schenectady County
ALICE IN SCHOHARIE COUNTY
Schoharie County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Blenheim (SD)
155
33%
Broome (SD)
413
48%
Carlisle (SD)
693
35%
Central Bridge CDP (P)
218
39%
Cobleskill (P)
1,579
55%
Cobleskill (SD)
2,387
46%
Conesville (SD)
329
36%
Esperance (P)
134
31%
Esperance (SD)
775
33%
Fulton (SD)
514
44%
Gilboa (SD)
506
30%
Jefferson (SD)
635
38%
Middleburgh (P)
630
49%
Middleburgh (SD)
1,499
46%
Richmondville (P)
360
47%
1,023
48%
421
49%
1,420
36%
Seward (SD)
600
31%
Sharon (SD)
693
52%
Sharon Springs (P)
213
53%
Summit (SD)
454
40%
Wright (SD)
643
27%
Town
Richmondville (SD)
Schoharie (P)
Schoharie (SD)


36095
13%
27%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (54)
poor (45)
fair (51)

Household Survival Budget, Schoharie County

report income.
261
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$662
$929
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$167
$465
Taxes
$298
$588
Monthly Total
$1,841
$5,113
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,092
$61,356
Hourly Wage
$11.05
$30.68
ALICE IN SCHUYLER COUNTY
Schuyler County, 2014


36097
12%
23%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Burdett (P)
161
35%
Catharine (SD)
718
37%
Cayuta (SD)
155
38%
Dix (SD)
1,669
44%
Hector (SD)
2,136
24%
Montour (SD)
1,105
42%
Montour Falls (P)
824
50%
Odessa (P)
281
42%
Orange (SD)
637
37%
Reading (SD)
648
28%
Tyrone (SD)
691
39%
Watkins Glen (P)
864
46%
Town


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (66)
good (62)
good (86)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$489
$643
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$144
$425
Taxes
$235
$473
Monthly Total
$1,582
$4,672
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,984
$56,064
Hourly Wage
$9.49
$28.03

report income.
262
Household Survival Budget, Schuyler County
ALICE IN SENECA COUNTY
Seneca County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Covert (SD)
934
37%
Fayette (SD)
1,487
31%
Interlaken (P)
248
48%
Junius (SD)
543
42%
Lodi (P)
163
54%
Lodi (SD)
649
40%
Ovid (P)
286
51%
Ovid (SD)
922
49%
Romulus (SD)
831
38%
Romulus CDP (P)
191
49%
Seneca Falls (SD)
3,929
44%
Seneca Falls CDP (P)
2,895
43%
373
44%
Varick (SD)
699
32%
Waterloo (P)
2,011
44%
Waterloo (SD)
3,118
49%
Town
Tyre (SD)


36099
12%
30%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (57)
good (60)
poor (39)

Household Survival Budget, Seneca County

report income.
263
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$484
$710
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$143
$434
Taxes
$233
$500
Monthly Total
$1,574
$4,775
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,888
$57,300
Hourly Wage
$9.44
$28.65
ALICE IN ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY


36089
17%
48%
35%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (58)
poor (48)
poor (42)

Household Survival Budget, St. Lawrence County

SINGLE ADULT
Housing
$503
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
$724
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Brasher (SD)
852
52%
Brasher Falls CDP (P)
215
54%
Canton (P)
1,683
47%
Canton (SD)
3,437
45%
Clifton (SD)
352
56%
Colton (SD)
765
44%
Colton CDP (P)
181
51%
De Kalb (SD)
786
45%
De Peyster (SD)
334
60%
DeKalb Junction CDP

(P)
139
34%
Edwards (SD)
357
67%
Edwards CDP (P)
142
70%
Fine (SD)
556
53%
Fowler (SD)
802
47%
Gouverneur (P)
1,620
61%
Gouverneur (SD)
2,415
58%
Hailesboro CDP (P)
233
57%
Hammond (P)
135
66%
Hammond (SD)
598
53%
Hannawa Falls CDP (P)
446
37%
Hermon (P)
170
65%
Hermon (SD)
418
51%
Heuvelton (P)
287
43%
Hopkinton (SD)
410
62%
Lawrence (SD)
674
43%
Lisbon (SD)
1,540
42%
Louisville (SD)
1,348
51%
Macomb (SD)
312
43%
Madrid (SD)
664
51%
Madrid CDP (P)
259
54%
Massena (P)
4,933
59%
Massena (SD)
5,848
58%
Morristown (P)
179
29%
Morristown (SD)
869
39%
1,839
53%
Norfolk CDP (P)
583
55%
Norwood (P)
637
55%
Ogdensburg (P)
4,170
55%
Oswegatchie (SD)
1,502
47%
Parishville (SD)
886
54%
Parishville CDP (P)
331
62%
Piercefield (SD)
136
48%
Pierrepont (SD)
1,035
39%
Pitcairn (SD)
268
44%
Potsdam (P)
2,425
58%
Potsdam (SD)
4,931
49%
143
56%
Town
Norfolk (SD)
Child Care
$1,208
Rensselaer Falls (P)
Food
$202
$612
Richville (P)
129
50%
Rossie (SD)
314
52%
768
51%
Star Lake CDP (P)
314
58%
Transportation
$369
$738
Russell (SD)
Health Care
$143
$573
Stockholm (SD)
1,454
54%
Miscellaneous
$146
$436
Waddington (P)
384
43%
Waddington (SD)
896
36%
Taxes
$240
$505
Winthrop CDP (P)
149
45%
Monthly Total
$1,603
$4,796
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,236
$57,552
Hourly Wage
$9.62
$28.78

report income.
264
St. Lawrence County, 2014
ALICE IN STEUBEN COUNTY
Steuben County, 2014

Town
Addison (P)
Total HH
745
35%
1,052
35%
Arkport (P)
338
35%
Avoca (P)
380
38%
Avoca (SD)
939
42%
Bath (P)
2,810
48%
Bath (SD)
5,234
45%
Bradford (SD)
291
38%
Cameron (SD)
343
49%
Campbell (SD)
Addison (SD)
1,422
39%
Campbell CDP (P)
305
54%
Canisteo (P)
890
42%
1,320
35%
Caton (SD)
828
27%
Cohocton (P)
368
45%
Cohocton (SD)
974
41%
Coopers Plains CDP (P)
231
59%
Corning (P)
5,239
39%
Corning (SD)
2,535
28%
Dansville (SD)
664
42%
3,531
28%
440
31%
Canisteo (SD)
Erwin (SD)
Fremont (SD)
Gang Mills CDP (P)
1,764
25%
Greenwood (SD)
304
26%
Hammondsport (P)
357
35%
Hartsville (SD)
259
27%
Hornby (SD)

% ALICE
&
Poverty
651
30%
Hornell (P)
3,621
50%
Hornellsville (SD)
1,922
47%
Howard (SD)
542
43%
Jasper (SD)
417
41%
Lindley (SD)
783
30%
North Hornell (P)
338
32%
Painted Post (P)
811
36%
Prattsburgh (SD)
953
38%
Prattsburgh CDP (P)
310
41%
Pulteney (SD)
553
38%
Rathbone (SD)
383
43%
Riverside (P)
238
39%
Savona (P)
295
35%
South Corning (P)
464
34%
Thurston (SD)
491
29%
Troupsburg (SD)
416
43%
Tuscarora (SD)
573
46%
Urbana (SD)
996
32%
Wayland (P)


36101
16%
24%
60%


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (61)
fair (55)
fair (54)

Household Survival Budget, Steuben County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$468
$677
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
812
49%
1,795
44%
Wayne (SD)
477
32%
West Union (SD)
157
50%
Health Care
$143
$573
Wheeler (SD)
470
36%
Miscellaneous
$141
$429
Woodhull (SD)
710
45%
Taxes
$228
$486
Monthly Total
$1,551
$4,723
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,612
$56,676
Hourly Wage
$9.31
$28.34
Wayland (SD)

report income.
265
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
ALICE IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
Suffolk County, 2014


32%
61%
Amagansett CDP (P)

Amityville (P)

to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (15)
good (63)
fair (52)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$1,033
$1,613
Child Care
$2,188
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$338
$676
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$213
$684
Taxes
$431
$1,229
Monthly Total
$2,348
$7,527
ANNUAL TOTAL
$28,176
$90,324
Hourly Wage
$14.09
$45.16
35%
40%
751
57%
21%
Babylon (P)
4,510
32%
Babylon (SD)
69,634
41%
644
33%
9,598
51%
Bayport CDP (P)
3,131
44%
Baywood CDP (P)
2,201
45%
Belle Terre (P)
286
8%
Bellport (P)
967
37%
Blue Point CDP (P)
1,639
32%
Bohemia CDP (P)
3,569
38%
Brentwood CDP (P)
13,882
51%
599
34%
Brightwaters (P)
1,069
18%
Brookhaven (SD)
162,015
39%
1,086
39%
Bridgehampton CDP (P)
Calverton CDP (P)
2,953
59%
Center Moriches CDP (P)
2,818
44%
Centereach CDP (P)
9,888
31%
Centerport CDP (P)
1,943
29%
Central Islip CDP (P)
9,728
55%
Cold Spring Harbor

CDP (P)
1,733
16%
Commack CDP (P)
11,770
28%
Copiague CDP (P)
7,495
50%
Coram CDP (P)
14,844
44%
Cutchogue CDP (P)
1,253
38%
Deer Park CDP (P)
9,345
40%
Dix Hills CDP (P)
8,270
21%
East Farmingdale CDP (P)
2,003
42%
590
35%
East Hampton (P)

East Hampton (SD)
9,207
42%
East Hampton North

CDP (P)
1,637
53%
East Islip CDP (P)
4,407
26%
450
45%
East Marion CDP (P)
Household Survival Budget, Suffolk County
502
3,449
215
Brookhaven CDP (P)
%
ALICE &
Poverty
Aquebogue CDP (P)
Baiting Hollow CDP (P)
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total
HH
Asharoken (P)
Bay Shore CDP (P)
36103
7%
Town
East Moriches CDP (P)
1,892
37%
East Northport CDP (P)
6,990
33%
East Patchogue CDP (P)
8,429
52%
East Quogue CDP (P)
1,699
36%
East Shoreham CDP (P)
2,033
16%
675
40%
Eastport CDP (P)

Eatons Neck CDP (P)
529
28%
Elwood CDP (P)
3,543
26%
Farmingville CDP (P)
4,782
33%
103
36%
Fire Island CDP (P)

Fishers Island CDP (P)
Flanders CDP (P)
132
9%
1,402
50%
Fort Salonga CDP (P)
3,303
24%
Gordon Heights CDP (P)
1,173
51%
Great River CDP (P)
541
22%
Greenlawn CDP (P)
4,528
39%
906
58%
Greenport (P)

report income.
266
ALICE IN SUFFOLK COUNTY

SUFFOLK COUNTY


report income.
267

Town
Greenport West CDP (P)
Halesite CDP (P)
Hampton Bays CDP (P)
Hauppauge CDP (P)
Head of the Harbor (P)
Holbrook CDP (P)
Total
HH
%
ALICE &
Poverty
929
1,075
5,085
7,117
475
9,151
54%
16%
47%
31%
24%
32%
Holtsville CDP (P)
6,754
35%
Huntington (SD)
Huntington Bay (P)
Huntington CDP (P)
Huntington Station
CDP (P)
Islandia (P)
Islip (SD)
Islip CDP (P)
Islip Terrace CDP (P)
Jamesport CDP (P)
Kings Park CDP (P)
Lake Grove (P)
Lake Ronkonkoma CDP
(P)
Laurel CDP (P)
Lindenhurst (P)
Lloyd Harbor (P)
Manorville CDP (P)
Mastic Beach (P)
Mastic CDP (P)
Mattituck CDP (P)
Medford CDP (P)
Melville CDP (P)
Middle Island CDP (P)
Miller Place CDP (P)
Montauk CDP (P)
Moriches CDP (P)
Mount Sinai CDP (P)
Nesconset CDP (P)
New Suffolk CDP (P)
Nissequogue (P)
North Amityville CDP (P)
North Babylon CDP (P)
North Bay Shore CDP (P)
North Bellport CDP (P)
North Great River CDP (P)
North Haven (P)
North Lindenhurst CDP
(P)
North Patchogue CDP (P)
North Sea CDP (P)
Northampton CDP (P)
Northport (P)
Northville CDP (P)
Northwest Harbor CDP
(P)
Noyack CDP (P)
Oak Beach-Captree
CDP (P)
Oakdale CDP (P)
Old Field (P)
Orient CDP (P)
69,026
572
7,019
31%
22%
29%
10,364
46%
1,012
102,716
6,292
1,679
564
6,099
3,695
32%
40%
29%
32%
37%
31%
38%
6,782
35%
481
9,012
1,147
4,729
4,786
5,024
1,860
7,823
6,883
4,120
3,929
1,742
1,129
4,251
4,474
161
560
5,378
5,972
4,740
3,490
1,290
381
22%
38%
14%
34%
55%
53%
43%
38%
25%
50%
26%
48%
56%
29%
24%
46%
12%
48%
35%
51%
54%
28%
27%
3,678
47%
2,267
1,708
244
2,933
670
40%
42%
83%
30%
42%
1,669
35%
1,621
44%
181
39%
2,852
329
359
40%
10%
26%
Town
Patchogue (P)
Peconic CDP (P)
Poospatuck Reservation
(SD)
Poquott (P)
Port Jefferson (P)
Port Jefferson Station
CDP (P)
Quiogue CDP (P)
Quogue (P)
Remsenburg-Speonk
CDP (P)
Ridge CDP (P)
Riverhead (SD)
Riverhead CDP (P)
Riverside CDP (P)
Rocky Point CDP (P)
Ronkonkoma CDP (P)
Sag Harbor (P)
Sagaponack (P)
Sayville CDP (P)
Selden CDP (P)
Setauket-East Setauket
CDP (P)
Shelter Island (SD)
Shelter Island CDP (P)
Shelter Island Heights
CDP (P)
Shinnecock Hills CDP (P)
Shirley CDP (P)
Shoreham (P)
Smithtown (SD)
Smithtown CDP (P)
Sound Beach CDP (P)
South Huntington CDP
(P)
Southampton (P)
Southampton (SD)
Southold (SD)
Southold CDP (P)
Springs CDP (P)
St. James CDP (P)
Stony Brook CDP (P)
Terryville CDP (P)
Tuckahoe CDP (P)
Village of the Branch (P)
Wading River CDP (P)
Wainscott CDP (P)
Water Mill CDP (P)
West Babylon CDP (P)
West Bay Shore CDP (P)
West Hills CDP (P)
West Islip CDP (P)
West Sayville CDP (P)
Westhampton Beach (P)
Westhampton CDP (P)
Wheatley Heights CDP (P)
Wyandanch CDP (P)
Yaphank CDP (P)
Total
HH
%
ALICE &
Poverty
4,616
262
53%
36%
146
78%
361
3,044
25%
30%
2,820
40%
236
404
36%
32%
914
42%
5,372
12,685
4,927
773
4,737
6,342
841
111
5,759
6,316
53%
47%
57%
86%
34%
38%
33%
9%
30%
40%
5,089
22%
1,063
524
29%
37%
536
22%
736
7,778
188
39,431
8,649
2,488
51%
43%
19%
27%
27%
42%
3,359
35%
1,260
21,378
9,411
2,618
2,314
4,535
4,846
3,684
518
591
2,707
301
959
14,039
1,652
1,952
8,855
1,596
849
1,107
1,435
3,040
1,771
39%
44%
39%
30%
40%
33%
18%
36%
42%
17%
26%
47%
28%
38%
26%
30%
28%
25%
41%
39%
33%
55%
33%
ALICE IN SULLIVAN COUNTY
Sullivan County, 2014


36105
14%
54%
32%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (43)
poor (48)
poor (43)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,749
36%
165
55%
1,225
37%
593
40%
Delaware (SD)
1,067
39%
Fallsburg (SD)
3,786
50%
Forestburgh (SD)
368
33%
Fremont (SD)
619
43%
Highland (SD)
1,065
48%
Hortonville CDP (P)
107
12%
Jeffersonville (P)
139
38%
Liberty (P)
1,589
62%
Liberty (SD)
3,567
54%
Livingston Manor
CDP (P)
440
59%
Loch Sheldrake CDP (P)
295
36%
Lumberland (SD)
988
41%
Mamakating (SD)
4,475
43%
Monticello (P)
2,785
72%
204
55%
1,467
45%
536
24%
1,544
49%
Roscoe CDP (P)
295
61%
South Fallsburg CDP (P)
806
63%
5,827
57%
Tusten (SD)
614
48%
Woodridge (P)
303
65%
Wurtsboro (P)
506
42%
Town
Bethel (SD)
Bloomingburg (P)
Callicoon (SD)
Cochecton (SD)
Narrowsburg CDP (P)

Neversink (SD)
Rock Hill CDP (P)
Rockland (SD)
Thompson (SD)
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$727
$907
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$176
$462
Taxes
$323
$579
Monthly Total
$1,940
$5,079
ANNUAL TOTAL
$23,280
$60,948
Hourly Wage
$11.64
$30.47

report income.
268
Household Survival Budget, Sullivan County
ALICE IN TIOGA COUNTY
Tioga County, 2014

Town
Apalachin CDP (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
492
37%
3,553
41%
Berkshire (SD)
566
40%
Candor (P)
283
33%
1,995
38%
449
44%
1,692
39%
Nichols (P)
172
36%
Nichols (SD)
931
40%
Owego (P)
1,699
48%
Owego (SD)
7,665
28%
Richford (SD)
480
49%
Spencer (P)
391
54%
Spencer (SD)
1,262
51%
Tioga (SD)
2,034
41%
Waverly (P)
1,885
45%
Barton (SD)
Candor (SD)
Newark Valley (P)
Newark Valley (SD)


36107
10%
26%
64%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (60)
fair (55)
fair (52)

Household Survival Budget, Tioga County

report income.
269
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$512
$692
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$147
$432
Taxes
$242
$492
Monthly Total
$1,615
$4,747
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,380
$56,964
Hourly Wage
$9.69
$28.48
ALICE IN TOMPKINS COUNTY
Tompkins County, 2014


