barriers to upward mobility: a spatial analysis of newark and the

"The Cornwall Center: Committed to Addressing Urban and Metropolitan Challenges"

Roland V. Anglin Director The Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies 47 Bleeker Street Newark, NJ 07102 www.cornwall.rutgers.edu https://www.facebook.com/CornwallCenter

Our Vision

The Joseph C. Cornwall Center strives to be:

-A key resource in the production of “usable” knowledge for public, private, and nonprofit sector development in Newark, the northern region of New Jersey and beyond.

-A central force convening key civil society individuals and institutions as they engage in and pursue the economic, political, and cultural revitalization of Newark.

-A forceful agent for the economic and administrative coordination and cooperation of Newark and its surrounding communities.

-A national model for what a university-based center can accomplish working with regional, local, and community partners.

From the Director’s Desk

The attached report, Barriers to Upward Mobility, A Spatial Analysis of Newark and the Challenges to Human Development, shows that the spread of poverty within Newark’s various wards and neighborhoods is very extensive.

To a degree, this analysis raises the question of what can be done? There is no easy answer. The late Senator Robert Kennedy once said about poverty that “the web must be grasped whole.” Senator Kennedy’s point was that the individual, insidious elements of poverty are linked. One cannot hope to tear them apart and address them in silos.

Kennedy’s meaning is just as clear today as when he said it some forty years ago. The various causes of poverty must be addressed in a coordinated fashion and at the same time. For too long the argument has been that we have limited resources and only limited knowledge of poverty.

If nothing else, this report shows that the problem of poverty in cities like Newark, New Jersey, is present, pervasive and cannot be wished away. There are no easy solutions, but continued attention and self-examination of our efforts to address poverty are not unreasonable paths to take. I commend this report to you as nothing more than an invitation to a broader and longer conversation.

All the best,

RVA

10/9/13

!

Greetings,

Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies,a part of the School of Public Affairs and Administrationin collaboration with the Master of Public Policy Program

at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyRutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Fall 2013

A Spatial Analysis of Newark and the Challenges to Human Development

!

Completed byLiz Mahn

John ManieriSabeen Kalyan-Masih

Kelli SanchezMark Szeltner

Additional AssistanceDr. Roland V. Anglin

Emily Zeug-RobertsonStephen Abbott

Barriers to Upward Mobility

2 | B A R R I E R S T O U P W A R D M O B I L I T Y N E W A R K , N E W J E R S E Y | 3

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | p. 4

INTRODUCTION | p. 7

METHODOLOGY | p. 9 Focus: Elementary School Performance in Newark

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS | p.12 Race and Ethnicity Immigration Family Structure The Extent of Poverty in Newark Unemployment and Earnings Income Inequality Public Assistance Child Poverty

STRONG HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE NEIGHBORHOODS | p. 26 Challenges in the Central, West and South Wards Housing Conditions in SHCI Neighborhoods Home Ownership Housing Cost Burden Healthy Housing Environments Foreclosure, Abandonment, and Vacancy Housing Displacement, Student Mobility, and Poor Academic Performance

HEALTH AND NUTRITION FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | p. 44 Access to Food and Proper Nutrition

SUMMARY | p. 51

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES | p. 52

NOTES | p. 54

Cover Image Columbia School of Social Work: Rotator-School-Children-1, photograph, socialwork.columbia.edu, http://social-work.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/file_manager/home_rotators/rotator-school-children-1.jpg (accessed July 31st, 2013).


Executive SummaryLike many American cities, Newark, New Jersey went through steady economic decline during the second half of the last century. Waning industry, struggles over ethnic and racial succession, public policies that exacerbated population shifts to the suburbs and beyond–all sapped the Newark’s vitality. In recent years, the public, private, and nonprofit sectors have made significant investments in time and financial resource strategies to rekindle market forces, reform education and rebuild the physical infrastructure of the city. The efforts are starting to yield dividends, but there is still much to do. Among the many challenges still facing Newark is the large number of children living in concentrated poverty. Without necessary opportunities in education, shelter, personal health and well-being, it will be difficult to help these children and their families live what most Americans would say is a good life.

The Strong Health Communities Initiative (SHCI) commissioned this study to help understand defined target neighborhoods and the larger social and economic context in which these neighborhoods are embedded. This initiative is part of a national demonstration funded by Living Cities (a group of national and local foundations with a focus on revitalizing cities and communities) and its Integration Initiative. The theory of change rests on the SCHI supporting a comprehensive, targeted and coordinated set of initiatives in four Newark neighborhoods: Lower Broadway, Fairmont, Sussex and Clinton Hill.

Central to the SHCI theory of change is the implemention of interventions that (1) support Newark’s educational system to ensure that all children graduate from high school and are college-or career-ready; (2) develop healthy, habitable and safe neighborhoods that are sound places to prepare children to respond effectively to school curricula and succeed in learning; and (3) build a workforce development system that provides an educational safety net and equips families with the flexible skills needed to succeed in an evolving economy. Coordinators of SHCI approach this multi-layered theory of change by specifying the target challenges through data and then deriving evidence-based strategies and outcomes. This report presents data in key intervention areas: school performance; health; housing; and access to healthy food, layered by demographic considerations and the scope of poverty in Newark. The key findings from this study are as follows:

• Newark remains a gateway for immigrants seeking to make their way to the American dream.The immigrant population in Newark totals more than one-quarter of all residents (27%).

• In Newark, single females head 18% of all households and 53% of households with children.The South and Central Wards have the largest populations of single-female-headed households.

• When compared with five cities of similar size nationwide, poverty is most highlyconcentrated and widespread in Newark.

• One in ten Newark residents lives below 50% of the federal poverty line—a measurementindicating a severe state of financial distress.

• The highest rates of poverty—affecting 45% or more of the population– exist withinCentral Ward boundaries. The eastern boundary of the South Ward is also home to a highconcentration of poor residents.

• Newark’s workforce challenges—specifically, low wages and dismal employment numbers–help to explain high poverty.

• Variations among wards notwithstanding, Newark’s residents appear actively involved inthe job market.

• Of the approximately 70,000 children in Newark, more than one-third (37%) live at or belowthe poverty line.

• A significant percentage of Newark’s households experience greater housing cost burdensthan the national average. This burden varies across different areas of the city.

• Newark has the largest inventory of foreclosed homes in Essex County, representing 36% ofall foreclosed homes in the county and 4% of all foreclosed homes in the state of New Jersey.

The SHCI Theory of Change Policy Hypotheses

Education Achievement

Dramatically strengthen Newark’s educational system to ensure that all children graduate from high school and are college-or career-ready.

Strong Neighborhoods

Develop healthy, habitable, safe neighborhoods that are sound places to prepare children to respond effectively to school curricula and succeed in learning.

Strong Families

Build a clear and transparent workforce development system that provides an educational safety net and puts families to work with the skills required for the jobs of today and the future.

N E W A R K , N E W J E R S E Y | 7

Newark continues its journey back to prosperity after many years of decline. The city, once a center of commerce and industry, experienced a post–World War II decline similar to that of many other cities in the United States. In recent years, the public, private, and nonprofit sectors have made significant investments of time, financial resources, and various innovative strategies to rekindle market forces, reform education, and rebuild the physical infrastructure of the city. The efforts are starting to yield dividends, but there are still challenges to overcome.

One of the biggest challenges still facing Newark is the large number of children living in concentrated poverty. An important indicator of any city’s economic progress or revitalization is its success in nurturing and developing children. Thus, understanding the barriers to efficient and effective human development, specifically those pertaining to educating children, will be key in making Newark a strong, resilient city with opportunity for all.

The Strong Healthy Communities Initiative (SHCI) commissioned this study. SHCI is part of a national demonstration funded by Living Cities’ Integration Initiative. Living Cities is a group of national and local foundations with a focus on revitalizing cities and communities. Living Cities describes the demonstration this way:

The theory of change rests on the SHCI supporting “Newark’s education reform efforts by contributing to a comprehensive approach to family and community supports. It will bring city government and others to the table to provide economic development and wellness resources needed in the targeted communities.”2

Coordinators of SHCI approached this multi-layered theory of change by specifying the target challenges through data and then deriving evidence-based, ameliorative strategies aimed at producing positive outcomes.

Introduction

In Newark and other urban communities, low-income residents cannot afford to live in a healthful environment, and the costs of unhealthy living further destabilize families and entrench people in poverty. Newark’s Strong Healthy Communities Initiative (SHCI) will address these unequal conditions by using a “social determinants of health” framework to improve the economic and social well-being of targeted low-income communities through systems transformation as well as coordinated investments in housing, education, health care and healthy food options. In each neighborhood, the initiative will drive a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization strategy focused on alleviating the environmental conditions that create barriers to the educational and economic advancement of residents.1


Figure 1 Newark Elementary School Performance Rankings (Reference Map)

Public Elementary Schools100 Luis Munoz Marin Middle170 Avington Ave180 Alexander St200 Ann St220 Avon Ave225 Belmont Runyon240 Boylan Early Childhood Ct250 Bragaw Ave

Data source: New Jersey 2011 School Report Card, New Jersey Department of EducationPerformance “tiers” calculated as the composite of average NJASK or HSPA tests. Schools were then ranked based on school type and grade levels, using natural data breaks to determine the tiers.

