Poverty Report

SPECIAL REPORT
Poverty and the Concentration of Poverty

DECEMBER 2013
in the Nine-County Greater Rochester Area
Poverty and the Concentration of Poverty in the Nine-County Greater Rochester Area
December 2013
Edward Doherty Principal Author and Researcher
Rochester Area Community Foundation 500 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 585.271.4100 www.racf.org
Copyright Rochester Area Community Foundation, Inc. 2013 All Rights Reserved
About This Repo ort This repo ort was prep pared by Roc chester Area a Community y Foundation n and ACT R Rochester. In August 2013, 2 the Co ommunity Fo oundation Bo oard of Direc ctors adopte ed a new Gra antmaking and Commun nity Leadersh hip Framewo ork. One of the t principall goals of thiis ambitious framework is to create an n equitable community c by b focusing on o three critiical commun nity issues: 1. Makin ng a significant and sust tainable reduction in the e academic a achievement gap as curre ently experienced by many children, primarily in the city of R Rochester; 2. Foste ering racial and a ethnic understanding g and equity y; and 3. Creat ting commun nity awarene ess and understanding o of the conce entration of p poverty and how it affe ects our com mmunity, and d encouragin ng communit ty and econo omic develo opment effort ts that address a thes se issues. Implementation of ite em 3 begins with this stu udy. It is inte ended to fram me and guide future wor rk of the Community Foun ndation and to t serve as an a instrume nt to create community awareness a and understanding. U.S. Cen nsus informa ation contain ns a trove of data that wa as sorted an nd analyzed in significan nt detail. Th he report als so includes analyses a from m other sour rces and oth her studies. It focuses on n the nine-county greater Rochester R re egion and ex xamines the e level and co oncentration n of poverty within the e city of Roc chester. Care has s been taken n in the reports text and charts to ac ccurately des scribe and c cite sources for the data. The reader r will benefit from three general g point ts about the e data: Inform mation attrib buted to the U.S. U Census s is from eith her the 2010 0 decennial C Census or th he Amer rican Community Survey y for 2007-11. These so urces are cited in the va arious charts s. ed in When n sources ot ther than the e U.S. Censu us are used, , these are c cited with so ources detaile the End E Notes (p page 40). In mo ost instances s, the terms poverty an nd poor ref fer to those lliving below the federal poverty level. As discussed in Section 1, the federal poverty leve el is set at an n extremely low F school-le evel poverty information n, the standa ard used is b based on fed deral level of income. For eligib bility for free- and reduce ed-price mea als. This stan ndard and it ts relationshi ip to the fede eral poverty level are discussed in Section 6 (page 34). t region n and metr ro area (or metropolitan m n area) are n not the same e. Region r refers The terms to the e nine-count ty region (Ge enesee, Livin ngston, Mon nroe, Ontario o, Orleans, S Seneca, Wayne, Wyom ming, and Ya ates). The nine-county region r is use ed in Section ns 1-3 of the e report. Me etro refers s to the Metr ropolitan Sta atistical Area as establishe ed by the U.S. Census B Bureau. For our area, this include es the six counties of Liv vingston, Mo onroe, Ontariio, Orleans, Wayne, and d Yates s. The metro o unit is used d where com mparisons ar re made to o other parts o of the country y (Sect tion 4).
Poverty 1
Table e of Conten nts

Section Se ection Title Page Number
Summary y Section 1
Section 2
xecutive Su ummary Ex Sidebar: Ca an You Pictu ure It? verview Ov Sidebar: Is There An Al lternative to the Federal Poverty Lev vel? Who W Are Our r Poor? A. Poverty by b Age B. Poverty and a Race C. Poverty and a Families s Where W Do Ou ur Poor Live e? A. Poverty by County B. Poverty by Geograp phical Locatiion C. Poverty and Cities D. Poverty and Towns E. Poverty and Villages s he Concent tration of Po overty Th A. Rochest ter How Po oor? B. Rochest ter and Com mparably Size ed Cities C. Neighbo orhoods of Extreme E Pove verty D. Closing Sidebar: Liv ving with Pov verty Shyn nettas Story y s Why is Our O Poverty y so Concentrated? Observations A. Racial Segregation S B. Sprawl C. Limited Housing H Choices for the e Poor D. The Inel lastic City an nd the Point of No Retur rn E. The Man nufacturing Colossus C No o More F. Failure to t Evolve G. Closing Sidebar: Liv ving with Pov verty Merc cys Story Where W Do We e Go From Here? A. Is This Im mportant? B. Conside ering the Stra ategies C. Conclus sion Sidebar: Ho ow Close? How H Far? Sidebar: Ho ow Rocheste ers Child Po overty Rate Compares with w the Nati ions Sidebar: Liv ving with Pov verty Adam ms Story
4 4 6 6 7 7 9 9 11 11 12 14 15 16 17 17 19 21 22 17 23 23 26 28 29 31 31 33 23 34 34 37 38 36 37 38 40 42 47 48
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
End Note es Appendix xA Appendix xB Appendix xC
Po overty Data for all Regio onal Municip palities Re egional Map p Metro and Principal City Poverty P Rate es: 75 5 Top U.S. Metropolitan M Areas
Poverty 2
List t of Charts s
Section Chart # Chart Title T Pag ge Num mber
Section 2
Section 3
Chart 1 Chart 2 Chart 3 Chart 4 Chart 5 Chart 6 Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9 Chart 10 Chart 11 Chart 12 Chart 13 Chart 14 Chart 15 Chart 16 Chart 17 Chart 18 Chart 19 Map Chart 20
Section 4
Section 5
Chart 21 Chart 22 Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28
Our Re egions Poor Numbers and Rates Poverty y Rates by Age A Poor Pe eople by Age Poverty y Rate Comp parisons R Region/New York/US Poverty y by Race an nd Ethnicity Poverty y and Family y Structure Poverty y Rate by Co ounty Poverty y Rate and Poor P People by County City-Su uburb Povert ty Rates y Rate and Poor P People by Poverty City-Su uburban Loca ation Poverty y Rates by Geographic G A Area Poverty y in Our Reg gions Cities Poverty y by Jurisdic ction Type Population and Pov verty Rates by Jurisdiction Type Poverty y in Selected d Villages City Po overty Rates in the Top 7 75 U.S. Metr ro Areas ster Poverty Compared t to the 10 La argest U.S. Roches Metro Areas A Poverty y Rates Ro ochester Ben nchmark Me etro Areas ve in the Prin ncipal City Percent of Metro Poor Who Liv ster Benchm mark Metros Roches Percent of Rochest ter Resident ts Living Below the Poverty y Line ds Extreme Poverty Neighborhood ster Benchm mark Metro A Areas Roches res of Residential Segre egation Measur Roches ster Benchm mark Metro A Areas Regional Populatio on Growth 19 950 to 2010 P C Change by R Race and City of Rochester Population ty 1950 to 20 010 Ethnicit oe County by y Jurisdiction n Rental Housing Units in Monro ntal Units) (All Ren D Compa ared with Dav vid Rusks City of Rochester Data o No Return n Measures s Point of er of City of Rochester R C Census Tract ts with Numbe Poverty y of 40% or More M e in City of Rochester R R evenues Change (fiscal 1999 1 to fisca al 2014) Change e in City of Rochester R Ex xpenses (fiscal 1999 1 to fisca al 2014)
7 8 8 8 9 10 0 11 11 12 2 13 3 13 3 14 4 15 5 15 5 16 6 17 7 18 8 19 9 20 0 21 22 2 25 5 26 6 27 7 28 8 30 0 30 0 33 3 35 5
Poverty 3
C Can You Pic cture It?

It is tempting g to see the image of pov verty as a s single, clearl ly focused p photograph. But the true e image of pov verty is b blurry; it is co omplex and r replete with paradox. p E Even the dat ta requires u us to have multiple m focal p points. It requires us to v view multiple e realities. C Consider this s: Within the e n nine-county region, the p poverty rates s for blacks a and Hispanic cs are more than three tim mes that of w whites. Yet, the t majority o of our region ns poor p people (60% %) are white. W While the concentration o of poor in the e city of R Rochester is s both e extraordinary y and highly v visible, the majority m of o our regions poor people e ( (59%) live ou utside the c city. Even the low p poverty suburbs of M Monroe County are h home to mor re than 4 41,000 poor people. T The human image i of p poverty is sim milarly d diffuse. If our picture is o of a poor child born into a abject povert ty, it is an a accurate pict ture. But the e p picture also includes i the a adult with life e-long h health strugg gles, the f family thrown n suddenly
( (continued next page) p
Exe ecutive Summa S ry

Roche ester the fifth poorest c city in the co ountry (among the 75 largest metro o areas)? Roche ester the second s poore rest among c comparably sized cities in the United d States? Roche ester the city c with the t third highest tion of extrem mely t concentrat poor neighborhoo n ods (among t the top 100 metropolitan n areas in th he country)? Roche ester the poorest p scho ool district in upstate New w York? Roche ester the poorest p large e urban scho ool district in n New York S State? Roche ester? Yes, Rochester. *** These e are the trou ubling statis stics behind o our commun nitys ongoin ng strugg gle with the critical c issue e of poverty. Poverty des stroys neighborhoods an nd impairs th he health of regions bey yond those neighborhoods. Poverty P robs people of th heir dignity a and sense of f worth and saps commun nities of reso ources bot th human an nd material. And pover rty has had a dramatic im mpact on Ro ochester, mo ost particular rly on its public c schools. Althou ugh acknowl ledged to be e an enormo ous problem in the Rochester region n, povertys extent e and im mpact have been too litt tle understoo od. This report t seeks to ex xpand this u nderstanding. dings descriibed above, the report a In add dition to the alarming find also docum ments severa al well-know wn, but still d disquieting fa acts: Th here are poo or people in every city, to own, and village in the r region, wi ith more than 160,000 p people living below the fe ederal pover rty level in the nine-county region. Ch hildren are fa ar more like ly to be poor than adults s. In the nine e-county re egion, 19% of o children ar re poor, as c compared to o 13% of all re esidents. In the city of Ro ochester, ne early half the e children (46 6%) are po oor, compare ed with 31% % of the total population. Blacks and Hispanics are far more lik kely to be po oor than whit tes. In ou ur region, the e poverty rat te for blacks s stands at 3 34% and for Hi ispanics at 33%. 3 For wh hites the rate e is 10%. And, blacks an nd Hi ispanics hav ve a much hiigher rate of f poverty in R Rochester th han they do o elsewhere in New York k State or in the nation.
Poverty 4
into poverty by the loss o of employme ent, the r recent colleg ge graduate w who cannot find f work, a and the farm m worker w who can find d only a parttime job. T The true ima age of p poverty is no ot found in a c crisp photo, but in a c collage that is i s sometimes clear c and s sometimes a bit murky.
Th hose in fema ale-headed h households, especially t those with ch hildren un nder the age e of 5, experiience a far g greater pove erty rate than n other families. Ou ur concentra ation of pove erty is remar rkable when compared t to other co ommunities. Among com mparably size ed cities, Ro ochester has s one of the highest pe ercentages o of metro area a poor peop ple living in th he city. An nd, as noted d above, Roc chester has one of the h highest co oncentrations s of extreme ely poor neig ghborhoods. . Th he federal po overty level, which is used in the findings above e (except the school info ormation), is s set at a ver ry low level o of income. F For ex xample, a sin ngle adult w working full-tim me and earn ning the fede eral and NY Y State minimum wage ($7.75 per h hour) would earn $16,12 20 per ye ear, which is $4,620 mor re than the f federal poverty level. Another wa ay of looking g at the sam me situation is s to realize t that a single e person making just ab bove the fed deral poverty y level of $11 1,490 would earn on nly $5.53 per hour, or 29 9% lower tha an the minim mum wage. T The key po oint is that th he federal po overty level a accounts for r the very po oor. Th here are many more peo ople than tho ose measure ed in this rep port who struggle with meeting m the basic needs s of life.
In add dition to the data findings s, the report t also contains observations on how th he current situation deve eloped. Patt terns of racia al discrimina ation, unche ecked spraw wl, limited ho using choice es for the po oor, and a fa ailure to evolve e new struct tures and ne ew systems a are discusse ed. Finally y, the impac ct of our high hly concentra ated poverty y is examine ed and broad d strategies for f the future e are presen nted. While the study offe ers obser rvations on the various s strategies av vailable, it do oes not reco ommend specif fic actions. Instead, a co omprehensiv ve effort to im mprove community aware eness of our poverty and d its impacts s is recomme ended.
Poverty 5
Is There An n A Alternative to the F Federal Pov verty L Level?

B Because of limitations in n the federal poverty p level, m many efforts are under w way to find an a a alternative. O One such ap pproach is the self-suffic ciency s standard est tablished by a steering co ommittee of N New York St tate antip poverty and community a action organizations. U Using a meth hodology d developed by y Diana M. P Pearce, PhD D, of the U University of f W Washington, the s steering com mmittee p published a selfs s sufficiency st tandard for e each county in the s state.* This standard s is intended to represent r the income le evel needed d to meet basic needs w without publi ic or private a assistance. T The standard d differs f from the fede eral poverty le evel in several ways: it is s built-up us sing c contemporar ry cost c categories and e estimates; it varies with f family structu ure (with d different cost t estimates f for infants, to oddlers, p pre-school children, and
Sec ction 1: Overvie O ew

A. Poverty in n Greater Ro ochester 160,699 people in n the nine-co ounty Greate er Rochester region live below the federal povert ty level. re are many more poor in our community. It is a large number. Yet, ther ederal pover rty level is so o low that m many health a and human s service The fe progra ams use incomes highe r than the po overty level to define elig gibility. For ex xample, eligibility for foo od stamps1 is currently set at 130% % of the pover rty level. If we w considere ed 130% of th he poverty le evel as poo or, the number of poor pe eople in our r region can be estimated at approximately ent data for a use the 210,000. Consiste all communiities is not available to u higher level; so th his report use es the feder ral poverty le evel to define e poor. The re eader of this s report shou uld keep in m mind that this s definition o of pover rty is set at a very low lev vel of incom me. This report r provid des a descrip ption of the p poor in our r region (Secti ion 2) and a detailed analysis of whe ere the poor r live (Sectio on 3). The re eport examines the issu ue of concen ntration of po overty using g a benchma ark group of com mparably siz zed metro ar reas, as welll as the natio ons largest metros (Secti ion 4). Sectio on 5 delves into the orig gins of Rochesters patte ern of conce entrated poverty, while S Section 6 con nsiders the i importance o of conce entrated poverty and exp plores the qu uestion: Whe ere do we go o from here? ? B. What is Po overty? How w is it Measu ured? Most people recognize povert rty to be a state or condition where individ duals or fam milies lack the e financial re esources to meet basic needs. Opinio ons vary gre eatly on wha t constitutes s basic need ds and how t to quant tify the resou urces neede ed. The current c federal poverty le evel derives from a formula develope ed in 1963. In that year r, the Depart tment of Agr riculture estimated the c cost to meet basic food needs. n That amount was s then multip plied by 3 to account for all other basic needs. The e level has be een adjusted d annually s since 1963 using chang ges in the co onsumer pric ce index (CP PI). The 2013 3 pover rty levels for various fam mily sizes are e: Family Siz ze* 1 2 3 4 5 A Annual Inco ome $11,490 $15,510 $19,530 $23,550 $27,570
* For la arger families, a r each additional member add $4,020 for
Poverty 6
teenagers); and a it is b based on countys specific costs s. T The table be elow shows the self-suffic ciency s standard for Monroe C County. This s level is s significantly higher than the federal poverty p level. In fact, in the e case of f families with children the e s self-sufficien ncy standard is s more than double the f federal poverty level. Family Size* 1 2 3 4 5 Annual Income $20,042 $38,773 $47,391 $58,284 $58,598
eral poverty level is set. The There e are many criticisms c of how the fede relatio onship betwe een food and d all other needs was ar rbitrary in 19 963, and that re elationship has h not been n updated since. This relationship ig gnores , and it does new cost c compon nents such a as child care, s not adequa ately accou unt for cost it tems that ha ave increase ed at rates higher than in nflation such as a health ca are, housing, , and taxes. The federal poverty leve el also does not account for regional differences s in the cost o of living (exc cept for Alaska and Hawa aii which hav ve their own levels). The e federal pov verty level is i set so low w that an indiividual earning $5.53 pe er hour wel ll below the federal and New York Sta ate minimum m wage wo ould be abov ve the pover rty line (base ed on a 40-h hour work we eek). Despi ite its limitati ions, the fed deral poverty y level is a universally co ollected data element e that t facilitates c comparison a among comm munities. Ex xcept for the discussion of public educa ation, the po overty measure used thr roughout this re eport is the federal f level. .
Sec ction 2: Who W Are e Our Po oor?