36109
18%
48%
34%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Caroline (SD)
1,451
41%
Cayuga Heights (P)
1,571
34%
Danby (SD)
1,462
41%
Dryden (P)
889
51%
Dryden (SD)
6,120
46%
East Ithaca CDP (P)
1,194
61%
Enfield (SD)
1,507
53%
Forest Home CDP (P)
298
74%
Freeville (P)
237
50%
Groton (P)
1,033
62%
Groton (SD)
2,540
52%
Ithaca (P)
9,489
70%
Ithaca (SD)
6,994
49%
Lansing (P)
1,684
48%
Lansing (SD)
4,745
36%
Newfield (SD)
2,025
46%
333
48%
1,167
49%
Town
Newfield Hamlet CDP (P)


to 100 (better).
Northeast Ithaca CDP

(P)
Northwest Ithaca CDP
(P)
South Hill CDP (P)
Trumansburg (P)
Ulysses (SD)
498
52%
1,022
40%
709
56%
2,007
42%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (50)
poor (44)
fair (52)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$769
$1,130
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$182
$526
Taxes
$340
$765
Monthly Total
$2,005
$5,782
ANNUAL TOTAL
$24,060
$69,384
Hourly Wage
$12.03
$34.69

report income.
270
Household Survival Budget, Tompkins County
ALICE IN ULSTER COUNTY
Ulster County, 2014

Town
Accord CDP (P)
187
7%
Clintondale CDP (P)
540
49%
Cragsmoor CDP (P)
289
31%
Denning (SD)
242
37%
Ellenville (P)
1,490
55%
Esopus (SD)
3,294
36%
Gardiner (SD)
2,124
35%
Gardiner CDP (P)
301
45%
Glasco CDP (P)
953
39%
High Falls CDP (P)
364
50%
Highland CDP (P)
2,228
47%
310
12%
Hurley (SD)
2,659
38%
Hurley CDP (P)
1,370
38%
Hillside CDP (P)
Kerhonkson CDP (P)
651
46%
9,834
61%
Kingston (SD)
435
50%
Lake Katrine CDP (P)
824
61%
Lincoln Park CDP (P)
1,075
65%
Lloyd (SD)
4,182
41%
145
54%
Marbletown (SD)
2,466
43%
Marlboro CDP (P)
1,375
43%
Marlborough (SD)
3,383
45%
Milton CDP (P)
549
47%
Napanoch CDP (P)
465
55%
New Paltz (P)
1,994
57%
New Paltz (SD)
4,480
42%
Olive (SD)
Kingston (P)
Malden-on-Hudson
CDP (P)
2,147
44%
Phoenicia CDP (P)
204
69%
Pine Hill CDP (P)
105
64%
3,965
44%
497
53%
1,528
44%
Rifton CDP (P)
278
57%
Rochester (SD)
2,741
33%
Rosendale (SD)
2,457
47%
Plattekill (SD)
Plattekill CDP (P)
Port Ewen CDP (P)
Rosendale Hamlet
CDP (P)
609
43%
Saugerties (P)
1,683
56%
Saugerties (SD)
7,444
44%
777
29%
Shandaken (SD)
1,497
56%
Shawangunk (SD)
3,730
28%
Shokan CDP (P)
491
50%
Stone Ridge CDP (P)
451
31%
Tillson CDP (P)
638
38%
Saugerties South CDP

(P)
Ulster (SD)
Total HH

% ALICE
&
Poverty


36111
12%
33%
55%


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (41)
poor (41)
fair (52)

Household Survival Budget, Ulster County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$1,062
Child Care
$1,625
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
4,840
54%
Walker Valley CDP (P)
260
28%
Wallkill CDP (P)
835
36%
Wawarsing (SD)
4,370
50%
913
47%
Woodstock (SD)
3,004
39%
Health Care
$143
$573
Woodstock CDP (P)
1,104
40%
Miscellaneous
$167
$542
479
25%
Taxes
$296
$814
Monthly Total
$1,836
$5,966
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,032
$71,592
Hourly Wage
$11.02
$35.80
West Hurley CDP (P)
Zena CDP (P)

report income.
271
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
ALICE IN WARREN COUNTY
Warren County, 2014


36113
14%
27%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,069
31%
266
31%
1,210
49%
368
50%
Glens Falls (P)
6,747
52%
Glens Falls North CDP

(P)
Town
Bolton (SD)
Bolton Landing CDP (P)
Chester (SD)
Chestertown CDP (P)
3,737
36%
Hague (SD)
373
32%
Horicon (SD)
763
33%
Johnsburg (SD)
743
50%
Lake George (P)
418
41%
Lake George (SD)
1,555
34%
Lake Luzerne (SD)
1,285
34%
Lake Luzerne CDP (P)
410
29%
North Creek CDP (P)
184
65%
Queensbury (SD)
11,412
31%
Stony Creek (SD)
349
48%
Thurman (SD)
480
50%
Warrensburg (SD)
1,713
46%
Warrensburg CDP (P)
1,321
51%
West Glens Falls CDP

(P)
2,843
36%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (53)
fair (55)
good (59)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$652
$1,015
Child Care
$1,438
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$166
$509
Taxes
$294
$718
Monthly Total
$1,826
$5,603
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,912
$67,236
Hourly Wage
$10.96
$33.62

report income.
272
Household Survival Budget, Warren County
ALICE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
Washington County, 2014

Town
Argyle (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
133
47%
1,449
31%
Cambridge (P)
730
58%
Cambridge (SD)
844
34%
Dresden (SD)
240
49%
Easton (SD)
926
31%
Fort Ann (P)
195
27%
Fort Ann (SD)
1,447
39%
Fort Edward (P)
1,353
42%
Fort Edward (SD)
2,337
46%
Granville (P)
1,079
61%
Granville (SD)
2,502
50%
Greenwich (P)
779
46%
Argyle (SD)
Greenwich (SD)
2,018
39%
Hampton (SD)
382
46%
Hartford (SD)
889
35%
Hebron (SD)
746
45%
2,851
55%
790
41%
5,078
50%
Putnam (SD)
304
30%
Salem (P)
368
48%
Salem (SD)
1,155
45%
White Creek (SD)
1,393
51%
Whitehall (P)
1,180
61%
Whitehall (SD)
1,665
53%
Hudson Falls (P)

Jackson (SD)
Kingsbury (SD)


36115
13%
32%
55%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (51)
fair (54)
poor (49)

Household Survival Budget, Washington County

report income.
273
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$652
$1,015
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$166
$477
Taxes
$294
$623
Monthly Total
$1,826
$5,246
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,912
$62,952
Hourly Wage
$10.96
$31.48
ALICE IN WAYNE COUNTY
Wayne County, 2014

Town
Arcadia (SD)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
5,784
49%
Butler (SD)
734
49%
Clyde (P)
660
52%
Galen (SD)
1,458
36%
Huron (SD)
862
34%
Lyons (P)
1,525
56%
Lyons (SD)
2,300
49%
581
29%
Macedon (SD)
3,426
34%
Marion (SD)
1,930
32%
656
51%
3,793
54%
291
54%
Ontario (SD)
4,218
35%
Ontario CDP (P)
1,006
59%
Palmyra (P)
1,426
50%
Palmyra (SD)
3,217
48%
Pultneyville CDP (P)
236
12%
Red Creek (P)
222
50%
Rose (SD)
925
45%

to 100 (better).
Savannah (SD)
575
50%
Savannah CDP (P)
194
52%
Sodus (P)
818
53%
3,256
43%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

fair (52)
good (58)
good (59)
Sodus Point (P)
446
36%
Walworth (SD)
3,432
26%
Williamson (SD)
2,585
34%
Williamson CDP (P)
961
42%
Wolcott (P)
750
61%
1,777
52%

Macedon (P)
36117
11%
53%
Marion CDP (P)
36%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Newark (P)
North Rose CDP (P)
Sodus (SD)
Wolcott (SD)
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$563
$834
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$154
$451
Taxes
$259
$550
Monthly Total
$1,690
$4,966
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,280
$59,592
Hourly Wage
$10.14
$29.80

report income.
274
Household Survival Budget, Wayne County
ALICE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY
Westchester County, 2014
Town
Ardsley (P)
Armonk CDP (P)
Bedford (SD)
Bedford CDP (P)
Bedford Hills CDP (P)
Briarcliff Manor (P)
Bronxville (P)
Buchanan (P)
Chappaqua CDP (P)
Cortlandt (SD)
Crompond CDP (P)
Croton-on-Hudson (P)
Crugers CDP (P)
Dobbs Ferry (P)
Eastchester (SD)
Eastchester CDP (P)
Elmsford (P)
Fairview CDP (P)
Goldens Bridge CDP (P)
Greenburgh (SD)
Greenville CDP (P)
Harrison (SD)
Hartsdale CDP (P)
Hastings-on-Hudson (P)
Hawthorne CDP (P)
Heritage Hills CDP (P)
Irvington (P)
Jefferson ValleyYorktown CDP (P)
Katonah CDP (P)
Lake Mohegan CDP (P)
Larchmont (P)
Lewisboro (SD)
Lincolndale CDP (P)
Mamaroneck (P)
Mamaroneck (SD)
Montrose CDP (P)
Mount Kisco (SD)
Mount Pleasant (SD)
Mount Vernon (P)
Mount Vernon (SD)
New Castle (SD)
New Rochelle (P)
New Rochelle (SD)
North Castle (SD)
North Salem (SD)
Ossining (P)
Ossining (SD)
Peekskill (P)
Pelham (P)
Pelham (SD)
Pelham Manor (P)
Pleasantville (P)
Port Chester (P)
Pound Ridge (SD)
Rye (P)
Rye (SD)
Rye Brook (P)
Scarsdale (SD)
Scotts Corners CDP (P)
Shenorock CDP (P)
Shrub Oak CDP (P)
Sleepy Hollow (P)
Somers (SD)
Tarrytown (P)
Thornwood CDP (P)
Tuckahoe (P)
Valhalla CDP (P)
Verplanck CDP (P)
White Plains (P)
Yonkers (P)
Yonkers (SD)
Yorktown (SD)
Yorktown Heights CDP
(P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,535
1,375
5,467
748
1,171
2,599
2,204
862
497
15,196
804
2,934
834
3,717
12,786
7,813
1,491
933
601
32,922
2,314
8,299
2,571
2,964
1,526
2,429
2,462
22%
13%
26%
22%
56%
19%
17%
23%
36%
27%
20%
22%
63%
22%
23%
23%
25%
53%
24%
23%
14%
27%
28%
22%
16%
25%
19%
5,252
29%
581
2,023
2,125
4,432
489
7,380
11,019
1,069
4,085
14,069
24,538
25,750
5,815
27,841
28,251
3,805
1,858
7,449
11,818
9,088
2,186
3,945
1,759
2,586
9,251
1,908
5,460
15,488
3,444
5,394
320
628
864
3,662
7,668
4,471
1,306
2,769
1,118
637
22,033
74,187
73,357
13,043
26%
28%
17%
17%
5%
35%
25%
27%
42%
25%
55%
55%
11%
40%
41%
15%
20%
41%
33%
52%
17%
15%
13%
22%
49%
17%
19%
39%
19%
7%
33%
35%
41%
46%
18%
32%
21%
33%
20%
48%
36%
45%
46%
26%
698
17%

report income.
275


36119
10%
24%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

poor (18)
fair (54)
fair (51)

Household Survival Budget, Westchester County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$967
$1,449
Child Care
$2,188
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$108
$173
Health Care
$131
$525
Miscellaneous
$172
$590
Taxes
$310
$954
Monthly Total
$1,890
$6,491
ANNUAL TOTAL
$22,680
$77,892
Hourly Wage
$11.34
$38.95
ALICE IN WYOMING COUNTY
Wyoming County, 2014

Town
Arcade (P)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
931
48%
Arcade (SD)
1,837
48%
Attica (P)
1,080
36%
Attica (SD)
1,656
30%
Bennington (SD)
1,234
30%
Bliss CDP (P)
216
44%
Castile (P)
403
36%
1,203
33%
Covington (SD)
436
25%
Eagle (SD)
470
39%
Gainesville (P)
103
42%
Gainesville (SD)
846
32%
Genesee Falls (SD)
202
56%
Java (SD)
791
38%
Middlebury (SD)
587
31%
Orangeville (SD)
602
23%
Perry (P)
1,433
48%
Perry (SD)
1,858
42%
Pike (SD)
415
43%
Pike CDP (P)
122
48%

to 100 (better).
Sheldon (SD)
973
34%
Silver Springs (P)
320
40%
Strykersville CDP (P)
239
36%
Warsaw (P)
1,613
52%

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (60)
good (60)
fair (54)
Warsaw (SD)
2,259
48%
Wethersfield (SD)
322
36%
Wyoming (P)
159
36%

Castile (SD)
36121
10%
28%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$445
$677
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$138
$429
Taxes
$221
$486
Monthly Total
$1,518
$4,723
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,216
$56,676
Hourly Wage
$9.11
$28.34

report income.
276
Household Survival Budget, Wyoming County
ALICE IN YATES COUNTY
Yates County, 2014
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Barrington (SD)
575
35%
Benton (SD)
912
33%
Dresden (P)
147
48%
Dundee (P)
706
55%
Italy (SD)
519
36%
Jerusalem (SD)
1,569
34%
Middlesex (SD)
574
31%
Milo (SD)
2,886
45%
Penn Yan (P)
2,078
53%
Potter (SD)
732
43%
Rushville (P)
270
46%
Starkey (SD)
1,310
43%
Torrey (SD)
565
31%
Town


36123
13%
26%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT


to 100 (better).

Housing
Job Community
Affordability
Opportunities
Resources

good (58)
poor (49)
poor (27)

Household Survival Budget, Yates County

report income.
277
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$659
Child Care
$1,208
Food
$202
$612
Transportation
$369
$738
Health Care
$143
$573
Miscellaneous
$145
$427
Taxes
$239
$479
Monthly Total
$1,599
$4,696
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,188
$56,352
Hourly Wage
$9.59
$28.18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AARP Public Policy Institute. (June 2015). Caregiving in the
U.S. 2015. National Alliance for Caregiving. Retrieved from
http://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015_
CaregivingintheUS_Final-Report-June-4_WEB.pdf
AARP. (September 2014). State of the 50+ in New York State.
Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/
general/2014/2014-State-of-the-50-Plus-in-New-York-State-AARPres-gen.pdf
Abel, J., Deitz, R., & Su, Y. (2014). Are Recent College Graduates
Finding Good Jobs? Current Issues in Economics and Finance,
20(1). Retrieved from
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE). (October 2013). The

Economic Benefits of Increasing the High School Graduation
Rate for Public School Students in the United States. Issue Brief.
Retrieved from
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US_econ.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE). (n.d.). The Graduation
Effect. Retrieved from
http://impact.all4ed.org/#national/undefined/
Altig, D., & Robertson, J. (June 7, 2012). The Skills Gap: Still Trying
to Separate Myth from Fact. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from
http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2012/06/the-skills-gapstill-trying-to-separate-myth-from-fact.html
American Community Survey. (2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014). 2007,
2010, 2012, and 2014; 1-, 3-, and 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from
U.S. Census Bureau: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/
pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Abraham, K., Haltiwanger, J., Sandusky, K., & Spletzer, J. (May

2016). Measuring the Gig Economy. Society of Labor Economists.
Retrieved from http://www.sole-jole.org/16375.pdf
American Community Survey. (2014). 2014; 1-, and 3-, and 5-Year
Estimates. Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.
xhtml?refresh=t
Abrahms, S. (May 31, 2013). House Sharing for Boomer Women

Who Would Rather Not Live Alone. AARP Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/home-family/your-home/info-05-2013/olderwomen-roommates-house-sharing.html
American Immigration Council. (2015). New Americans in New

York. Retrieved from
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/
new-americans-new-york
ADP Research Institute. (2014). Planning For Health Care Reform:

How Income Impacts Employee Health Benefits Participation.
Retrieved from
http://www.adp.com/~/media/RI/pdf/Benefits%20Planning%20
For%20Health%20Care%20Reform%20How%20Income%20
Impacts%20Employee%20Health%2
American Legislative Exchange Council. (2015). Report Card on

American Education: State Education Rankings. Retrieved from
https://www.alec.org/publication/report-card-on-american-education/
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (May 2015).

2014 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report. AHRQ
Pub. No. 15-0007. Retrieved from
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr14/2014nhqdr.pdf
Alaimo, K., Olson, C., & Frongillo, E. J. (2001). Food Insufficiency
and American school-aged childrens cognitive, academic, and
psychosocial development. Pediatrics, 108(3). Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/1/44
Allegretto, S. (2005). Basic Family Budgets: Working families
incomes often fail to meet living expenses around the U.S.
Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/bp165/
Allegretto, S., Doussard, M., Graham-Squire, D., Jacobs, K., &
Thompson, J. (October 2013). Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The
Public Cost Of Low-Wage Jobs in The Fast-Food Industry. UC
Berkeley Labor Center. Retrieved from http://laborcenter.berkeley.
edu/fast-food-poverty-wages-the-public-cost-of-low-wage-jobs-inthe-fast-food-industry/
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE). (September 2013). Saving
Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime
Reduction and Earnings. Retrieved from
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SavingFutures.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE). (November 2011). The
High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the Nation Pays for
Inadequate High Schools. Retrieved from
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/HighCost.pdf
American Public Transportation Association. (2007). Public

Transportation: Benefits for the 21st Century. Retrieved from
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/documents/
twenty_first_century.pdf
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2013). America's
Infrastructure Report Card. Retrieved from
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home
American Society of Civil Engineers' New York State Council.
(September 2015). 2015 Report Card for New York's Infrastructure.
Retrieved from
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/09/NY_ReportCard_FullReport_9.29.15_FINAL.pdf
Anderson, M. (April 2015). 6 Facts About Americans and their
Smartphones. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/01/6-facts-aboutamericans-and-their-smartphones/
Anderson, M., & Jaggia, S. (January 2008). Rent-to-own Agreements:
Customer Characteristics and Contract Outcomes. Retrieved from
https://www.rtohq.org/pdfs/Rent-to-own%20agreements-Customer
CharacteristicsandContractOutco
Anetzberger, G. (October 2012). An update on the Nature and
Scope of Elder Abuse. Generations: Journal of the American
Society on Aging. Retrieved from
http://www.asaging.org/blog/update-nature-and-scope-elder-abuse
278
AAA. (2013). Your Driving Costs. Retrieved from

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2013/04/cost-of-owning-and-operatingvehicle-in-u-s-increases-nearly-two-percent-according-to-aaas2013-your-driving-costs-study-archive/
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007 to 2012). High School Students