First TierSecond TierThird TierFourth TierFifth TierUnavailable

Ward Boundaries

270 Branch Brook280 Broadway300 Burnet St335 Camden St315 Camden Middle330 Chancellor Ave335 Chancellor Ave Annex350 Cleveland

353 Clinton Ave370 Dayton St380 Eighteenth Ave390 Elliott St400 Fifteenth Ave410 First Avenue415 Dr. E. Alma Flagg420 Fourteenth Avenue

430 Franklin435 George Washington Carver440 Dr. William H. Horton455 Harriet Tubman460 Hawkins St470 Hawthorne Ave480 Lafayette St490 Lincoln

Newark Elementary School Performance Rankings

MethodologyThe extent and depth of Newark’s poverty has long been the subject of philanthropic overtures, public policy, and private-sector intervention. In this report we make no new pronouncements on what should be done to alleviate poverty in Newark. We have been asked to establish a data baseline summarizing socioeconomic challenges facing the Strong Healthy Communities Initiative neighborhoods. These neighborhoods span four of the five wards of Newark, which allows a rare and broad comparative analysis of these geographic areas. This analysis will establish a set of indicators to be used by SHCI and its constituent partners to measure the progress of the various strategies derived from the theory of change.

The goal of this research is to uncover (as much as the available data allow) the interactions among education, human capital, and various socioeconomic data suggested by the SHCI theory of change and discussions with the SHCI staff. We rely heavily on data from standard public sources such as the U.S. Census. The State of New Jersey as well as various city departments in Newark also provided data for the analysis. Foreclosure data was obtained from private sector sources. In some instances, such as the analysis of access to primary health care, we compiled a database from published information and then cross-checked the information by making phone calls to health care providers to ensure that the provider was still operating and to eliminate multiple entries for doctors with two or more offices.

In discussing the research methodology, we explored different geographic units of analysis. Ultimately, we chose to use modified ward configurations. Newark residents more strongly connect with wards than with neighborhoods as a cognitive frame. Census tracts do not neatly align with ward boundaries, but with some modifications we achieved the best fit. In addition, although sample data from the American Community Survey (ACS) is known for its weak respondent capture rate, we elected to use average 2011 annual numbers from the ACS in some places in the analysis. Although not the perfect solution to missing data, it is perhaps the best solution researchers have in making analytical inferences. We also collected supplemental qualitative information through interviews with government leaders, city stakeholders, education professionals, and various policy experts to understand the data we collected.

In summary, our study is meant to inform the SHCI process, not to track the impact of any given program or strategy. By doing so, we hope to provide Newark’s stakeholders with information about the social and economic barriers that are most challenging at the lowest geographic level of analysis. While the numbers are not always positive, the hope is that they will be used to frame and support data-driven policy solutions.

Public Elementary Schools (Cont.)495 Louise A. Spencer500 Madison Elementary510 Maple Ave520 Mcinley530 Miller St565 Ivy Hill570 Mt. Vernon575 Rafael Hernandez580 Newton St581 New Park590 Oliver St600 Peshine Ave605 Quitman Community610 Ridge St615 Roberto Clemente630 Roseville Ave640 South St670 South Seventeenth St690 Speedway Ave710 Sussex Ave715 Thirteenth Ave750 Wilson Ave

Charter Schools (with Elementary)911 Newark Educators917 Greak Oaks920 Discovery930 Gray932 Adelaide L. Sanford939 Roseville Community940 Marion P. Thomas955 Greater Newark Academy 957 New Horizons Community 960 North Star Academy 965 Team Academy970 Robert Treat Academy 974 Merit Prepl975 Maria L. Varisco Rogers980 University Heights

1 0 | B A R R I E R S T O U P W A R D M O B I L I T Y N E W A R K , N E W J E R S E Y | 1 1

Figure 2 Elementary School Performance in SHCI Partnering Neighborhoods (Reference Map)

Understanding the spatial relationship between Newark’s early education institutions and the inhibiting forces that challenge academic achievement is the basis of this analysis. It is important to understand school outcomes not in an accusatory manner but to appreciate, in the most nuanced way, the links between schools and the larger environment that contribute to poor academic achievement. As shown throughout the report, the poor socioeconomic health and nutritional conditions of Newark residents, along with the physical and fiscal instability of the neighborhoods in which they reside, combine to produce lower educational performance among schoolchildren.

Focus: Elementary School Performance in Newark

Using a mixed-methods approach, the goal of this report is to explore the relationships of these conditions and how they affect the learning and developmental environment of Newark’s schoolchildren. Only when these relationships are fully understood will stakeholders be able to work collectively to address the wide variety of problems to which they contribute. The maps in figures 1 and 2 demonstrate the highest- and lowest-performing schools, classified in five tiers (“First Tier” as highest, “Fifth Tier” as lowest) and can be used as a reference guide when assessing various other social and economic trends on maps of Newark or the SHCI neighborhoods.

Sussex Avenue Elementary

Data source: New Jersey 2011 School Report Card, New Jersey Department of EducationPerformance “tiers” calculated as the composite of average NJASK or HSPA tests. Schools were then ranked based on school type and grade levels, using natural data breaks to determine the tiers.


Demographic Trends

Table 1 Race and Ethnic Composition in Newark, the Wards, and SHCI Neighborhoods

Race and EthnicityNewark’s African American and Hispanic populations have remained the majority of Newark’s total population between 2005 and 2011. However, the population of African American children has decreased from 58% in 2005 to 54% in 2011, and the Hispanic population as a whole has decreased from 36%3 to 33%. Data at the city level do not properly illustrate Newark’s tremendous diversity. Newark’s residents are primarily African American (50%) but when comparing across wards, racial and ethnic differences become more evident.

Race and ethnicity are noticeably distributed according to specific places within the city. Figure 3 shows that the majority of the black (African American) population resides in the South, Central, and West Wards. The Hispanic community occupies the North Ward by a substantial margin. There, 7 in 10 residents report Hispanic origin (see table 1). White non-Hispanics are concentrated in the East Ward, which also has a significant Hispanic population.

White populations overall are relatively small by comparison except in the East Ward where they make up 40% of all residents. Non-Hispanic Asians and “other/mixed” racial groups are 2% and 3%

Figure 3 Racial/Ethnic Distribution in Newark and Newark’s Wards

within Newark respectively, and combine to make up approximately 5% of the total population in the city.4

SHCI neighborhoods also contain significant racial and ethnic diversity. Focusing first on the percentage of Hispanic populations in table 1, we see that the Lower Broadway neighborhood has the highest percentage of Hispanics with 74%; the Hispanic population of Sussex makes up approximately 43% of its total population. The Fairmount neighborhood and Clinton Hill have the lowest populations of Hispanics: 14% and 8% respectively. In all SHCI neighborhoods, non-Hispanic African Americans are the majority of the population, except for in the Lower Broadway, neighborhood, which has a 19% non-Hispanic African American population. Clinton Hill has the largest non-Hispanic African American population, 89%; Fairmount has 84%; the population of the Sussex neighborhood is 51% non-Hispanic African American. In all four neighborhoods, the percentages of non-Hispanic white, Asian, and other/mixed residents are in the single digits. Most notably, in the Fairmount neighborhood, Asian and other/mixed populations combined make up less than 1% of its population.

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year EstimatesWhite, Black, Asian, Other, and Mixed Race/Ethnic groups are among non-Hispanic categories. Hispanic includes ACS classifications: Mexican, Puerto Rican, and others.

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year EstimatesNote: Population numbers taken from the 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates and may differ from recent 2012–2013 estimates.

Neighborhood influences play an important role in child development. These influences span a continuum from the physical state of the community, including the presence or absence of public services, to the concentration of poverty or wealth. Similarly, the types of family structure can, if concentrated, become a powerful neighborhood influence that provides children with strong assets, or, conversely, limits life chances. It is widely accepted that low-income families with a single head of household can experience a significant economic and logistical burden relative to dual-income families (for example, the basics of parenting such as getting children to school, doctor’s appointments and activities that promote development). These demographic characteristics present big challenges for public policy makers working to construct strategies to assure opportunity paths are available for all children.


ImmigrationThe Urban Institute conducted a study focused on the children of immigrants, which found that from 1990 to 2008 the number of children in the United States with at least one immigrant parent almost doubled, from 8.3 million to 16.5 million.5 New Jersey, in particular, has historically been a state where many immigrants with children reside.6 Over time, the face of Newark transitioned from predominantly white to predominantly African American but it now reflects the growing populations of Hispanic immigrants as well as other immigrant groups from around the world.

As table 2 shows, the immigrant population in Newark totals more than one-quarter of all residents (27%). According to the 2011 American Community Survey, two-thirds of Newark’s foreign-born residents are not U.S. citizens. The ratio of noncitizens to naturalized citizens among all foreign-born residents is approximately 60:40 in the North, South, and Central Wards, 80:20 in the East Ward, and 50:50 in the West Ward. Overall, 6 in 10 foreign-born residents immigrated to Newark before 2000. This is relatively consistent across all of the city wards. Newark remains a destination for immigrants seeking the American dream.

Raymond Ocasio, executive director of La Casa de Don Pedro, a community development organization based in Newark’s North Ward, notes the increasing diversity within the city is a result of an influx of Hispanic and African immigrants in the North and East wards. Immigration itself is not the problem for Newark. The city has been a diverse hub of culture and race for many years. However, the way immigrants blend into Newark’s social and economic framework has become a concern. Ocasio notes that there is significant cross-ward mobility by immigrants, specifically from the East to the North. An intra-city migration is happening as those new immigrants are being priced out of the East Ward’s real estate market.