A. Poverty an nd Age The U.S. U Census Bureau trac cks poor peo ople in three age groups s: childre en (under ag ge 18); adult ts (18 to 64) ); and senior r adults (65 a and older) ). Chart 1 be elow shows p poverty rates s and the nu umber of individuals by the ese grouping gs. As shown n in column F, the regional poverty rate is greate est for childr ren (18.7%). Children ac ccount for 32 2% of the reg gions poor people p (column E), but o only 23% of the total pop pulation (column C). Adults s are the larg gest populat tion group, a and thus, are e the largest t block of poor people p (column D), desp pite having the second lo owest pover rty rate (colum mn F). Senio ors have the lowest pove erty rate and d the lowest percentage of poo or people. Chart 1: Our Regi ions Poor Numbers and Rates
Col lumn A olumn Co B
Total T Population y Age By
T The financial selfs sufficiency st tandard is h helpful in und derstanding just how low the income le evel is unde er the federal p poverty level l. Because this standard d is not u universally available a and d is s not update ed regularly, it t cannot be used in this r report. Excep pt for the d discussion of public e education, th he poverty le evel used th hroughout this report is the federal evel. le
* Diana M. Pearce, PhD, The Self Suffic ciency S Standard for Ne ew York State 2 2010, New Yor rk State C Community Act tion A Association, Inc c., and Wider O Opportunities fo or Women
Co olumn C
rcent of Per T Total Pop pulation
Co olumn D
P Poor People y Age by
C Column E
Percent of Total Poor Population
Column F
P Percent of Population that is Poor
(p poverty rate)
Unde er 18 18 to o 64 65 or abov ve Total
275 5,739 768 8,924 172 2,493 1,21 17,156
22 2.6% 63 3.2% 14 4.2% 10 00.0%
51 1,289 95 5,891 13 3,519 16 60,699
3 31.9% 5 59.7% 8 8.4% 10 00.0%
18.7% 12.4% 7.8% 13.2%
Sourc ce: U.S. Census Bureau Am merican Commu unity Survey (2 2007-11). Perce entages were calculated c for th his report.
Poverty 7
Chart 2 displays the t poverty r rates by age e group and Chart 3 show ws the distrib bution of poo or people by age. It is dif fficult to draw w conclusion ns from this da ata, except that t children n have a high her rate of p poverty and repres sent a dispro oportionate s share of the poor popula ation. This is s not unique to our area a. Chart t 2: Poverty y Rates by Age A
20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Children Adults A Povert tyRates
Source: U.S. Census Burea au American Community Survey (2007-11).
Chart 3: Poor Peo ople by Age e
18.7% 1
8.4%
12.4% 7.8%
31.9%
59.7%
Seniors S
Children n
Adults
SeniorA Adults
So ource: U.S. Ce ensus Bureau American Co ommunity Survey (2007 7-11).
Chart 4 compares s our regions rate of pov verty to New w York State e and U.S. levels. As illu ustrated, our r regional po overty levels s are lower th han the state and national marks for a all age group ps. However r, as will be discus ssed in Sect tion 4, there are dramatiic difference es within the region. In fact t, the city of Rochesters s poverty rat te is among the highest for Ameri icas large and medium cities. Cha art 4: Pover rty Rate Comparisons Our Regio ork State, Un nited States s on, New Yo
25.0 0%
20. .3%
20.0 0% 15.0 0% 10.0 0% 5.0 0% 0.0 0%
18.7%
20.0% 12.4 4% 13.0% 13.1% 11.5% 7.8% 9.4% 13.2% 14 4.5% 14.3%
OurRegion NYState US
Child dren
Adults
Seniors
A All
Source: S U.S. Ce ensus Bureau - American Com mmunity Surve ey (2007-11).
Poverty 8
B. Poverty an nd Race
P People Beh hind the P Poverty Sta atistics

T The charts, graphs g and s statistics in this report tell the story of poverty in our community with n numbers. Bu ut we also w wanted to tell the story o of poverty an nd its many r ripple effects s from the p perspective of o people w who live it ev very day. L Later in this report, you w will read abo out S Shynetta, Me ercy, and A Adam. They were vetted d b by local agen ncies and a agreed to in-depth interviews ab bout their lives. Details s in each of the Living with w Poverty s stories are accurate; h however, rea al names w were change ed in an e effort to prote ect their p privacy. T Thanks to the staff of C Charles Sett tlement H House and th he YWCA of f R Rochester & Monroe C County for th heir a assistance in n finding our r interview sub bjects. S Shynetta page 17 M Mercy pag ge 23 A Adam pag ge 38
Dispa arities and inequalities am mong differe ent racial and d ethnic pop pulations have been well do ocumented o on a nationa al and local level. ACT Roche ester (www.A ACTRoches ster.org) has s compiled a report that o outlines local inequalities i by race and ethnicity in health and w well-being, educa ation, housin ng, income, a and employm ment2. Pove erty is also distrib buted unevenly by race a and ethnicity y. As describ bed in Chart t 5, our region ns white pop pulation has s a lower than average ra ate of pover rty, while Africa an Americans s and Hispa nics experie ence a dramatically higher rate of pov verty. This finding f mirrors statewide e and nationa al data. But, of significan nt impor rtance, the poverty p rate o of African Am mericans an nd Hispanics s in the Roche ester region is significan ntly higher th han it is for th hese same population groups s when comp pared to New w York State e and the U. .S. as a whole e. As illustrat ted in colum n D of Chart t 5, our regio onal poverty y rate for blacks s is now eigh ht percentag ge points hig gher than the e rate for bla acks nation nwide, and 12 points hig gher than the e New York State mark. For local Hispanics, H th he disparitie es are compa arable (colum mn E). Chart C 5: Pov verty by Rac ce and Ethn nicity
Column C A Column B
All
Column nC
Whites s
Colu umn D
Bla acks
C Column E
H Hispanic
Our Region Unite ed States NY State S NY State S witho out NYC
13% 14% 14% 11%
10% 12% 11% 9%
34 4% 26 6% 22 2% 23 3%
33% 23% 25% 18%
Sourc ce: U.S. Census Bureau Am merican Commu unity Survey (2 2007-11).
C. . Poverty an nd Families The American A Co ommunity Su urvey provide es informatio on about pov verty and fa amily structu ure. Chart 6 (page 10) co ontains a tro ove of data o on pover rty and family y structure. W While this da ata is helpfu ul, the reader should be cautious in using and inter rpreting this data. Some e particular c cautions includ de: Th he data relat tes to familie es, not the number of pe eople in fami ilies. While W overall average a fam mily size is av vailable, it is s not availab ble for the different ty ypes of fami ly structures s. Because f family size v varies co onsiderably, this data do oes not help to understan nd the numb ber or pe ercent of poo or people in each family structure; n nor does it te ell us the de egree to which these fam mily structure es contribute e to the total poverty pr rofile. Additio onal researc ch would be needed to d develop this d data.
Poverty 9
Like most data a, it shows c correlation, n not causation. Cause-an nd-effect co onclusions re equire furthe er research.
Despi ite the limitations, and re ecognizing th he cautions, , the data on n Chart 6 is reve ealing. The chart c shows s: Fa amilies with children (un der age 18) are more lik kely to be po oor when co ompared to all a families. T This holds fo or all countie es, as well as the city of f Rochester (column ( C). Fa amilies of ma arried couple es living together have d dramatically y lower po overty rates (column D). Fe emale-heade ed families ( (with no husb band presen nt) are marke edly po oorer than fa amilies in ge neral (colum mn E). band presen Fe emale-heade ed families ( (with no husb nt) are even poorer if ch hildren under age 18 are e present (co olumn F), an nd poorer yet if there ar re children under the age e of 5 (colum mn G). rt 6: Poverty and Fami ly Structure e Char Po overty Rates s for Families with Diff ferent Char racteristics
Column nA Column C B Column C Column D Column E e Female Headed d s* Families - No Husban nd Presen nt Colum mn F male Fem Head ded Famil lies* -N No Husb band Pres sent wit th Child dren unde er 18 Col lumn G emale Fe He eaded Fam milies* - No sband Hus Pr resent w with Ch hildren un nder 5
County, Region, or Cit ty
All Families F
Families with Children under 18
Families of f Married Couples
Monroe** Orleans Genesee Livingston Ontario Wayne Wyoming Seneca Yates Regional Total T Rochester (city)
10.3% 9.7% 9.0% 7.1% 6.2% 7.5% 6.5% 7.7% 10.3% 9.2% 27.6%
17.3% 15.2% 16.4% 13.6% 11.5% 13.3% 11.9% 13.0% 18.7% 15.9% 40.4%
3.2% 3.5% 4.0% 2.1% 2.4% 3.6% 3.1% 5.0% 5.4% 3.3% 9.6%
32.3% % 33.4% % 31.8% % 29.1% % 21.8% % 26.0% % 25.0% % 17.3% % 28.1% % 30.4% % 46.8% %
42.0 0% 39.1 1% 47.0 0% 37.7 7% 30.8 8% 33.2 2% 34.1 1% 23.3 3% 32.2 2% 39 9.7% 55 5.5%
51 1.8% 28 8.9% 65 5.3% 64 4.5% 29 9.3% 36 6.4% 70 0.4% 35 5.3% 23 3.9% N NA*** 6 64.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community C Survey (2007-11) ). * This grouping includes single, s divorced d, widowed, an nd married wom men with no husband present t. ** Data for Monroe M County y includes the city c of Rochest ter; city data is shown separa ately at the bottom for analys sis purposes. *** For this category, c only percents p were available the e regional total could not be c alculated.
Poverty 10
Sec ction 3: Where Do Our Poor Li ive?

A. Poverty by y County It is well w known th hat our regio ons poor peo ople are con ncentrated in n the city of Roc chester, and d this issue w will be discus ssed in Sect tion 4. But it t is also impor rtant to recog gnize that th here are cons siderable nu umbers of po oor people in every co ounty (and e every town, v village, and city). As illus strated in Cha arts 7 and 8, the poverty y rates of all but two cou unties (Yates s and Monro oe) are below w the region nal average. Yates Coun nty has the h highest pover rty rate (15.4 4%), yet, bec cause it has the smalles st total population, it oor people ( has th he smallest number n of po (3,904). On t the opposite e end of the sp pectrum, Ontario County y has the low west poverty y rate (9.7%) ) but the larges st number of f poor people e (10,469) o outside Monr roe County. Chart C 7: Pov verty Rate b by County
20.0%
15.4%
15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
13. .2%
14.4% 1
12.5% 12.1%
11.7% %
11.7%
1% 11.1
10.1%
9. .7%
So ource: U.S. Census Bureau - American Com mmunity Survey y (2007-11).
Chart 8: Poverty P Rate e and Poor People by C County

Column A
County
Column B
Poverty Rate
Column C
Number of P Poor People
Column D
Perc cent of Region ns P Poor People
Yates County C Monroe e County Genese ee County Orleans s County Seneca a County Livingst ton County Wayne County Wyomin ng County Ontario County Total Roches ster (city)*
15.4% 14.4% 12.5% 12.1% 11.7% 11.7% 11.1% 10.1% 9.7% 13.2% 31.1%
3,904 1 107,186 7,510 5,189 4,124 7,650 10,409 4,258 10,469 1 160,699 65,486
2.4% 66.7% 4.7% 3.2% 2.6% 4.8% 6.5% 2.6% 6.5% 100% 40.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau B Ameri ican Communit ty Survey (200 07-11). Percenta ages were calc culated for this report. * Data fo or all counties includes cities within w the coun nty; city of Roch hester data is s shown separate ely at the botto om of this char rt for analysis purposes. p
Poverty 11
B. Poverty by y Geographiical Location n Chart 9 looks at poverty p by co ommunity ty ype and show ws the sharp p differe etween the city of Rochester and th ences in pov verty rates be he region ns suburban n areas. The e difference b between sub burban Monroe Count ty and the su urrounding c counties reflects a numb ber of factors s: Su uburban Monroe County y includes no o cities, while the surrou unding co ounties categ gory include es the cities o of Batavia, G Geneva, and d Ca anandaigua (see page 1 14 for more o on these citi ies). e surroundin g counties o often serve a as urban hub bs in a Villages in the wa ay that most t Monroe Co ounty suburb ban villages no longer do o (see pa age 16 for more m informat tion about villages). Ru ural poverty is certainly greater in th he outlying c counties than n in Monroe County, though th his is not spe ecifically doc cumented in n this study. Cha art 9: City-S Suburb Pov verty Rates
35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Rocheste er Suburban S Monroe oundingCount Surro ties 7.8% 11.4% 31.1%
So ource: U.S. Census Bureau - American Com mmunity Survey y (2007-11). Percentage for Suburban Monroe M and Su urrounding Cou unties were callculated for this s report.
Poverty 12
Pover rty rates and d the corresp ponding num mber of poor people are highlig ghted on Ch hart 10. While e the city of Rochesters s poverty rat te is very high, less than ha alf the region ns poor are city resident ts. It may be e surprising to some e that about t one-third of f our regions poor peop ple live outsid de of Monroe e County (co olumn D). Cha art 10: Pove erty Rate an nd Poor Peo ople by City-Suburban L Location
Column A County C Column B Poverty Rate Column C Number of Poor Peo ople Col lumn D Per rcent of Regions Poor r People
City of Rocheste er Subu urban Monro oe Coun nty Surro ounding Cou unties Total
31.1% 7.8% 11.4% 13.2%
65,486 6 41,700 0 53,513 3 160,699
40 0.8% 25 5.9% 33 3.3% 100%
Sourc ce: U.S. Census Bureau Am merican Commu unity Survey (2 2007-11). Perce entages were calculated c for th his report.
This study s looked d at sub-parts s of the suburban areas s to determin ne wheth her there were any majo or differences s. Chart 11 i illustrates a slightly higher poverty rat te for Monro oe Countys w western sub burbs compa ared to the ea ast side. Sim milarly, the co ounties adja acent to Mon nroe on the w west side had higher povert ty rates than n those on th he east. The west side a adjacent counties and the three t non-ad djacent coun nties are mo ore rural in character than Monroe M County and the adjacent ea ast side coun nties. This at t least partially accounts s for the high her poverty r rates in the w west side an nd nonadjace ent counties s. Chart 11 1: Poverty Rates R by Ge eographic A Area
35.0% % 30.0% % 25.0% % 20.0% % 15.0% % 10.0% % 5.0% % 0.0% % Rochest ter jacentEast N Monroe eWest Monro oeEast Adjac centWest Adj Nonadjacent Suburbs Sub burbs Co ounties C Counties Counties 8.2% % 7.6% 1 12.3% 10.7% 12.0% 31.1% %
Mo onroe West: 10 towns west of the Genesee River; R Monroe East: 10 towns s east of the Ge enesee River Adjacent West: W Orleans, Genesee; G Adjac cent East: Livin ngston, Ontario o, Wayne; Non-adjacent: Sen neca, Wyoming g, Yates Source: U.S. U Census Bu ureau - American Community y Survey (2007-11). Percentag ges were calcu ulated for this r report.
Poverty 13
C. . Poverty an nd Cities There e are four cities within the e nine-county region: Ro ochester, Ba atavia, Canan ndaigua, and d Geneva. A All have pove erty levels h higher than th he region nal average, although no one approac ch the levels s of the city o of Roche ester. Inform mation for the ese cities is provided in Chart 12. eva have sig Roche ester, Batavia, and Gene gnificant pov verty rates. C Chart 12 shows s how each citys share of their coun ntys poor po opulation (Column G) sig gnificantly ex xceeds its sh hare of the g general popu ulation (Colu umn F). Toget ther, these fo our cities are e home to ne early 48% o of our region s poor people. Rocheste ers extraordiinary poverty y level is fur rther analyze ed in Sectio ons 4 & 5.
t 12: Povert ty in Our Re egions Citie es Chart