Not Graduating On Time. Kids Count Data Center. Retrieved from
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/7245-high-schoolstudents-not-graduating-on-time?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/2/2-52/
false/1024,937,809,712,517/any/14289,14290
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). Persons Age 18 To 24 Not
Attending School, Not Working, And No Degree Beyond High
School. Kids Count Data Center. Retrieved from
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5063-persons-age-18to-24-not-attending-school-not-working-and-no-degree-beyondhigh-school?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/2/2-52/false/36,868,867,133,38/
any/11484,11485
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). Race for Results: Building a
Path to Opportunity for All Children. Retrieved from
http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-RaceforResults-2014.pdf
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (February 2015). Children Ages 3 to 4 Not
Attending Preschool By Race. Retrieved from Kids Count Data Center:
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/7681-children-ages-3-to4-not-attending-preschool-byrace#detailed/2/14,17,20,39,4
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (May 2016). Young Children Not in
School By Race. Retrieved from Kids Count Data Center:
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/9012-young-children-notin-school-by-race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1485,815/403
8,4040,4039,2638,2597,4758,1353/17977,17978
Association of Progressive Rental Organizations (APRO). (n.d.).
Rent-to-Own's State Economic Impact and Statutes. Retrieved
September 20, 2016, from
https://www.rtohq.org/state-economic-impacts-statutes/
Autor, D. (2010). The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor
Market: Implications for Employment and Earnings. Retrieved from
http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554
Badillo, D. (Winter/Spring 2009). An Urban Historical Portrait of
Mexican Migration to New York City. New York History, Vol. 90(1/2),
107-124. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23185100?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Baicker, K., & Finkelstein, A. (August 2011). The Effects of Medicaid
Coverage - Learning from the Oregon Experiment. Retrieved from
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1108222
Baker, D. (2005). Whos Dreaming? Homeownership Among Low
Income Families. Retrieved from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2005_01.pdf
Baker, D., & Baribeau, S. (August 2003). Homeownership in a

Bubble: The Fast Path to Poverty? Retrieved from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2003_08.pdf
Banerjee, S. (February 2015). Utilization Patterns and Out-ofPocket Expenses for Different Health Care Services Among
American Retirees. ( Issue Brief No. 411). Retrieved from
http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_411_Feb15_H
Barr, M., & Blank, R. (November 2008). Access to Financial
Services, Savings, and Assets Among the Poor. (N. P. Center, Ed.)
Retrieved from
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief13/
PolicyBrief13.pdf
Baum, S., & Johnson, M. (April 2015). Student Debt: Who Borrows
Most? What Lies Ahead? Urban Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/
2000191-Student-Debt-Who-Borrows-Most-What-Lies-Ahead.pdf
279
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2013). Education Pays: The Benefits
of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Retrieved from
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays2013-full-report.pdf
Belsky, E., Goodman, J., & Drew, R. (June 2005). Measuring the
Nations Rental Housing Affordability Problems. Harvard University
Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/rd05-1_
measuring_rental_affordability05.pdf
Benefits.gov. (September 22, 2016). New York Summer Food
Service. Retrieved from Benefits.gov:
https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1743
Ben-Shalom, Y., Moffitt, R., & Scholz, J. (2012). An Assessment of
the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States.
(Chapter 22). Retrieved from
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp139211.pdf
Bercovitz, A., Moss, A., Park-Lee, E., Jones, A., & Harris-Kojetin, L.
S. (May 2011). An Overview of Home Health Aides: United States,
2007. National Health Statistics Report. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr
Berkowitz, S., Meigs, J., DeWalt, D., Seligman, H., Barnard, L.,
Bright, O.-J., . . . Atlas, S. W. (February 1, 2015). Material Need
Insecurities, Control of Diabetes Mellitus, and Use of Health
Care Resources: Results of the Measuring Economic Insecurity
in Diabetes Study. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(2), 257-265.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/25545780
Bernanke, B. (May 5, 2008). Mortgage Delinquencies and
Foreclosures. New York. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/
bernanke20080505a.htm
Bernanke, B. (2012). Recent Developments in the Labor Market.
National Association for Business Economics Annual Conference.
Washington, D.C.
Bernstein, J. (2001). Let the War on the Poverty Line Commence.
(Working Paper Series). Retrieved from
http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/LetTheWarOnThePovertyLine
Commence.pdf
Bertaud, A. (n.d.). Urban Planning and Housing Affordability.
Retrieved from http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Bhutta, N., Skiba, P., & Tobacman, J. (April 2014). Payday Loan
Choices and Consequences. Retrieved from
http://www.calcfa.com/docs/PaydayLoanChoicesandConsequences.pdf
Blakely-Armitage, R., Sanders, S., Francis, J., & Vink, J. (2011).
Upstate New York in Profile: Trends, Projections, and Community &
Economic Development Issues. Cornell University Community and
Regional Development Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.sri.cornell.edu/sri/files/Chartbook-FINAL-1.pdf
Blank, R. M. (2008). Presidential Address: How to Improve Poverty
Measurement in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 233-254. Retrieved from http://deepblue.
lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/58071/20323_ftp.
pdf;jsessionid=9C48A50
Blank, R., & Barr, M. (Eds.). (2009). Insufficient Funds: Savings,
Assets, Credit, and Banking among Low-Income Households. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from
https://www.russellsage.org/publications/insufficient-funds-0
Bleemer, Z., Brown, M., Lee, D., & van der Klaauw, W. (2015).
Debt, Jobs, or Housing: Whats Keeping Millennials at Home?
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_
reports/sr700.pdf
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age:

Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies
(First Edition ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Machine-Age-Technologies/
dp/0393239357
Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Fink, G. (January 2011). Implications

of Population Aging for Economic Growth. Harvard University,
Program on the Global Demography of Aging. Retrieved from
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/program-on-the-global-demographyof-aging/WorkingPapers/2011/PGDA_WP_64.pdf
Bureau of Dental Health. (2006). The Impact of Oral Disease in New

York State. New York State Department of Health. Retrieved from
https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/dental/docs/impact_of_oral_
disease.pdf
Bradbury, B., Corak, M., Waldfogel, J., & Washbrook, E. (2015).

Too Many Children Left Behind: The U.S. Achievement Gap in
Comparative Perspective. New York: Russell Sage.
Brault, M. (July 2012). Americans With Disabilities: 2010. (C. P.
Reports, Ed.) Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Bricker, J., Dettling, L., Henriques, A., Hsu, J., Moore, K., Sabelhaus,
J., & Windle, R. (September 2014). Changes in U.S. Family Finances
from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances.
Federal Reserve Bulletin, 100(4). Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf
Bricker, J., Kennickell, A., Moore, K., & Sabelhaus, J. (June 2012).
Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence
from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin,
Vol 98(No.2). Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf
Brookings Institution. (2012). Characteristics of EITC-Eligible Tax
Units in 2012 by State. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/eitc
Brookings Institution. (2014). Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
Interactive and Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/eitc
Brookings Institution. (2015). 2014 Characteristics of EITC-Eligible
Tax Units. Retrieved from Metropolitan Policy Program:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/
Interactives/2015/EITC-eligible-profiles-update-December/EITCProfile-User-Guide-2014.pdf
Brookings Institution. (2015). MetroTax Profiles of EITC-Eligible
Taxpayers: 2014 Characteristics of EITC-eligible Tax Units.
Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EITCProfile-User-Guide-2014.pdf
Brown, B., & Traill, S. (2006). Benefits for All: The Economic Impact
of the New Jersey Child Care Industry. Retrieved from
http://www.tesu.edu/documents/njchildcareimpact.pdf
Brown, J., Rhee, N., Saad-Lessler, J., & Oakley, D. (March 2016).
Shortchanged in Retirement: Continuing Challenges to Women's
Financial Future. National Institute on Retirement Security.
Retrieved from
http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/Shortchanged/
final_shortchanged_retirement_report_2016.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2007 and 2014). Occupational

Employment Statistics (OES) Survey. U.S. Department of Labor.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2010). Alternative Measures of
Labor Underutilization for States, 2010. Retrieved from Local Area
Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt10q4.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (August 2010). Health Care
Spending: 1998, 2003, and 2008, Consumer Expenditure Survey:
2008. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/health-care-spending-19982003-and-2008.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2012). Education and training
assignments by detailed occupation. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_112.htm
Labor Underutilization for States, 2012 Annual Averages. Retrieved
from Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor:
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013). Industries at a Glance:
Professional and Business Services. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag60.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013). Multiple Jobholding
in States in 2012. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/multiple-jobholding-instates-in-2012.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013). States: Employment Status
of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population by Sex, Race, Hispanic
or Latino Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Detailed Age, 2013 Annual
Averages. Retrieved from Local Area Unemployment Statistics:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/#ex14
Labor Underutilization for States, 2013 Annual Averages. Retrieved
from Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor:
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (Modified January 30, 2014).
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2014
Annual Averages. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Labor, Local
Area Unemployment Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt14q4.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (September 2014). National
Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2014/ebbl0055.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2015). Household Data Annual
Averages, table 39. Median weekly earnings of fulltime wage and
salary workers by detailed occupation and sex. Retrieved from
Current Population Survey: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2015). QCEW State and County
Map. Retrieved from BLS Beta Labs, U.S. Department of Labor:
http://beta.bls.gov/maps/cew/us
280
Boguslaw, J., Thomas, H., Sullivan, L., Meschede, T., Chaganti, S.,
& Shapiro, T. (April, 2013). Hard Choices: Navigating the Economic
Shock of Unemployment Economic Mobility Project. (E. M. Project,
Ed.) Retrieved from
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2015). States: Employment

status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1976 to 2015
annual averages. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (March 2016). Employment
Situation of Veterans 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2016). Employment Situation of
Veterans 2015. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2016). New York. Retrieved from
New York-New Jersey Information Office:
http://www.bls.gov/regions/new-york-new-jersey/new_york.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Occupational employment, job
openings and worker characteristics.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_107.htm
Burns, C. (2012). The Gay and Transgender Wage Gap. Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/04/
16/11494/the-gay-and-transgender-wage-gap/
Campbell, D. (2006). What is Educations Impact on Civic and
Social Engagement? Measuring the Effects of Education on Health
and Civic Engagement. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/37425694.pdf
Cappelli, P. (2015). Skill Gaps, Skill Shortages, and Skill Mismatches:
Evidence and Arguments for the United States. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 68, 2251-2290. Retrieved from
http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/68/2/251.abstract
Carasso, A., & McKernan, S. (May 2008). Portraits of the Assets and
Liabilities of Low-Income Families. Urban Institute, Opportunity and
Ownership Project. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/411678-Portraits-of-the-Assets-andLiabilities-of-Low-Income-Families.PDF
Carnevale, A., Cheah, B., & Hanson, A. (2015). The Economic Value
of College Majors. Georgetown University, Center on Education and
the Workforce. Retrieved from
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/
Carnevale, A., Rose, S., & Cheah, B. (2014). The College Payoff:
Education, Ocucpations, Lifetime Earnings. Georgetown University,
Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from
https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/
collegepayoff-complete.pdf
Casey, P. M., Warren, R., Cheesman II, F., & Elek, J. (2012). Helping
Courts Address Implicit Bias: Resources for Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Topics/Gender%20and%20
Racial%20Fairness/IB_report_033012.ashx
Cellini, S. (2009). Crowded Colleges and College Crowd-Out: The
Impact of Public Subsidies on the Two-Year College Market. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2009, 1(2), 1-30. Retrieved from
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.1.2.1
Center for American Progress and Movement Advancement
Project. (2015). Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for
Being Transgender in America. Retrieved from
http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/paying-an-unfair-price-transgender.pdf
281
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (November

2012). Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and
Health: Mental Health Findings. Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved from
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/
files/2011MHFDT/2k11MHFR/Web/NSDUHmhfr2011.htm
Center for Labor Market Studies. (2009). Left Behind in America:
the Nations Dropout Crisis. Center for Labor Market Studies
Publications. Northeastern University. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000598
Center for Law and Social Policy, Retail Action Project, and Women
Employed. (2014). Tackling Unstable and Unpredictable Work
Schedules. Retrieved from
http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/TacklingUnstable-and-Unpredictable-Work-Schedules-3-7-2014-FINAL-1.pdf
Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services (CMCS). (2016). Medicaid
and CHIP Eligibility Levels. Retrieved from
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/
program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/medicaidchip-eligibility-levels.html
Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2003-2016). Housing and
Transportation Affordability Index. Retrieved from
http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (February 20,
2013). Charter School Performance in New York City. Retrieved
from https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NYC_report_2013_
FINAL_20130219_000.pdf
Center for Responsible Lending. September 10, 2013). The State of
Lending: Payday Loans. Retrieved from
http://www.responsiblelending.org/state-of-lending/reports/10Payday-Loans.pdf
Center for Responsible Lending. (2014). The State of Lending
in America and Its Impact on U.S. Households. Retrieved from
http://www.responsiblelending.org/state-of-lending/reports/
SOL-full-5-12-14.pdf
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2015). TANF Caseload and
TANF-to-Poverty Ratio Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/tanf_trends_ny.pdf
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2016). New York: Fact
Sheet: Expand Tax Credits to Promote Work and Fight Poverty.
Retrieved from http://apps.cbpp.org/3-5-14tax/?state=NY
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (September 14, 2016). State
Fact Sheets: The Earned Income and Child Tax Credits. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/state-fact-sheets-theearned-income-and-child-tax-credits
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (March
2016). Building Core Capabilities for Life. Retrieved from
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/building-corecapabilities-for-life/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2011, January
14). Health Disparities and Inequalities Report, United States, 2011.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6001.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2013). State
Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/State-Indicator-ReportFruits-Vegetables-2013.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014).

Prevalence of Self-Reported Obesity Among U.S. Adults by State
and Territory. Retrieved from BRFSS:
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/table-adults.html
Clawson, D., & Gerstel, N. (2014). Unequal Time: Gender, Class

and Family in Employment Schedules. New York: Russell Sage.
Retrieved from
https://www.russellsage.org/publications/unequal-time
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (n.d.). Risk

Factors and Health Indicators from the Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System, 2001 to 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/sortablestats/
Cohen, P. (October 2015). For-Profit Colleges Accused of Fraud

Still Receive U.S. Funds. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/for-profit-collegesaccused-of-fraud-still-receive-us-funds.html?_r=0
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). (April 1, 2016).

Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels. Retrieved from
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/
program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/medicaidchip-eligibility-levels.html
Cohen, R. A., & Martinez, M. E. (2015). Health Insurance Coverage:

Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview
Survey, January- March 2015. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur20158.pdf
Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (April 2015). The Impacts of Neighborhoods

on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood Exposure Effects and CountyLevel Estimates. Harvard University, The Equality of Opportunity
Project. Retrieved from http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/
nbhds_exec_summary.pdf
Cohen, R., Kirzinger, W. K., & Gindi, R. (April 2013). Strategies

Used by Adults to Reduce Their Prescription Drug Costs. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health
Statistics Data Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db119.pdf
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (June 2014). Where is
the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility
in the United States. Harvard University, The Equality of Opportunity
Project. Retrieved from
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/mobility_geo.pdf
Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbitt, M. P., Gregory, C., & Singh, A.

(September 2015). Household Food Security in the United States
in 2014. Economic Research Report Number 194, United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1896841/err194.pdf
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E., & Turner, N. (January
2014). Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends
in Intergenerational Mobility. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19844
Coley, R., Leventhal, T., Lynch, A., & Kull, M. (2013). Poor Quality
Housing Is Tied to Childrens Emotional and Behavioral Problems.
MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from
https://www.macfound.org/media/files/HHM_-_Poor_Quality_Housing_
Is_Tied_to_Childrens_Emotional_and_Behavioral_Problems.pdf
Child Trends. (2011). Research-Based Responses to Key

Questions about the 2010 Head Start Impact Study. Early
Childhood Highlights, Volume 2(Issue 1). Retrieved from
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_01_28_
ECHH_2010HSStudy.pdf
Choi, L. (December 2009). Financial Stress and Its Physical
Effects on Individuals and Communities. Community Development
Investment Review. Retrieved from
http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/choi.pdf
Chokshi, N. (March 16, 2015). Poverty Report: Working Minority
Families Lag Behind White Ones in Every State. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/16/
poverty-report-working-minority-families-lagbehind-white-onesChu, A., & Posner, C. (September 2013). The State of Women
in America: A 50-State Analysis of How Women Are Faring
Across the Nation. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/
StateOfWomenReport.pdf
City of New York. (September 4, 2014). New York City Launches
Historic Expansion of Pre-K to More than 51,000 Children.
Retrieved from
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/425-14/new-yorkcity-launches-historic-expansion-pre-k-more-51-000-children#/0
Civil Justice, Inc., and Maryland CASH Campaign. (July 2013).
It's No Happy RAC-cident: Raising Public and Legal Awareness
of Fraudulent Tax Preparers and Products in Baltimore City and
Maryland. Retrieved from
http://mdcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Position-Paper-byCivil-Justice-and-Maryland-CASH.pdf
Committee for Economic Development. (August 2015). Child Care

in State Economies. Retrieved from
https://www.ced.org/pdf/Report%20-%20Child%20Care%20in%20
State%20Economies.pdf
Commonwealth Fund. (September 2013). Geography, Income Determine
Health Care in U.S., Report Says. Health Day. Retrieved from
http://consumer.healthday.com/respiratory-and-allergy-information-2/
asthma-news-47/geography-incomedetermine-health-care-in-u-sreport-says-6802
Commonwealth Fund. (2013). Health Care in the Two Americas:
Findings from the Scorecard on State Health System Performance
for Low-Income Populations, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2013/
sep/low-income-scorecard
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (June 2016). Supplemental
findings on Payday, Payday Installment, and Vehicle Title Loans,
and Deposit Advance Products. Retrieved from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/
Supplemental_Report_060116.pdf
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (May 2016). SinglePayment Vehicle Title Lending. Retrieved from
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201605_cfpb_singlepayment-vehicle-title-lending.pdf
Cooper, D. H., Lutz, B. F., & Palumbo, M. (June 17, 2015). The Role of
Taxes in Mitigating Income Inequality Across the U.S. States. Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Board. Retrieved from
http://byron.marginalq.com/cooper_lutz_palumbo_2015.pdf
CoreLogic. (April 2013). National Foreclosure Report. Retrieved from
http://the200leaders.org/resourcesAssets/pdfs/
ForeclosuresFORECASTbySTATE.pdf
282
Child Care Aware of America. (2014). Parents and the High Cost of
Child Care. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559901
CoreLogic. (April 2014). National Foreclosure Report. Retrieved from

http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/nationalforeclosure-report-april-2014.pdf
CoreLogic. (August 2013). National Foreclosure Report. Retrieved from
http://www.corelogic.com/about-us/news/corelogic-reports-u.s.foreclosure-inventory-down-33-percent-nationally-from-a-year-ago.aspx
CoreLogic. (January 2015). National Foreclosure Report. Retrieved from
http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/nationalforeclosure-report-january-2015.pdf
CoreLogic. (January 2016). National Foreclosure Report.
Retrieved from
http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/nationalforeclosure-report-january-2016.pdf
CoreLogic. (June 2014). National Foreclosure Report. Retrieved from
http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/nationalforeclosure-report-june-2014.pdf
CoreLogic. (June 2015). National Foreclosure Report.
Retrieved from
http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/nationalforeclosure-report-june-2015.pdf
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (2014). Asset
Poverty Rate. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/2012/measure/
asset-poverty-rate
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (2014). Student Loan
Default Rate. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/
student-loan-default-rate
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (2016). Affordability
of Homes. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
affordability-of-homes
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (2016). Retirement Plan
Participation, 2013. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
retirement-plan-participation
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (2016). State
Data: New York. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/state/ny
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (2016). Uninsured by