SHCI neighborhoods, as shown in table 2, have slightly smaller foreign-born populations overall, but the numbers are still significant, particularly in the Sussex neighborhood with 26% of its population born outside of the United States. Lower Broadway has a 25% foreign-born population, and Clinton Hill and Fairmount have 11% and 10%, respectively.

The topic of immigration also raises the challenge of language as a barrier to social and economic integration. Of Newark’s population, 45% over the

age of five speak a language other than English. In the North and East Wards, that percentage increases to 71%. Just over half (55%) of the population in Newark speak “English only.” The data in table 3 also show that nearly one-quarter of Newark’s population over the age of five speaks English “less than well.”

Limited fluency in English is yet another burden for young students assimilating into the education system. In the North Ward, most non-English-speaking residents speak in Spanish (64%), and 33% speak English “less than well.” In other words, one-third may not be able to effectively speak English. This barrier is even more pronounced in the East Ward, where 47% of people ages five years and older speak English “less than well.” Spanish-speaking residents make up approximately 36% of the population in the East Ward, while 35% speak some other Indo-European language. Both the Central and West Wards have larger populations that speak English “less than well,” 15% and 13%, and within these wards, other than English, the most common language spoken is Spanish. Twenty-seven percent of the Central Ward and 16% of the West Ward speak Spanish.

Focusing on the neighborhood level, table 3 shows that 73% of Lower Broadway’s population and 45% of the population in the Sussex neighborhood are non-English speakers. About one-third of the Lower Broadway neighborhood population and one-fifth of the Sussex neighborhood population speak English “less than well”. Spanish is the primary language spoken in these neighborhoods with 68% and 38% of the populations, respectively. In contrast, just 13% of Fairmount residents and 8% of Clinton Hill residents speak Spanish.

Poverty tends to track the growing immigrant populations—specifically, the Hispanic immigrant community with limited English fluency. These populations often earn less than their non-Hispanic counterparts and, as a result, live in poorer socioeconomic tracts.7 A study by the National Center for Children in Poverty shows that at a national level, Hispanic children make up a majority of all low-income children.8 However, limited employment does not seem to be a significant contributing factor. Low-income children with one recent immigrant parent as well as low-income children with an established immigrant parent, have higher rates of employment than low-income children with native-born parents—65% for native born, 78%

for established, and 76% for recent immigrants.

Understanding the demographic composition of Newark can greatly impact the delivery of community services. Raymond Ocasio notes that the current influx of Africans from different countries poses a similar challenge to that of the diverse countries of origin now seen in the Latino community. Some neighborhoods have seen an influx of Liberians and Kenyans while others have seen the growth of Brazilian and El Salvadorian populations. In principle, this is wonderful and portends a rich tapestry of culture that will eventually help the local economy the way

immigrants have always helped the United States. In the interim, multiple cultures can have short-term costs on social and economic infrastructure.

Healthcare officials report that while immigration has created rich and desired diversity, it has also brought different cultural norms with regard to health, food preferences, diet, and weight that stretch the ability of an already taxed system to adapt.9 School officials are reporting similar challenges. The use of data and outreach will be essential to ensure that the needs of these new communities are met and that they do not fall into poverty and poor health.

Table 2 Native and Foreign-Born Status in Newark, the Wards, and SHCI Neighborhoods

Table 3 Languages Spoken in Newark among Populations Five (5) Years and Older

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates



Family StructureNewark’s South, Central and West Wards are densely populated with single female-headed households. The East Ward is more likely to be foreign-born and not headed by a single female. All SHCI-partnering neighborhoods are predominantly African American, with a low incidence of single female-headed households overall, but a high incidence of households with children. These assessments are just aggregate profiles, however. The data suggest a richer variation among wards and neighborhoods. The following analysis will observe the racial and ethnic composition, native versus foreign-born status, and the structures of Newark’s families.

Newark has an estimated 92,000 households, which include 60,000 family households, according to the 2011 American Community Survey. Among family households, 35% have children under the age of 18. One-quarter of the city’s population is under the age of 18, but their residency varies by ward, and more significantly by neighborhood (table 4).

Children make up more than a quarter of the population in Newark’s West, South, North, and Central Wards, but the East Ward has a significantly lower percentage of children (17% of its total population). However, this is influenced by the presence of Port Newark and Newark Liberty International Airport and the overall smaller total population. SHCI’s partnering neighborhoods report a much higher presence of children—ranging from 30% of the general population in Sussex to 36% in

Fairmount. In these neighborhoods, the percentage of households with children ranges from 40% to 48%.

Similar to national trends, births to single mothers in Newark have increased since 2005. In 2009, 71% of all births in Newark were to unwed mothers.10 It has become increasingly common for single mothers to cohabitate with partners, relatives or friends to help pay for the cost of living.11 Newark has also followed national trends with respect to single female-headed households. In Newark, single females head 18% of all households and 53% of households with children (table 4). The largest populations of single female-headed households are in the South and Central Wards. In the South Ward single females head 21% of all households and 63% of households with children. The Central Ward has slightly higher percentages, with 23% of all households and 68% of those with children headed by single females. The West Ward has slightly fewer single female-headed households, with 21% and 58%, respectively (table 5).

Table 5 shows the percentage of single female-headed households by neighborhoods in the SHCI partnership. In Lower Broadway and Sussex, single females head 28% of all households; in Clinton Hill, 27% of households are headed by single females and in Fairmount, single females head 30% of all households. Single females head nearly 70% of households with children in Clinton Hill and Fairmount and approximately 60% in the Lower Broadway and Sussex neighborhoods.

Table 4 Families, Households, and Children in Newark

Table 5 Single Female Heads of Households in Newark



K. Kum, Single Fathers: Navigating the Courts, photograph, 2013, first5kids.org, http://blog.first5kids.org/single-fathers-navigating-the-courts/ (accessed July 24th, 2013).

The Extent of Poverty in NewarkNewark ranks among the ten poorest metropolitan areas in the country.12 Consider the risk for Newark’s children when poverty touches nearly one-third of the residents in the poorest wards. The heavy burden of poverty poses unique challenges for students of poor families, with cascading effects into many aspects of life. Overall, the stress of low wages and unemployment shifts a family’s balance of priorities—sacrificing investment in the future for survival in the present.

The analysis here provides information at several levels of detail: the city at large, the wards, the neighborhoods (SHCI partners), and census tracts. We begin with a discussion of basic poverty statistics, followed by employment, income, and food stamps. In some cases, data will be displayed in conjunction with Newark school locations and achievement scores to demonstrate the potential threat to academic achievement.

The size of poverty in Newark is quite unusual in comparison to other cities. Figure 4 demonstrates the differences in socioeconomic status among five major cities in the United States– Atlanta, Baltimore, Pttsburgh, and St. Louis—similar to Newark in size or circumstance (poverty, crime, industrial decline). The distribution of high poverty (by census tract) appears similar among the five cities, which demonstrate a mix of both high and low rates of poverty within their city boundaries.

The remarkable dissimilarity is the nearly nonexistence of low-poverty areas in Newark (tracts with less than 15% in poverty). These other urban areas, by comparison, have at least some recognizable presence of middle-class residents earning a sustainable wage—or at least enough to keep them afloat above the poverty line (see figure 4). The limited presence of Newark’s low-poverty neighborhoods stands out quite clearly in contrast to other regions. The absence of a strong middle class is consequential in any context. A strong middle class with disposable income drives “effective demand,” for goods and services, they often

exert the type of “voice” that moves public affairs especially in the arena of public education.

In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that just over 15% of all Americans live in poverty. In comparison, one-quarter of Newark’s total population lives at or below the poverty line.13 The rate of poverty within the city, however, varies by ward (Table 6). The burden of poverty touches nearly one-third of its people in the Central and South Wards. The population of the North and West Wards living in poverty falls just short of one-quarter. Poverty in the East Ward, with Newark’s lowest rate at 18 percent, still exceeds the national average.

The map in figure 5 illustrates the distribution of poverty across the city, using census tracts to isolate localized prevalence. The highest rates of poverty—affecting 45% or more of the population—exist within and along the periphery of the Central Ward. The eastern boundary of the South Ward also exhibits high concentrations of poor residents—and these areas tend to be situated near the airport. The East Ward appears relatively unscathed by severe poverty, but several census tracts within the ward (most of them in the Ironbound district) exhibit higher rates.

One in ten Newark residents lives below 50% of the federal poverty line—a measurement indicating a severe state of financial distress. Among the impoverished—approximately 70,000 of the 275,000 people in Newark—almost half (46%) live under such harsh economic circumstances. Within the Central Ward, this problem affects a slight majority of its residents (52%). Figure 5 also illustrates the 18 areas of concentrated and severe poverty—high-risk zones—where one-quarter or more of the residents live below 50% of the national poverty line. Figure 5 illustrates areas facing concentrated and severe poverty. These high-risk areas are often found in the West, Central, and South Wards but are rarely observed among census tracts in the East and North Wards.