Column nA City* Column B County* C Column C Poverty Rate Column D Population n Column E Number o of Poor People Colum mn F Percen nt of Tota al Coun nty Popula ation Col lumn G Per rcent of Coun nty Poor Pop pulation
Batavia Canandaigua Genev va Roches ster
Genesee Ontario O Ontario O Monroe M
23.0% 13.3% 23.0% 31.1%
15,465 10,545 13,261 210,565
3,557 1,402 3,050 65,486 6
25.7% 9.8% % 12.3% 28.3%
47.4% 13.4% 29.1% 61.1%
Source: U.S. Census C Bureau u American Community C Sur rvey (2007-11). . Percentages were calculate ed for this repor rt. * The data for these cities is part of the data a for the respec ctive counties a as presented e elsewhere in th his report. This data is shown here se eparately for an nalysis.
Poverty 14
D. . Poverty an nd Towns Nearly y 80% of res sidents withi n our nine-c county region n (966,837 p people) live within w the are eas 126 town ns3. Of this g group, 152,2 216 live with hin the region ns 60 village es3. The rem maining 814,621 residents live in tow wn areas outsid de of villages s (sometime es referred to o as unincorporated area as). As de etailed in Cha arts 13 and 14, it is thes se town area as outside of f villages where e the lowest poverty rate es exist. In fa act, these ar reas in aggre egate have poverty rates that are ab bout half the e regional lev vel and dram matically lower than village e and city rat tes. Nearly tw wo thirds of our regions s reside ents live in th hese relative ely low poverty areas. Chart 13: Poverty y Rates by J Jurisdiction n Type
35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Rochester OtherCities Village es Town nsOutsideof f IndianReser rvation* Villages 6.6% 20.4% 15.8% % 21.3% % 31.1%
Source: : U.S. Census Bureau - Amer rican Communi ity Survey (200 07-11). Percent tages were calculated for this s report. * Ton nawanda Indian n Reservation iin Genesee Co ounty
Chart C 14: Po opulation an nd Poverty Rates by Ju urisdiction Type

Ty ype of Jurisdic ction Num mber Popula ation rcent of Per Re egional Pop pulation Poverty Rate
City of Rocheste er Othe er Cities Villag ges Town ns (outside villlages) Ame erican Indian Rese ervation
(see End E Note 4)
1 3 6 60 12 26 1
210,5 565 39,2 271 152,2 216 814,6 621 48 83 1,217 7,156
17.4% 3 3.2% 12.5% 66.9%

Less than 0.1%
31.1% 20.4% 15.8% 6.6% 21.3% 13.2%
Total Region
1 100%
Sourc ce: U.S. Census Bureau Am merican Commu unity Survey (2 2007-11). Juris sdiction types, populations, and a poverty rat tes were comp piled by the author from Censu us data.
See Appendix A A for poverty rates for all towns in the e nine-county y region.
Poverty 15
E. Poverty an nd Villages There e are 60 villages in the n ine-county r region. Like cities, village es often serve as urban hu ubs, althoug h the moder rn function o of villages va aries. Chart 15 displays poverty rate ing all es in 17 sele ected village es representi counties in the nin ne-county re egion. Five o of these villages have po overty rates in excess of f 20% (yellow w highlights in Column C C). These fiv ve village es all repres sent a dispro oportionate p percentage o of their respe ective county ys poor pop pulation (yelllow highlight ts in Column ns F and G). . Collec ctively, these e 17 villages s are home t to 15,702 po oor people. T The collec ctive poverty rate of this group of villa ages is 17% %. Individual village pover rty rates rang ge from a low w of 2.2% (V Victor) to 41.3% (Geneseo). At 41. .3%, the pov verty rate of the Village o of Geneseo is startling. It is the highest poverty ra ate of any m unicipality in n the region and it is 10 percentage points s higher than n the city of Rochester. It is likely tha at this is an art tifact (at leas st partially) o of being a co ollege town. Evidence fo or this conclu usion is foun nd in the fact t that Genes seos childho ood poverty rate (19.2% %) is only slightly higher r than the regional mark k for children ty rate (45.6 (18.7% %), while its adult povert 6%) is drama atically highe er than the re egional level (12.4%) and d even highe er than the c city of Roche ester (27.1% %) level for adults. a See Appendix A A for poverty rates of all v villages in th he nine-coun nty region. art 15: Pove erty in Selec cted Village es Cha
Column A
Village
Col lumn B
Co ounty
Column C
Poverty Rate
Column D
Population n
Column nE
Numbe er of Poor Pe eople
Colu umn F
Perc cent of To otal County ulation Popu
Co olumn G
ercent of Pe Cou unty Poor Po opulation
Medina Albion Warsaw Le Roy Geneseo Dansville Clifton Sprin ngs Victor Newark Palmyra Waterloo Seneca Falls* Penn Yan Fairport Webster Hilton Brockport
Orlea ans Orlea ans Wyom ming Gene esee Living gston Living gston Onta ario Onta ario Wayn ne Wayn ne Sene eca Sene eca Yates s Monr roe Monr roe Monr roe Monr roe
21.0% 20.6% 8.7% 13.2% 41.3% 17.6% 8.3% 2.2% 15.0% 15.2% 7.9% 12.8% 20.0% 6.5% 15.7% 7.0% 25.0%
6,065 6,056 3,473 4,391 8,031 4,719 2,127 2,696 9,145 3,536 5,171 6,681 5,159 5,353 5,399 5,886 8,366
1,27 74 1,24 48 302 2 580 0 3,317 830 0 177 7 60 0 1,37 72 537 7 409 9 855 5 1,04 42 348 8 848 8 412 2 2,09 91
14.1% 14.1% 8.2% 7.3% 12.3% 7.2% 2.0% 2.5% 9.8% 3.8% 16.0% 20.7% 20.4% .7 7% .7 7% .8 8% 1.1%
2 24.6% 2 24.1% 7.1% 7.7% 4 43.4% 10.1% 1.7% .6% 13.2% 5.2% 9.9% 2 20.7% 2 26.7% .3% .8% .4% 2.0%
Source: U.S. Census C Bureau u American Community C Sur rvey (2007-11). . Percentages were calculate ed for this repor rt. * Seneca Falls s Village was dissolved on De ecember 31, 20 011, but was in n existence for the American C Community Survey.
Poverty 16
L Living with h Poverty

S Shynettas Story S S Shynetta nev ver imagined tha at being in a an abusive relationship w would derail her entire life. But it did d. S She was evic cted from the apartmen nt where s she lived for 10 years, lo ost her car and a her job, a and was kick ked out of a n nursing prog gram b because she e missed too o m many classe es. I lost e everything. W With only the e clothes they were we earing, S Shynetta and d her young d daughter mo oved into her r m mothers one e-bedroom a apartment an nd slept on a an inflatable mattress in the living roo om. Several m months later r, the two s spent a week k at a Y YWCA shelte er before they were ac ccepted into W Wilson Comm mencement P Parks two-year program m that would he elp stabilize their situation n and give them time to become m more financially selfs sufficient. I can say rig ght now that Im living poo or, says the e 3 33-year-old, who lives w with her now w eight-yearo old daughter r in a Y YWCA-supported a apartment. They T receive e S SNAP benef fits (formerly y
(c (continued next page) p
Sec ction 4: The T Con ncentrat tion of P Poverty y

Data a Note: For many m of the an nalyses and c charts in this s section, it was s nece essary to use the Census B Bureaus Metr ropolitan Sta atistical Area as (MSA As). For the Rochester R me etro, this inclu udes only six o of the nine co ounties included in the earlier sections of this report t. The countie es of Genesee e, Wyom ming, and Se eneca are not included in th he analysis in n this section. This mean ns that some data in this s section of the report will vary slightly, bu ut accurately, from data d described d in earlier pa arts. For exam mple, Chart 10 0 shows the city c of Roches sters poor at 4 40.8% of the nine-county r region, while Chart 19 he six-county show ws that share at 45.2% of th y MSA.
A. Rochester r How Poo or? It may y surprise many readers s that Roche ester is the fifth poores st city in the United States s, among th e top 75 me etropolitan ar reas. As illus strated in Cha art 16, only Detroit, D Hart tford, Clevela and, and Da ayton have h higher pover rty rates than n Rochester r.
Chart C 16: City Poverty Rates in th he Top 75 U.S. Metro A Areas

Highest Po overty Rates Po overty Rank k City y R Rate Lowest t Poverty Ra ates Poverty R Rank City Rate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Detroit Hartford Cleveland d Dayton Rocheste er Buffalo Miami Providence McAllen, TX Cincinnat ti Birmingha am Milwauke ee Richmond d New Hav ven St Louis
36 6.2% 32 2.9% 32 2.6% 32 2.5% 31 1.1% 29 9.9% 27 7.7% 27 7.7% 27 7.6% 27 7.4% 27 7.3% 27 7.0% 26 6.3% 26 6.3% 26 6.0%
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Albuq querque rside-San River Berna ardino sville Louis (Jeffe erson Coun nty) Omaha Oxna ard, CA Jacks sonville Raleigh Charlotte Las V Vegas San D Diego Seatt tle San F Francisco Hono olulu San J Jose Virgin nia Beach
16.6% 15.8% 15.7% 15.5% 15.3% 15.2% 15.1% 15.0% 14.9% 14.6% 13.2% 12.3% 11.6% 11.1% 7.1%
Appendix C of th his report con ntains a full listing of the e top 75 metropolitan areas and the pov verty rates o of their princiipal cities.
Poverty 17
k known as foo od stamps) a and Departm ment of S Social Servic ces support f for rent, utilit ties, and a s small cash allowance. a W When there is not e enough mon ney to buy h her daughter r clothing or s supplies for school, s her d disabled mot ther does w what she can n. The one p positive in Sh hynettas u unexpected spiral into p poverty is tha at during all o of these tran nsitions her d daughter has s remained a at the same school. S Shynetta is trying t to get h her life back on track. S She has bee en taking o online colleg ge classes, p paid for with a c combination of financial a aid and personal loans. B But the road to independenc ce is still a w ways off bec cause, she s says, there is still so m much to be done. d Mary y Holleran
To loo ok at Roches sters povert ty rate through a differen nt perspectiv ve, Chart 17 compares Roc chesters pov verty rate to that of the p principal city y in the nation ns 10 larges st metro area as. As can b be observed, , Rochesters city pover rty rate is hig gher than all l the principa al cities in th he nations la argest metro os. Expandin ng this group p and looking g at the natio ons 25 large est metro o areas, Rochesters pov verty rate is higher than all but one o of the princip pal cities (De etroit at 36.2 2%). Chart 1 17: Rochest ter Poverty Com mpared to th he 10 Largest U.S. Metr ro Areas Ra anked by Po overty Rate e of Principa al City
Metro Area Metr ro Population Princip pal City Pove erty Rate
Roch hester Miam mi Phila adelphia Atlan nta Dalla as Fort Wo orth
Mid-p point of rang ge
1 1,079,671 5 5,564,635 5 5,965,343 5 5,286,728 6 6,426,214 5 5,920,416 9 9,461,105 4 4,552,402 1 2,828,837 1 9,567,410 5 5,636,232
31.1% 27.7% 25.6% 23.2% 23.0% 22.9% 21.5% 21.4% 21.4% 20.2% 19.4% 18.2%
Hous ston Chicago Bost ton Los Angeles A New York Washington
Poverty 18
B. Rochester r and Compa arably Sized d Cities To dig g deeper and d to gauge t he extent of f Rochesters s urban pove erty, this report t developed a benchmar rk group of c comparably sized metro areas in order to more fully y explore thiis issue. The e benchmark k group cons sists of etro areas with populatio ons within 20 00,000 (+ or -) of Roches sters. all me The re esults of this s benchmark k comparison are shown n in Chart 18 8. On the left sid de of the cha art, metro ar rea poverty r rates are list ted. As can be seen, the Ro ochester me etro area is n near the mid ddle of the be enchmark gr roup, and is s considerab bly lower tha n the mathe ematical mid-point5. A ve ery differe ent picture emerges e whe en comparin ng based on the poverty rates of the pr rincipal city. In this comp parison, Roc chester is ne ear the top, w with only Hartfo ord having a higher pove erty rate. Ro ochesters po overty rate is s nearly nine percentage p points p highe r than the m mid-point of p principal city poverty. In other words, Ro ochester is second po oorest amon ng cities its size. Chart 18: Poverty Ra ates - Rochester Bench hmark Metr ro Areas (M MSAs)* Ranked by Poverty y Rate of Me etro Area anked by Po overty Rate e of Principa al City Ra
Metro Ar rea Metro Population Metro Area a Poverty Rate M Metro Area Metr ro Popula ation Pr rincipal City y Poverty Rate
F Fresno T Tucson N New Orleans s A Albuquerque e

M Mid-point of range
930,450 980,263 1,189,866 887,077 1,128,047 1,252,987 937,478 1,235,708 1,135,509 988,938 1,079,671 1,208,101 1,130,490 1,087,873 916,980 1,212,381 935,207 916,829
B Birmingham O Oklahoma City C T Tulsa L Louisville B Buffalo G Grand Rapid ds R Rochester R Richmond R Raleigh S Salt Lake Cit ty W Worcester H Hartford H Honolulu B Bridgeport
23.4% % 17.4% % 17.0% % 16.5% % 15.8% % 15.0% % 14.9% % 14.5% % 14.1% % 13.9% % 13.6% % 13.2% % 11.5% % 11.2% % 10.9% % 10.0% % 9.8% % 9.3% % 8.3% %
Hartf ford Roch hester Buffa alo Birmiingham Richm mond Fresn no New Orleans Gran nd Rapids Tucs on
1,212 2,381 1,079,671 1,135,509 1,128,047 1,208,101 930,450 1,189,866 988,938 980,263 916 6,829 937,478 916 6,980 1,087,873 1,252 2,987 887,077 1,235,708 1,130,490 935,207
Bridg geport Tulsa a Worc cester Salt L Lake City Oklah homa City Albuq querque Louis sville Raleiigh Hono olulu
32.9% 31.1% 29.9% 27.3% 26.3% 25.9% 25.7% 25.5% 22.6% 22.3% 21.9% 19.4% 19.0% 17.9% 17.1% 16.6% 15.7% 15.1% 11.6%
S Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Co ommunity Surv vey (2007-11). * Includes all U.S. Metro areas s with populatio ons within 200,000 (+ or -) of f Rochester; MS SA means Met tropolitan Statis stical Area, hester is a six-county area. which for Roch
In ord der to examin ne the degre ee of poverty y concentrat tion among t the bench hmark cities, , this study c considered the percent o of metro area poor who li ive within the e principal c city. However, assessing g cities on this metric does not produce e a valid com mparison bec cause there is such a va ariation in city-m metro structures. For exa ample, Louis sville recently y consolidated with
Poverty 19
surrou unding Jeffe erson County y. The result t is that the n new consolid dated city, which w now co ontains abou ut 60% of the e MSA popu ulation, acco ounts for t tend to a simi ilarly high pr roportion of p poor people. Also, cities s in the West have very v large city boundarie es, and ther refore accou unt for a high h percent of bot th total population and th he poor popu ulation within their MSA. Albuq querque, Fre esno, and Tu ucson fit this description. . To ac ccount for the e variation in n city-metro structures, i it is useful to o measure a citys percent p of th he metro are ea poor, in re elation to tha at citys propo ortion of metr ro area popu ulation. Chart 19 display ys the results s of such a mea asurement. The le eft side of Ch hart 19 show ws the eight cities (includ ding Roches ster) where e the principa al city repres sents less th han 20% of t the metro ar reas total population. p For F this grou up of compar rable cities, Rochester h has the highest concentra ation of the m metro areas s poor popula ation. Roche esters share of poor peo ople in its MS SA is nearly nine percen ntage points above the mid-point of th his subgroup p. The ri ight side of the t chart exp pands the gr roup to inclu ude the 10 ci ities that contain 30% or le ess of their m metro popula ation. In this comparison, Roche ester is seco ond only to B Buffalo in its share of MS SA poor peo ople. Roche esters share e of the MSA As poor is still nearly 6 percentage points above e the mid-po oint in this ex xpanded gro oup. These e findings ar re at least pa artially a func ction of state e-to-state va ariation in how w local government boun ndaries are d drawn. None etheless, the e conce entration has s very real im mpacts as im mportant pub blic services (such as public educatio on) are finan nced and delivered in lin ne with these e bound daries. See section s 6 (pa age 34) for m more on this s topic. Chart t 19: Percen nt of Metro Poor P Who L Live in the P Principal Ci ity Rochester R Benchmark B Metros*
Cities s Containing Less than 20% of Metro Area Population Principal City C Pe ercent of Percent of Metro Area Me etro Area Poor People Po opulation e Cities Con ntaining Less s than 30% o of Met tro Area Population incipal City Perce ent of ercent of Pri Pe Metro Area Me etro Area Popul lation Poo or People
R Rochester B Bridgeport R Richmond W Worcester