Income, 2014. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
uninsured-by-income
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). (Retrieved August
23, 2016). Assets and Opportunity Scorecard. Retrieved from
http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/state_data/
Corporation for Enterprise Development. (2016). Consumers with
Prime Credit. Retrieved from Assets and Opportunity Scorecard:
consumers-with-prime-credit
Council of the City of New York. (2014a). Hearing on the Fiscal 2015
Preliminary Budget & the Fiscal 2014 Preliminary Mayors Management
Report: Human Resources Administration. Retrieved from
http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/budget/2015/15/069%20
Human%20Resources%20Administration%20-%20Department%20
of%20Social%20Services.pdf
283
Council of the City of New York. (2014b). Hearing on the Fiscal 2015
Report: Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Retrieved from
http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/budget/2015/mta.pdf
Council of the City of New York. (2014c). Hearing on the Fiscal 2015
Report: Administration for Childrens Services. Retrieved from
Administration%20for%20Children's%20Services.pdf
Council of the City of New York. (2014d). Hearing on the Fiscal
2015 Preliminary Budget & the Fiscal 2014 Preliminary Mayors
Management Report: Department for the Aging. Retrieved from
Department%20for%20the%20Aging.pdf
County Health Rankings. (2016). County Health Rankings. Retrieved from
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/
County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. (2016). New York: Driving
Alone to Work. Retrieved from
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/new-york/2016/measure/
factors/67/map
Cramer, R. (2012, December 13). Trends in Savings, Debt, and
Net Worth: Testimony to FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic
Inclusion (ComE-IN). Retrieved from
https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/8991-fdic-isfocusing-on-saving-and-financial-inclusion/CramerFDIC1.3 13
a91df04065274d9f8e5c50910114f0c0.pdf
Cramer, R., OBrien, R., Cooper, D., & Luengo-Prado, M. (2009,
November). A Penny Saved is Mobility Earned: Advancing
Economic Mobility Through Savings, November 2009. The Pew
Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_
assets/2009/empsavingsreportpdf.pdf
Culhane, D. P., Park, J. M., & Metraux, S. (2011). The Patterns
and Costs of Services Use among Homeless Families. Journal of
Community Psychology, 39(7), 815825. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcop.20473/abstract
Cunningham, A., & Kienzl, G. (2011). Delinquency: The Untold
Truth of Student Loan Borrowing. (I. f. Policy, Ed.) Retrieved from
http://www.usafunds.org/USAFunds%20ResourceLibrary/
DelinquencyTheUntoldTruth.pdf
Currie, J. T. (2011, August). Is There a Link Between Foreclosure
And Health? National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper Series. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17310.pdf
Daly, M., & Benagli, L. (2014). Is It Still Worth Going to College?
FRBSF Economic Letter. Retrieved from
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/
2014/may/is-college-worth-it-education-tuition-wages/
Davis, G., & You, W. (April 2010). The Thrifty Food Plan Is Not
Thrifty When Labor Cost Is Considered. Journal of Nutrition, 140(4),
854-857. Retrieved from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/140/4/854.full
Day, J., & Shin, H. (March 31 - April 2, 2005). How Does Ability
To Speak English Affect Earnings? Population Division. Annual
Meetings of the Population Association of America. Philadelphia,
PA: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/
PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf
Decker, S. (2013, July). Two-Thirds Of Primary Care Physicians

Accepted New Medicaid Patients In 201112: A Baseline To
Measure Future Acceptance Rates. Health Affairs, 32(7),
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/7/1183.abstract
DeLia, D., & Lloyd, K. (2014, July). Sources of Variation in Avoidable
Hospital Use and Cost across Low-Income Communities in New
Jersey. Rutgers Center for State Health Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.cshp.rutgers.edu/downloads/10470.pdf
DeLong, B. (2015, April 8). The Geography of ObamaCare
Nullification: A Remarkable Conundrum of Political Economy. The
Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Retrieved from
http://equitablegrowth.org/geography-obamacare-nullificationremarkable-conundrum-political-economy/
Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (Winter 2012). The For-Profit
Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-164. Retrieved from
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.26.1.139
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., & Smith, J. (2013, September).
Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2012. (C. P. Reports, Ed.) Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf
DiNapoli, T. (February 2016). The Asian Community in New York
State. Office of the New York State Comptroller. Retrieved from
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/economic/rpt9_2016_eng.pdf
Donovan, S., Bradley, D., & Shimabukuro, J. (2016). What Does the
Gig Economy Mean for Workers? Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved from
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44365.pdf
Dowd, T., & Horowitz, J. (2011, September). Income Mobility and
the Earned Income Tax Credit: Short-Term Safety Net or Long-Term
Income Support. Public Finance Review. Retrieved from
https://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/
MillerCollegeofBusiness/Econ/research/FacultyPapers/
horowitz2011pfr.pdf
Dube, A., & Jacobs, K. (2004, August). Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart
Jobs: Use Of Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart Workers In
California. UC Berkeley Labor Center. Retrieved from
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2004/walmart.pdf
Eberts, R. (2013, February). U.S. Employment Outlook for 2013.
International Labor Brief, Vol. 11(2), 4-14. Retrieved from
http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033
&context=perarticles
Economic Policy Institute. (2013). What Families Need to Get By:
The 2013 Update of EPIs Family Budget Calculator. Retrieved from
http://s4.epi.org/files/2013/ib368-basic-family-budgets.pdf
Economic Policy Institute. (2014). Family Budget Calculator, 2013.
Retrieved May 22, 2014, from http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/
Economic Policy Institute. (2015, August 26). The Economic
Policy Institutes 2015 Family Budget Calculator: Technical
Documentation. Retrieved from
http://www.epi.org/publication/family-budget-calculator-technicaldocumentation/
Economic Security Index. (n.d.). Institution for Social and Policy Studies.
Yale University. Retrieved from http://economicsecurityindex.org
Edelman, S., Zonta, M., & Gordon, J. (2015). Lease Purchase Failed
Before Can It Work Now? Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/housing/report/2015/04/29/
112014/lease-purchase-failed-before-canit-work-now/
Education Equality Index. (n.d.). Retrieved June 23, 2016, from
http://www.educationequalityindex.org/data/#
Education Week Research Center. (2015, January). Quality Counts
Preparing to Launch: Early Childhoods Academic Countdown:
New York State Highlights 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2015/shr/16shr.ny.h34.pdf
Education Week Research Center. (2016). Quality Counts State
Report Cards Map. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2016/2016-state-report-cards-map.html?
intc=EW-QC16-LFTNAV
Education Week Research Center. (2016a). Quality Counts
Chance for Success. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/media/chance-for-success-education-weekquality-counts-2016.pdf
Edwards, A. (2014, January). Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:
Poverty, 20092011. (H. E. Studies, Ed.) Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p70-137.pdf
Elliott, W., & Nam, I. (2013, September/October). Is Student Debt
Jeopardizing the Short-Term Financial Health of U.S. Households?
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 95(5), pp. 405-24.
Retrieved from
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/13/09/Elliott.pdf
Ellis, D., Houser, A., & Coughlin, J. (2014). An Exploratory Study
of Caregiver Stress, Fatigue & Worry in the United States. (M.
AgeLab, Ed.) (Issue Brief No 2014-5). Retrieved from
http://agelab.mit.edu/files/Exploratory_Study_of_Caregiver_Stress_
Fatigue_Worry.pdf
ESRI. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.esri.com/library/brochures/pdfs/minority-populationgrowth.pdf2012
Evans, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (2011, Winter).
Stressing Out the Poor: Chronic Physiological Stress and the
Income-Achievement Gap. Pathways, 16. Retrieved from
http://inequality.stanford.edu/_media/pdf/pathways/winter_2011/
PathwaysWinter11_Evans.pdf
Faberman, R., & Foster, T. (First Quarter 2013). Unemployment
Among Recent Veterans During the Great Recession. Economic
Perspectives, 37. Retrieved from
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economic-perspectives/2013/
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). (2011). FDIC National
Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. Retrieved from
http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/Full_Report.pdf
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). (2013, June). Addendum
to the 2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked
Households: Uses of Alternative Services. Retrieved from
http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013_AFSAddendum_web.pdf
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). (2014, October).
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked
Households. Retrieved from
https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013report.pdf
284
Dean, S., & Rosenbaum, D. (August 2013). SNAP Benefits Will Be

Cut for Nearly All Participants In November 2013. Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/research/snap-benefits-will-be-cut-for nearly all
participants-in-november-2013
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (2013). Custom Data Table

Tool. Retrieved from EconomicInclusion.gov:
https://www.economicinclusion.gov/custom-data/
Federal Reserve. (2013, July). Insights into the Financial
Experiences of Older Adults: A Forum Briefing Paper. Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/conferences/olderadults-forum-paper-20130717.pdf
Federal Reserve. (2014, July). Report on the Economic Well-Being
of U.S. Households in 2013. Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/2013-report-economicwell-being-us-households-201407.pdf
Federal Reserve. (2015, July). Report on the Economic Well-Being
of U.S. Households in 2014. Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/2014-report-economicwell-being-us-households-201505.pdf
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2015). Homeownership Rate
for New York. Retrieved from Economic Research:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYHOWN
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2016, September 21).
All-Transactions House Price Index for New York. Retrieved from
Economic Research: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYSTHPI
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2016). Real Total Gross
Domestic Product for New York. Economic Research, FRED
Economic Data. Retrieved from
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYRGSP
Feeding America. (2013). Map the Meal Gap 2013: Overall Food
Insecurity in New York by County in 2013. Retrieved from
http://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2014/overall
Feeding America. (2014). 2014 Overall Food Insecurity, Data by
County in Each State. Retrieved from
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/
map-the-meal-gap/data-by-county-in-each-state.html
Feeding America. (2014, August). Hunger in America 2014:
National Report. Retrieved from
http://help.feedingamerica.org/HungerInAmerica/hunger-in-america2014-full-report.pdf?s_src=W159ORGSC&s_referrer=google&s_
subsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.feedingamerica.org%2Fhunger-inameric
Feeding America. (2015). Map the Meal Gap 2015: Highlights of

Findings for Overall and Child Food Insecurity. Retrieved from
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/
map-the-meal-gap/2013/map-the-meal-gap-2013-exec-summ.pdf
285
File, T. (2015, July). Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the

American Electorate: 19782014. Population Characteristics, U.S.
Census Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/
demo/p20-577.pdf
Finkelstein, A., Hendren, N., & Luttmer, E. (2015). The Value of
Medicaid: Interpreting Results from the Oregon Health Insurance
Experiment. (D. o. Economics, Ed.) Retrieved from
http://economics.mit.edu/files/10580
Fiscal Policy Institute. (May 20, 2014). NYS Can Help Low-income
Working Families with Children by Increasing its Earned Income
Tax Credit. Retrieved from
http://fiscalpolicy.org/nys-can-help-low-income-working-familieswith-children-by-increasing-its-eitc
Fisher, L., Pollakowski, H., & Zabel, J. (2009, Winter). AmenityBased Housing Affordability Indexes. Real Estate Economics, Vol.
37(Issue 4), 705-746. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Zabel2/publication/
46537574_Amenity-Based_Housing_Affordability_Indexes/
links/09e41511abe0a23ba900000.pdf
Fisher, M. (2007). Why is U.S. Poverty Higher in Nonmetropolitan
than in Metropolitan Area? Growth and Change, 38(1), 56- 76.
Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1061841
Flores, G. M. (2012). Serving Consumers Needs for Loans in the
21st Century. Bretton Woods, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.mynafsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Bretton%20
Woods%20Study%20Serving%20Consumers'%20Needs%20
June%202012.pdf
Food Bank for New York City. (2013). Hunger's New Normal: Redefining
Emergency in Post-Recession New York City. Retrieved from
http://www.foodbanknyc.org/files//dmfile/
FINALFINALDRAFTHSNParticipantrptNoEmb.pdf
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). (2012, December).
Replacing the Thrifty Food Plan in Order to Provide Adequate
Allotments for SNAP Beneficiaries. Retrieved from
http://frac.org/pdf/thrifty_food_plan_2012.pdf
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). (2015). Food Hardship
Publications. Retrieved from
http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/food-hardship-data/
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). (n.d.). Relationship Between
Poverty and Overweight or Obesity. Retrieved October 16, 2015, from
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-incomepeople-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/
Feeding Wisconsin. (2016, June 5). Email from David Lee,

Executive Director. Retrieved from
http://www.feedingwi.org/data___research/
Food Research and Action Center. (2014). Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program: Number of Persons Participating - One Month
Change. Retrieved from
http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snapdata2014_feb.pdf
Feinberg, L. (2014). What Does Research Tell Us about Family

Caregiving and Work? AARP Public Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://ctpcsw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/presentation-2014-0116-feinberg-family-caregiving.pdf
Food Research and Action Center. (2016). Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program: One month change in total participation.
Retrieved from
http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snapdata2016-apr.pdf
Felton, E., & Butrymowicz, S. (2015, August 13). Lessons from New
York: Dont Expect Fast Change under Common Core. Retrieved
from The Hechinger Report:
http://hechingerreport.org/lessons-from-new-york-dont-expect-fastchange-under-common-core/
Fort Drum. (2016, September 22). About Fort Drum. Retrieved from
Fort Drum - Home of the 10th Mountain Division:
http://www.drum.army.mil/AboutFortDrum/Pages/AboutFortDrum_
lv1.aspx
Frame, W. S. (2010). Estimating the Effect of Mortgage Foreclosures

on Nearby Property Values: A Critical Review of the Literature.
Economic Review, Volume 95 (Number 3). Retrieved from
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/region/foreclosure_
resource_center/more_frame_externalities.pdf
Gaumer, E., & West, S. (February 9, 2015). Selected Initial Findings of

the 2014 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey. New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Retrieved from
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/2014-HVS-initialFindings.pdf
Freelancers Union & Elance-oDesk. (n.d.). Freelancing in America: A

National Survey of the New Workforce. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from
https://fu-web-storage-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/content/
filer_public/7c/45/7c457488-0740-4bc4-ae45-0aa60daac531/
freelancinginamerica_report.pdf
Gibbons, S. (2004). The Costs of Urban Property Crime. The

Economic Journal, Vol. 114, 441-452. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.
2004.00254.x/
Frey, C., & Osborne, M. (September 2013). The Future of

Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerisation?
Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_
Future_of_Employment.pdf
Gibson, C., & and Jung, K. (2005). Historical Census Statistics On

Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic Origin,
1970 to 1990, For Large Cities And Other Urban Places In The
United States. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/
twps0076.html
Frey, W. (2005). Snowbelt Snowbelt to Sunbelt to Sunbelt. The

Brookings Institution. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/
20050606_Frey.pdf
Gicheva, D., & Thompson, J. (2015). The Effects of Student Loans

on Long-term Household Financial Stability. In B. H. (Eds.), Student
loans and the dynamics of debt (pp. 287316). Kalamazoo, MI:
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Furman, J., & Gray, D. (2012, July 12). Ten Ways Immigrants Help
Build and Strengthen Our Economy. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/12/ten-ways-immigrantshelp-build-and-strengthen-our-economy
Gladwell, M. (2006, February 13). Million-Dollar Murray: Why

Problems Like Homelessness May Be Easier To Solve Than To
Manage. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/
Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. (2013). State of American

Well-Being. Retrieved from
http://www.healthways.com/solution/default.aspx?id=1125
Glaeser, E. (December 2005). Urban Colossus: Why Is New York

America's Largest City? Urban Dynamics in New York City. 11(2),
pp. 7-24. New York: Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve
Bank of New York. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/2005/
EPRvol11no2.pdf
Glasmeier, A., & Nadeau, C. (2015). Living Wage Calculator User's
Guide/Technical Notes, 2015 Update. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). Retrieved from
http://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-User-Guide-andTechnical-Notes-2015.pdf
Gambino, C., Trevelyan, E., & Fitzwater, J. (October 2014). The

Foreign-Born Population From Africa: 2008-2012. American
Community Survey Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/
2014/acs/acsbr12-16.pdf
Glauber, R. (Summer 2013). Wanting More but Working Less:

Involuntary Part-Time Employment and Economic Vulnerability.
Issue Brief No. 64, University of New Hampshire, Carsey
Institute. Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1198&context=carsey
Garcia, R., & Deitz, R. (2007). The Demand for Local Services and
Infrastructure Created by an Aging Population. Upstate New York
Regional Review, 2 (1). Retrieved from
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/regional_
economy/upstate/reg_rev2-1.pdf
Glover, R., Miller, J., & Sadowski, S. (2012, March 22). Proceedings
on the State Budget Crisis and Behavioral Health Treatment
Gap: The Impact on Public Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Treatment Systems. Retrieved from
http://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/SummaryCongressional%20Briefing_March%2022_Website(1).pdf
Gardner, M., Johnson, S., & Wiehe, M. (April 2015). Undocumented

Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions. Institute on Taxation &
Economic Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes2015.pdf
Garfield, R., Damico, A., Stephens, J., & Rouhani, S. (2015, April
17). The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do
Not Expand Medicaid An Update. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Retrieved January 21, 2016, from
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsuredpoor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid-an-update/
Gates, G., & Newport, F. (February 15, 2013). LGBT Percentage
Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota. Gallup. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt-percentage-highest-lowestnorth-dakota.aspx
Glynn, S. (2014, June). Breadwinning Mothers, Then and Now.

Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/
Glynn-Breadwinners-report-FINAL.pdf
Goldrick-Rab, S., Kelchen, R., & Houle, J. (2014, September 2).
The Color of Student Debt: Implications of Federal Loan Program
Reforms for Black Students and Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. (W. H. Lab, Ed.) Retrieved from
https://news.education.wisc.edu/docs/WebDispenser/newsconnections-pdf/thecolorofstudentdebt-draft.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Gonzalez-Barrera, A., Lopez, M., Passel, J., & Taylor, P. (2013).
The Path Not Taken. Hispanic Trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/02/04/the-path-not-taken/
286
Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. (2014). State Well-Being

Rankings for Older Americans. State of American Well-Being.
Retrieved from
http://www.well-beingindex.com/hubfs/Well-Being_Index/
2014_Data/Gallup-Healthways_State_of_American_WellBeing_Older_Americans_Rankings.pdf?t=1465999271473&__
hstc=242697629.3310c59f3dda7bfd65997e39cfd985d8.
1466089101076.1466089101076.1466089101076.1&__hss
Grogger, J. (2003, January). Welfare Transitions in the 1990s:

the Economy, Welfare Policy, and the EITC. National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9472. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9472.pdf
Haas, P., Makarewicz, C., Benedict, A., & Bernstein, S. (2008).
Estimating Transportation Costs by Characteristics of Neighborhood
and Household. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2077, 62-70. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2077-09
Hacker, J., Huber, G., Nichols, A., Rehm, P., & Craig, S. (June 2012).
Economic Insecurity Across the American States: New State Estimates
from the Economic Security Index. Yale University and the Rockefeller
Foundation, Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Retrieved from
http://economicsecurityindex.org/assets/state_reports/ESI_cross_
state.pdf
Hanson, K. (2008). Mollie Orshanskys Strategy to Poverty
Measurement as a Relationship between Household Food
Expenditures and Economy Food Plan. Review of Agricultural
Economics, Volume 30(Number 3), 572580. Retrieved from
http://handle.nal.usda.gov/10113/20301
Harris, B. (May 2015). Likely Transgender Individuals in U.S.
Federal Administrative Records and the 2010 Census. U.S. Census
Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/srd/carra/15_03_Likely_Transgender_
Individuals_in_ARs_and_2010Census.pdf
Hartline-Grafton, H. (2011, Spring). Food Insecurity and Obesity:
Understanding the Connections. Food Research and Action Center.
Retrieved from
http://frac.org/pdf/frac_brief_understanding_the_connections.pdf
Harvard Medical School. (February 2010). Mental Health Problems in the
Workplace. Harvard Mental Health Letter. Retrieved from
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/
Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/February/
mental-health-problems-in-the-work
Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2016). The
State of the Nation's Housing, Chapter 6. Retrieved from
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/son_2016_
200dpi_ch6.pdf
Haskins, R. (2011, June). Fighting Poverty the American Way. The
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0620_
fighting_poverty_haskins.pdf
Hegewisch, A., & Ellis, E. (April 2015). The Gender Wage Gap by
Occupation 2014 and by Race and Ethnicity. Institute for Womens
Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/
pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-2014-and-by-race-andethnicity
Heisler, M., Langa, K., Eby, E., Fendrick, A., Kabeto, M., & Piette,
J. (2004, July). The Health Effects of Restricting Prescription
Medication Use Because of Cost. Medical Care, 42(7), 626-634.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213486
Helman, R., Copeland, C., & VanDerhei, J. (2015, April). The 2015
Retirement Confidence Survey: Having a Retirement Savings Plan
a Key Factor in Americans Retirement Confidence. Employee
Benefit Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_413_Apr15_RCS-2015.pdf
287
Hemphill, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011, June). Achievement Gaps:

How Hispanic and White Students in Public Schools Perform
in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Statistical Analysis Report. NAEP Education
Statistics Services Institute. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf
Henly, J., Shaefer, H., & Waxman, E. (2006). Nonstandard Work
Schedules: Employer- and Employee-Driven Flexibility in Retail
Jobs. Social Service Review( 80), 609-634. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508478
Herbert, C., McCue, D., & Sanchez-Moyano, R. (September 2013).
Is Homeownership Still an Effective Means of Building Wealth for
Low-income and Minority Households? (Was it Ever?). Harvard
University, Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/hbtl-06.pdf
Hess, C., & Romn, S. (2016). Poverty, Gender, and Public
Policies. Institute for Womens Policy Research (IWPR). Retrieved
from http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/poverty
Hoefer, M., Rytina, N., & Baker, B. (2012, March). Estimates of the
Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States:
January 2011. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved
from http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/file
Home Care Association of New York State. (2014). New Yorks
State of Home Care: Huge Changes & Vital Needs Amid State
Policy Transition. Retrieved from
http://www.hca-nys.org/documents/NewYorkStateofHomeCare.pdf
Hoopes Halpin, S. (2012). ALICE (Asset Limited, Income
Constrained, Employed): A Study of Financial Hardship in New
Jersey. United Way of Northern New Jersey. Retrieved from
http://www.unitedwaynnj.org/documents/UWNNJ_ALICE%20
Report_FINAL2012.pdf
Hoopes Halpin, S. (2013, October). The Impact of Superstorm
Sandy on New Jersey Towns and Households. Retrieved from
http://njdatabank.newark.rutgers.edu/special-superstorm-sandy
Hoopes Halpin, S., Holzer, M., Jett, Q., Piotrowski, S., & Van Ryzin,
G. (2012). Civic Engagement Index. Retrieved from NJ DataBank:
http://njdatabank.newark.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/files/
civic_engagement/newsletter%20-%20NJDataBankIndex%20-%
Hounsell, C. (2008). The Female Factor 2008: Why Women Are at
Greater Financial Risk in Retirement and How Annuities Can Help.
Human Development Index. (2014). The Measure of America
20132014. Social Science Research Council. Retrieved from
http://www.measureofamerica.org/human-development/
Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Municipal Equality Index.
Retrieved from
http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/municipal-equality-index
Hungerford, T., & Thiess, R. (2013, September 25). The Earned
Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit: History, Purpose,
Goals, and Effectiveness. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-andthe-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/
Ihlanfeldt, K., & Mayock, T. (2009, February). Crime and Housing
Prices. (D. o. Center, Ed.) Retrieved from
http://coss.fsu.edu/dmc/sites/coss.fsu.edu.dmc/files/
CrimeHousingPricesFEB25.pdf
Ihlanfeldt, K., & Mayock, T. (2010, May). Panel Data Estimates of
the Effects of Different Types of Crime on Housing Prices. Regional
Science and Urban Economics, 40(23), 161172. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046210000086
Independence Hall Association. (2016, September 22). Native

American Society on the Eve of British Colonization: The Iroquois
Tribes. Retrieved from USHistory.org:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp
Jaimovich, N., & Siu, H. (2012, August 14). The Trend is the Cycle:
Job Polarization and Jobless Recoveries. National Bureau of
Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/annual/Jaimovich.pdf
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2015).

Human Needs Index: A Timely, Multidimensional View of Povertyrelated Need. Salvation Army. Retrieved from
http://humanneedsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FinalReport.pdf
Jiang, Y., Ekono, M., & Skinner, C. (2015, January). Basic Facts
About Low-Income Children: Children under 18 Years, 2013.
National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1100.pdf
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). (2015, January).

Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50
States. (Fifth Edition). Retrieved from
http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf
Insurance Information Institute. (2012). Uninsured Motorists.
Retrieved June 23, 2016, from
http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists
Insurance Research Council. (2011). Recession Marked by
Bump in Uninsured Motorists. (2011 Edition). Retrieved from
http://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downloads/
IRCUM2011_042111.pdf
Internal Revenue Service. (2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014). 1040:
Individual Income Tax, Instructions, 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2007.pdf ;
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2010.pdf ; http://www.irs.gov/
pub/irs-prior/i1040-2012.pdf; http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040-2014.pdf
Internal Revenue Service. (October 27, 2012). Statistics for 2012
Tax Returns with EITC. Retrieved from
http://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats/2012stats
Internal Revenue Service. (2013). Earned Income Credit (EIC).
Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p596--2013.pdf
Internal Revenue Service. (January 2013). Earned
Income Tax Credit for 2012; Do I Qualify? (FS-20131). Retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/
Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-for-2012;-Do-I-Qualify%3F
Internal Revenue Service. (2014). 2014 EITC Income Limits,
Maximum Credit Amounts and Tax Law Updates. Retrieved from
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-incometax-credit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts-1-year
Internal Revenue Service. (2014a). EITC Participation Rate by
States. Retrieved from
https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/Participation-Rate
Internal Revenue Service. (2014b). Statistics for 2014 Tax Year
Returns with EITC. Retrieved from
https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats/2014stats
Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.). 2014 EITC Income Limits,
Maximum Credit Amounts and Tax Law Updates. Retrieved from
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-incometax-credit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts-1-year
Ithaca College Gerontology Institute. (September 20-21, 2007).
Rural Aging Summit: Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.
ithaca.edu/gerontology/docs/ras_finalreport.pdf
John Hancock. (2013). John Hancock 2013 Cost of Care Survey.

Retrieved from
http://www.sfpfinancial.com/files/16915/2013%20Cost%20of%20Care.pdf
John, D., & Koenig, G. (2015, August). Workplace Retirement Plans
Will Help Workers Build Economic Security. AARP Public Policy
Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2014-10/aarp-workplaceretirement-plans-build-economic-security.pdf
Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2013). America's Rental
Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs. Retrieved from
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_
americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf
Jones, S. (2014). Table: The Rise in Auto Loans Across the U.S.
Retrieved from Bankrate.com:
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/table-auto-loan-debt-percapita-by-state.aspx
Jorgensen, D., & Timmer, M. P. (2011). Structural Change in Advanced
Nations: A New Set of Stylised Facts. Scandinavian Journal of
Economics, 129(113(1)). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/8999/d7a4998e406c45e28d9e3a01ad38454c0407.pdf
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. (2012, June).
Oral Health and Low-Income Nonelderly Adults: A Review of
Coverage and Access. Retrieved from
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7798-02.pdf
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2012, June). Kaiser Health Tracking
Poll. Retrieved from
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/8322_
hsw-may2012-update.pdf
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2012). State Health Facts, 2012.
Retrieved from http://kff.org/statedata/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014, June). ADAP Financial Eligibility as a
Percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Retrieved from State Health Facts:
http://kff.org/hivaids/state-indicator/adap-financial-eligibility-as-apercent-of-the-federal-poverty-level/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Average Monthly Food Stamp
Benefits Per Person. Retrieved from State Health Facts:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Health Insurance Coverage of
Nonelderly 0-64. Retrieved from State Health Facts:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/nonelderly-0-64/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Health Insurance Coverage of
the Nonelderly (0-64) with Incomes up to 200% Federal Poverty
Level (FPL). Retrieved from State Health Facts:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/nonelderly-up-to-200-fpl/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Hospital Emergency Room Visits per
1,000 Population by Ownership Type. Retrieved from State Health Facts:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/emergency-room-visits/
288
Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2013, January). Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program Examining the Evidence to Define Benefit
Adequacy. Retrieved from
http://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Report%20
Files/2013/SNAP/SNAP_RB.pdf
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). How Will the Uninsured in New

York Fare Under the Affordable Care Act? Retrieved from
http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/state-profiles-uninsuredunder-aca-new-york/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Percent of Adults Reporting Poor
Mental Health Status. Retrieved from State Health Facts:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poor-mental-health-among-adults/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Percentage of Adults Who Visited
the Dentist or Dental Clinic within the Past Year. Retrieved from
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/percent-who-visited-the-dentistcl
inic/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22nested%22:%
7B%22new-york%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22c
olId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2014). Primary Care Health
Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs). Retrieved from
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/primary-care-health-professionalshortage-areas-hpsas/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2015, October 5). Key Facts about the
Uninsured Population. Retrieved from
http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsuredpopulation/
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016). Health Insurance Marketplace
Calculator. Retrieved from
http://kff.org/wp-content/themes/vip/kff/static/subsidy-calculator-widget.html
Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational
Trust. (2011, September). Employer Health Benefits 2011, Annual
Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.nahu.org/meetings/capitol/2012/attendees/jumpdrive/2011%20
Employee%20Benefits%20Survey%20by%20KFF.pdf
Katz, L., & Krueger, A. (2016). The Rise and Nature of Alternative
Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. RANDPrinceton Contingent Worker Survey. Retrieved from
https://krueger.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/akrueger/files/katz_
krueger_cws_-_march_29_20165.pdf
Kavoussi, B. (2014, April 17). Rich Americans Are Nearly Twice As
Likely To Vote As The Poor. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-kavoussi/
Keely, L., van Ark, B., Levanon, G., & Burbank, J. (May 2012).
The Shifting Nature of U.S. Housing Demand. Demand Institute.
Retrieved from
http://demandinstitute.org/demandwp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/
the-shifting-nature-of-us-housing-demand.pdf
Kendall, A., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo Jr., E. A. (1996). Relationship

of Hunger and Food Insecurity to Food Availability and Consumption.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association(96(10)), pp. 10191024.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Kiernan, J. (2016). Q2 2016 Auto Financing Report. WalletHub.
Retrieved March 30, 2016, from
https://wallethub.com/edu/auto-financing-report/10131/
Kim, D., & Leigh, J. (2010, May). Estimating the Effects of Wages
on Obesity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Vol. 52(No. 5). Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20431413
Kingsley, G. T., Smith, R., & Price, D. (2009, May). The Impacts
of Foreclosures on Families and Communities. Urban Institute.
Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411909_impact_of_forclosures.pdf
289
Klor de Alva, J., & Schneider, M. (2013). Whats The Value Of An

Associate's Degree? Nexus Research and American Institutes for
Research. Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Value_of_an_Associate_
Degree_10.13.pdf
Kneebone, E. (April 2009). Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing
Geography of Metropolitan Employment. Brookings Institution,
Metro Economy Series, Metropolitan Policy Program. Retrieved
from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/
reports/2009/4/06%20job%20sprawl%20kneebone/20090406_
jobsprawl_kneebone.pdf
Kneebone, E., & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting Suburban Poverty
in America. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2013/confrontingsuburban
povertyinamerica
Knight, W. (2012). This Robot Could Transform Manufacturing. MIT
Technology Review. Retrieved from
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429248/this-robot-couldtransform-manufacturing/
Kochhar, R., & Fry, R. (2014). Wealth Inequality Has Widened along
Racial, Ethnic Lines Since End of Great Recession. Pew Research
Center, FactTank. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/
Koskinen, J. (2015, July 17). Preliminary Results from the 2015
Filing Season Related to Affordable Care Act Provisions - Letter to
Congress. Retrieved from
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/CommissionerLetterlwithcharts.pdf
Kusisto, L. (2015, July 28). Rent-to-Own Homes Make a
Comeback. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rent-to-own-homes-make-a-comeback
-1438108813
Lambert, S. J. (2008). Passing the Buck: Labor Flexibility Practices
that Transfer Risk onto Hourly Workers. Human Relations, 61(9),
pp. 1203-1227. Retrieved from
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/61/9/1203.short
Lambert, S. J., & Henly, J. R. (2010, May). Work Scheduling Study:
Managers Strategies for Balancing Business Requirements with
Employee Needs. University of Chicago, School of Social Service
Administration. Retrieved from
https://ssascholars.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/work-scheduling-study/
files/univ_of_chicago_work_scheduling_manager_report_6_25_0.pdf
Laughlin, L. (2013, April). Whos Minding the Kids? Child Care
Arrangements: Spring 2011. Retrieved from Household Economic
Studies, U.S. Census Bureau:
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. (2015, April 20). Not Just a Ferguson
Problem: How Traffic Courts Drive Inequality in California. Retrieved from
http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-FergusonProblem-How-Traffic-Courts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. (2000). Justice on Trial:
Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System.
Leadership Conference Education Fund. Retrieved from
http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/reports/justice.pdf
Lee, B., Iceland, J., & Sharp, G. (2012). Racial and Ethnic Diversity
Goes Local: Charting Change in American Communities Over
Three Decades. The Pennsylvania State University. US2010
http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report08292012.pdf
Leibtag, E., & Kumcu, A. (2011, May). The WIC Fruit and Vegetable
Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price Variation Affect Buying
Power?. Economic Information Bulletin (Number 75). Retrieved
from http://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/eib75/7451_
eib75_reportsummary.pdf
Lerman, R., & McKernan, S. (2008, November). The Effects of
Holding Assets on Social and Economic Outcomes of Families: A
Review of Theory and Evidence. Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services. Retrieved from
https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/effects-holding-assets-social-andeconomic-outcomes-families-review-theory-and-evidence
Leshnick, S., Geckeler, C., Wiegand, A., Nicholson, B., & Foley, K.
(2012, May). Evaluation of the Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO)
Program: Interim Report. U.S. Department of Labor/ETA. Retrieved from
http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Evaluation%20of%20the%20
Reintegration%20of%20ex-offenders%20full%20report.pdf
Levey, N. (2013, September 17). Access to Healthcare for the Poor
Varies Widely among States. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/17/business/la-fi-healthstates-20130918
Levin, S. (2015, May 6). The High Cost of Driving While Poor. East
Bay Express. Retrieved from
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-high-cost-of-drivingwhile-poor/Content?oid=4269240
Lewis, K., & Burd-Sharps, S. (2014). The Measure of America:
American Human Development Report, 2013-2014. Measure of
America. Retrieved from
http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/moa/MOA-III-June-18-FINAL.pdf
Liaw, W., Petterson, S., Rabin, D. L., & Bazemore, A. (2014). The
Impact of Insurance and a Usual Source of Care on Emergency
Department Use in the United States. International Journal of
Family Medicine. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941574/
Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Weill Cornell Medical College, and
the NY City Department for the Aging. (2011). Under the Radar:
New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study. Retrieved from
http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/reports/Under%20the%20Radar%2005%20
12%2011%20final%20report.pdf
Lloyd, K., Cantor, J. C., Gaboda, D., & Guarnaccia, P. (2011, June).
Health, Coverage, and Access to Care of New Jersey Immigrants.
Rutgers Center for State Health Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.cshp.rutgers.edu/Downloads/8880.pdf
LongTermScoreCard. (n.d.). Raising Expectations. Retrieved from
http://www.longtermscorecard.org/databystate/state?state=CT#.
V4B51GgrJ1s
Looney, A., & Yannelis, C. (2015). A Crisis in Student Loans? How
Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions
They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults. Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
ConferenceDraft_LooneyYannelis_StudentLoanDefaults.pdf
Loveless, T. (March 2015). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP) Receipt for Households: 20002013. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2015/acs/acsbr13-08.pdf
Lucadamo, K. (2016, May 26). Quality of Pre-K Varies in New York,
Data Shows. Hechinger Reports. Retrieved from
http://hechingerreport.org/quality-pre-k-varies-new-york-data-shows/
Luce, S., & Fujita, N. (2012). Discounted Jobs: How Retailers
Sell Workers Short. City University of New York and Retail Action
http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/
7-75_RAP+cover_lowres.pdf
Lynch, A. K., & Rasmussen, D. W. (2001). Measuring the Impact
of Crime on House Prices. Applied Economics 33(15), 1981-1989.
Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840110021735
#preview
MacArthur Foundation. (2015). How Housing Matters. Retrieved from
https://www.macfound.org/media/files/E-11540_How_Housing_
Matters_2015_FULL_REPORT.pdf
Maciag, M. (June 2014). Immigrants Countering Population Losses
in Many Metro Areas. Governing.com. Retrieved from
http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-international-migrationcountering-metro-area-population-loss.html
Majerol, M., Newkirk, V., & Garfield, R. (2015, January). The
Uninsured: A Primer. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured. Retrieved from
http://files.kff.org/attachment/the-uninsured-a-primer-key-factsabout-health-insurance-and-the-uninsured-in-america-primer
Mangano, P. (2008, September 1). Ending Homelessness. The
Washington Times, Op-Ed. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/1/
ending-homelessness/?page=all
ManpowerGroup. (2012). 2012 Talent Shortage Survey.
Retrieved from
http://www.manpowergroup.us/campaigns/talent-shortage-2012/
Marks, L. (2015). 2015 Report of the Chief Administrator of the
Courts. State of New York Unified Court System. Retrieved from
https://www.nycourts.gov/publications/pdfs/2015ForeclosureReport.pdf
Marr, C., & Huang, C. (2012, September 17). Misconceptions And
Realities About Who Pays Taxes. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org//sites/default/files/atoms/files/5-26-11tax.pdf
Marr, C., Huang, C., Sherman, A., & Debot, B. (2015, October
1). EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty,
and Support Childrens Development, Research Finds. Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/eitc-and-child-tax-creditpromote-work-reduce-poverty-and-support-childrens
Martin, J., & Fogel, S. (2006). Projecting the U.S. Population
to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios. Federation for American
Immigration Reform. Retrieved from
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/pop_projections.pdf
Marx, B., & Turner, L. (January 2015). Borrowing Trouble? Student
Loans, the Cost of Borrowing, and Implications for the Effectiveness
of Need-Based Grant Aid. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20850.pdf
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (2016). Living Wage
Calculator. Retrieved from http://livingwage.mit.edu/
290
Lee, S., & Shaw, L. (February 2008). From Work to Retirement:

Tracking Changes in Womens Poverty Status. AARP Public Policy
http://www.aarp.org/money/low-income-assistance/info-08-2009/in_
brief__from_work_to_retirement__tracking_changes_in_women_s_
poverty_status.html
Mayer, S., & Jencks, C. (Winter, 1989). Poverty and the Distribution
of Material Hardship. The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 24(No.
1), 88-114. Retrieved from
http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy699j/MayerJ89.pdf
McCabe, K. (2011). African Immigrants in the United States.
Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/african-immigrants-united-states
McCarthy, D., Radley, D., & Hayes, S. (2015). Aiming Higher:
Results from a Scorecard on State Health System Performance,
2015 Edition. Commonwealth Fund. Retrieved from
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2015/
dec/aiming-higher-2015
McCarthy, J. (December 19, 2014). As a Major U.S. Problem, Race
Relations Sharply Rises. Gallup Poll Social Series. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180257/major-problem-race-relationssharply-rises.aspx
McKenzie, B., & Rapino, M. (September, 2011). Commuting in the
United States: 2009. American Community Survey Reports, U.S.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf
McKernan, S., Ratcliffe, C., & Shank, T. (2011). Is Poverty Incompatible
With Asset Accumulation? Urban Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412391-Poverty-Incompatiblewith-Asset-Accumulation.pdf
McKernan, S., Ratcliffe, C., Steuerle, E., & Zhang, S. (April, 2013).
Less Than Equal: Racial Disparities in Wealth Accumulation. Urban
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412802-Less-Than-EqualRacial-Disparities-in-Wealth-Accumulation.pdf
McQueen, M. (December 17, 2008). Road Risks Rise as More
Drivers Drop Insurance: Higher Premiums, Joblessness Contribute
to Alarming Trend; What to Do When You're Hit. Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947388659212351.html
Mental Health Association in New York State. (2016, September
22). Myths and Facts. Retrieved from
https://mhanys.org/explore/fact-or-fiction/
Merrell, M. (December, 2007). The Impact of Unauthorized
Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments.
Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/12-6-immigration.pdf
MetLife Mature Market Institute. (February, 2010). The MetLife

Study of Working Caregivers and Employer Health Care Costs.
Retrieved from
https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/
mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers.pdf
MetLife Mature Market Institute. (November, 2012). Market Survey
of Long-Term Care Costs: The 2012 MetLife Market Survey of
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Adult Day Services, and Home
Care Costs. Retrieved from
https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications
MetLife Mature Market Institute. (June 2011). The MetLife Study of
Elder Financial Abuse. Retrieved from
https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/
mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf
291
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. (2013). Metropolitan

Transportation Authority 2013 Annual Report. Retrieved from
http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/2013_annual/2013AnnualReport.pdf
Meyer, B., & Mok, W. (2013, March). Disability, Earnings, Income

and Consumption. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18869
Mezza, A., Sommer, K., & Sherlund, S. (October 15, 2014). Student
Loans and Homeownership Trends. Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System. FEDS Notes. Retrieved from
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2014/
student-loans-and-homeownership-trends-20141015.html
Migration Policy Institute. (2014). New York: Demographics and
Social. Retrieved from State Immigration Data Profiles:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/NY
Migration Policy Institute. (2014). State Immigration Data Profiles:
Demographics & Social. Retrieved from
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/state-immigrationdata-profiles
Migration Policy Institute. (2014). State Immigration Data Profiles:
New York Demographics and Social. Retrieved from
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/NY
Miller, G. (2004). Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We
All Pay for Wal-Mart. A Report by the Democractic Staff of the
Committee on Education and the Worforce, U.S. House of
Representatives. Retrieved from
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Wal-Mart-LaborRecord16feb04.htm
Minnesota Attorney General's Office. (2016). For-Profit Colleges:
Do Your Homewor. Retrieved from
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Brochures/pubForProfitColleges.pdf
Mishel, L., Bivens, J., Gould, E., & Shierholz, H. (2012). The State
of Working America, 12th Edition. Ithaca, NY: An Economic Policy
Institute Book, Cornell University Press.
Mitra, D. (2011). Pennsylvanias Best Investment: The Social
and Economic Benefits of Public Education. Pennsylvania State
University. Retrieved from
http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf
Moffitt, R. (November 2013). The Great Recession and the Social
Safety Net. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 650(1), 143-166. Retrieved from
http://ann.sagepub.com/content/650/1/143
Morduch, J., Ogden, T., & Schneider, R. (2014). An Invisible
Finance Sector: How Households Use Financial Tools of Their Own
Making. U.S. Financial Diaries. Retrieved from
http://www.usfinancialdiaries.org/issue3-informal
Mortgage Bankers Association. (August 22, 2011). Delinquencies
Rise, Foreclosures Fall in Latest MBA Mortgage Delinquency
Survey. Retrieved from https://www.mba.org/x73989
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2009). Savings Policy and
Decisionmaking in Low-income Households. In R. Blank, & M. Barr,
Insufficient Funds. New York, NY: Russell Sage Press. Retrieved
from https://www.russellsage.org/publications/ insufficient-funds-0
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2009). Grading the
States State Report Cards: New York. Retrieved from
http://www.nami.org/grades
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2010). State Statistics:
New York.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2015). Cost of

Homelessness. Retrieved from
http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/cost_of_homelessness
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2015). The State of
Homelessness in America. Retrieved from
http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/State_of_
Homelessness_2015_FINAL_online.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2008).
Required Criteria for NAEYC Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/Required_Criteria%5B1%5D.pdf
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo. (2014).
The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index. Retrieved from
http://www.nahb.org/reference_list.aspx?sectionID=135
National Association of State Budget Officers. (2014). State
Expenditure Report: Examining Fiscal 2012-2014 State Spending.
Retrieved from
https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/SER%20
Archive/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20Fiscal%202012%20
2014%20S.pdf
National Center for Children in Poverty. (n.d.). Young Child
Risk Calculator using 2007-2009 American Community Survey.
Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://www.nccp.org/tools/risk/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Table 309.10.
Residence and migration of all first-time degree/certificate-seeking
undergraduates in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by state
or jurisdiction: Fall 2012. Retrieved from Digest of Education Statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_309.10.asp
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. (2012).
Challenges and Opportunities for Economic Prosperity in the 21st
Century. University of Marykland. Retrieved from
http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/assets/documents/seed/seed_d1.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). Medicaid and
CHIP Eligibility Table by State. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/medicaid-eligibility-table-bystate-state-activit.aspx
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2016). Tax Credits for
Working Families: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/earnedincome-tax-credits-for-working-families.aspx
National Conference of State Legislatures. (February 5, 2016).
Payday Lending 2015 Legislation. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/
payday-lending-2015-legislation.aspx
National Conference of State Legislatures. (October 2011). State
Policies to Counteract the Cliff Effect in Public Programs: Summary
Prepared by National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from
http://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/64-2014%20
appendices/17_9066_01000appendixb.pdf
National Economic Council and the Presidents Council of Economic
Advisers. (July 2014). An Economic Analysis of Transportation
Infrastructure Investment. The White House. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/economic_
analysis_of_transportation_investments.pdf
National Employment Law Project. (2013). Super-sizing Public

Costs: How Low Wages at Top Fast-Food Chains Leave Taxpayers
Footing the Bill. Data Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/NELP-Super-SizingPublic-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf
National Employment Law Project. (April 2014). The Low-Wage
Recovery: Industry Employment and Wages Four Years into the
Recovery. Data Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Reports/Low-Wage-Recovery-IndustryEmployment-Wages-2014-Report.pdf?nocdn=1
National Health Council. (July 2015). Enhancing the PatientCenteredness of State Health Insurance Markets. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/sites/default/files/Final_State_
Progress_Report-Charts-rev.pdf
National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). (2015).
The State of Preschool 2014: State Preschool Yearbook. Rutgers
Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from
http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/Yearbook2014_full2_0.pdf
National Institute of Corrections. (2014). Corrections Statistics by
State: New York. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from
http://nicic.gov/statestats/?st=ny
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). (February 2012).
The Shrinking Supply of Affordable Housing. Housing Spotlight,
Volume 2(Issue 1). Retrieved from
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/HousingSpotlight2-1.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). (2015). Out of
Reach 2015. Retrieved from
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). (2015). Out of Reach
2015: Low Wages and High Rents Lock Renters Out. Retrieved from
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2015_FULL.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (March 2015). Affordable
Housing is Nowhere to be Found for Millions. Housing Spotlight,
5(1). Retrieved from
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-Spotlight_Volume-5_Issue-1.pdf
National Priorities Project's Federal Priorities Database: Local
Spending Data. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/database/search/
National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement.
(2012). A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracys
Future. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/crucible/Cr
National Urban League. (2014). One Nation Underemployed: Jobs
Rebuild America. In The State of Black America 2014, 38th Edition.
New York, NY: National Urban League. Retrieved from
http://iamempowered.com/soba/2014/home
NBCNews.com. (2014). Decision 2014: New York. Retrieved
December 18, 2015, from
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/ny/
New York City Coalition Against Hunger. (2015). Working But
Hungry. Retrieved from
https://nyccah.org/files/Final NYCCAH Report 2015 small.pdf
New York City Department of Finance. (September 22, 2016). New
York State Sales and Use Tax. Retrieved from
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/taxes/business-nys-sales-tax.page
New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2014).
Economic Research & Analysis: Demographics. Retrieved from
http://www.nycedc.com/economic-data/demographics
292
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2012). Chapter Two:

The Economics of Homelessness. The State of Homelessness in
http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4364
New York City Independent Budget Office. (2016, February). New York
State Student Achievement Test Results: New York City Public Schools
No Longer Lag Rest of the State. Retrieved from Schools Brief:
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/new-york-state-studentachievement-test-results-new-york-city%20-public-schools-nolonger-lag-rest-of-state.pdf
New York City Office of the Comptroller. (2016). New York City's
Millennials in Recession and Recovery. Retrieved from
http://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/NYC_
Millennials_In_Recession_and_Recovery.PDF
New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. (June
2014). Pinched by Plastic: The Impact of Payroll Cards on
Low-Wage Workers. Retrieved from
http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Pinched%20by%20Plastic.pdf
New York State Bar Association. (May 5, 2016). Report on New
York States Drivers License Suspension Program. Retrieved from
https://www.nysba.org/Sections/Tax/Tax_Section_Reports/Tax_
Reports_2016/Tax_Section_Report_1344.html
New York State Comptroller. (March 2015). Medicaid in New York: The
Continuing Challenge to Improve Care and Control Costs. Retrieved from
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/health/medicaid_2015.pdf
New York State Department of Health. (2014). BRFSS Brief:
Overweight and Obesity, New York State Adults, 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/brfss/reports/docs/1605_brfss_
overweight_and_obesity.pdf
New York State Department of Health. (2015). Age-adjusted
Percentage of Adults Who Had a Dentist Visit within the Past Year.
Retrieved from
http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/general/g90.htm
New York State Department of Health. (2016, September 22). Priority
Area: Mental Health/Substance Abuse - Mental Health. Retrieved from
https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/prevention_agenda/mental_
health_and_substance_abuse/mental_health.htm
New York State Department of Labor. (2014). Employment
Projections. Retrieved from https://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/lsproj.shtm
New York State Department of Public Service. (2016, September
22). Lifeline Telephone Service. Retrieved from New York State
Department of Public Service:
http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/AskPSC.
nsf/96f0fec0b45a3c6485257688006a701a/74366ecddaa01646852
57fcd0075b1ed/$FILE/Lifeline%20Brochure%205%20Rebrand
%20English%20WEB%20final%208-21-15.pdf
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. (2015). Instructions

for Form IT-215: Claim for Earned Income Credit. Retrieved from
https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/current_forms/it/it215i.pdf
New York State Education Department. (2014). New $340 Million
Funding Opportunity: 2014-2015 Statewide Universal Full-Day
Prekindergarten Program. Retrieved from
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announcesrecipients-340-million-pre-kindergarten-funding#
New York State Education Department. (2016, September 22).
Child Nutrition Knowledge Center. Retrieved from
http://www.cn.nysed.gov/
New York State Education Department. (2016, September 22). New
York State Education at a Glance. Retrieved from https://data.nysed.gov/
293
New York State Health Foundation. (January 2016). Opening

Doors: A Sustainable Refugee Health Care Model. Retrieved from
http://nyshealthfoundation.org/uploads/resources/opening-doors-asustainable-refugee-health-care-model.pdf
New York State Office for the Aging. (2015). Are You Concerned
About an Older Driver? Retrieved from
http://www.aging.ny.gov/transportation/olderdriver/Handbook2015.pdf
New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (20122013). Report to the Governor and Legislature Family Day Care
and School Age Child Care Registration. Retrieved from
http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/reports/Report_Child_Care_
Registration_2012-2013.pdf
New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (February
2015). Child Care Subsidy. Retrieved from
http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/childcare/assets/2015%20Child%20Care%20
Subsidy%20Participant%20Manual.pdf
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
(2015). BRIA Population Data for FFY 2014. Bureau of Refugee
and Immigrant Assistance. Retrieved from
https://otda.ny.gov/programs/bria/documents/population-report.pdf
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
(2016, September 22). School Breakfast and Lunch Programs.
Retrieved from https://otda.ny.gov/workingfamilies/schoollunch.asp
New York State Office of the Governor. (April 4, 2016). Governor
Cuomo Signs $15 Minimum Wage Plan and 12 Week Paid Family
Leave Policy into Law. Retrieved from Governor Andrew M. Cuomo:
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-15minimum-wage-plan-and-12-week-paid-family-leave-policy-law
New York State Office of the State Comptroller. (2015). The
Foreclosure Predicament Persists. Local Government Snapshot.
Retrieved from
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/snapshot/
foreclosure0815.pdf
New York University. (2012). Native American Indian Language &
Culture in New York. NYStatewideLanguageRBE-RNatNYU.
Retrieved from
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/xr1/Language_n_
Cultural_Awareness/NativeAmericanCultureLanguageNY2-27-13.pdf
Norris, L. (2015, September 27). State Health Insurance Guides.
Retrieved from healthinsurance.org:
https://www.healthinsurance.org/states/
Noss, A. (September 2014). Household Income: 2013. American
Community Survey Briefs, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/
2014/acs/acsbr13-02.pdf
ODell, W., Smith, M. T., & White, D. (2004). Weaknesses in Current
Measures of Housing Needs. Housing and Society, Vol. 31(No. 1),
http://www.housingeducators.org/Journals/H&S_Vol_31_No_1_
Weaknesses_in_Current_Measures_of_Housing_
O'Brien, R., & Pedulla, D. (2010, Fall). Beyond the Poverty Line
Fall. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/beyond_the_poverty_line
Office of Budget and Policy Analysis. (August 2015). New York
State Employment Trends. New York State Office of the State
Comptroller. Retrieved from
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/economic/employment_trends_
nys_2015.pdf
Office of Management and Budget. (2016). Fiscal Year 2016 Analytical
Perspectives Budget of the U.S. Government. Retrieved from
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016-PER/pdf/BUDGET2016-PER.pdf
Office of the Mayor, The City of New York. (2016). Report: Understanding
New York City's Mental Health Challenge. Retrieved from
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/press-releases/
2015/thriveNYC_white_paper.pdf
Pendall, R., Hayes, C., George, A., McDade, Z., Dawkins, C.,
Jeon, J.,... Smart, M. (2014, March). Driving to Opportunity:
Understanding the Links among Transportation Access, Residential
Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity for Housing Voucher
Recipients. Urban Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publicationpdfs/413078-Driving-to-Opportunity-Understanding-the-Linksamong-Transportation-Access-Residential-Outcomes-andEconomic-Opportunity-for-Housing-Voucher-Recipients.PDF
Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (2006). Black Wealth/White Wealth: A

New Perspective on Racial Inequality (2nd Ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge. Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Wealth-White-Perspective-Inequality/
dp/0415951674
Perryman Group. (2008, April). An Essential Resource: An Analysis of

the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity
in the US with Estimated Effects by State and Industry. Retrieved from
https://www.perrymangroup.com/special-reports/classics-from-thearchives/an-essential-resource/
Ollove, M. (2015). Some States Pay Doctors More to Treat

Medicaid Patients. Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/
2015/4/17/some-states-pay-doctors-more-to-treat-medicaid-patients
Pete, J. (2013). New technology replacing the naked eye at Ford

plant. NWI.COM. Retrieved from
http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/new-technology-replacingthe-naked-eye-at-ford-plant/article_85be678b-9bcd-5d6b-9fd9373dd0356888.html
Opportunity Nation. (2013). Opportunity Index 2013. Be the