Figure 4 Poverty Rates in Newark Compared to Other Cities by Census Tract

Figure 5 Distribution of Poverty and More Severe Poverty in Newark by Census Tract

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates , U.S. Census TIGER/Line, Pittsburgh GIS, St. Louis County, Baltimore GIS Department, NJGIN

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates Areas of concentrated and severe poverty identified as census tracts with 20% or more of the population living below 50% of the Federal Poverty Line.

Table 6 Poverty Rates in Newark and Across the Five Wards

Table 7 Workforce and Unemployment Estimates in Newark City and the Wards

Table 8 Median Earnings in Newark City and Across the Five Wards

Unemployment and EarningsGeneral measures of poverty usually illustrate the result of exposure to other forms of economic stress. Newark’s workforce challenges help to explain high poverty—specifically, low wages and employment numbers. Nearly two-thirds of Newark’s population (62%) participate in the labor force, working approximately 38 hours per week. These figures are on par with the rest of the state and the nation. The participation rates peak at 69% in the West Ward, with a low of 54% in the Central ward (table 7).

Variations among wards notwithstanding, Newark’s residents appear actively involved in the job market. On average, more than 8 in 10 families in Newark (75% to 88%) have at least one worker, but that still leaves between 12% and 23% of all families without a traditional source of income generated in the labor market. The extent of poverty, however, is due in large part to the combination of unemployment and low earnings among the currently employed. Despite some recent improvement, Newark’s unemployment has doubled since 2007, and five-year estimates of unemployment in Newark’s wards are well above rates for the state (8.7%) and the nation (also 8.7%).14

Aggregating data over the last five years, the American Community Survey estimates an

umemployment rate between 15% and 16% for the city—ranging from a low of 11% in the East Ward to a high of 21% in the South Ward (table 7). Newark’s workforce development services are currently focused on the South Ward’s unemployed residents in comparison to other areas of the city.15

Table 8 demonstrates that Newark is primarily composed of relatively high- and low-earning households. Approximately 16% of the city’s working population earn between $50,000 and $74,999 per year, suggesting a nearly nonexistent middle-income class of workers compared to higher- and lower-income brackets. Two-thirds of the city’s households earn less than $50,000 per year, with one-third earning less than $25,000.

In the Central and South Wards, more than 40% of households earn less than $25,000 a year. Five of the poorest census tracts, based on median income, are contained within the Central Ward—a place where one-fifth of all households report $10,000 or less in annual earnings. Especially low earnings might also explain why many of the employed find themselves with insufficient income—8 to 12% of those with a job still live at or below the poverty line.


The biggest challenge is entrenched unemployment. People don't have enough to make ends meet, and they have exhausted unemployment insurance and other services. -- Arcelio Aponte, Director of Operations for Economic Development, City of Newark





Income InequalityA second look at the map of poverty rates in Newark demonstrates that high- and low-income tracts are separated by borders as narrow as a city street. Income inequality is another common occurrence among high-density urban cities, and Newark is no exception (see figure 2). An analysis of the city by census tract illustrates these locations and concentrations of economic disparity.

The most positive economic indicators—including low poverty, high earnings, and high employment—occur in the East Ward (encompassing the Ironbound district), but pockets of wealth exist throughout the city in unlikely areas. Perhaps it is a surprise to learn that Newark’s highest median household income ($69,861) exists within the Central Ward just outside the Fairmount neighborhood (in Census Tract 64 surrounding Richmond Street and Thirteenth Avenue)—an area also marked by concentrations of severe poverty. Likewise, the city’s second highest median household income is in the South Ward (Census Tract 52 surrounding Hawthorne Avenue and Homestead Park)—another area with high rates of poverty. This type of income inequality is present in other parts of Newark (and other cities for that matter). It is worth noting, however, that such radical differences exist at all, given such widespread poverty in the central and south regions of the city.

Homes located in Census Tract 64 of Newark’s Central Ward

Public AssistanceHow do the people of Newark manage in an economy marked by low employment, low wages, and high poverty? For many residents, the state and federal government provide some temporary respite from the burden of persistent poverty. Estimates from the last five years indicate that many households in Newark receive public cash assistance (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI):

•8% of households receive cash subsidies from the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program (TANF), with an average subsidy of $3,982 per household. •19% of households receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), with an average subsidy of $8,511 per household. •21% of households receive “food stamp” assistance from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Simply putting food on the table can be challenging, and one in five families in Newark receives govern-ment assistance from SNAP (also known as EBT or food stamps) as a way to alleviate some of the day-to-day problems associated with poverty. The wards by themselves exhibit similar rates—20% to 25% of all families receive food stamps—with the exception of the East Ward, with just 13%. The highest proportions of food stamp recipients are concentrated in the West and South Wards bordering the Central Ward.

The pattern is similar for TANF and SSI grants. Twenty-five percent of households in the Central Ward receive SSI, and 10% receive public cash assistance from TANF grants. Again, the South and West Wards trail close behind—but this is expected considering the local patterns of economic distress. The poorest areas are likely to be those in need of public assistance, and the pattern of SNAP, SSI, and TANF recipients across census tracts is quite similar to those of unemployment and general poverty.

Minnesota Literacy Council, “We accept EBT,” photograph, 2012, mnliteracy.org, http://mnliteracy.org/blogs/2012/12/17999 (accessed July 24th, 2013).

Table 9 Child Poverty Rates in Newark and the Wards


Child PovertyMuch evidence supports the relationship between poverty and educational achievement. It has been a long-standing tenet of education research that poverty adversely affects student achievement. At the most individual level, poverty contributes to a higher risk of cognitive deficiency among children—which is just one reason why it is considered a significant contributor to the achievement gap between rich and poor students.

Children who live below the poverty line are more likely to have developmental delays or learning disabilities than those who don’t live in poverty.16 These economic stressors are intensified the earlier the child is exposed. Additionally, a person’s labor market success appears to be compromised more by poverty experienced earlier in childhood, rather than later.17 Therefore, even short-lived bouts with unemployment, poverty, and other sources of financial strain have significant implications over the long term.

Observers can conclude that children growing up in Newark face serious

threats to development: jobless rates among adults—their parents and caretakers—double national estimates, and low-wage employment leaves many of Newark’s families in poverty.18 The force of Newark’s economic troubles certainly appears to weigh heaviest on the young. Of the approximately 70,000 children in Newark, more than one-third (37%) live at or below the poverty line (table 9).

Compared to poverty among the entire population (adults included), the rate of child poverty in Newark reaches extremely high percentages: 21 census tracts in the city have a majority of children living in poverty. Figure 6 illustrates these points on a map of the city and shows the disproportionate concentration of child poverty in the Central and South Wards. ACS estimates show that more than 60% of children live at or below the poverty line in several Newark census tracts. In absolute figures, the Central Ward is home to fewer poor children than the West and South Wards, but it holds the highest rate of children in poverty among the five districts (45%).

Figure 6 Distribution of Child Poverty in Newark by Census TractData source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates Note: Child poverty rate calculated as the percentage of all individuals under the age of 18 living below the Federal Poverty Line.

Table 10 SHCI Neighborhood Poverty and Child Poverty Rates

Table 11 SHCI Neighborhood Labor Participation and Unemployment Rates


Strong Healthy Communities Initiative Neighborhoods

Tables 10 and 11 reveal that SHCI’s partner neighborhoods are, on average, worse off than other neighborhoods in the city. When ranked among neighborhoods for the highest rates of poverty in Newark, Fairmount ranks third, Clinton Hill fourth, Lower Broadway fifth, and Sussex ranks seventh. With respect to child poverty rates, the rankings seem nearly identical (third, fifth, fourth, and eighth respectively). Of Fairmount’s residents, 41% live at or below the poverty line, followed by Clinton Hill (33%), Lower Broadway (32%), and Sussex Avenue (30%). The Fairmount and Clinton Hill neighborhoods are the poorest of the SHCI partners. A majority of people in each community lives below 50% of the poverty line—57% in Fairmount and 51% in Clinton Hill. Together, these two areas encompass seven of the eighteen “high-risk” zones of severe and concentrated poverty—with several more just outside their boundaries.

Although the unemployment rates across SHCI’s neighborhoods are greater than that of Newark as a whole, the SHCI neighborhood unemployment rates are similar to the wards in which they are located. One-fifth of the residents in Clinton Hill, Fairmount, and Sussex are unemployed. More than two-thirds of the working residents earn a median income of less than $50,000—and of those, nearly half earn less than $25,000.

[On] access to quality schools, there seems to be a disparity

as far as students being able to access schools of excellence

depending on the particular neighborhood that they reside.

-- Councilman Anibal Ramos Jr., North Ward

The poverty rates in Newark are striking, but when considering the cost of having children in a household, the rates increase. Compared to wards or the city at large, the SHCI neighborhoods have higher numbers of child residents. Fairmount has a child poverty rate of 58%, Clinton Hill and Lower Broadway have just a slightly lower rate with 46%, and Sussex has a child poverty rate of 39%. The maps in figure 7 provide local detail about childhood poverty. The highest rates of childhood poverty occur within and around the following SHCI partnership areas:

In Clinton Hill• Twelfth Street to Eighteenth Street between Clinton Avenue and Madison Avenue• Seymour Avenue to Milford Avenue between I-78 Express and Madison Avenue

In Fairmount• South Twelfth Street to Camden Avenue between Fourteenth Avenue and Eighteenth Avenue

In Sussex• North Seventh Street to North First Street across Sussex Avenue

In Lower Broadway• Mount Prospect Avenue to East Mill Street between Orange Street and Taylor Street

Figure 7 Distribution of Child Poverty within SHCI Neighborhoods



Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates Note: Child poverty rate calculated as the percentage of all individuals under the age of 18 living below the Federal Poverty Line.