19.5% 15.7% 16.9% 19.7% 19.0% 10.3% 18.8% 17.1%
G Grand Rapid ds H Hartford B Birmingham S Salt Lake Cit ty
45.2% 41.5% 38.7% 37.4% 36.7% 35.7% 34.7% 34.3% 28.1%
Buffal o Roche ester New O Orleans Bridge eport

Mid-po oint of range e
23.0 0% 19.5 5% 28.7 7% 15.7 7% 16.9 9% 19.7 7% 19.0 0% 10.3 3% 18.8 8% 17.1 1%
Richm mond Worce ester Grand d Rapids Hartfo ord Birmin ngham Salt L ake City
4 49.4% 4 45.2% 4 43.8% 4 41.5% 3 38.8% 3 38.7% 3 37.4% 3 35.7% 3 34.7% 3 34.3% 2 28.1%
S Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Co ommunity Surv vey (2007-11). P Percentages w were calculated d for this report. * Metro means Metropolitan Statistical S Area (MSA), which for f Rochester iis six counties.
Poverty 20
C. . Neighborh hoods of Ext treme Pover rty A 2011 Brookings s Institution s study provid des additiona al insight into o Roche ted poverty6. This study esters highly concentrat y looked at extremely poor neighborhoo n ods in the na ations 100 la argest metro opolitan area as. Extrem mely poor ne eighborhood ds were defin ned as those e Census tra acts with a poverty rate of 40% 4 or highe er. For th he Rochester metro, Bro ookings docu umented 27 such areas, all within n the city of Rochester. R T These censu us tracts wer re home to 2 22% of our metro m areas poor p a ma rk that place es the Roche ester metro 13th out of 100 0 with the hig ghest conce entration of p poor people living in extr reme pover rty neighborh hoods. The Brookings B stu udy also loo ked at the co n of poverty within oncentration the pr rincipal city in the 100 la argest metrop politan areas s. Based on this metric c, Rochester rs extremely y poor Census tracts acc count for 47% of the citys poverty. This places Ro ochester city y third highes st among the e 100 o areas in the e percent of poor who are concentra ated into ext tremely metro poor neighborhoo n ods. This find ding provide es further evi idence of the e econo omic stress within w the cit ty area often n referred to as the Crescent.
Ma ap: Percent of Rochest ter Re esidents Liv ving Below the Po overty Line
40% 4 or more 50% 5 or more 60% 6 or more
Poverty 21
To tak ke a deeper look at the iissue of extr reme poverty y neighborho oods, this st tudy analyze ed the Brook kings finding gs for the ben nchmark gro oup of comparably sized d communitie es. As shown in Chart 20 0, Rocheste er has the se econd highes st concentra ation of extre eme poverty y among the bench hmark cities when consid dering both the metro ar rea and the principal city. This T finding is particularly y noteworthy y because it t means that t the city of Roc chesters po overty conce entration was s so great that it moved the whole e metro area a to the numb ber two posiition among comparably y sized metro o areas. Chart 20: 2 Extreme Poverty Ne eighborhoo ods, Roches ster Benchm mark Metro Areas (MSA As)* Ranke ed by Extrem me Poverty in the Metro o Area
rcent of Poor r Per Peo ople Living in n Extr remely Poor* ** Nei ighborhoods s Rank Among 100 Largest t Metros
Ranked by y Extreme P Poverty in th he Principal C City

Percent t of Poor People Living in Extreme ely Poor** Neighborhoods Rank Among 100 Largest Metros
Metro Are ea
Pri ncipal City
F Fresno R Rochester H Hartford L Louisville B Buffalo T Tucson

M Mid-point of ra ange
N New Orleans s R Richmond B Birmingham W Worcester, MA M B Bridgeport, CT C T Tulsa G Grand Rapid ds A Albuquerque e O Oklahoma City C R Raleigh H Honolulu S Salt Lake Cit ty
25.1% 22.0% 19.9% 16.9% 15.7% 14.4% 13.5% 13.1% 11.2% 10.9% 9.9% 8.8% 8.5% 7.9% 7.5% 6.9% 6.5% 5.0% 1.9%
5 13 17 20 24 27 33 39 42 48 54 57 62 66 68 72 81 95
Hartfo ord Roche ester Fresn o

Mid-po oint of range
Buffal o New O Orleans Richm mond, VA Louisv ville, KY Birmin ngham Grand d Rapids Worce ester, MA Tucso on Raleig gh Tulsa Oklah homa City Bridge eport, CT Albuq uerque Honol ulu Salt L ake City
49.6% 47.0% 32.2% 28.1% 26.2% 26.1% 26.0% 24.9% 24.6% 19.7% 19.0% 15.7% 15.5% 14.8% 12.1% 11.4% 8.2% 8.0% 6.5%
2 3 19 29 30 32 35 36 47 51 58 59 61 73 76 79 81 83
S Source: Brookin ngs Institution (see End Note 6) * All U.S. Metro o areas within 200,000 2 popula ation (+ or -) of Rochester * ** Census Trac cts with 40% or higher poverty y rates.
D. . Closing Comp pared with co omparably s sized cities, a as well as th he nations la argest cities, Rochester: Is one of the poorest cit ties; as one of th he greatest concentrat tions of pov verty; and Ha Ha as one of th he highest c concentrations of extre emely poor r ne eighborhoo ods.
Poverty 22

M Mercys Stor ry W While her thr ree children w were growing g up, Mercy b babysat for other o c children in he er Gates n neighborhoo od and w worked from home s sewing knoc ck-off C Cabbage Pa atch dolls a and clothing and making g just enough to t get by. T Then a Than nksgiving n night fire 20 years ago le eft the young family w with nowhere e to live and r reliant on government a assistance to o help pay the rent and utilities in a an apartmen nt in the city. T That Christm mas, Charles s S Settlement House H v volunteers to ook the c children to se ee Santa a and then gav ve them c certificates to o get new b bikes, which helped to b brighten wha at would h have been a depressing h holiday. A About four ye ears later, M Mercys fami ily moved to a second-floor a apartment in n a house that provided d a little m more space. Three w weeks later, an attic fire le eft them hom meless once e a again. And once o again the Settleme ent House r reached out to help, f finding them a place to live, and collecting beds,
Sec ction 5: Observa O ations Why is s Our Po overty so Concent C trated?