Change, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.opportunitynation.org/pages/2013-opportunity-indexmeasuring-mobility
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
(2015). Education At a Glance. doi:10.1787/eag-2015-en
Packen, S. (2015). Industry and Occupational Employment
Projections 2012-2022. Retrieved from http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/
labor/lpa/employ/indoccpj/nj_ind-occ_projections_12_22.pdf
Parity Project, NAMI-New York City Metro. (2003). Untreated and
Under-treated Mental Health Problems - How Are They Hurting Your
Business? Retrieved from http://www.mentalhealthpromotion.net/
resources/untreated-andundertreated-mental-health-problems-howare-they-hurting-your-business.pdf
Partnership for a New American Economy. (2016). Language
Diversity and the Workforce. Retrieved from
http://www.renewoureconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/
NJ-Biliteracy-Brief-1-12-15-Updated.pdf
Partnership for Strong Communities. (n.d.). Housing CT 2013. Retrieved
from http://pschousing.org/files/PSC_HousingInCT2013_Final.pdf
Passel, J. S., Cohn, D., & Rohai, M. (2014). Unauthorized
Immigrant Totals Rise in 7 States, Fall in 14: Decline in Those
From Mexico Fuels Most State Decreases. Pew Research Centers
Hispanic Trends Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/11/2014-11-18_unauthorizedimmigration.pdf
PayScale. (2014). 2013-2014 PayScale College Salary Report.
Retrieved from
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/
majors-that-pay-you-back
PBS. (2016, September 22). Latino Americans: Timeline of
Important Dates. Retrieved from Latino Americans:
https://www.pbs.org/latino-americans/en/timeline/#y1800
Pearce, D. (December 2014). Overlooked and Undercounted: The
Struggle to Make Ends Meet in New York City. Womens Center for
Education and Career Advancement and United Way of New York
City. Retrieved from
http://action.unitedwaynyc.org/page/-/downloads/reports/2014_
sssr_long.pdf
Petterson, S., Cai, A., Moore, M., & Bazemore, A. (2013,

September). State-level Projections of Primary Care Workforce,
2010-2030: New York. Robert Graham Center. Retrieved from
http://www.graham-center.org/content/dam/rgc/documents/mapsdata-tools/state-collections/workforce-projections/New%20York.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center. (2011, February). Unauthorized Immigrant
Population: National and State Trends, 2010. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf#page=24
Pew Research Center. (2012). American Values Survey: Question
Database. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from
http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q41t/i-often-donthave-enough-money-to-make-ends-meet/#total
Pew Research Center. (2014). Demographic Profile of Hispanics in
New York, 2014. Retrieved from Hispanic Trends:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/ny/
Pew Research Center. (2014, November 18). Unauthorized
Immigrants in the U.S., 2012. Hispanic Trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants2012/map/all-immigrant-share/
Pfeffer, F. T., Danziger, S., & Schoeni, R. F. (2013, April). Wealth
Disparities Before and After the Great Recession. (N. P. Center,
Ed.) (Working Paper Series #13-05). Retrieved from
http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-05-npc-working-paper.pdf
Piette, J., Rosland, A. M., Silveira, M. J., Hayward, R., & McHorney,
C. (2011). Medication Cost Problems Among Chronically Ill Adults
in the US: Did the Financial Crisis Make a Bad Situation Worse?
Patient Preference and Adherence, 187-194. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc/articles/PMC3090380/
Pivo, G. (2013). The Definition of Affordable Housing: Concerns and
Related Evidence. University of Arizona and Fannie Mae. Retrieved from
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/fundmarket/pdf/hoytpivo_
mfhousing_affordablehousingdef_122013.pdf
Povich, D., Roberts, B., & Mather, M. (2013-2014). Low-Income
Working Mothers and State Policy: Investing for a Better Economic
Future. Working Poor Families Project. Retrieved from
http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/
WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdf
Povich, D., Roberts, B., & Mather, M. (2014-2015). Low-Income
Working Families: The Racial/Ethnic Divide. Working Poor Families
WPFP-2015-Report_Racial-Ethnic-Divide.pdf
294
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. (2002, June 21). Homeless Prevention Programs.
OEI-07-90-00100; 2/91. Retrieved from
http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-90-00100.pdf
Prah, P. (2014, April 25). States Confront 'New Mindset' on Home

Care Workers Wages. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved May
30, 2014, from
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/statesconfront-new-mindset-on-home-care-workers-wages-858995443
Reid, C. K. (2004). Achieving the American Dream? A Longitudinal

Analysis of the Homeownership Experiences of Low-Income
Households. University of Washington, Center for Studies in
Demography and Ecology. Retrieved from
https://csde.washington.edu/downloads/04-04.pdf
Presser, H. B. (2005). Working in a 24/7 Economy: Challenges for

American Families. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved
from https://www.russellsage.org/publications/working-247-economy
Reinhard, S. C., Kassner, E., Houser, A., Ujvari, K., Mollica, R., &
Hendrickson, L. (2014). Raising Expectations: A State Scorecard
on Long-Term Services and Supports for Older Adults, People
With Physical Disabilities, and Family Caregivers. AARP, The
Commonwealth Fund, and the SCAN Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_
institute/ltc/2014/raising-expectations-2014-AARP-ppi-itc.pdf
Prevost, L. (2013). Snob Zones: Fear, Prejudice, and Real Estate.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.com/Snob-Zones-Fear-Prejudice-Estate-ebook/
dp/B008ED6AL8
Project on Student Debt. (2013). Student Debt and the Class of
2013. The Institute for College Access & Success. Retrieved from
http://ticas.org/content/pub/student-debt-and-class-2013-0
Reinhard, S., Feinberg, L., Choula, R., & Houser, A. (July 2015). Valuing
the Invaluable: 2015 Update. AARP Public Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/valuing-theinvaluable-2015-update-new.pdf
Project on Student Debt. (2015). Default Rate Declines, Yet

611,000 Defaulted on Federal Student Loans. The Institute for
College Access & Success. Retrieved from
http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/cdr_2015_nr.pdf
Riffkin, R. (2015, July 16). Racism Edges Up Again as Most

Important U.S. Problem. Gallup Poll Social Series. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184193/racism-edges-again-importantproblem.aspx
Project on Student Debt. (2015). State by State Data. Retrieved

from The Institute for College Access & Success:
http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data-2015
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2011, December). Health

Care's Blind Side: The Overlooked Connection Between Social
Needs and Good Health: Summary of Findings from a Survey of
Americas Physicians. Retrieved from
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/RWJFPhysiciansSurveyExecutive
Summary.pdf
Project on Student Debt. (2015). Student Debt and the Class of

2014. Retrieved from
http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data-2015#overlay=posd/state_data/
2015/la
Projections Central. (2016). Long Term Occupational Projections.
Retrieved from http://www.projectionscentral.com/Projections/LongTerm
Putnam, R. (1995, January). Bowling Alone: America's Declining
Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6 (No. 1), 65-78.
Retrieved from
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html
Quinn, K., & Benson, W. (Fall 2012). The States' Elder Abuse Victim
Services: A System in Search of Support. Generations(No. 3), pp.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asag/gen/2012/00000036/
00000003/art00015
Ramchand, R., Tanielian, T., Fisher, M. P., Vaughan, C. A., Trail,
T. E., Epley, C.,... Ghosh-Dastidar, B. (2014). Hidden Heroes:
America's Military Caregivers. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/
RR400/RR499/RAND_RR499.appendixH.pdf
Rampell, C. (2011, November 16). As New Graduates Return to Nest,

Economy Also Feels the Pain. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/business/economy/
as-graduates-move-back-home-economy-feels-the-pain.html
Rastogi, S., Johnson, T., Hoeffel, E. M., & Drewery, J. M. (2011,
September). The Black Population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs, U.S.
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf
RealtyTrac. (2016). New York Real Estate Trends and Market
Information. Retrieved from
http://www.realtytrac.com/statsandtrends/foreclosuretrends/ny
295
Redfoot, D., Feinberg, L., & Houser, A. (2013, August). The Aging
of the Baby Boom and the Growing Care Gap: A Look at Future
Declines in the Availability of Family Caregivers. AARP Public
Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/
ltc/2013/baby-boom-and-the-growing-care-gap-insight-AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf
Roberts, B., Povich, D., & Mather, M. (2013-2014, Winter).

Low-Income Working Families: The Growing Economic Gap.
Working Poor Families Project. Retrieved from
Winter-2012_2013-WPFP-Data-Brief.pdf
Rockefeller Institute of Government. (December 2011). Giving and
Getting. Retrieved from
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/nys_government/2011-12-Giving_and_
Getting.pdf
Rohe, W. M., Van Zandt, S., & McCarthy, G. (2002). Social Benefits
and Costs of Homeownership. In N. P. Retsinas, & E. Belsky (Eds.),
Low-Income Homeownership: Examining the Unexamined Goal.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and the Harvard
University Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt1280j2
Rosenbaum, D. (2013, January). The Relationship Between SNAP
and Work Among Low-Income Households. Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=38
Rothstein, J. (July 2012). The Labor Market Four Years into the
Crisis: Assessing Structural Explanations. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 65(3), 437-500. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17966
Rothstein, R. (2013, August 27). For Public Schools, Segregation
Then, Segregation Since: Education and the Unfinished March.
Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.epi.org/publication/unfinished-march-public-school-segregation/
Rothwell, D. W., & Goren, A. (June 2011). Exploring the
Relationship Between Asset Holding and Family Economic Strain.
New America Foundation Asset Building Program. Retrieved from
https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/3711-exploring-therelationship-between-asset-holding-and-family-economic-strain/
Rothwell_Goren_AssetsEconomicStrain_Final_7-2011.2f47702289
974904a93b551a7a8f64cd.pdf
Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America. (2000). Better

Together. Retrieved from
http://robertdputnam.com/better-together/the-report/
SalesTaxHandbook.com. (2016). New York: Sales Tax Handbook.
Retrieved from https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/new-york
Saunders, L. (November 24, 2015). Methods of Payment of Wages.
National Consumer Law Center. Retrieved from
http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/high_cost_small_loans/commentspayroll-card-rules-nov2015.pdf
Seligman, H., Laraia, B., & Kushel, M. (2010, February). Food

Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic Disease Among Low-Income
NHANES Participants. The Journal of Nutrition, 140(2). Retrieved from
Shaefer, H., & Edin, K. (2013, May). Rising Extreme Poverty in the
United States and the Response of Federal Means-Tested Transfer
Programs. National Poverty Center. Retrieved from
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/?publication_id
=255&
Shapiro, R., & Hassett, K. (2012, June). The Economic Benefits of
Reducing Violent Crime: A Case Study of 8 American Cities. Center
for American Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2012/
06/19/11755/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/
SBDCNet. (2014). Daycare Business 2014. Retrieved from

http://www.sbdcnet.org/small-business-research-reports/
daycare-business-2014
Shapiro, T., Meschede, T., & Osoro, S. (2013). The Roots of the Widening
Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide.
Brandeis University, Institute on Assets and Social Policy. Retrieved from
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/
racialwealthgapbrief.pdf
Scanlon, E., & Page-Adams, D. (2000). Homeownership and Youth

Well-Being: An Empirical Test of Asset-Based Welfare. Center for
Social Development. Retrieved from
http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/40.
HomeownershipAndYouth.pdf
Sherman, A., Trisi, D., & Parrott, S. (2013, July 30). Various
Supports for Low-Income Families Reduce Poverty and Have LongTerm Positive Effects On Families and Children. Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/7-30-13pov.pdf
Schmitt, J. (January 2012). Low-wage Lessons. Center for

Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/low-wage-2012-01.pdf
Shonkoff, J. P., & Garner, A. S. (January 2012). The Lifelong Effects

of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress. Pediatrics, 129(1).
Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e232
Schmitt, J., & Jones, J. (July 2012). Where Have All the Good Jobs
Gone? Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/good-jobs-2012-07.pdf
Schmitt, J., & Warner, K. (November 2010). Ex-offenders and the Labor
Market. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf
Schnepf, R. (2013). Consumers and Food Price Inflation.
Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40545.pdf
Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2015). Black Lives
Matter: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black
Males. The Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the
Transformation of Schools at New York University. Retrieved from
http://www.blackboysreport.org/2015-black-boys-report.pdf
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is Disability
Disabling in All Workplaces? Workplace Disparities and Corporate
Culture, 48(3), 381-410. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1402968
Schwartz, A., Wasser, M., Gillard, M., & Paarlberg, M. (June
2015). Unpredictable, Unsustainable: The Impact of Employers
Scheduling Practices in DC. DC Jobs with Justice, the DC Fiscal
Policy Institute, and the Georgetown University Kalmanovitz
Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor. Retrieved from
http://www.dcjwj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DCJWJ_
Scheduling_Report_2015.pdf
Schwartz, M., & Wilson, E. (2008). Who Can Afford To Live in a
Home? U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/
who-can-afford.pdf
Schwebel, D., & Brezausek, C. (2008). Chronic Maternal
Depression and Childrens Injury Risk. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 33(10), 1108-1116. Retrieved from
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/10/1108
Short, K. (2011, November). The Research: Supplemental Poverty

Measure: 2010. Current Population Reports. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/
research/Short_ResearchSPM2010.pdf
Short, K. (2013, November). The Research: Supplemental Poverty
Measure: 2012. Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf
Short, K. (2014). "The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013". U.S.
2014/demo/p60-251.pdf
Short, K. (October, 2014). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013.
Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
2014/demo/p60-251.pdf
Shtauber, A. (June 1, 2013). The Effects of Access to Mainstream
Financial Services on the Poor. Columbia Business School. Retrieved
from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403335
Silletti, L. (June, 2005). The Costs and Benefits of Supportive
Housing. Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Retrieved from
http://www.metropolisstrategies.org/documents/CostsandBenefitsof
SupportiveHousing-areview.pdf
Smith, S. (November 20, 2015). Safe, Strong, Supportive. Casey
Family Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.womenlegislators.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
caseyfamilyprograms-childrenenteringthechildwelfaresystem.pdf
Social Security Administration. (July 2016). Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). Retrieved from socialsecurity.gov:
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11000.pdf
296
Rudowitz, R., Artiga, S., & Arguello, R. (March 26, 2014). Childrens
Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA. Kaiser Commission
on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Retrieved from
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/childrens-health-coveragemedicaid-chip-and-the-aca/
Stagman, S., & Cooper, J. L. (2010, April). Children's Mental Health:

What Every Policymaker Should Know. National Center for Children
in Poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_929.pdf
State Attorneys General. (2014, September 9). Re: S.2204 Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Improvement Act.
Retrieved from http://ag.ky.gov/pdf_news/s2204-letter.pdf
Stetser, M., & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public High School Four-Year
OnTime Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates. National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf
Stetser, M., & Stillwell, R. (2014, April). Public High School FourYear On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School
Years 201011 and 201112. National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf
Stone, C., Van Horn, C., & Zukin, C. (2012, May). Chasing the
American Dream: Recent College Graduates and the Great
Recession. Retrieved from
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/products/uploads/
Chasing_American_Dream_Report.pdf
The Institute for College Access & Success. (n.d.). CollegeInSight.

Retrieved from
http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data-2015#overlay=posd/
state_data/2015/md
The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2016, January 13). Employer-based
Retirement Plan Access and Participation across the 50 States.
Retrieved from
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2016/
employer-based-retirement-plan-access-and-participation-acrossthe-50-states
The Pew Charitable Trusts. (June 2013). In Search of Dental Care.
Retrieved from
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_
assets/2013/insearchofdentalcarepdf.pdf
The Pew Charitable Trusts. (May 2016). A Look at Access to
Employer-Based Retirement Plans in the Nation's Metropolitan
Areas. Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/05/employerbased_
retirement_plans_metropolitan_areas.pdf?la=en
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in

partnership with the U.S. Administration on Aging. (2012, December).
Policy Academy State Profile: New York. Retrieved from
http://www.aoa.acl.gov/AoA_Programs/HPW/Behavioral/docs2/
New%20York%20Epi%20Profile%20Final.pdf
The Sentencing Project. (2008). Reducing Racial Disparity in

the Criminal Justice System: A Manual for Practitioners and
Policymakers. Retrieved from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_
reducingracialdisparity.pdf
Sullivan, J. (2005, February). Borrowing During Unemployment:

Unsecured Debt as a Safety Net. Chicago Federal Reserve.
Retrieved from
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/events/2005/
promises_and_pitfalls/paper_borrowing.pdf
Thiess, R. (2012, April). The Future of Work: Trends and Challenges

for Low-Wage Workers. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.epi.org/files/2012/bp341-future-of-work.pdf
Sum, A., & Khatiwada, I. (2010). The Nations Underemployed in

the Great Recession of 200709. Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 133.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/11/mlr201011.pdf
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. (2014). The

2014 State New Economy Index. Retrieved from
https://itif.org/publications/2014/06/11/2014-state-new-economy-index
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014).

Behavioral Health Barometer: New York, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/State_
BHBarometers_2014_2/BHBarometer-NY.pdf
Sullivan, J. (2015, April 21). How Commute Issues Can

Dramatically Impact Employee Retention. Retrieved from TLNT:
http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/how-commute-issues-can-dramaticallyimpact-employee-retention/
Suro, R., Wilson, J. H., & Singer, A. (2011, August). Immigration

and Poverty in Americas Suburbs. Metropolitan Policy Program,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0804_
immigration_suro_wilson_singer/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_
singer.pdf
Tanielian, T., Ramchand, R., Fisher, M. P., Sims, C. S., Harris, R., &
Harrell, M. (2013). Military Caregivers: Cornerstones of Support for
Our Nations Wounded, Ill, and Injured Veterans. RAND Corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR244.html
Tax Credits for Workers and Families. (n.d.). State EITC Reports, Fact
Sheets & Policy Materials by State. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from
http://www.taxcreditsforworkersandfamilies.org/state-tax-credits/
297
The Economist. (2015, November 3). American House Prices:

Realty Check. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-house-prices
Tax Policy Center. (2015, May 6). State Earned Income Tax Credits
Based on the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit. Urban Institute and
Brookings Institution. Retrieved from Tax Policy Center: Statistics:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-eitc-based-federal-eitc
Thomas, J. (2015, October). CTs report card: Achievement gap

shrinks but for wrong reason. The CT Mirror. Retrieved from
http://ctmirror.org/2015/10/28/cts-report-card-achievement-gapshrinks-but-for-wrong-reason/
Tillman, A. M. (2014, December 10). The New Faces of Affordable
Housing. LHA Latest News. Retrieved from
http://lahousingalliance.dreamhosters.com/the-new-faces-of-affordablehousing/
Tomer, A., Kneebone, E., Puentes, R., & Berube, A. (2011, May).
Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America.
Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12jobs-and-transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf
Tompson, T., J., B., Agiesta, J., & Junius, D. (2013). Americas LowerWage Workforce: Employer and Worker Perspectives. The Associated
Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Retrieved from
http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Wages/AP_NORC_Low%20Wage%20
Earners_Final.pdf
Ton, Z. (2012, January-February). Why 'Good Jobs' Are Good
for Retailers. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/
WhyGoodJobsAreGoodforRetailers_ZTon.pdf
Transportation for America. (2011). Aging in Place, Stuck Without
Options. Retrieved from
http://t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf
Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. (2009, Spring). Finishing High School:

Alternative Pathways and Dropout Recovery. America's High
Schools, Volume 19(Number 1). Retrieved from
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/
article/index.xml?journalid=30&articleid=49&sectionid=175
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014 and 2015). Percentage of People by

Type of Health Insurance Coverage by Household Income and
Income-to-Poverty Ratio: 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/p60/253/
table4.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). Elderly Abuse Statistics.