Challenges in the Central, West, and South WardsLooking at Newark’s Central, West, and South Wards, the relationship between socioeconomic stress and educational achievement becomes increasingly apparent. Recent research indicates that neighborhood sources of socioeconomic inequality may be the main driver of achievement inequalities, rather than just household income. Thus, the very presence of poverty within a community—regardless of its direct effect on a young resident—has some spillover influence on academic progress. The map in figure 8 reveals the potential risks to children and young students based on their residency in the city. The distribution of poverty follows a distinct pattern—one that may have serious implications to human development in the SHCI partner neighborhoods. Figure 8 demonstrates an arc of severely impoverished census tracts encompassing several schools within the Central, South, and West Wards—beginning just north of Sussex, around the Fairmount neighborhood, and moving south around the border of Clinton Hill.

The location of poor communities may result in a clustering effect that contributes to a persistent state of poverty and poor academic achievement. Low-performing schools are common traits of poor neighborhoods. Figure 8 shows the difficult context in which Newark’s public schools must perform. Child poverty affects a majority of children in 21 census tracts around Newark’s city limits. Earlier evidence suggests that the severely distressed areas of the city are concentrated just west and south of the city’s center—calculated as the “epicenter.”

Areas of high poverty within the West and South Wards can be found near the Central Ward boundary as well. This geographic epicenter of child poverty is located in the southwest corner of the Central Ward—in the space between Fairmount and Clinton Hill. Many of Newark’s low-performing elementary schools—categorized in the fourth and fifth tiers of achievement (out of five)—are within a mile radius of this central location. Nearly all of Newark’s lower-tier elementary schools fall within a two-mile radius.

Hawthorne Avenue Elementary

Figure 8 The Spread of HIgh-Risk Child Poverty and Elementary School Performance

Data source: New Jersey 2011 School Report Card, New Jersey Department of Education, New Jersey 2011 School Report CardNotes: Performance “tiers” calculated as the composite of average NJASK or HSPA tests. Schools were then ranked based on school type and grade levels, using natural data breaks to determine the tiers. Child poverty rate calculated as the percentage of all individuals under the age of 18 living below the Federal Poverty Line. Epicenter of poverty calculated as teh geographical mean location of poor census tracts within Newark according to concentrations of child poverty. Buffer rings are set at half-mile intervals.


Housing Conditions in SHCI Neighborhoods The links between poor housing and childhood educational development cannot be ignored. Scholars and experts in the fields of housing and education agree that poor housing conditions negatively affect a child’s ability to perform in school. A number of factors may contribute to the poor condition of a child’s home. However, they combine to exert a significant compounding negative effect on childhood development. In this section, we examine how the prevalence of poor fiscal and physical housing conditions impact Newark’s residents and their communities.

Home OwnershipHome ownership has historically been viewed as a stabilizing force in housing markets. Owning a home has generally provided a vehicle for wealth creation and been associated with greater residential stability, better-quality housing environments, better physical and social quality of neighborhoods, better physical and emotional health, and greater civic involvement. However, research from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies questions if the recent recession and housing crisis may have altered the financial and social benefits associated with homeownership. Since the beginning of the housing crisis, millions of homeowners across the country have felt the impacts of declining home values and have ended up with negative equity in their homes, become delinquent on mortgage payments or fallen into foreclosure, or been forced to sell their homes. This may have undermined the belief that, in times of economic uncertainty, homeownership affords and creates a more stabile housing environment and child developmental outcomes than renting.

Renters are also affected by declining home values seen with the housing crisis, as they are subjected to high instability when forced to pay increased rent or forced to move from a unit that has been foreclosed. This is more the case in Newark, as it is overwhelmingly a city of renters with one-quarter (25%) of occupied housing units occupied by owners. This rate is significantly different from the national average (66%) though closer to similar size cities in the region such as Hartford, Connecticut (25%) and Providence, Rhode Island (37%). Table 12 shows that rates of homeownership fluctuate by ward, ranging from 33% in the West Ward to 20% in the Central Ward, and by SHCI neighborhood, ranging from 23% in Fairmount and Lower Broadway to 26% in Sussex Avenue.

Table 12 Owner Occupied Units in Newark, the Wards and SHCI Neighborhoods


Home in Disrepair in SHCI Neighborhood


Housing Cost BurdenWhen the household budget is tight, spending a large portion of income on housing costs can adversely affect a household’s ability to afford other basic services, such as nutritious food, health care, child care, or education. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a household as “cost-burdened” when it spends more than 30% of its pre-tax gross income to pay for housing costs. The 2007–2011 American Community Survey estimated that housing cost burdens affected 43% of all American households. This figure includes 38% of American homeowners with mortgages, and 52% of American renters.19

A higher percentage of Newark’s households experience housing cost burdens than households at the national scale (58% in Newark versus 43% nationwide). This includes 52% of Newark homeowners with mortgages and 56% of Newark renters.20 This impact is amplified for households of lower economic status. Across the city of Newark, nearly one-quarter (22.5%) of the most vulnerable owner or renter households –those earning $20,000 or less in annual income–paid over 30% of their income toward housing costs in 2011. Comparing this percentage of low-income cost-burdened Newark households to households earning between $50,000 and $74,999 in annual income (5.6% cost-burdened) and those earning $75,000 or more in annual income (2.9% cost-burdened) shows the degree to which low-income households are affected by housing costs. Although housing cost burdens of Newark’s households prevail throughout the majority of the city, high concentrations of these cost burdens vary in specific areas. For this study, high concentrations of housing cost burden were defined as census tracts in which 50% or greater of the population of homeowners or renters are paying 30% or more of their pre-tax gross income in housing costs. As shown in figures 9 and 10, these areas of high concentration prevail throughout every city ward and SHCI neighborhood.

All of Newark’s five wards exhibit rates of homeowner housing cost burden greater than the national average. Displayed in table 13, rates range from 32% in the West Ward to 76% in the East Ward. Renter cost burden rates are more level across Newark’s wards, ranging from 54% in the North and East Wards to 59% in the South Ward. Housing cost burdens are more severely pronounced in Newark’s SHCI neighborhoods. Among the these neighborhoods, homeowners’ cost burdens range from 71% in the Sussex Avenue neighborhood to 79% in Clinton Hill, while rates of renters’ burdens range from 61% in Lower Broadway and Clinton Hill to 66% in Fairmount. The high rates of housing cost burden that prevail in Newark’s wards and SHCI neighborhoods put increased pressure on households’ ability to afford basic necessities and services related to the development of their children.

Figure 9 Homeowners’ Housing Cost Burden in Newark by Census Tract

**

*

**

*

**

***

****

***

**

**** * * *

***

**

***

* *** *

** * ******

*

*

***

***

*

* *

** *

* **

*

* * **

Figure 10 Renters’ Housing Cost Burden in Newark by Census Tract

Table 13 Burden of Housing Costs on Newark Residents

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates Note: Housing cost burden is defined by HUD as households that spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs.

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates *Housing cost burden is defined by HUD as households that spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs.**High concentrations of cost burdened homeowners are identified as census tracts where more than 50% of homeowners spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs.

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates *Housing cost burden is defined by HUD as households that spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs.**High concentrations of cost burdened renters are identified as census tracts where more than 50% of renters spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs.


Healthy Housing EnvironmentsLiving in a substandard home can greatly impair a family’s health and quality of life, negatively affecting children’s development in and out of school. At the basic level, HUD considers a home as substandard if does not have complete plumbing, kitchen, or heating facilities. Under HUD’s definition, a total of 3% of all occupied housing units in the city of Newark are considered substandard. Table 14 shows that rates of substandard housing are consistent at 3% to 4% throughout all of Newark’s wards, but climb to 5% in the SHCI neighborhoods of Fairmount and Lower Broadway. Figure 11 shows the varying rates of substandard housing by Newark census tracts.

Newark has a high concentration of aging housing units. Approximately two-thirds (66%) of all of the available housing stock in the city has been built before 1970. Considering that the enforcement of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 mainly targets lead-based paint removal of pre-1978 housing, observing housing that was built in this period can inform discussion of housing that has a high likelihood of containing with lead-based paint. Table 15 shows that percentages of housing units built before 1970 fluctuate among Newark’s wards, ranging from 48% in the Central Ward to 75% in the North Ward, and throughout SHCI neighborhoods. Figure 12 shows the varying rates of pre-1970 housing by Newark census tracts.

If taking into account other elements of healthy housing environments, such as dryness, cleanliness, proper ventilation, freedom from contamination, freedom from pests, maintenance, and safety, considered by the National Center for Healthy Housing –it is suspected that many more homes would be considered poor living conditions for families and their children. However, with unreliable data regarding these elements of Newark housing units, the complete picture of housing health in Newark’s neighborhoods remains unclear.