Note e: This report has provided d objective an nd descriptive information b based on U.S. Census data a and other so ources. Sectio ons 4 and 5 p provide observ vations that are a driven by this data, but t also reflect interpretation ns, inferences s, and some e opinion by the t author.
The previous p sect tion presents s a startling view of our regions pov verty, and an alarming picture p of the e concentrat tion of pover rty. It is clear that our re egions poverty is a centr ral factor in t the problem ms that face t the city of Roc chester and its residents s. It should a also be appa arent that ou ur level and concentration n of poverty severely lim mit our region ns progress. So, how did d this happ pen? Of cour rse, econom mic stratification is not ne ew, and exists s almost everywhere. Th he following p points attem mpt to trace s some of the factors that de escribe Roch hesters jour rney to its cu urrent state. gregation A. Racial Seg Given n the strong relationship r overty and ra ace (see Cha art 5), between po the im mpact of racia al segregatio on is an imp portant factor to explore. Cities have always had sub-areas o of concentrat ted poverty, but the stro ong attitud des and polic cies that enc couraged racial and ethn nic segregat tion had, and continue to have, a profo ound impact on our comm munity. Rochesters heritage as a fac ctory town h helped create e tight-knit c communities for many immigrant blue-collar b w workers. While not all imm migrant grou ups found easy acces ss to these fa actories (Itallian, Irish), th hese groups s were gener rally success sful in finding g work that iindirectly supported the indust trial output that created great wealth h in Rochest ter. These groups forme ed additional tight-knit co ommunities. ite its heritag ge as the ho ome of Frede erick Dougla ass, African Despi Ameri icans found access to th hese commu unities to be extremely d difficult. Housi ing and emp ployment cho oices for blacks were ve ery limited, e even for profes ssionals. G Migrati ion refers to the movement of more than six million The Great Africa an Americans s from the ru ural South to o northern in ndustrial citie es betwe een 1916 and 19707. Wh hile Rochest ter is sometimes cited as sa destin nation for this s migration, this was sig gnificantly tru ue only in the later years. In fact, at the citys pea ak populatio on in 1950, R Rochester re ecorded only 7,590 7 blacks s in the U.S. Census (2.3 3% of the cit tys populatio on). By 1960, Rochesters s black popu ulation had m more than tripled (to 23,586), and it doubled again between n 1960 and 1 1970 (to 47,8 852). Double e-digit rates of growth we ere experien nced over ea ach of the ne ext three dec cades. In 200 00, the citys s black popu lation reached 81,017, a and then it g grew only slightl ly (less than 3%) over th he next deca ade to its 2010 mark of 8 83,3468.
(continued next page) p
Poverty 23
b bedding, clot thing and o other essent tials. I am poor money-wise, m b but Im still walking, w s says the 63-y year-old, w who has bee en unable to w work since 2000 2 b because she e suffers f from rheuma atoid arthritis s a and fibromya algia. In addition to o S Supplementa al Security Income to pa ay for food a and rent, Me ercy also r receives SNA AP benefits ( (formerly foo od stamps). A lifelong cra after, she s says she cou uld make s some money y by selling w what she cre eates. But s she has chos sen to give b back instead d. She leads a craft sessio on for a g group of low-income s seniors four days a w week. In her free time a and every ev vening, she u uses her knit tting m machine to make m hats a and scarves to give a away to thos se who are le ess fortunate. T This Christm mas, Mercy d doesnt have e money to b buy gifts for everyone in h her family, but she is m making pajam mas for her 1 11 grandchildren and 12 2 g great-grandc children. S She feels ble essed, she s says, becaus se I have a all the people e that I love a and all the people that lo ove me back k in my life. Mary y Holleran
The growth g of the e citys Hispa anic populatiion is less fu ully documen nted, since the Census Bureau only y began to c collect this in nformation in n 1970. Thoug gh it was slo ower to grow w in the early y post-World War II era, the ter has grow Hispa anic populatio on in the city y of Rochest wn by an agg gregate of 317 7% since 1970 to its 201 10 level of 34 4,4568. The citys c African American p population gr rew most rap pidly during the early post-W World War II I era, a perio od when ove ert housing d discriminatio on was the no orm and sub bstantially pe ermitted by la aw. The resulting reside ential segregation is still with us tod day. A 2012 study by the e Manhattan Institute for Po olicy Researc ch documen nted current racial segre egation in Am merican neighborhoods9. That T study a analyzed rac cial segregat tion among neighborhoods (C Census tracts s) within eac ch of the nat tions Metrop politan Statistical Areas. The reports s key finding g was that, across the na ation, reside ential segreg gation has de eclined significantly in re ecent years. . But the study also notes that t much of f the decline e results from m the impact t of r cities wher re rapid grow wth occurred d in the time period after r courts newer and le egislatures curtailed c the most overt f forms of hou using discrim mination. For ol lder, slow-gr rowing cities s such as Ro ochester, the e decline in reside ential segreg gation patter rns has been n much slow wer.
Poverty 24
Chart 21 examine es the results s of the Man nhattan Instit tute study as s applied to the benchmark k group of co omparably siized communities. This d data looks at the degre ee of segreg gation among g all Census s tracts within the metro o area of eac ch communit ty. There are e two measu ures of residential segregation used in this analy ysis. These two measur res must be dered indepe endently, as s they repres sent differen nt ways of vie ewing consid segregation. Acco ording to the e reports aut thors, the tw wo measure es togeth her adequate ely summariize segregat tion10. Each h measure ex xpresses its res sults as an in ndex, where e perfect inte egration is 0 and comple ete segregation is 100 0. Chart t 21: Measu ures of Resi idential Seg gregation Roc chester Ben nchmark Me etro Areas ( (MSAs)*
Dissimilarity Measure Dissimila arity Metro M Area Index x** ** De efinition of Dissimilarity: Dissi imilarity reflec cts the propor rtion of ans either whites or Af frican America who would need to o move to ach hieve perfe ect integration n across the m metro area. Higher index x scores mea n highe er levels of se egregation. Isola ation Measur re solation Is Metro Ar rea Index** * ** Definition of Isolation: The I Isolation indic cator measure es the t tendency for m members of o one group t to live where t their share of f the total p population is a above the com mmunityw wide average. Higher index x scores m mean higher l levels of segr regation.
Buffa alo Birmingham Gran nd Rapids Louis sville Roch hester New Orleans Hartf ford Bridg geport Richmond Tulsa a Okla ahoma City Worc cester
Hono olulu Fresno Rale eigh Salt Lake City Tucs son Albuquerque
69 .9 64 .3 63 .2 62 .8 61 .6 59 .7 56 .3 56 .2 52 .4 51 .7 48 .7 48 .1 47 .1 45 .1 39 .1 38 .6 32 .2 29 .3 24 .3
B Buffalo B Birmingham L Louisville N New Orleans s R Richmond R Rochester G Grand Rapid ds H Hartford T Tulsa
O Oklahoma C City B Bridgeport R Raleigh F Fresno W Worcester H Honolulu T Tucson S Salt Lake Cit ty A Albuquerque e
48.7 48.0 44.3 43.8 35.7 33.7 30.0 28.7 28.0 24.9 23.6 19.7 17.4 5.9 4.9 4.9 2.0 1.3 1.1
Sourc ce: Manhattan Institute for Po olicy Research, January 2012 (see End Note e 9). * All U.S. U Metro area as within 200,0 000 population (+ or -) of Roch hester
As can be seen in n Chart 21, t the Rocheste er areas current segreg gation is higher than most other comm munities and considerably higher tha an the mid-point for thes se benchmar rk metro areas. Rochest ters segrega ation is well above a the be enchmark cit ties for both measures. I In this study only those individuals identified as s white or bla ack (or Africa an American n) are
Poverty 25
compared. Latino os, Asians, a and other rac cial groups, a and those id dentifying as more than one e race, are not part of this analysis. B. Sprawl Racia al segregatio on tended to concentrate e people of c color into the e city, espec cially those with w low inco omes. On the e other hand d, people of means found the expanding suburbs s to be a welcome destin nation for relocation. Urban n sprawl refe ers to the ph ysical expan nsion of urba an areas res sulting from population p growth of the e region and internal mig gration. Popu ulation and economic gro owth, new ho ousing oppo ortunities, an nd the drama atic expan nsion of priva ate automob bile ownersh hip promoted d an outward d physic cal growth of metro area as. Many of t these trends s were fostered by federa al policies, in ncluding the mortgage in nterest dedu uction and in nterstate highw way construc ction. As illu ustrated on Chart C 22, ou r nine-count ty regions p population gr rew by 52% between b 195 50 and 2010 0. Despite this growth, th he city of Roche esters popu ulation declin ned by 37%, while subur rban areas b boomed. Chart C 22: Re egional Pop pulation Gro owth 1950 t to 2010
250% %
44% 24
200% %
150% %
9County yRegion CityofRo ochester
100% %
Suburban nMonroe Surround dingCounties s 52% % 50%
50% %
0% %
37%
50% %
So ource: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Ce nsus for 1950 through 2010
Spraw wl was exper rienced by a almost all U.S S. metro are eas. Howeve er, several factors su upported eve en more dram matic spraw wl in the Roch hester metro o area: Significant eco onomic grow wth occurred d during the early post-w war ye ears. The em mergence of the Xerox C Corporation a and expansi ion at
Poverty 26
Ko odak and oth her industrie es created siignificant economic oppo ortunity at the precise time that su uburban dev velopment was most attr ractive. Th his encourag ged those of f economic m means to consider the suburbs, an nd it encoura aged housin g developer rs to provide e these choic ces. Th he absence of major phy ysical barriers such as m mountains, c canyons, or r islands. Lak ke Ontario p prevented no orthward exp pansion, but t open, fla at lands to th he east, wes st, and south h yielded eas sily to urban sprawl. Ve ery limited co ongestion an nd relatively y good air qu uality. In som me other co ommunities, congestion and poor air r quality fost tered more c compact de evelopment. Th he absence of any mean ningful local or state poli icies to regu ulate or manage spraw wl.
It is ty ypical to think of central city populatiion decline a as a loss of w white population (the so o-called whiite flight). T This certainly y did happen n in Roche ester. But, it is also true that the blac ck and Hispanic populat tions increa ased conside erably at the e same time as a result o of migration from other areas of the e country. So o, two things s were happe ening simult taneously: whites w were lleaving the c city for the suburbs, and d ettling prima minor rities were moving m to the e area and se arily in the city. These e simultaneo ous trends at t the time of f significant r regional grow wth foster red a remark kable concen ntration of th he minority p population. Chart t 23: City of f Rochester r Population n Change b y Race and d Ethnicity8 1950 to 201 10
White W 350,000 3 300,000 3 250,000 2 200,000 2 150,000 1 100,000 1 50,000 0 1950 1 1960 19 970 198 80 1990 0 2000 0 2010 Black k Hispanic* * Other**
Source: U.S. Census C Bureau u Decennial Census C for 195 50 through 201 0 (also see End Note 8). * Hispanic not tracked until 1970; ** Other too small to s how visually on n this chart prio or to 1980
Poverty 27
C. . Limited Ho ousing Choic ces for the P Poor The ra apid growth of Rocheste ers suburbs was not acc companied b by a plan that would w permit the poor to benefit from m this growth h. Very few h housing choice es for the po oor can be fo ound in Roch hesters sub burbs. For the most part, poor p people must find af ffordable ren ntal housing. The legacy y of overt discrim mination, co ombined with h contempor rary market c conditions, h has resulted in an extr raordinary c concentration n of such ho ousing. More e than 35% of o all rental housing h in th he nine-coun nty region is within the c city of Roche ester (more than 50% of f all Monroe County rent tal units). As s starkly illustra ated in Char rt 24, the ava ailability of a any rental ho ousing outsid de of the city is extremely li imited. Only y two towns Greece an nd Brighton have more than 5,000 rental r units o of any type. Char rt 24: Rental Housing Units U in Mon nroe County y by Jurisdiction (All R Rental Units s)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
So ource: U.S. Census Bureau - American Com mmunity Survey y (2007-11).
Afford dable rental housing in R Rochesters s nearly non-ex xistent. suburbs is n The la ack of afford dable rental h housing can be viewed a as either a c cause or result of the conce entration of poverty. Reg gardless of o ones perspe ective, it is very y clear that private p mark ket condition ns are not ad dequate to encou urage a dispersion of the e poor. And, as it turns o out, public ho ousing policy y has not bee en overly eff fective either. There are a handful o of public housin ng units in Rochesters R s suburbs, but ed. And, t the supply is very limite o seniors or most suburban s pu ublic housing g is limited to r disabled pe ersons. The U.S. U Departm ment of Hous sing and Urb ban Develop pment (HUD)
Poverty 28
maintains an onlin ne low-incom me apartmen nt locator. A review of th his tool shows s 18 public housing h facillities in Monroe County t that are ope en to familie es11. Of thes se, 14 (78%) ) are located d in the city o of Rochester. Current housing policy p relies heavily on a voucher ap pproach (Home Choic ce Voucher Program, P or Section 8) le eaving respo onsibility for r supply in the private mar rket. This ap pproach has many benef fits, but it certainly does nothing to provide subu rban housing choices fo or poor peop ple. The synergistic im mpact of raciial segregatiion and rapid d sprawl cre eated a strikin ng separation n of races. W While it is im mportant not t to equate ra ace and ethnic city with pove erty, the cor rrelation in th he Greater R Rochester ar rea is indisp putable. For much of our r history, min norities were e excluded fr rom more lucrative em mployment, in ncluding fac ctory employ yment. While e emplo oyment oppo ortunities are e more equit table today, the legacy o of past policie es is strong and continue es to impact t our region by concentr rating our poor. . The Inelas stic City and d the Point of f No Return D. In 199 93, David Ru usk publishe ed his influen ntial book: C Cities without t Subur rbs.12 The main m thesis o f the book w was based on research s showing that economically y thriving citie es tended to o be elastic. . To Rusk, elastic referre ed to cities that t were ab ble to expand d their popul lations, gene erally by expan nding their boundaries. C Cities that co ould not wer re labeled as s inelastic. In Rusks analysis , inelastic cit ties (and the eir regions) f failed to thrive both economically and socially. Roche ester was no ot part of his s in-depth stu udy group, b but Rusk out tlined a gener rally applicab ble conclusio on that a co ombination o of sustained population loss (2 20 percent o r more), high h minority po opulation (30 0 percent or more), and a signif ficant city-su uburb income gap (70 pe ercent or less [w when compa ared to the o overall metro o area]) seem ms to define e the 13 point of no return for a centra l city.
Poverty 29
Chart 25 compare es Rusks cr riteria with R Rochesters d data. As can n be seen, Rochester is i well beyon nd Rusks p point of no re eturn for all measures. The fa act that Roch hester was w well beyond this point a d decade ago, and a has declined even m more seems to provide s some creden nce to Rusks concept. This T is a fairlly bleak obse ervation. Of course, it is s rtant to recog gnize that R usks concept of the po oint of no return is impor s needed to that some structural change is o correct the trend.
Chart 25: City of Roc chester Data Compared with Davi id Rusks P Point of No Return Me easures
Rusks s Point of No N Return Factors Rusks Point of No Re eturn ators Indica City of Rochester r 2000 ity of Ci Roc chester 2 2010
Sustained S Po opulation Loss* High Minorit ty Population n** Significa ant City-Subu urb Income Disparity*** D
20% o r more 30% o r more 70% o or less
34% 56% 62%
3 37% 6 60% 5 58%
Sources: S David Rusk (see End d Note 12), U.S S. Decennial Ce ensus for 2000 0, and U.S. Cen nsus Bureau Ame erican Community Survey (20 007-11) for 201 10. * Percentage P dec cline from peak k population (19 950) ** All m minority groups s *** City inc comes as a per rcent of metro area incomes, based on med dian household d income
Earlie er in this repo ort (Section 4), the issue e of extreme ely poor neighborhoods wa as discussed d. The grow wth in the num mber of such h neighborhoods within the city y of Rocheste er parallels t the decline in Rusks point t of no return n indicators and adds w weight to his argument. Chart 26: Numb ber of City of o Rocheste er Census T Tracts with Poverty of 40% or Mor re
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
27 19 14 1
1990
2000 0
20 010
Sou urce: Brookings s Institution (se ee End Note 6) )
Poverty 30
In 201 13, David Ru usk released d the fourth e edition of his s book with u updated inform mation. Rusk k reported th at of the 24 cities studie ed in-depth a and classified beyond the Point o of No Return n in 1993, only one (Chi icago) has se een sustaine ed improvem ment through h the 2010 C Census14. ester was no ot part of Ru usks in-depth analysis. N Nonetheless s, the Roche fourth h edition did include a ca alculation of elasticity for r principal cit ties in the 13 37 largest U.S. metropollitan areas. R Rochester w was placed in n the lowes st category ( Zero Elastic city) and it r received the e second low west 15 score among all metros m . ufacturing Co olossus No M More E. The Manu The Rochester R ar reas econom mic position has long be een directly conne ected to its manufacturin m ng strength. While most Northeaster rn and Midwe estern cities began to lo ose manufac cturing jobs in the mid-19 970s, Roche ester was ab ble to hold o on longer bec cause its ma anufacturing was conce entrated in in ndustries inv volving techn nology and c consumer pr roducts. Howe ever, in recen nt years the manufacturing employm ment base ha as collap psed. As doc cumented by y ACT Roche ester, our re egion lost 34% of its manufacturing job bs between 2 2000 and 20 011 (Monroe e County los st 42%)16. Along g with this ma anufacturing g decline, the e region suff fered a corres sponding los ss in income e. Over the s same decade e, regional m median house ehold income e declined b by 11% (14% % in Monroe County)17. This lo oss in incom me was felt th hroughout th he region, bu ut the greate est impac ct settled in the t poorest a areas. As th hose who we ere displaced d from manufacturing too ok jobs in the e service se ector, the les ss skilled fou und even fewer opportunitie es. In the city y of Roches ster, median household income dropp ped by 17% during d this d decade, and its poverty r rate jumped by 5 percentage points s to 31%, fur rther deepen ning the con ncentration o of pover rty. F. Failure to Evolve The social and ec conomic cha anges described above a are profound d. Yet, they were w not met with chang ges in local g governmenta al structures s. In fact, no ma ajor structura al changes t took place in n the greater r Rochester area. Facing similar dee ep demogra phic shifts, s some U.S. c communities s have chose en to change e local gover rnance struc ctures. Some e examples include: Indian napolis, Nashville, Jacks sonville, Virg ginia Beach, Raleigh, an nd most recently Louisville e. Others dev veloped new w growth ma anagement p policies and, OR) or creative me etropolitan re evenue-shar ring arrangements (Portla (Minneapolis). Comm munities that t embraced c change did n not choose t the exact sa ame appro oach, but all found ways of better alig gning metro resources a and metro o challenges. It is interes sting that ma any of these examples in nvolve mid-sized commu unities.
Poverty 31
Many of the large est U.S. cities s have found d ways of diversifying th heir econo omies. This helped h attrac ct more middle and upp per income re esidents and th hereby reduc ce central ci ty poverty ra ates. New York, Washin ngton, Bosto on, and Chica ago seem to o fit this cate egory. Others s benefit from gover rnance structures that en ncompass b broader city b boundaries (Hous ston, Dallas, and San Di ego). Many mid-sized cities c are in s similar situat tions to Rochester in tha at they have lost their ind t large enough or strateg dustrial base e and are not gically situate tainment, or ed to becom me major fina ancial, entert r tourism cen nters. While the Roches ster area has s not embrac ced structura al change, there have been some examples of f efforts to address fisca al inequities. Intere estingly, few of these we re initiated in the past 30 years, and d none in the pa ast 25 years. Some exam mples of the ese efforts ar re: St tate-mandate ed changes during the 1 1950s and 1960s moved d social se ervice and he ealth functio ons from citie es to countie es, and the c creation of f the Roches ster-Genesee e Regional T Transportation Authority y in the ea arly 1970s re elieved the c city of financ cial subsidies s for the tran nsit sy ystem. Cr reation of the e Pure Wate ers system in n the early 1 1970s relieve ed the cit ty of the pen nding burden ns of meeting new water r pollution st tandards an nd the day-to o-day cost o of sewer maintenance (th his was a fis scal relief to city governm ment, but no ot to taxpaye ers since the e new Pure W Waters Di istrict had virtually the sa ame bounda aries as the city). Tr raffic engineering service es (traffic pla anning, traff fic lights, signs, etc.) we ere absorbed by Monroe e County in the early 1970s, and county su upport for ma ajor city park ks and the c central library y was established at ab bout the sam me time. Cou unty support for the coun nty-wide emergency co ommunicatio ons function (the 911 Ce enter) was es stablished in n the ea arly 1980s. Th he Morin-Ryan sales tax x plan was e enacted in 19 984 to provid de fiscal re elief to the cit ty based on city and sch hool budget deficits that were pr rojected at th he time to oc ccur over the e following 1 10-year perio od.
Poverty 32
As a result r of sign nificant fisca al stress and the lack of s structural ch hange to allevia ate it, the city has becom me far more dependent o on aid from New York State. S Chart 27 is a 15-y year look-ba ack at city of Rochester b budgets, and it shows a hu uge increase e in state aid (175%) whi ile all other r revenue sources, except enterprise e fu nds, have no ot even pace ed the rate o of inflatio on. Adjusting for inflation, most lo ocal revenue es declined, while state a aid increa ased by 92.1 1%. Property y tax income e declined by y 20.2%, and d sales tax de eclined by 2. .9%.
Chart C 27: Ch hange in Cit ty of Roche ester Reven nues (fiscal 1999 to fisc cal 2014)
R Revenues: P Property Tax* * S Sales Tax S State Aid E Enterprise Funds* A All Others* T Transfer to Sc chools T Total Budget
199899
201 1314
Change
%Chang ge
Change %C Inf flation Adj justed

-2 20.2% -2 2.9% 92 2.1% 2 2.7% -3 32.2% -3 34.5% 6 6.2%
127,766,90 00 100,447,00 00 38,952,300 0 73,932,000 0 103,569,20 00 -127,300,00 00 317,367,40 00
145,6 608,200 139,3 332,000 106,9 934,200 108,5 508,500 100,412,500 -119,1 100,100 481,6 695,300
17,841,300 38,885,000 67,981,900 34,576,500 -3,156,700 8,199,900 1 164,327,900
14.0% % 38.7% % 174.5% % 46.8% % -3.0% % -6.4% % 51.8% %
In nflationgrow wth
42.9% %
S Source: Approv ved city budget ts for the respe ective fiscal yea ars. * The Property Tax category in this chart inc cludes all prope erty tax income e, including port tions the city allocates to enterprise and special funds s. Correspondin ngly, the Enter rprise Funds an nd All Other categories in the chart exclude the allocation of property tax x revenue. In other o words, all property tax in ncome is in one e category.
G. . Closing While the factors described in n this section n provide pa art of the wh hy to Roche esters stron ng concentra ation of pove erty, there ar re certainly m many other social, econ nomic, and p political reaso ons for our f failure to cre eate an equita able commun nity. Althoug gh exploring all of these is beyond th he capac city of this re eport, doing s so may be n needed to pu ursue perma anent solutio ons.
Poverty 33
Sec ction 6: Where W D Do We G Go From m Here?