National Center on Elder Abuse. Retrieved from
http://www.statisticbrain.com/elderly-abuse-statistics/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, September). Health Insurance

Coverage in the United States: 2013. Current Population Reports.
Retrieved from
2014/demo/p60-250.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). 2005 Interim State Population

Projections. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/state/
projectionsagesex.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007, 2010, and 2012). Poverty Thresholds.
Retrieved from Poverty Data:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008, November). Reported Voting and
Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income. Retrieved
from Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/
p20/2008/tables.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Figure 8: Quarterly Homeownership

Rates by Race and Ethnicity of Householder for the United States:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig08.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Health Insurance Coverage in the
United States: 2014. Current Population Reports. Retrieved from
Current Population Reports:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2015/demo/p60-253.pdf
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2013). Immigration Myths and Facts.
Retrieved from
https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/reports/
Immigration_MythsFacts.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Experimental Poverty Measures

Publications. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/index.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2009). Access to Affordable

and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and
Their Consequences: Report to Congress. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/242675/ap036_1_.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Marital Status of the Population by

Sex and Age, Table 57. Retrieved from
http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/
statab/129ed/tables/10s0057.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2012). Key Statistics

& Graphics. USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved from
http://ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-inthe-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Detailed Tables on Wealth and Asset

Ownership. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014). Food Security in

the United States: Definitions of Food Security. USDA Economic
Research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/foodsecurity-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security-in-the-us/definitionsof-food-security.aspx#.U8geSJRdXmc
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Historical Census of Housing Tables.

Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/
ownershipbyrace.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Age and Sex Composition in the
United States: 2012, Table 3. Marital Status of the Population 15
Years and Over by Sex and Age. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, November). Reported Voting and
Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income. Retrieved
from Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/
p20/2012/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistics for All U.S. Firms by
Industry, Gender, Ethnicity, and Race for the U.S., States, Metro
Areas, Counties, and Places: 2012, 2012 Survey of Business
Owners. Retrieved from American Fact Finder:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/
productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American Community Survey
Questionnaire. Retrieved from
http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/
questionnaires/2014/quest14.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014). Food Security

in the United States: Key Statistics & Graphics. USDA Economic
Research Service. Retrieved from
http://ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-inthe-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#map
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). Food and Nutrition
Service, Program Data: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP). Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistanceprogram-snap
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015, May). Geography
of Poverty: 1980, 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and 2007-11
American Community Survey 5-year estimates. USDA Economic
Research Service. Retrieved May 2015, from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/ruralpoverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Frazo, E. (1999).
High Costs Of Poor Eating Patterns In the United States. USDA
Economic Research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/91018/aib750a_1_.pdf
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2015). States Innovate. Retrieved from
https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/enterprisingstates/#MD
298
U.S. Census Bureau. (1995, October). Health Insurance Coverage

1994. Current Population Reports, 60-190. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p60-190.pdf
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA). (2015). Regional Data, GDP and Personal Income.
Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
(2014). Regional Data: Annual GDP by State. Retrieved from
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=
1&acrdn=2#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&7003=200&7004=naics&
7035=-1&7005=-1&7006=19000&7001=1200&7036=-1&7002=
1&7090=70&7007=2014&7093=levels
U.S. Department of Education. (2009 and 2013). National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2013 Mathematics and
Reading Assessments, 2013. Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/state-gains
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics Grade 8
Assessment. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/2011_gaps_
table_12.aspx
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

(2014). Creating Connected Communities. Center for TransitOriented Development. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/Creating_Cnnted_
Comm.pdf
(2014). Picture of Subsidized Households: Summary of all HUD
Programs, 2014 based on 2010 Census. Retrieved from
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA Title I LEA Allocations

FY 2012. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy12/index.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Common Core of Data State
Dropout and Graduation Rate Data, 2013. Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_
2012-13.asp

(2015). 2015 AHAR: Part 1 - PIT Estimates of Homelessness in the
U.S. Retrieved from HUD Exchange:
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4832/2015-ahar-part-1-pitestimates-of-homelessness/
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). FY 2012 3-Year Official

Cohort Default Rates by State/Territory. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/staterates.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (n.d.).

Picture of Subsidized Households. Retrieved from Office of Policy
Development & Research:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html

(2010, March). Costs Associated with First-Time Homelessness for
Families and Individuals. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Costs_Homeless.pdf
(2011). 2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People With
Disabilities: Supplemental Findings of the Worst Case Housing
Needs 2009: Report to Congress. Office of Policy Development and
Research. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/WorstCaseDisabilities
03_2011.pdf

(2013). Summary of all HUD Programs, 2013 based on 2010
Census. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html

(2014). The 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)
to Congress, Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness.
Retrieved from
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/
2014-AHAR-Part1.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Table 219.46: Public

High School 4-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR),
by Selected Student Characteristics and State: 2010-11 through
2013-2014. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_219.46.asp

(2011). Bridging the Gap: Homelessness Policy. Insights
into Housing and Community Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_1.
(2012). Affordable Housing. Retrieved from
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
299

(2013). Section 8 FY 2013 Income Limits. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ura/ura15/IncomeLimits_URA.pdf;
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il13/index.html

(2013, June). Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic
Minorities 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-514_HDS2012.pdf
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (September 1, 2015).

USASpending.gov Data Download. Retrieved from Bureau of the
Fiscal Service: https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/
Pages/DataDownload.aspx
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2015). Beyond Traffic: Trends
and Choices 2045. Retrieved from
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Draft_
Beyond_Traffic_Framework.pdf
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (October 2010). National
Survey of Veterans, Active Duty Service Members, Demobilized
National Guard and Reserve Members, Family Members, and
Surviving Spouses. Retrieved from
http://www.va.gov/survivors/docs/nvssurveyfinalweightedreport.pdf
U.S. Election Assistance Commission. (June 30, 2015). The 2014
EAC Election Administration and Voting Survey Comprehensive
Report: A Report to the 114th Congress. Retrieved from
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/2014_EAC_EAVS_
Comprehensive_Report_508_Compliant.pdf
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (July 8, 2011). Review
of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays.
Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (2007).
Unemployment Insurance: Low-Wage And Part-Time Workers
Continue To Experience Low Rates Of Receipt. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071147.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (2012). Federal Tax
Debts: Factors for Considering a Proposal to Report Tax Debts to Credit
Bureaus. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-939
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (2015).

Contingent Workforce: Size, Characteristics, Earnings, and
Benefits. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669766.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (August 4, 2010).
For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged
Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing
Practices. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (July 2015).
Medicaid: Key Issues Facing the Program. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671761.pdf
United Health Foundation. (2016). America's Health Rankings,

2016 Senior Report. Retrieved from
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/reports/Senior
United States Elections Project. (2014, September 3). 2012
November General Election Turnout Rates. Retrieved from
http://www.electproject.org/2012g
United States Elections Project. (2015, Updated December 30).
2014 November General Election Turnout Rates. Retrieved from
http://www.electproject.org/2014g
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2013). State
Data and Contacts Map: New York. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from
https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1900&fn[]=3800&
fn[]=6900&fn[]=12200&fn[]=17800&all_types=true&year=2013&state=NY
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (November

2012). Medicaid: States Made Multiple Program Changes, and
Beneficiaries Generally Reported Access Comparable to Private
Insurance. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649788.pdf
United States Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

(July 30, 2012). For Profi t Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the
Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success. Retrieved from
http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI-PartIIISelectedAppendixes.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (October 7,

2010). Higher Education: Stronger Federal Oversight Needed to
Enforce Ban on Incentive Payments to School Recruiters. Retrieved
from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-10
Urban Institute. (2012). NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics

of Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report. Retrieved from
National Center for Charitable Statistics:
http://nccs.urban.org/NCCS-Databases-and-Tools.cfm
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (September 21,

2009). Proprietary Schools: Stronger Department of Education Oversight
Needed to Help Ensure Only Eligible Students Receive Federal Student
Aid. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-600
Urbana IDOT Traffic Stop Data Task Force. (2015, July 2).
Preliminary Findings. Retrieved from
http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/idot-traffic-stop-data-task-force-preliminaryfindings.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives. (2012, December 14). The Consumer

Financial Protection Bureaus Threat to Credit Access in The United
States. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Retrieved from
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Access-toCredit-Report-12. 14. 12.pdf
USA Today. (2007, June 20). State-by-State Day Care Costs.

Retrieved from
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-20-day-caretable_N.htm
U.S. House of Representatives. (2013, May). The Low-Wage

Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Marts Low Wages and their Effect on
Taxpayers and Economic Growth. Committee on Education and the
Workforce. Retrieved from
http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
WalMartReport-May2013.pdf
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions.
(2012). Dental Crisis in America: the Need to Expand Access. A
Report from Chairman Bernard Sanders, Subcommittee on Primary
Health & Aging. Retrieved from
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DENTALCRISIS.
REPORT.pdf
U.S. Small Business Administration. (2016). Small Business Profile.
Retrieved from
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/New_Jersey.pdf
Uchitelle, L. (2001, May 26). How to Define Poverty? Let Us Count
the Ways. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how-to-define-poverty-letus-count-the-ways.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
United Health Foundation. (2013). A Call to Action for Individuals
and Their Communities. Retrieved from
http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/
AnnualDownloads/AnnualReport2013-r.pdf
United Health Foundation. (2013). America's Health Rankings,
2013 Edition. Retrieved from
http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/
AnnualDownloads/AnnualReport2013-r.pdf
van Ommeren, J., & Gutierrez-i-Puigarnau, E. (2011, January).

Are workers with a long commute less productive? An empirical
analysis of absenteeism. Regional Science and Urban Economics,
41(1), 1-8. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046210000633
Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., & Vandergrift,
N. (2010, May-June). Do Effects of Early Child Care Extend to Age
15 Years? Results From the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and
Youth Development Child Development. Child Development, 81(3),
VanLandeghem, K., & Brach, C. (2009, April). Mental Health Needs
of Low-Income Children with Special Health Care Needs. AHRQ
Pub. No. 090033( CHIRI Issue Brief No. 9). Retrieved from
http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/initiatives/chiri/Briefs/brief9/brief9.pdf
Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M., & Kreider, R. M. (2013, August).
Americas Families and Living Arrangements: 2012, Population
Characteristics. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
Viebeck, E. (2015, January 28). Feds: Up to 6 million will face
ObamaCare Penalty. The Hill. Retrieved from
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231018-feds-15-to-30-millionexempt-from-obamacare-penalty
Waid, M. (2013, April). An Uphill Climb: Women Face Greater
Obstacles to Retirement Security. AARP Public Policy Institute.
Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_
institute/econ_sec/2013/uphill-climb-women-face-g
300
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (2013,

September 6). Dental Services: Information on Coverage,
Payments, and Fee Variation. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-754
Wald, J. (2014, July). What the Rise of the Freelance Economy

Really Means for Businesses. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waldleventhal/2014/07/01/a-modernhuman-capital-talent-strategy-usingfreelancers/#4800cc3636a4
Wall, T., & Vujicic, M. (2015, April). Emergency Department Use
for Dental Conditions Continues to Increase. American Dental
Association. Retrieved from
http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science%20and%20Research/
HPI/Files/HPI
Wall, T., & Vujicic, M. (2015, April). Emergency Department Use for
Dental Conditions Continues to Increase. (Health Policy Institute
Research Brief). Retrieved from
http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science%20and%20Research/
HPI/Files/HPI
Watkins, K., & Nichols, D. (2014). Community Health Assessment
and Community Health Improvement Plan 2014-2017. Cattaraugus
County Health Department. Retrieved from
http://www.cattco.org/files/downloads/health/cha_chip_2014_2017_
complete.pdf
Watson, L., & Swanberg, J. E. (2013). Flexible Workplace Solutions
for Low-Wage Hourly Workers. Labor & Employment Law Forum,
3(3), 380-437. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1066&context=lelb
Watson, L., Frohlich, L., & Johnston, E. (2014, April). Collateral
Damage: Scheduling Challenges for Workers in Low-Wage Jobs and
Their Consequences. National Womens Law Center. Retrieved from
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/collateral_damage_s
Weaver, J. (2011, June 17). New York's Black History. The Root.
Retrieved from
http://www.theroot.com/photos/black_history_sites_weeksville_
african_burial_ground_fraunces_tavern/#slide-6
Weaver, R. (2011). The Politics of Low-Income Families in the
United States. In C. J. Heinrich, & J. K. Scholz, Making the WorkBased Safety Net Work Better: Forward-Looking Policies to Help
Low-Income Families. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Retrieved from
https://www.russellsage.org/publications/
making-work-based-safety-net-work-better-0
Weber, B. (2015, July). Child Care and Education in Oregon and Its
Counties: 2014. Oregon Child Care Research Partnership. Retrieved from
http://health.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/occrp/2014-stateand-county-profiles/pdf/state-profile-child-care-and-education-inoregon-and-its-counties-2014.pdf
West, D. (2015). What Happens If Robots Take The Jobs? The

Impact of Emerging Technologies on Employment and Public
Policy. Brookings Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/10/26-robotsemerging-technologies-public-policy-west
WhiteHouse.gov. (2015). White House Report: President Obama's
Upskill Initiative. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/150423_upskill_
report_final_3.pdf
Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW). (2011, Spring). Coming
Up Short: Wages, Public Assistance and Economic Security Across
http://www.wowonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BasicEconomic-Security-Tables-Coming-Up-Short-Report-2011.pdf
301
Willis, M., Austensen, M., Moriarty, S., Rosoff, S., & Sanders,
T. (August 5, 2016). NYU Furman Center/CITI Report on
Homeownership & Opportunity in New York City. NYU Furman
Center and CitiCommunityDevelopment.com. Retrieved from
http://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenterCiti_Homeownership
OpportunityNYC_AUG_2016.pdf
Witters, D. (2011, July 27). Caregiving Costs U.S. Economy $25.2
Billion in Lost Productivity. Gallup Well-Being. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148670/caregiving-costs-economybillion-lost-productivity.aspx
Witters, D. (2015, February 24). Arkansas, Kentucky See Most
Improvement in Uninsured Rates. Gallup Well-Being. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181664/arkansas-kentuckyimprovement-uninsured-rates.aspx
Working Poor Families Project (WPFP). (2016, Accessed March 28).
Indicators and data, Supplemental data, Table S.5. Retrieved from
http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/indicators/
Working Poor Families Project (WPFP). (n.d.). Framework of
Indicators and Source Data. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from
FrameworkofIndicators20135-1-13.pdf
Yellen, J. (October 17, 2014). Perspectives on Inequality and
Opportunity from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Conference on
Economic Opportunity and Inequality. Boston, MA: Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20141017a.htm
Young, G. (March 4, 2016). New York Cracking Down on Payroll.
Business Law News. Retrieved from
http://www.businesslawnews.com/new-york-cracking-down-onpayroll-debit-cards/
Zabritski, M. (2015). State of the Automotive Finance Market, First
Quarter 2015. Retrieved from Experian:
https://www.experian.com/assets/automotive/white-papers/experianauto-2015-q1.pdf?WT.srch=Auto_Q12015FinanceTrends_PDF
Zavodny, M. (2013). Immigration and its Contribution to Our Economic
Strength. Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Senate. Retrieved from
http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/08/-zavodny-immigration-and-itscontribution-to-our-economic-strength_141729556780.pdf
Zhe, Y. (2013). The Effects of English Proficiency on Earnings of
U.S. Foreign-Born Immigrants: Does Gender Matter?. Journal of
Finance & Economics, 1(1). Retrieved from
http://www.todayscience.org/JEF/v1-1/JEF.2291-4951.2013.0101003.pdf
Zurlo, K., WonAh, Y., & Kim, H. (2014, May). Unsecured Consumer
Debt and Mental Health Outcomes in Middle-Aged and Older
Americans. Journals of Gerontology, 69(3), 461-469. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24637231
ALICE is a registered trademark of the United Way of Northern New Jersey.

Copyright 20092016 United Way of Northern New Jersey. All rights reserved.
No further use, copying, dissemination, distribution, or publication is permitted without the express written permission
of United Way of Northern New Jersey.

ALICE New York

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALICE New York

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALICE New York

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALICE

ASSET LIMITED, INCOME CONSTRAINED, EMPLOYED

STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

THE UNITED WAYS OF NEW YORK

United Way of Northern New York

New York State Corporate Investor

NATIONAL ALICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY

THE UNITED WAY ALICE PROJECT

States with United Way ALICE Reports

New Jersey (2012)

First Cohort (2014)

THE ALICE RESEARCH TEAM

Research Support Team

Dan Treglia, Ph.D.

ALICE Research Advisory Committee for New York

A. Brian Leander, Ph.D.

Joshua Simons, M.P.A.

Guillermo Montes, Ph.D.

Kara Ulasewicz Travis, M.A.

James Parrott, Ph.D.

David Voegele, M.S.

II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK?39

VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME86

ALICE IN NEW YORK

APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME211

Figure 25. Occupations by Employment and Wage, New York, 2014 58

All Remaining Counties

UNITED WAY ALICE REPORT NEW YORK

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES, AND WHAT WOULD

UNITED WAY ALICE REPORT NEW YORK

UNITED WAY ALICE REPORT NEW YORK

Consequences of Households Living below the ALICE Threshold in New York

Health and safety risks; increased maintenance

Increased health care costs; worker stressed, late,

Move farther away

Longer commute; costs increase; severe weather can

More traffic on road; workers late to job; absenteeism

Disruption to job, family, school, etc.

Costs for homeless shelters, foster care system,

CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION

Safety and learning risks; health risks; children

Future need for education and social services; less

One parent cannot work; forgoing immediate income

Future need for education and social services

Learning risks; limited earning potential/ mobility;

Stressed parents; lower-skilled workforce; future

Poor health; obesity

Less productive worker/student; increased future

Poor daily functioning

Even less productive; increased future need for social

Unreliable transportation; risk of accidents; increased

Worker stressed, late, and/or absent from job less

Risk of fine; accident liability; risk of license being

Higher insurance premiums; unsafe vehicles on the

Costs increase; severe weather can affect commuter

More traffic on road; workers late to job; increased

Limited employment opportunities and access to

Reduced economic productivity; higher taxes for

II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK?39

VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME86

APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME211

Figure 25. Occupations by Employment and Wage, New York, 2014 58