Table 15 Housing Units built before 1970 in Newark, the Wards and SHCI Neighborhoods

Table 14 Substandard Housing Units in Newark, the Wards and SHCI Neighborhoods

Figure 11 Substandard Housing in Newark by Census Tract

Figure 12 Housing Units Built Before 1970 in Newark by Census Tract



Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates *Substandard housing is defined by HUD as housing units that lack complete plumbing, kitchen, or heating facilities.



Foreclosure, Abandonment, and Vacancy

The presence of foreclosed and abandoned properties has real and devastating impacts on the surrounding community. It is not only the homeowners facing the loss of their homes who feel these impacts but also the surrounding community. The financial impacts of foreclosures and abandonments on municipalities and residents can be quantified. A 2005 study of Chicago found that the costs of a foreclosure to a municipality can vary significantly, from $27 if the foreclosed property was never vacant and sold at auction to $19,227 if the property was abandoned prior to foreclosure, left vacant, experienced modest criminal activity, and was eventually demolished.21

Neighboring homeowners feel the effects of foreclosures and abandonments in their community in terms of property values. One 2006 study of Philadelphia found that homes within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned house sell for about $7,000 less than other properties, and those within 300 to 449 feet of vacancies sell for about $3,500 less than comparable units in other locations.22 One 2012 nationwide study confirmed these figures and expanded upon them by showing that properties in virtually every stage of foreclosure-related distress have significant negative effects on property values of neighboring homes.23

The 2012 study also found that these effects usually disappear about a year after the bank sells the property to a new homeowner. A 2013 Boston-focused study found that the city received a disproportionate number of complaints about property conditions at properties in foreclosure, and that these complaints start before the distressed properties go to foreclosure auction.24 These studies suggest that policies that slow the foreclosure process will exacerbate the negative fiscal impact that foreclosures, distress, and abandonments have on residents and municipalities and that early intervention in the foreclosure process to quickly transition

properties back into the housing market is key in stemming declines in neighborhood property values.

In Newark’s neighborhoods, the prevalence of foreclosure and abandonment is extensive. According to recent statistics from Realty Trac, 77 homes in Newark received a foreclosure filing in March 2013, equating to roughly one out of every 1,424 homes. This puts the current count of homes in foreclosure in the city of Newark at 1,907. Newark has the largest inventory of foreclosed homes in Essex County, representing 36% of all foreclosed homes in the county and 4% of all foreclosed homes in the state of New Jersey.25 Figure 13 shows foreclosure ratios calculated by Realty Trac across Newark zip codes. Foreclosure ratios in zip codes that make up the city’s Central, South, and West Wards are notably high. Similarly high rates can be seen in SHCI neighborhoods—Clinton Hill, Fairmount, Lower Broadway, and Sussex Avenue.

In 2011 alone, 716 Newark properties were classified as tax foreclosure properties. In New Jersey, property owners must make timely property tax payments on their holdings, as well as any other municipal charges for which they may be liable. If property owners do not make timely payments, the property may be subject to tax foreclosure, initiated either by a municipality or a third party who has bought the tax lien from the municipality. The process is particularly time consuming in Newark, normally taking upward of two years to complete. This creates a backlog of properties going through the foreclosure process, where high foreclosure rates may continue to prevail even as housing market conditions improve. To accelerate the foreclosure process and help mitigate negative effects of lingering foreclosure properties, the Abandoned Properties Rehabilitation Act allows cities in New Jersey to shorten the mandatory two-year waiting period for third parties by confirming the abandoned status of properties. Figure 13 Foreclosure Ratios in Newark by Zip Code

Data source: Realty Trac Real Estate Trends Q1 (March) 2013Note: A foreclosure rate is calculated by dividing the total number of housing units in a zip code (based on the most recent estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau) by the total number of properties that received foreclosure listings during the time period. That number is then expressed as a ratio. The lower the second number in the ratio, the higher the foreclosure rate.


Table 16 Foreclosed and Abandoned Properties in Newark and SHCI Neighborhoods 2011

Cities like Newark have created an abandoned property list certifying that these properties meet the criteria for accelerated foreclosure.26 The number of both properties in foreclosure and confirmed abandoned properties can be seen as indicators of neighborhood stability. Numbers of properties classified in tax foreclosure and properties listed on the Newark Abandoned Property List are shown in table 16. Each ward and SHCI neighborhood recorded significant numbers of tax foreclosure and abandoned properties in 2011, except for the Sussex Avenue neighborhood, which was not home to any properties listed on the Newark Abandoned Property List in 2011. The South Ward and the Clinton Hill neighborhood had the largest concentrations of tax foreclosure properties, while the West Ward and the Lower Broadway neighborhood had the largest concentrations of abandoned properties.

Table 17 Vacancy Rates in Newark and SHCI Neighborhoods 2011

Newark’s inventory of vacant homes stood at 17,792 in 2011, representing a 16% residential vacancy rate.27 However, vacancy rates fluctuated among Newark wards, ranging from a low of 12% in the North and East Wards to a high of 20% in the South Ward. Vacancy rates in all Newark SHCI neighborhoods were significantly higher than the citywide rate, ranging from a low of 18% in the Lower Broadway neighborhood to a high of 32% in Fairmount. This prevalence of residential vacancy across Newark can be seen in table 17.

The spatial distribution of high concentrations of residential vacancy can be seen in Figure 14. Areas of high concentrations of vacancy were defined as census tracts that displayed vacancy rates of 20% or greater. These areas are mostly found in the Central, South, and West Wards of Newark and prevail in high degrees within all SHCI neighborhoods.

Figure 14 Concentrations of High Residential Vacancy across Newark by Census Tract

Data source: City of Newark, Abandoned Properties Listing (2011)


Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates *High concentrations of vacancy were defined as census tracts exhibiting residential vacancy rates in excess of the city-wide residential vacancy rate of 16.24%.


Figure 15 Vacancy, Foreclosure, and Abandonment in SCHI Neighborhoods

Most census tracts within the SHCI neighborhoods exhibit vacancy rates of 20% and greater. Figure 15 displays these high vacancy rates along with locations of properties in tax foreclosure and properties on Newark’s abandoned properties list and begins to paint a clearer picture of the instability of certain Newark neighborhoods. These conditions prevail at higher rates in the Fairmount, Sussex Avenue, and Clinton Hill neighborhoods, where only a handful of census tracts do not show residential vacancy rates of at least 14%, and foreclosed and abandoned properties exist in abundance.

Any family going through the foreclosure process faces great stress…it’s obvious what that does to family dynamics.

--Mike Meyer, Director of Housing and Real Estate, City of Newark

Vacant Homes in SHCI Neighborhood

Residential Vacancy Rate in SHCI Neighborhoods

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates Locations of Properties in Tax Foreclosure and Properties on Newark’s Abandoned Property List (APL) were obtained from the City of Newark.


The need for quality learning environments at home—where children can just be children, do homework, concentrate, and sleep—is a challenge throughout Newark

--Councilman Ron Rice

Table 18 Student Mobility Rates at SHCI Partner Schools

Housing Displacement, Student Mobility, and Poor Academic Performance

• 2.3 million children affected by lost owner-occupied homes• 3 million children at risk to lose owner-occupied homes to foreclosure• 2.3 million children lost or at risk to lose rented homes to foreclosure• 142,000 children affected by the foreclosure crisis in New Jersey alone

The impact of housing instability extends beyond the financial realm, affecting households emotionally and socially by leading to increased levels of personal and family stress. One contributor to family stress is the likelihood of displacement for homeowners and renters involved in the foreclosure process. Just as homeowners move, either willingly or unwillingly as a result of foreclosure, renters may be forced out of homes that are going through the foreclosure process. Neighboring homeowners and renters may choose to move due to the increasing negative effects of nearby foreclosures. This displacement can lead to increased rates of student mobility in community schools and have a detrimental effect on childhood educational development.

Student mobility refers to the occurrence of students changing schools for reasons other than grade promotion that is, transferring between different schools in the same academic year.28 Studies have shown that students who transfer between different schools during the school year are at greater risk for developing academic and behavioral problems and are at greater risk of dropping out of school.29

Research suggests that differences in student achievement between mobile and stationary students can be correlated with students’ demographic and socioeconomic background. For example, a study in Minneapolis found a strong relationship between student mobility and a student’s race and family income. Further research also indicates that frequent school changes have a cumulative effect on students’ achievement and can place them as much as a year behind their peers.30

In March 2012 the Brookings Institution reported that more than 8 million children were affected by the foreclosure crisis nationwide as they were forced to switch neighborhoods and schools.31 Some of the highlights of the Brookings report are as follows:

A 2012 Urban Institute report covering Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and New York showed that in all three cities, students whose families received foreclosure notices were more likely to switch schools. The study showed that in Washington, D.C., foreclosure had a higher impact on the likelihood of school switching than a residential move for any other reason. There was also a significant increase in school switching even for students for whose families the foreclosure process was ongoing, before the family was legally forced to leave. Interestingly, the study showed that increased student mobility has affected students of lower socioeconomic status as well as students from more affluent families, suggesting that foreclosure may be introducing educational instability to previously stable populations.

In Newark, high student mobility rates and low school performance could be attributed to the prevalence of high numbers of foreclosures and abandonments, high vacancy rates, and high rates of unaffordable housing found throughout its neighborhoods. Table 18 lists student mobility rates for schools within Newark’s SHCI neighborhoods and compares these to the state average. Figure 2 illustrates school performance in Newark’s SHCI neighborhoods.