A. Is This Imp portant? seful to ask whether the e concentratiion of povert ty is really im mportant. It is us The more m than 65 5,000 poor p people who live in the cit ty of Roches ster could certainly an nswer the qu uestion bette er than this a author. The challe enges of bein ng poor are great under any circums stances. Add ding the challe enges of neig ghborhoods plagued wit th extreme c concentration ns of pover rty creates quality-of-life struggles to o which many of us cann not relate. Even gettin ng food is a major under rtaking in are eas that hav ve exper rienced such h a dramatic intensity of disinvestme ent. s will explore e only two such qu uality-of-life i issues: the p provision This section of municipal services and the e condition of f the public e education sy ystem. Some etimes people refer to m unicipal bou undaries as artificial be ecause appro oaches to mu unicipal orga anization can n vary signif ficantly. Whe en consid dering public c services, th here is nothing artificial l about the city of Roche esters boun ndaries. As d described ab bove, the city ys boundaries contain a major portion of our r regions po oor people. A And the boun ndaries are ex xtremely rele evant to the public servic ces provided d to both the e poor and non-poor with hin those bo oundaries. Th he city and c city school d district combine to expen nd more than n $1.2 billion n annually fo or public serv vices. M Municipal Ser rvices A revi iew of the cit ty budget ov ver the past 15 years be egins to illust trate how the cit tys fiscal str ress manifes sts itself. Ch hart 28 (next page) conta ains f multisuch a look back. Despite the e seemingly constant de eclarations of million n dollar budg get gaps, the e citys overa all budget in ncreased by more than the t rate of in nflation. But, within the b budget is fou und a signific cant reshiftin ng. Public sa afety expend ditures increa ased by nea arly 87%, mo ore than twice the rate of in nflation. Cor rrespondinglly, expenditu ures for serv vices such as a libraries and a parks an nd recreation didnt com me close to k keeping pace. In fact, whe en adjusted f for inflation, funding for t these two se ervices declin ned by 24% and a 31% res spectively. P Public works s services als so failed to kee ep up with in nflation. g in pub blic safety ex xpenses has s gradually c crowded out The growth comm munity ameni ities. So, ove er a period w when povert ty has grown n raries signifi icantly, funding for publi cly supporte ed amenities s such as libr and re ecreation ha as been cut s significantly. . This report r does not n suggest that these p priorities are inappropriate. Instea ad, the repor rt seeks to d document res sults of budg getary shifts s. Expan nding public safety is no ot unusual in high-povert ty communit ties. In additio on, the cost structure of f public safet ty functions is much greater than other services, resulting in gre eater cost in ncreases eve en when the ere is no corres sponding inc crease in out tput18. This r report also d does not inte end to cast doubt d on the manageme ent of the city ys budget. R Rochesters ability to
Poverty 34
arkable, and retain a relatively high bond ra rating is rema d is clearly a testam ment to stron ng financial m managemen nt. Chart C 28: Ch hange in Cit ty of Roches ster Expens ses (Fiscal 1999 to Fis scal 2014) %Change 199899 201314 C Change %Change Inflation Adjusted
E Expenses: C City Council & Clerk A Admin - Finan nce D Development P Public Works P Public Safety P Parks & Recre eation L Libraries U Unallocated T Total Budget t 1,618,500 17,737,100 20,601,400 107,898,700 0 117,276,200 0 23,848,200 14,003,500 14,383,800 317,367,400 0 481,695 5,300 164 4,327,900 51.8% 2,657,000 37,902,200 29,753,400 145,520 0,000 219,189 9,300 23,566,200 15,260,700 7,846,500 1, 038,500 20 ,165,100 9, 152,000 37 ,621,300 101 1,913,100 -2 282,000 1,2 257,200 -6, ,537,300 64.2% 113.7% 44.4% 34.9% 86.9% -1.2% 9.0% -45.4% 6.2% 14.9% 49.5% 1.1% -5.6% 30.8% -30.8% -23.7% -61.8%
Notes
1,2 3 4 5 6
In nflationgrow wth
42.9%
S Source: Approv ved city budget ts for the respe ective fiscal yea ars, categorized d as described d in the notes below. Adjustme ents d described in no ote 2 below wer re calculated fo or this report us sing information ved budgets. n in the approv 1 1. All expense numbers n reflec ct full costs, inc cluding operatio ons, employee benefits, and a allocated capita al. See page 1-47 of the 2013-14 budget t for details. 2 2. To provide a valid comparis son, major reor rganizations we ere accounted for, including t transfers of: Mu unicipal Parking g; Parks, a Cemeteries; Municipal Se ecurity; and the e NET function . Recreation, and 3 3. The dramatic c increase in Ad dministration - Finance prima arily reflects the e citys investm ment in the Infor rmation Techno ology function (ope erating and cap pital costs). 4 4. Development includes Neig ghborhood and Business Dev velopment for 2 2013-14, and fo or 1998-99: Community evelopment, an nd NET. Development, Economic De 5 5. Public Works s is the Departm ment of Environ nmental Servic ces. 6 6. Public Safety y includes Polic ce, Fire, and Em mergency Com mmunications D Departments.
P Public Educa ation c education is the larges st public serv vice provided d within the Public bound daries of the e city of Roch hester. The Rochester C City School D District expen nds nearly th hree quarters s of a billion dollars per year. It is bo oth wellobvious that docum mented and statistically o t poverty exe erts a strong g influen nce on educ cational outc comes19. Bey yond this ge eneral observ vation, educa ation experts s and comm unity leaders s hold a wide variety of perspectives on th he relationsh hip between n poverty and d academic achiev vement an nd what to do o about it. W While some s see a strong relatio onship, others urge acad demic progre ess even in the face of p poverty. In 201 11, Microsof ft founder Billl Gates issu ued a call for r educationa al progre ess independent of prog gress to allev viate poverty y. This set o off an f the expec cted reaction n from those e who see po overty as a r root cause of acade emic achieve ement gap20 . While the Gates call c is certain nly laudable in its no ex xcuses challenge, it is premised on a belief b that im mportant incr remental improvement is achiev vable. A sch hool-by-scho ool analysis o of Rocheste ers grade thr ree readin ng results co onducted by ACT Roche ester docume ents both the
Poverty 35
H How Close? ? H How Far?

A At their close est points, the Rocheste er and P Pittsford school districts a are a mere mile m and a h half apart.* But, B in terms o of poverty, th hey couldnt b be more distant from e each other. A As discussed d in this r report, Rochester is the p poorest of up pstate New Y Yorks 430 school d districts and Pittsford is the wealthies st.
* From the sout theast corner o of Rochester to o Pittsfords A Allen Creek Ele ementary S School.
gener ral correlatio on between p poverty and academic performance, , as well ortunities for marginal as exc ceptions tha at may demo onstrate oppo improvement21. It is probably valid to conclude that progress can be made within the current c pove rty paradigm m, but that th he paramete ers of that progre ess are likely y to be narro ow and diffic cult to sustai in. The current c pover rty reality in Rochester c city schools is much mor re drama atic than the e data descri bed in the e earlier parts o of this repor rt. While the ov verall city po overty rate is s 31.1%, pov verty among Rochester c city schoo ol students is s documente ed to be at 8 88%. Why su uch a large varian nce? The following facto ors help to ex xplain this si ituation: While W the overall city of R Rochester po overty rate is s 31.1%, the poverty rate for childre en (under ag ge 18) is 46% %. Sc chools meas sure poverty y by student eligibility for r free or redu uced pr rice meals. Rochester R re eports 83% o of its student ts eligible fo or free meals, and an n additional 5 5% eligible f for reduced price meals. . The federally deve eloped formu ula for meal eligibility is c complex, bu ut it allows student household incomes of up to 130% % of the feder ral po overty rate fo or free meals s, and up to 165% for re educed meals. Th he school dis strict poverty y rate of 88% % is for students who att tend nsus enume Ro ochester city y schools. Th he 2010 Cen erated 44,10 00 city ch hildren of sch hool age. On nly 32,500 a are enrolled i in the Roche ester Ci ity School District (Pre-K K to 12). The e remaining 11,600 students (26% of all school-age ch ildren) are in n charter sch hools, privat te sc chools, home e-schools, h ave not enro olled, or hav ve dropped o out. It is re easonable to assume tha at those in private schoo ols are less likely to be e poor. The 2,300 2 charte er school enrollees are less poor tha an those in city schools s (75% versu us 88%).
Measuring povert t eligibility fo ty by student or free and re educed mea als provid des a good school-level s indicator of poverty for c comparative e purpo oses. Using this t measure e, Rocheste er is the poo orest large urban 22 schoo ol district in n New York State . One recent r study attempted t to measure s school distric y (or ct prosperity pover rty) using a multiple m facto or formula23.. The study f focused on u upstate New York Y school districts and d measured youth pover rty rates (Ce ensus data) and free and d reduced m meal eligibilit ty. This study y found Roc chester to be the poores st of Upstate e New York ks 430 scho ool districts s. The study created a co ombined ind dex for each district whe ere 1.0 equal led the statew . Rochesters index scor wide prosper rity average. re was 0.283 3; in other words, Roch hester was a at less than 29% of the s statewide av verage. The wealthiest ate New York (Pittsford) w dis strict in upsta ) had a ratio o of 1.329 (mean ning Pittsford d was nearly y 33% more prosperous s than the sta atewide average). This dis sparity within n the same c county is str riking. Roche esters stude ent academi c performan nce is now th he poorest o of any large urban distric ct in New Yo ork State24. C Certainly, the ere is room f for
Poverty 36
Rochester C City School District

(po oorest upstate) 1.5 miles
Pittsford School Distr rict

(wealthiest upstate)
H How Roche esters C Child Pover rty Rate C Compares with w t the Nations
A Across the U.S., U one of e every five ch hildren under r a age 18 lives in poverty. T The situation n in R Rochester is s more dire, w with a 46% poverty p rate that more tha an doubles the national rate.
erty reality. However, improvement even within the current pove transf formative improvement w without addr ressing the is ssue of pove erty, and conce entrated poverty, does n ot seem like ely. It is ap pparent that t Rochesters s poverty ha as had a profound impac ct on its ability y to provide municipal m se ervices and t to provide ef ffective public educa ation. ng the Strate egies B. Considerin It is well w beyond the scope of f this report t to suggest solutions to th he ageold pr roblem of po overty. To be e sure, the is ssues of soc cial and econ nomic stratif fication have e been studie ed at the gre eatest univer rsities while the policy y options hav ve perplexed d state and n national gov vernments. But ca an the issue of the conc centration of poor people e be effective ely addre essed at the community level? Since e other regio ons of the co ountry have done better than greate r Rochester r, it seems w worthwhile for this munity to con nsider its stra ategy option ns. comm lding the The tw wo main stra ategies that have been d deployed here are rebuil urban n core and di ispersing the e poor. Invest ting in the ur rban core ha as been Roc chesters prim mary strateg gy to improve its overal ll economic condition an nd reduce th he concentra ation of pover rty. Beginning with urban n renewal in the mid-196 60s and continuing with Community C Developmen D nt Block Gran nts and othe er programs, , hundr reds of millio ons of dollars s in federal f funds have b been targete ed to blic housin ng developm ment, neighb borhood rein nvestment, a and other pub improvements. Ad dditional hun ndreds of miillions of doll lars in federa al, state, and lo ocal funds ha ave been inv vested in the e citys publi ic infrastruct ture. Of course, millions more m in priva ate investments were ma ade. Less ambitious a ef fforts have b been made a at dispersing g the poor by y provid ding low-inco ome housing g choices in the suburbs s. As describ bed in Sectio on 5 (pages 28-29), ther re is very littlle rental hou using of any kind availa able outside the city of R Rochester. Public housin ng for familie es is extrem mely limited. . There have e been effort ts to promote e more affor rdable housin ng in Roche esters subur rbs, but these have been n limited. It is di ifficult to ass sess the imp pact of these e two approa aches. Clear rly, the upwar rd march of poverty has s not been ab bated. Of co ourse, argum ments could be made that conditions s would be w worse if thes se initiatives had not mmunity and d been pursued. Whatever the case, it is clear that com s have not b econo omic develop pment efforts been sufficie ent enough o or strategic enough to overcome e the econom mic market c conditions th hat have concentratio on of poverty y. resulted in our extraordinary c There e are many ways w in whic ch the above e strategies c could becom me more comprehensive and more effe ective. It is te empting to c critique our comm munity efforts s, but that is beyond the scope of this report. Ho owever,
Poverty 37
U U.S. Child Poverty P Rate e
20 0%
City of Rochester verty Rate Child Pov
46 6%

A Adams Story ry W Working hard d was a way y o of life for Ada am, who s started his fir rst job on a d dairy farm when he was 1 14 years old. W When this Bu uffalo native e m moved to Ro ochester in the late 1970 0s, he laid c carpet and linoleum and then worked in a factory b before he fou und a p permanent jo ob on the lo oading dock k of a F Fortune 500 company. In his 30th ye ear, Adam a and 80 other rs were laid o off when the production line he had been b on for n nine years was w shut d down. In search of work that w would provid de some sort t o of income, he immediately went to a temp agency y and was p placed. But that t job d didnt last for r long. A Adam was st tricken with a bleeding ulcer and then doctors determined d that he need ded a p pacemaker. W When his for rmer e employer cut t off his m medical insu urance, he a and his wife applied for w welfare. It was w a help, b but it was a joke, j too, s says Adam. In addition to his $202-a a-month p pension, he initially
the co ommunity sh hould underta ake a seriou us examinati ion of ways to make our de evelopment strategies m more compre ehensive, mo ore targeted, more collab borative, and d more effect tive at servin ng the poor. It is al lso tempting g to advocate e specific ne ew solutions, such as ex xpanded city bo oundaries, a consolidate ed governme ental structu ure (metro gover rnment), or a consolidat ted county-w wide school s system. To b be sure, some communitie es have foun nd success w with these ap pproaches. Conso olidation helped such m id-size cities s as Indianapolis, Nashv ville, Jacks sonville, and Virginia Bea ach to becom me more pro osperous25. M Many people tout the be enefits of sch hool consolidation in Ra aleigh and W Wake 26 Count ty in North Carolina C . Recom mmending specific s new strategies is s beyond the e scope of th his report t, and it would be dange erous to purs sue such opt tions without detaile ed study and d community y engageme ent. But the c community w will need to con nsider a wide e range of d ifficult chang ges if this de eeply embed dded conce entration of poverty p is to be alleviate ed. C. . Conclusion This report r analyz zes poverty in our region n and in our city. The nu umbers have been sliced d and diced to show a p portrait of our poverty an nd our poor people. p Anal lyses and co omparisons demonstrate e that povert ty is a major r issue for ou ur communit ty, and that t the poor hav ve been conce entrated to an extreme d degree. e? So, where w do we go from here If we are a to addre ess the issue es described d in this repo ort, the Greater Roche ester commu unity needs to find a willlingness to c change. Rea al and sustai ined change e is not likely y to occur fro om the top unless there is a se from the grass roots, politic cal imperative. It is also u unlikely to ris , given that most m of our re esidents are e comfortable e and very s segregated f from those who are not. Real change c can come only w with greater understandi ing. Only thr rough greate er understan nding can we e create the community support that t is neede ed. To that end, e three ac ctions seem warranted: 1. Significantly expand e our c communitys s knowledge of poverty, t the poor, an nd the conce entration of p poverty. This s is actually a challengin ng action ste ep. Facing the stark rea alities presen nted in this re eport require es frank an nd candid dis scourse. Thiis, in turn, ex xposes a co ommunity we eakness that is not con nsistent with the image w we often hold d and projec ct to the wi ider world. Certainly C any y real progre ess requires a candid an nd more co omplete know wledge of w who we are. T This effort sh hould be und dertaken in every corne er of this reg gion. Remedies can build d on the man ny as ssets that thi is communit ty possesses s.
Poverty 38
r received eno ough help to p pay his rent, utilities and b buy food, but it was a far r c cry from his regular $ $1,000-plus weekly pay. A And medical problems p persisted. Int tense pain h he felt in his back, neck, a and right leg was d diagnosed as lumbar s spinal stenos sis, which h has greatly im mpaired his a ability to get around. At 6 6-foot-7, he no n longer is a able to straig ghten up to h his full heigh ht. Because h he cant lift his h legs and b balance well enough to u use steps, he e is r relegated to using a f four-wheel walker w for s support. And d just last y year, his wife e of more than 12 year rs passed a away sudden nly. T This 60-year r-old is d discouraged about the s series of circ cumstances in the last thr ree years that have for rced him to r rely on other rs. I wish I c could be wor rking now, b but I cant wa alk well and I cant lift tha at much. I h had planned on retiring w when I was 70, 7 maybe. Mary y Holleran
2. Cr reate an und derstanding that poverty y is a problem m for all, not t just for the poor and those t comm munities that house the p poor in great nu umbers. Sure ely it is not t too hard to c comprehend that the imp pacts of po overty stand in the way o of our region ns economic c and social su uccess. Thos se impacts a are felt most t greatly by o our children and their communities and the eir schools. O Our future m may be bleak k if we do no ot find a bett ter way. 3. Involve and en ngage our d diverse comm munity. Draw w on our residents an nd leaders in n all parts of the commu nity, includin ng business, , go overnment, and a our grea at colleges a and universit ties. Our leaders can ho onestly and openly o study y the succes ss in other co ommunities and help de etermine wha at changes a are best for greater Roc chester.
Whe ere Do o We G Go from m Her re: Ch haos o or Com mmunity?