It is clear that most elementary schools within SHCI neighborhoods ranked in the lowest-performing categories: the fourth and fifth tiers. These neighborhoods are also home to some of the poorest housing conditions in the city. Without the existence of rigorous statistical research at the neighborhood level in Newark, it is not possible to prove that a correlation between poor housing conditions and poor educational performance indicates causation. In the absence of such statistical analysis, the information presented here can inform the anecdotal discussion about how neighborhood instability affects children’s educational development.

Data Source: Strong Healthy Communities Initiative, Newark Public Schools 2011–2012 dataNote: Newark district rate taken from 2010 data..

Brick Avon Academy Ruby Washington, “Brick Avon Academy, a public school in Newark with 650 students, began operating on Thursday under its teachers’ leadership,” photograph, 2010, nytimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/education/07teachers.html?pagewanted=all (accessed July 24th, 2013).


Figure 16 Medically Underserved Areas in Newark and Newark’s Wards by Census Tract

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, PolicyMap, HRSA Note: Medically Underserved Areas are designated by the Heath Resources and Services Administration as having too few primary care providers, high infant mortality, high poverty, and/or high elderly populations.

Health and Nutrition for Human DevelopmentHealth and wellness play an important role in the overall learning process. To understand the level of children’s academic success, one must consider their health conditions. Several studies show that poor health leads to lower levels of education, and this relationship has only strengthened over time.32 In Newark, this is especially true of the large populations that fall below the poverty line.

Studies indicate that “children born into poorer families fall into poorer health as they age,” ultimately lowering their performance levels in school year to year.33 Health problems can inhibit a child’s education and growth and lead to increased school absences and fatigue, decreases in performance levels, and more. Although Newark has made attempts to address this problem by partnering with community-based service organizations and various health-focused units of major universities, much remains to be done.34

Health development for children in Newark continues to show mixed results. Though Newark has improved in the percentage of women who only receive late prenatal care during pregnancy or no care at all, 37% still do not receive either form of care. Meanwhile, the state average for those not receiving late or prenatal care is just 21%.35

Maternal health is especially important to analyze and understand because of the significant effect it has on children’s mental and physical development. Dr. Kendell Sprott, a nationally known expert on children’s health, notes that a lack of basic health education often leads to poor health choices. As he observed in an interview, successful health education starts with “pregnant wom[e]n understanding what they need to eat and feed their baby....The more people know, the more likely they will engage in healthier patterns in buying, cooking and eating.”36

Along with a lack of health education, the lack of health care accessibility is another challenge in properly addressing the needs of Newark’s residents; this is the case in some areas more than others. Dr. Sprott states that Newark has the largest need for health care programs in New Jersey, but that its health care facilities “are not operating at full capacity.”37 Medicaid is the largest source of insurance for the patient population in Newark, but many doctors and other private practitioners do not accept Medicaid “because it pays too little and it’s even worse for dentists.” Dr. Sprott also observes, “Individuals that may have Medicaid insurance might not actually see doctors” to receive the health care that they need.38

The map in figure 16 indicates Newark’s medically underserved areas (MUA), highlighting the difficulty certain populations have in accessing adequate health care. These MUAs represent limited or no access near a given census tract community. To provide a more tangible context for the MUA classification, figure 14 also plots locations of Newark’s various health care providers—hospitals, primary care providers, community health care centers, and other health care entities.39

The analysis demonstrates marked variations from ward to ward. The poorest areas of the South, Central, and West Wards show significantly fewer facilities than the East Ward (Newark’s wealthiest) does. Community health care centers and similar health care services often fill the void where primary care is absent. Even so, neighborhoods such as Fairmount and Sussex find themselves without a central facility for health services. Clinton Hill, another SHCI partner, exhibits areas of limited medical service. The SHCI neighborhoods are relatively extreme examples since they are among the poorest in Newark.


Figure 17 Medically Underserved Areas and Proximity to Severe Poverty by Census Tract

and low performance in schools. In our interview with Councilman Ramos, he noted the importance of this relationship and explained that some families who are eligible for food stamps still have difficulty buying food that is healthy and nutritious. As he said, “access to health care education would have a positive effect and encourage everything from better physical fitness to [one’s] ability to concentrate in school.”40 The elementary schools throughout Newark in MUAs with high poverty also tend to perform poorly, indicating that the correlation between health and children’s academic performance needs to be addressed.

To illustrate the issue of poverty and health services on a citywide scale, figure 17 shows the same MUA map with the areas of concentrated and severe poverty highlighted from previous analyses. Further analyses illustrate that those areas designated as “medically underserved” also fall below the poverty level and are often home to populations that suffer from chronic and unaddressed medical conditions.

While examining the medically underserved areas in Newark, it becomes clear that there is a relationship between lack of access to health care

Figure 18 Grocery Retail Locations and Limited Service Stores in Newark

Access to Food and Proper NutritionGrowing attention is being paid to food policy, nutrition, and the impact each has on academic achievement.41 Research on the link between nutrition and cognitive development has provided compelling evidence that poor nutrition “impacts the behavior of children, their school performance, and their overall cognitive development,” which can have detrimental effects on their productivity as adults.42 The foods children eat throughout their development are critical not only to their educational attainment but also to their overall human development.

According to a recent study conducted by the

Rutgers Center for State Health Policy, Newark’s children are more likely to be overweight or obese than their national counterparts. These rates are highest among the youngest (3–5 years) and the middle (6–11 years) age groups.43 This can be attributed at least in part to the type of food that is being consumed. The study revealed that the majority of Newark children do not consume the recommended amount of vegetables. They also frequently consume energy-dense items such as fast food, sugar sweetened beverages, and sweet and salty snacks. Non-Hispanic black children tend to consume these energy-dense items most often.

Data source: U.S. Census, 2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, PolicyMap, HRSA Note: Medically Underserved Areas are designated by the Heath Resources and Services Administration as having too few primary care providers, high infant mortality, high poverty, and/or high elderly populations. Areas of concentrated and severe poverty are calculated as census tracts in which 20% or more of the population lives below 50% of the Federal Poverty Line.

Data source: PolicyMap, Nielsen Trade Dimensions 2011Note: Grocery Retailer is defined as a conventional supermarket, supercenter, assortment supermarket, naturatl/gourmet food store, warehouse store, military commissary, or small grocery. Limited Service Store is defined as a convenience store or superette.


Figure 19 Grocery Retail Locations and LImited Servcie Stores in SHCI Neighborhoods

Despite this information, the vast majority of parents of children ages 3–18 in Newark think that their children are not overweight.44

In many Newark communities, access to healthy food options and health education are lacking, leaving children and their families at a greater risk of obesity and chronic diseases such as stroke, heart disease, and diabetes.45 Shopping habits and diet are influenced by the affordability and accessibility of food retailers. When individuals and families do not have access to a reliable vehicle and must walk or use public transportation to go grocery shopping, it is important that they have a supermarket close by.

Figure 18 illustrates the locations of grocery retail stores (supermarkets) as well as limited service stores (those with limited food choices) within Newark. A half-mile radius is shaded around each grocery retail store, showing areas within a reasonable distance of fresh food. The areas not included in the blue buffer area are considered food deserts. Food deserts, as defined by the USDA, are “parts of the country vapid of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods.”46 While these areas are served by some limited service stores, one is much more likely to find processed and packaged foods than fresh foods. As figure 19 shows, three of the four SHCI neighborhoods in Newark contain large areas that are not within one half-mile of a large grocery retail stores and can be considered food deserts.

Newark is currently one of only 14 cities in the United States that has a full-time food policy director as a part of its administration. In addition to this position, many other political and stakeholders have come together to fight food access issues. The City of Newark has implemented a number of strong initiatives to provide access to fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the city and education regarding proper nutrition and healthy lifestyle habits.

Newark has collaborated with companies such as Nestle and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield as well as faith organizations, schools, family success centers, the Greater Newark Conservancy, Newark’s Brick City Development Corporation and other community organizations. In an interview, Deputy Mayor Muniz emphasized the importance of these partnerships in the success of their efforts. Partnerships allow for information to be culturally and religiously sensitive. People are more willing accept advice in an environment they trust and in which they feel safe.47

Two new supermarkets have opened in Newark in the last three years, one in the Central Ward and one in the South Ward. The Food Depot, which opened in 2012, was the first supermarket to open in the Central Ward in twenty-two years. The residents in the surrounding area now have better access to fresh, healthy foods that were previously inaccessible to them. There have also been successful efforts to increase the number of farmers’ markets in the city. Through much coordination and effort, Elizabeth Reynoso, Newark’s food policy director, has managed to bring the farmers’ markets the capacity to accept SNAP. This not only brings access to fresh produce for lower-income residents but also increases revenue for local farmers.

The Greater Newark Conservancy is a major partner not only with the City of Newark, but also with organizations that work to bring urban farming to neighborhoods. In areas where farmers’ markets are not found, the Greater Newark Conservancy and the Youth Education and Employment Success Center (YE2S) have brought mobile farm stands. These produce stands can be brought to community events or located on a residential corner. This partnership educates city youth about urban farming, and further employs them over the summer months to grow, care for, and sell quality fresh produce. The City has also teamed up with the Greater Newark Conservancy to split up vacant, irregular lots into 4 x 8 foot garden plots that can be adopted by local residents to grow their own fresh produce.