Dr. Martin Lu uther King g27
Poverty 39
End Note es 1. The Supplemental Nutrition As ssistance Pr rogram (SNA AP). 2. See ACT Rochest ter Race-E Ethnicity Indicators (www.ACTRoches ster.org/race e-ethnicity-indicators). 3. East Rochester R ha as a very unique structure as a town n/village with h coterminou us borders. There are only five e such jurisd dictions in Ne ew York. Fo or this analys sis, East Roc chester is ed as a town. In all other r cases in ou ur region, villlages are loc cated within one or more e treate towns s. 4. A portion of the To onawanda In ndian Reserv vation is loca ated in Gene esee County y. Reservatio ons are se eparate jurisd dictions and are not inclu uded in town ns or villages s. 5. In this and other charts, the mid-point m is ca alculated by y averaging t the values fo or the highes st and lowest commu unities. 6. Elizabeth Kneebon ne, Carey Nadeau, and Alan Berube e, The Re-E Emergence o of Concentra ated Povert ty, Metropolitan Policy Program P at the t Brooking gs Institution n, November r, 2011. 7. For a thumbnail t on n the Great Migration, M vi isit www.hist tory.com/top pics/great-migration. 8. The Hispanic designation was s not used un ntil the 1970 0 Census. Hiispanic is no ot a racial gr roup. For thi is analysis, Hispanics H were subtract ted from the racial group p with which they identifi ied and we ere counted as Hispani ic. Accordin ngly, White means non n-Hispanic W White, Black k means non n-Hispanic Black, B and O Other mean ns non-Hispa anic Other. T This adjustm ment was ba ased on actu ual Census data d for 2010 and estim ates for prio or years. Other consists s of: Am merican India ans and Alas ska Natives; ; Hawaiian N Natives and Pacific Islan nders; Asians; and those identifyi ing as some e other race or two or m more races. Other inc cluded fewer r than 1,000 people e for 1950, 19 960, and 1970 and, ther refore, doesnt show visually on Chart 23. 9. Edwar rd Glaeser and a Jacob Vi igdor, The End E of the S Segregated C Century, Ma anhattan Ins stitute for Policy Researc ch, January 2012. 2 10. The two t measure es are Dissim milarity and Isolation. Di ssimilarity re eflects the p proportion of either Whites or African A Ame ericans who would w need to move to a achieve perf fect integration acros ss the metro o area. Isolat tion measure es the tende ency for mem mbers of one e group to liv ve where their share e of the total l population is above the e community y-wide avera age. Both meas sures are ex xpressed as an index, wi ith 100 being g complete s segregation and 0 full integration. t of Housing and Urban Developmen nt, rental ass sistance web bsite 11. U.S. Department (http://portal.hud. .gov/hudport tal/HUD?src c=/topics/ren ntal_assistan nce). 12. David d Rusk, Citie es without Suburbs S (W Washington, DC: Woodro ow Wilson C Center Press s, 1993) ). 13. Rusk k, p. 45. 14. David d Rusk, Citie es without Suburbs S - 4th edition (W Washington, DC: Woodro ow Wilson Cente er Press, 20 013), pages 105-107. 15. Rusk k (2013), pag ges 74-75. Rusk R used tw wo measures s in relation to one anoth her to rank c cities for elasticity: pop pulation dens sity at the tim me of peak p population and the amou unt of physic cal expansion since. Three cities s tied for mo ost inelastic w with a score e of 4.0 (New w York, Wash hington, Detroit). With a score of 5.0 0, Rochester r was tied (w with Hartford and Minneapolis) for the position of fourth mo ost inelastic city among the top 137 metros analy yzed. 16. See ACT A Roches ster Econom my section (w www.ACTRo ochester.org/ /economy). 17. See ACT A Roches ster Financia al Self Suffic ciency sectio on: (www w.ACTRoche ester.org/fina ancial-self-sufficiency).
Poverty 40
End Notes 18. The public p safety y cost structu ure is greate er than other r municipal f functions bec cause: the avera age police and firefighter salary exce eeds that of other non-m management t employees s; salar ry increases are subject to binding arbitration; an nd pension b benefits are significantly y more e costly. 19. Laura a Lippman, Shelley S Burn ns, and Edith h McArthur, Urban Scho ools: The C Challenge of f Loca ation and Po overty (Was shington, DC C: National C Center for Ed ducational S Statistics, 199 96). 20. Bill Gates, G Educ cation can be e Reformed before Pove erty is Elimin nated, Huffin ngton Post, July 28, 2 2011, an nd Dr. James s Taylor, Ar rne and Bills s Misguided Adventure, Huffington Post, , August 2, 2011. 2 21. Grad de 3 English h Language Arts: A An Ana alysis of Roc chester City School Res sults on the 2010-11 New Yo ork State Sta andardized Tests, T ACT Rochester (www w.ACTRoche ester.org/hig ghlights). 22. NY State S school report cards s (https://rep portcards.nys sed.gov/). 23. G. Sc cott Thomas s, Pittsford and a Niskayuna Lead Up pstate Affluen nce Ratings, Buffalo Busin ness First, October O 24, 2012. 2 of Education, August 7, 24. New York State Department D , 2013 Press s Release (www w.oms.nysed d.gov/press/g grades-3-8-a assessment t-results-2013.html). 25. Rusk k (2013), pag ges 123-148 8. 26. Gerald Grant, Ho ope and Des spair in the American C City: Why T There Are N No Bad Scho ools in Ra aleigh (Cam mbridge, MA: Harvard Un niversity Pres ss, 2009). 27. Dr. Martin M Luther r King, Wher re Do We Go From Her re: Chaos o or Community? (Boston n MA: Beac con Press, 19 967).
Poverty 41
AP PPENDIX A Poverty y Data for all a Regional Municipalit ties Listed d by county y, then municipal type, then in ord der of pover rty
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Cens sus for total pop pulation data, U.S. Census C Bureau American Co ommunity Surv vey (2007-11) f for poverty rate e data.
Genesee Count ty
Pop pulation: 60,079
Poverty Rat te: 12.5%

Poor People: : 7,510
Livin ngston Coun nty

Popu ulation: 65,393
Poverty Ra ate: 11.7%

Poor People e: 7,650
Typ pe
Municipality
Total n Population
Poverty Rate
Type e
M Municipality
Total n Population
Poverty Rate
City y Tow wns
Batavia B Bethany B Batavia B Bergen B Pembroke P Oakfield O Le L Roy Alexander A Elba E Pavilion P Alabama A Stafford S Darien D Byron B Tonawanda T
15,46 65 1,76 65 6,80 09 3,12 20 4,29 92 3,25 50 7,64 41 2,53 34 2,37 70 2,49 95 1,86 69 2,45 59 3,15 58 2,36 69 48 83 60,07 79
23.0% % 15.9% % 11.8% % 11.8% % 11.0% % 10.0% % 9.3% % 6.8% % 6.7% % 6.3% % 6.0% % 5.2% % 4.3% % 2.4% % 21.3% % 12.5% % 13.8% % 13.2% % 11.5% % 11.4% % 10.7% % 7.2% %
Tow ns
Res servation Tot tal* Villa ages*
Geneseo Mt. M Morris Nort th Dansville Nunda Wes st Sparta Leicester Ossiian Port tage Spar rta Grov veland Sprin ngwater Cale edonia Conesus Livonia Lima a York k Avon n
10,483 4,465 5,538 3,064 4 1,255 2,200 789 884 4 1,624 4 3,249 2,439 4,255 2,473 7,809 4,305 3,397 7,164 4 65,393
28.4% 21.5% 16.4% 13.9% 13.5% 12.7% 12.5% 9.5% 9.5% 8.3% 7.3% 7.1% 7.0% 6.2% 5.7% 4.7% 3.9% 11.7% 41.3% 24.3% 24.1% 17.6% 14.0% 12.2% 8.7% 8.5% 3.7%
Tota al* Villag ges* Geneseo Mt. M Morris Nunda Dansville Leicester Livonia Cale edonia Lima a Avon n
Oakfield O Le L Roy Elba E Corfu C Bergen B Alexander A
1,813 4,39 91 67 76 70 09 1,17 76 50 09
8,031 2,986 1,377 4,719 468 1,409 2,201 2,139 3,394 4
a included in the town data * Villages are within towns and are and d Total row ab bove. They are shown here se eparately for info ormation. te: The Village of Attica is loca ated partially in n Genesee Not Cou unty, but mostly y in Wyoming County. C It is list ted in Wyo oming.
ages are within n towns and are e included in th he town data * Villa and Total row abo ove. They are s shown here sep parately for inform mation.
Poverty 42
Mo onroe County y
Pop pulation: 744,344 4
Poverty Rate: R 14.4%

Poor Peop ple: 107,186
Ontar rio County

Popula ation: 107,931

Typ pe
Municipality
Total Population
Poverty Rate
Type
M Municipality
Total n Population
Poverty Rate
City y Tow wns
Ro ochester Sw weden Ea ast Rochester* ** He enrietta Irondequoit Brighton Gre eece Ga ates Wh heatland Pa arma Ha amlin Cla arkson Pe erinton We ebster Ch hili Og gden Rig ga Pittsford Pe enfield Me endon Ru ush
210,565 14,175 6,587 42,581 51,692 36,609 96,095 28,400 4,775 15,633 9,045 6,736 46,462 42,641 28,625 19,856 5,590 29,405 36,242 9,152 3,478 744,344
31.1% 17.6% 14.3% 11.4% 10.5% 9.8% 9.2% 8.8% 8.8% 8.7% 8.3% 6.8% 6.4% 5.2% 4.9% 4.9% 4.5% 4.4% 3.9% 2.9% 1.7% 14.4% 25.0% 15.7% 9.8% 7.0% 6.8% 6.5% 6.3% 5.3% 3.5%
Cities s
Geneva Canandaigua Rich hmond Naples Gorh ham Hopewell Brist tol Wes st Bloomfield Canadice Farm mington Man nchester Canandaigua Phellps Sene eca Sout th Bristol East t Bloomfield Victo or Geneva
13,261 10,545 3,361 2,502 4,247 3,747 2,315 2,466 1,664 4 11,825 9,395 10,020 7,072 2,721 1,590 3,634 4 14,275 3,291
23.0% 13.3% 14.3% 13.8% 12.5% 12.5% 10.1% 9.9% 9.8% 9.4% 8.4% 7.7% 6.9% 5.0% 4.7% 3.9% 1.8% 1.5%
Town s
Tot tal* Villa ages* Bro ockport We ebster Scottsville Hilton Ho oneoye Falls Fairport Sp pencerport Ch hurchville Pittsford
Total* * Villag es* Rush hville** Naples Phellps Clifto on Springs Man nchester Bloo omfield Victo or
107,931 677 1,041 1,989 2,127 1,709 1,361 2,696
9.7% 24.2% 18.3% 10.2% 8.3% 7.8% 7.1% 2.2%
8,366 5,399 2,001 5,886 2,674 5,353 3,601 1,961 1,355
*Villages are within towns and are a included in the town data and d Total row ab bove. They are shown here se eparately for info ormation. * *E East Rochester has the dual status s of a town n and village.
* Villag ges are within t towns and are included in the e town data Total row above. Th hey are shown here separate ely for inform mation. ** Rus shville is shown n in Ontario Co ounty, but is loc cated about equally y in Ontario an nd Yates counti ies.
Poverty 43
Orleans County y
Poverty Rat te: 12.1%

Sene eca County

Popu ulation: 35,251

Typ pe
Municipality
Total n Population
Poverty Rate
Type e
M Municipality
Total n Population
Poverty Rate
Tow wns
Shelby S Albion A Murray M Ridgeway R Barre B Kendall K Carlton C Yates Y Gaines G Clarendon C
5,319 8,46 68 4,98 88 6,78 80 2,02 25 2,72 24 2,99 94 2,55 59 3,37 78 3,64 48 42,88 83
21.9% % 18.3% % 11.8% % 11.6% % 10.2% % 9.8% % 9.5% % 8.0% % 6.7% % 2.5% % 12.1% % 21.0% % 20.6% % 14.5% % 13.7% %
Tow ns
Cove ert Faye ette Junius Lodi Ovid d Rom mulus Sene eca Falls Tyre e Varic ck Wate erloo
1,471 1,550 981 2,311 1,857 2,154 4 9,040 7,642 3,929 4,316 35,251
27.9% 14.7% 14.6% 14.2% 13.6% 12.1% 12.1% 8.8% 8.3% 7.9% 11.7% 15.7% 15.6% 12.8% 12.2% 7.9%
Tot tal* Villa ages* Medina M Albion A Holley H Lyndonville L
Tota al* Villag ges* Lodi Ovid d Sene eca Falls** Inter rlaken Wate erloo
6,06 65 6,05 56 1,811 83 38
291 602 6,681 602 5,171
a included in the town data * Villages are within towns and are d Total row ab bove. They are shown here se eparately for and info ormation.
ages are within n towns and are e included in th he town data * Villa and Total row abo ove. They are s shown here sep parately for inform mation. ** Se eneca Falls Village was dissolved on Decem mber 31, 2011 , but was in ex xistence for the e 2010 Census.
Poverty 44
Wa ayne County
Poverty Rate: R 11.1%

Poor Peop ple: 10,409
Wyom ming County y

Popula ation: 42,155

Typ pe
Municipality
Total Population
Poverty Rate
M Municipality
Total n Population
Poverty Rate
Tow wns
Butler Lyo ons Hu uron Sa avannah Ga alen Wo olcott So odus Pa almyra Arc cadia Ma arion Williamson Ma acedon On ntario Ro ose Wa alworth
2,064 5,682 2,118 1,730 4,290 4,453 8,384 7,975 14,244 4,746 6,984 9,148 10,136 2,369 9,449
19.8% 19.6% 19.1% 16.8% 16.3% 15.6% 13.7% 12.5% 12.3% 10.7% 10.6% 7.1% 5.6% 5.2% 3.5%
Town s
Pike e Perr ry Cast tile Weth hersfield Eaglle Attic ca Arca ade War rsaw Midd dlebury Gain nsville Genesee Falls Shelldon Coviington Benn nington Java a Oran ngeville
1,114 4 4,616 2,906 883 1,192 7,702 4,205 5,064 4 1,441 2,182 438 2,409 1,232 3,359 2,057 1,355 42,155
18.2% 15.9% 12.1% 11.7% 11.4% 11.1% 10.8% 10.6% 8.8% 8.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.1% 4.1% 4.1% 10.1% 19.0% 18.7% 18.2% 16.9% 16.8% 16.7% 8.7% 5.9% 2.3%
Tot tal* Villa ages* Wo olcott So odus Lyo ons Cly yde Pa almyra Ne ewark So odus Point Ma acedon Re ed Creek
93,772 1,701 1,819 3,619 2,093 3,536 9,145 900 1,523 532
11.1% 30.2% 25.9% 23.5% 19.0% 15.2% 15.0% 8.0% 7.6% 4.1%
Total* * Villag es* Pike e Perr ry Arca ade Silve er Springs Attic ca * Cast tile War rsaw Wyo oming Gain nesville
302 3,673 2,071 782 2,547 1,015 3,473 434 4 229
* Villages are within towns and are a included in the town data and d Total row ab bove. They are shown here se eparately for info ormation.
* Villag ges are within t towns and are included in the e town data Total row above. Th hey are shown here separate ely for inform mation. **Attic ca is shown in W Wyoming Coun nty, but a small part of the e is within Gene esee County. village
Poverty 45
Yates Y County y
Po opulation: 25,34 48
Poverty Rate e: 15.4%

Poor People: 3,904
Ty ype
Municipalit ty
Total Po opulation
Poverty Rate
Towns
Milo Potter Starkey Italy Jerusalem Torrey Middlesex Barrington Benton
7,006 1,865 3,573 1,141 4,469 1,282 1,495 1,681 2,836 25,348
20.0% 19.2% 17.7% 17.5% 14.1% 10.8% 9.1% 8.7% 8.3% 15.4% 24.1% 20.0% 19.9%
Total* Villages* V Dresden Penn Yan Dundee
308 5,159 1,725
V are within towns and d are included i n the town dat ta and * Villages T Total row abov ve. They are sh hown here sepa arately for infor rmation. Note: The Villag ge of Rushville is shown in On ntario County, b but is lo ocated about eq qually in Yates and Ontario co ounties
Poverty 46
AP PPENDIX B
Nine-Count ty Region Sh howing Jurisdictions (Pro ovided by Ge enesee Trans sportation C Council)
Poverty 47
AP PPENDIX C Metro and Principal City Poverty Rates: 75 Top US Metropolitan Ar reas
Top 75 U.S. Metropolitan Are eas Ran nked by Metr ro Population
Rank Metro o Area Metro Popu ulation Principal City C Population Cit ty Pove erty Rat te Rank
Top 7 75 U.S. Metro opolitan Area as Ranked b by Principal City Poverty y Rate
Metro Area Metro Popul lation cipal Princ City Popul lation City Povert ty Rate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
New York Los Angele es Chicago Dallas Fo ort Worth Philadelphi ia Houston Washington Miami Atlanta Boston San Francisco Detroit Riverside San Bernardino o Phoenix Seattle Minneapolis San Diego St. Louis Tampa Baltimore Denver Pittsburgh Portland Charlotte Sacrament to San Antoni io Orlando Cincinnati Cleveland Kansas Cit ty Las Vegas Columbus Indianapolis San Jose Austin Virginia Be each Nashville (Davidson County) Providence e Milwaukee
19,56 67,410 12,82 28,837 9,46 61,105 6,42 26,214 5,96 65,343 5,92 20,416 5,63 36,232 5,56 64,635 5,28 86,728 4,55 52,402 4,33 35,391 4,29 96,250 4,22 24,851 4,19 92,887 3,43 39,809 3,34 48,859 3,09 95,313 2,78 87,701 2,78 83,243 2,71 10,489 2,54 43,482 2,35 56,285 2,22 26,009 2,21 17,012 2,14 49,127 2,14 42,508 2,13 34,411 2,11 14,580 2,07 77,240 2,00 09,342 1,95 51,269 1,90 01,974 1,88 87,877 1,83 36,911 1,71 16,289 1,67 76,822
8,17 75,133 3,79 92,621 2,69 95,588 1,19 97,816 1,52 26,000 2,09 99,451 60 01,723 39 99,457 42 20,003 617,594 80 05,235 713,777 30 03,871 1,44 45,632 60 08,660 38 82,578 1,30 07,402 319,294 33 35,709 62 20,961 60 00,158 30 05,704 58 83,776 73 31,424 46 66,488 1,32 27,407 23 38,300 29 96,943 39 96,815 45 59,787 58 83,756 78 87,033 82 20,445 94 45,942 79 90,390 43 37,994
19.4 4% 20.2 2% 21.4 4% 23.0 0% 25.6 6% 21.5 5% 18.2 2% 27.7 7% 23.2 2% 21.4 4% 12.3 3% 36.2 2% 15.8 8% 20.3 3% 13.2 2% 22.3 3% 14.6 6% 26.0 0% 19.2 2% 22.4 4% 18.8 8% 22.2 2% 16.8 8% 15.0 0% 18.6 6% 19.2 2% 17.3 3% 27.4 4% 32.6 6% 18.2 2% 14.9 9% 21.8 8% 18.9 9% 11.1 1% 18.5 5% 7.1 1%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Mid35 36
Detroit Hartford Cleveland Dayton Rochester r Buffalo Miami Providence e McAllen Cincinnati Birmingham Milwaukee e Richmond New Have en St Louis Memphis Fresno Allentown New Orlea ans Philadelph hia Grand Rap pids Albany Baton Rou uge Knoxville El Paso Columbia Atlanta Dallas Fo ort Worth Tucson Baltimore Minneapollis Pittsburgh Bridgeport t Columbus point of rang ge Houston Chicago
4,296 6,250 1,212 2,381 2,077 7,240 799 9,232 1,079 9,671 1,135 5,509 5,564 4,635 1,600 0,852 774 4,769 2,114 4,580 1,128 8,047 1,555 5,908 1,208 8,101 862 2,477 2,787 7,701 1,324 4,829 930 0,450 821,173 1,189 9,866 5,965 5,343 988 8,938 870 0,716 802 2,484 837 7,571 804 4,123 767 7,598 5,286 6,728 6,426 6,214 980 0,263 2,710 0,489 3,348 8,859 2,356 6,285 916 6,829 1,901,974 5,920 0,416 9,461,105
713 3,777 124 4,775 396 6,815 141 1,527 210 0,565 261 1,310 399 9,457 178 8,042 129 9,877 296 6,943 212 2,237 594 4,833 204 4,214 129 9,779 319 9,294 646 6,889 494 4,665 118 8,032 343 3,829 1,526 6,000 188 8,040 97 7,856 229 9,493 178 8,874 649 9,121 129 9,272 420 0,003 1,197 7,816 520 0,116 620 0,961 382 2,578 305 5,704 144 4,229 787 7,033 2,099 9,451 2,695 5,588
36.2% % 32.9% % 32.6% % 32.5% % 31.1% % 29.9% % 27.7% % 27.7% % 27.6% % 27.4% % 27.3% % 27.0% % 26.3% % 26.3% % 26.0% % 26.0% % 25.9% % 25.8% % 25.7% % 25.6% % 25.5% % 25.0% % 24.8% % 23.4% % 23.3% % 23.3% % 23.2% % 23.0% % 22.6% % 22.4% % 22.3% % 22.2% % 21.9% % 21.8% % 21.7% % 21.5% % 21.4% %
37 38 39
1,67 70,890 1,60 00,852 1,55 55,908
62 26,681 17 78,042 59 94,833
17.7 7% 27.7 7% 27.0 0%
37 38 39
Boston Phoenix Los Angele es
4,552 2,402 4,192 2,887 12,828 8,837
617 7,594 1,445 5,632 3,792 2,621
21.4% % 20.3% % 20.2% %
Poverty 48
Rank
Metro o Area
Metro Popu ulation
Principal City C Population
Cit ty Pove erty Rat te
Rank
Metro Area
Metro Popul lation
cipal Princ City Popul lation
City Povert ty Rate
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Jacksonville Memphis Oklahoma City Louisville (Jefferson County) Hartford Richmond New Orleans Buffalo Raleigh Birmingham m Salt Lake City C Rochester Grand Rap pids Tucson Tulsa Honolulu Fresno
1,34 45,596 1,32 24,829 1,25 52,987
82 21,784 64 46,889 57 79,999
15.2 2% 26.0 0% 17.1 1%
40 41 42
Sarasota New York Tulsa
702 2,281 19,567 7,410 937 7,478
51 1,917 8,175 5,133 391 1,906
19.5% % 19.4% % 19.4% %
1,23 35,708 1,21 12,381 1,20 08,101 1,18 89,866 1,13 35,509 1,13 30,490 1,12 28,047 1,08 87,873 1,07 79,671 98 88,938 98 80,263 93 37,478 93 35,207 93 30,450
74 41,096 12 24,775 20 04,214 34 43,829 26 61,310 40 03,892 212,237 18 86,440 210,565 18 88,040 52 20,116 39 91,906 33 37,256 49 94,665
15.7 7% 32.9 9% 26.3 3% 25.7 7% 29.9 9% 15.1 1% 27.3 3% 17.9 9% 31.1 1% 25.5 5% 22.6 6% 19.4 4% 11.6 6% 25.9 9%
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Tampa San Anton nio Worcester r Indianapollis Denver Sacramento Greenville Austin Greensbor ro Washingto on Kansas City Bakersfield d Salt Lake C City Little Rock k Nashville (Davidson County) Orlando Oklahoma City Portland Albuquerque Riverside-S San Bernardino o Louisville, (Jefferson County) Omaha Oxnard Jacksonvillle Raleigh Charlotte Las Vegas s San Diego o Seattle San Franc cisco Honolulu San Jose Virginia Be each
2,783 3,243 2,142 2,508 916 6,980 1,887 7,877 2,543 3,482 2,149 9,127 824 4,112 1,716 6,289 723 3,801 5,636 6,232 2,009 9,342 839 9,631 1,087 7,873 699 9,757
335 5,709 1,327 7,407 181 1,045 820 0,445 600 0,158 466 6,488 58 8,409 790 0,390 269 9,666 601 1,723 459 9,787 347 7,483 186 6,440 193 3,524
19.2% % 19.2% % 19.0% % 18.9% % 18.8% % 18.6% % 18.6% % 18.5% % 18.4% % 18.2% % 18.2% % 18.2% % 17.9% % 17.8% %
57 58 59 60 61 62
Worcester Bridgeport Albuquerqu ue Omaha Albany New Haven n
91 16,980 91 16,829 88 87,077 86 65,350 87 70,716 86 62,477
18 81,045 14 44,229 54 45,852 40 08,958 97,856 9 12 29,779
19.0 0% 21.9 9% 16.6 6% 15.5 5% 25.0 0% 26.3 3%
58 59 60 61 62
1,670 0,890 2,134 4,411 1,252 2,987 2,226 6,009 887 7,077 4,224 4,851
626 6,681 238 8,300 579 9,999 583 3,776 545 5,852 303 3,871
17.7% % 17.3% % 17.1% % 16.8% % 16.6% % 15.8% %
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Bakersfield d Knoxville Greenville Oxnard Allentown El Paso Baton Roug ge Dayton McAllen Columbia Greensboro o
83 39,631 83 37,571 82 24,112 82 23,318 82 21,173 80 04,123 80 02,484 79 99,232 77 74,769 76 67,598 72 23,801 70 02,281 69 99,757
34 47,483 17 78,874 58,409 5 19 97,899 118,032 64 49,121 22 29,493 14 41,527 12 29,877 12 29,272 26 69,666 51,917 5 19 93,524
18.2 2% 23.4 4% 18.6 6% 15.3 3% 25.8 8% 23.3 3% 24.8 8% 32.5 5% 27.6 6% 23.3 3% 18.4 4% 19.5 5% 17.8 8%
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
1,235 5,708 865 5,350 823 3,318 1,345 5,596 1,130 0,490 2,217 7,012 1,951,269 3,095 5,313 3,439 9,809 4,335 5,391 935 5,207 1,836 6,911 1,676 6,822
741 1,096 408 8,958 197 7,899 821 1,784 403 3,892 731 1,424 583 3,756 1,307 7,402 608 8,660 805 5,235 337 7,256 945 5,942 437 7,994
15.7% % 15.5% % 15.3% % 15.2% % 15.1% % 15.0% % 14.9% % 14.6% % 13.2% % 12.3% % 11.6% % 11.1% % 7.1% %
Sarasota Little Rock
Sourc ce: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census for metro and prin ncipal city popu ulations, U.S. C Census Bureau American Community Surve ey (2007-11) for poverty rates s. Note: The shaded area highlights the t metro areas in the benchm mark group of c comparably siz zed cities (all m metros within 20 00,000 of Roche esters populat tion).
Poverty 49
This report published by Rochester Area Community Foundation www.racf.org and ACT Rochester www.ACTRochester.org 500 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 585.271.4100
Copyright Rochester Area Community Foundation, Inc. 2013 All Rights Reserved

Poverty Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Poverty Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SPECIAL REPORT

Poverty and the Concentration of Poverty

in the Nine-County Greater Rochester Area

Edward Doherty Principal Author and Researcher

Table e of Conten nts

End Note es Appendix xA Appendix xB Appendix xC

Chart 21 Chart 22 Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28

C Can You Pic cture It?

Exe ecutive Summa S ry

Is There An n A Alternative to the F Federal Pov verty L Level?

Sec ction 1: Overvie O ew

* For la arger families, a r each additional member add $4,020 for

Sec ction 2: Who W Are e Our Po oor?

Unde er 18 18 to o 64 65 or abov ve Total

275 5,739 768 8,924 172 2,493 1,21 17,156

22 2.6% 63 3.2% 14 4.2% 10 00.0%

51 1,289 95 5,891 13 3,519 16 60,699

3 31.9% 5 59.7% 8 8.4% 10 00.0%

18.7% 12.4% 7.8% 13.2%

Chart 3: Poor Peo ople by Age e

So ource: U.S. Ce ensus Bureau American Co ommunity Survey (2007 7-11).

20.0 0% 15.0 0% 10.0 0% 5.0 0% 0.0 0%

Source: S U.S. Ce ensus Bureau - American Com mmunity Surve ey (2007-11).

P People Beh hind the P Poverty Sta atistics

Our Region Unite ed States NY State S NY State S witho out NYC

13% 14% 14% 11%

10% 12% 11% 9%

33% 23% 25% 18%

County, Region, or Cit ty

Families with Children under 18

Families of f Married Couples

Sec ction 3: Where Do Our Poor Li ive?

15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

So ource: U.S. Census Bureau - American Com mmunity Survey y (2007-11).

Chart 8: Poverty P Rate e and Poor People by C County

31.1% 7.8% 11.4% 13.2%

65,486 6 41,700 0 53,513 3 160,699

40 0.8% 25 5.9% 33 3.3% 100%

t 12: Povert ty in Our Re egions Citie es Chart

Batavia Canandaigua Genev va Roches ster

Genesee Ontario O Ontario O Monroe M

23.0% 13.3% 23.0% 31.1%

15,465 10,545 13,261 210,565

3,557 1,402 3,050 65,486 6

25.7% 9.8% % 12.3% 28.3%

47.4% 13.4% 29.1% 61.1%

Chart C 14: Po opulation an nd Poverty Rates by Ju urisdiction Type

17.4% 3 3.2% 12.5% 66.9%

31.1% 20.4% 15.8% 6.6% 21.3% 13.2%

L Living with h Poverty

Sec ction 4: The T Con ncentrat tion of P Poverty y

Chart C 16: City Poverty Rates in th he Top 75 U.S. Metro A Areas

F Fresno T Tucson N New Orleans s A Albuquerque e

R Rochester B Bridgeport R Richmond W Worcester

19.5% 15.7% 16.9% 19.7% 19.0% 10.3% 18.8% 17.1%

G Grand Rapid ds H Hartford B Birmingham S Salt Lake Cit ty

45.2% 41.5% 38.7% 37.4% 36.7% 35.7% 34.7% 34.3% 28.1%

Buffal o Roche ester New O Orleans Bridge eport

Ranked by y Extreme P Poverty in th he Principal C City

Pri ncipal City

F Fresno R Rochester H Hartford L Louisville B Buffalo T Tucson

Hartfo ord Roche ester Fresn o

L Living with h Poverty