In its new universal school breakfast program, the Newark Public Schools have made an effort to serve students more healthy, less processed foods. Some Newark Public Schools have even taken on urban farming as an educational tool to teach about growing food and healthy eating habits. Hawthorne Avenue School has the Hawthorne Hawks Healthy Harvest Farm, which is a 2.5 acre piece of land owned by the New Jersey School Development Authority. Residents can rent a plot for themselves or they purchase food from the school farm stands. The farm stands also accept SNAP as payment for the food, as well as WIC and Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program Checks.

The City of Newark has made great progress in increasing food access for its residents. It wil be neccesary to continute building upon existing partnerships and to create new partnerships between entities of all sectors and sizes.

Data source: PolicyMap, Nielsen Trade Dimensions 2011Note: Grocery Retailer is defined as a conventional supermarket, supercenter, assortment supermarket, naturatl/gourmet food store, warehouse store, military commissary, or small grocery. Limited Service Store is defined as a convenience store or superette.


SummaryNewark has often been placed in the same category used to describe other distressed urban areas. Data from this analysis show the spread of poverty within various wards and neighborhoods within Newark indicating that Newark is unique in one important aspect. The city’s rates of poverty and unemployment are double the national estimates. The analysis illustrates a central region of distress—perhaps a new starting point for collective economic and education reform efforts. The epicenter of distress in Newark is observed in the southwest corner of the Central ward—very near to the Clinton Hill and Fairmount neighborhoods. In every measure of economic health, the Central, South, and West wards fair worse than their neighbors to the north and east.

The work of the SHCI clearly looks, and is in reality, daunting. The reply to that point is that doing nothing has never been an option for Newark’s elected officials, those in the civil society sector or citizens. The research points clearly in one direction for any ameliorative strategy; there can be no one sector strategy or redress for Newark’s poverty. The late Senator Robert Kennedy once said about poverty: “the web must be grasped whole.” Senator Kennedy’s point was that the individual elements of poverty are insidious, but nonetheless linked. One cannot hope to tear them apart and address them in silos. Without a doubt, the web would disappear, but so too would a directed, comprehensive solution. Poverty would remain in force.

Elements of Senator Kennedy’s web are embedded in the SHCI’s theory of change. That is the most promising feature of the demonstration. While making recommendations for action are beyond the scope of the study, we see the need for even greater linkages, network of solutions if you will, for Newark’s web of poverty. A cross-sector frame and action using data to measure and set forth linked strategies and accountability conditions the pace of human development in Newark going forward. Such organizational structures to propel poverty alleviation are not in short supply. The citizens and stakeholders have only to turn a discerning eye to the many national models of collective action and impact for inspiration that might lay the foundation for a truly Newark model of human development. Such networked and comprehensive development processes are never easy, nor successful in the short run. But an evidence-based process that links health, education, community economic development, housing and workforce development may well be the only option for Newark.


TablesTable 1: Race and Ethnic Composition in Newark, the Wards, and SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 12Table 2: Native and Foreign-Born Status in Newark, the Wards, and SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 15Table 3: Languages Spoken in Newark among Populations Five (5) Years and Older, p. 15Table 4: Families, Households, and Children in Newark, p. 17Table 5: Single Female Heads of Households in Newark, p. 17Table 6: Poverty Rates in Newark and Across the Five Wards, p. 20Table 7: Workforce and Unemployment Estimates in Newark City and the Wards, p. 20Table 8: Median Earnings in Newark City and Across the Five Wards, p. 20Table 9: Child Poverty Rates in Newark and the Wards, p. 24Table 10: SHCI Neighborhood Poverty and Child Poverty Rates, p. 26Table 11: SHCI Neighborhood Labor Participation and Unemployment Rates, p. 31Table 12: Owner Occupied Units in Newark, the Wards and SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 32Table 13: Burden of Housing Costs on Newark Residents, p. 32Table 14: Substandard Housing Units in Newark, the Wards and SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 35Table 15: Housing Units built before 1970 in Newark, the Wards and SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 35Table 16: Foreclosed and Abandoned Properties in Newark and SHCI Neighborhoods 2011, p. 38Table 17: Vacancy Rates in Newark and SHCI Neighborhoods 2011, p. 38Table 18: Student Mobility Rates at SHCI Partner Schools, p. 42

FiguresFigure 1: Newark Elementary School Performance Rankings (Reference Map), p. 8Figure 2: Elementary School Performance in SHCI Partnering Neighborhoods (Reference Map), p. 10Figure 3: Racial/Ethnic Distribution in Newark and Newark’s Wards, p. 13Figure 4: Poverty Rates in Newark Compared to Other Cities by Census Tract, p. 18Figure 5: Distribution of Poverty and More Severe Poverty in Newark by Census Tract, p. 19Figure 6: Distribution of Child Poverty in Newark by Census Tract, p. 25Figure 7: Distribution of Child Poverty within SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 27Figure 8: The Spread of High-Risk Child Poverty and Elementary School Performance, p. 29Figure 9: Homeowners’ Housing Cost Burden in Newark by Census Tract, p. 33Figure 10: Renters’ Housing Cost Burden in Newark by Census Tract, p. 33FIgure 11: Figure 11: Substandard Housing in Newark by Census Tract, p. 34Figure 12: Housing Units Built Before 1970 in Newark by Census Tract, p. 35Figure 13: Foreclosure Ratios in Newark by Zip Code, p. 37Figure 14: Concentrations of High Residential Vacancy across Newark by Census Tract, p. 39Figure 15: Vacancy, Foreclosure, and Abandonment in SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 40Figure 16: Medically Underserved Areas in Proximity to Severe Poverty by Census Tract, p. 45Figure 17: Health Care Facilities and Medically Underserved Areas in Newark, p. 46Figure 18: Grocery Retail Locations and Limited Service Stores in Newark, p. 47Figure 19: Grocery Retail Locations and Limited Service Stores in SHCI Neighborhoods, p. 48

Notes1 Living Cities, “The Integration Initiative: Newark Overview,” Living cities, Inc., accessed May 21, 2013, http://www.livingcities.org/knowledge/media/?id=23.2 Living Cities, “The Integration Initiative: Newark Overview,” Living cities, Inc., accessed May 21, 2013, http://www.livingcities.org/knowledge/media/?id=23.3 Advocates for Children of New Jersey, “2012–2013 Newark Kids Count: A City Profile of Child-Well-Being,” Advocates for children of New Jersey, February 6, 2013, http://www.acnj.org/admin.asp?uri=2081&action =15&di=2386&ext=pdf&view=yes.4 “Other/mixed” racial groups are defined by the U.S. Census American Community Survey.5 Karina Fortuny, “Children of Immigrants: 2008 State Trends Update,” Urban Institute, accessed May 21, 2013, www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412212-children-of-immigrants.pdf.6 Ibid.7 Ajay Chaudry and Karina Fortuny, “Children of Immigrants: Economic Well-Being,” Urban Institute, accessed May 21, 2013, http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412270-children-of-immigrants-economic.pdf.8 Vanessa R. Wight, Kalyani Thampi, and Michelle Chau, “Poor Children by Parents’ Nativity: What Do We Know?” National Center for Children in Poverty, April, 2011, http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1006.pdf. 9 Kendell Sprott (Senior Associate Dean of Clinic Affairs in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, now Rutgers University Medical School) interview with the authors, April 10, 2013.10 Advocates for Children of New Jersey, “2012–2013 Newark Kids Count”11 Mark Mather, “U.S. Children in Single-Mother Families,” Population Reference Bureau, May, 2010, http://www.prb.org/pdf10/single-motherfamilies.pdf.12 U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012,” accessed May 2013, http://www. census.gov/compendia/statab/. and U.S. Census Bureau, “ 2011 American Community Survey,” accessed May 2013, http://www2.census.gov/acs2011_5yr/summaryfile/ACS_2007_2011_SF_Tech_Doc.pdf.13 According to the 2012 estimates by United States Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a typical household is between $19,000 and $23,000 in annual income.14 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012); Newark, New Jersey historical databases. 15 Nelida Valentin, (Executive Director, Newark Workforce Reinvestment Board) interview with the authors, April 16, 2013.16 Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson, “The Long Reach of Early Childhood Poverty,” Pathways, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/pathways/winter_2011/PathwaysWinter11_ Duncan.pdf.17 Ibid.18 Advocates for Children of New Jersey, “2012–2013 Newark Kids Count”


19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey

20 Ibid

21 William Apgar, Mark Duda, and Rochelle Nawrocki Gorey, “The Municipal Cost of Foreclosures: A Chicago Case Study, “ Homeownership Preservation Foundation, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.995hope.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Apgar_Duda_Study_Full_Version.pdf.

22 Anne Shlay and Gordon Whitman, “Research for Democracy: Linking Community Organizing and Research to Leverage Blight Policy,” City & Community 5, no. 2. (June 2006): 153–171.

23 Kristopher Gerardi, Eric Rosenblatt, Paul S. Whillen, and Vincent W. Yao, “Foreclosure Externalities: Some New Evidence,” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.frbatlanta.org/documents/pubs/wp/wp1211.pdf.

24 Lauren Lambie-Hanson, “When Does Delinquency Result in Neglect? Mortgage Distress and Property Maintenance,” Boston Federal Reserve Bank, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/ppdp/2013/ppdp1301.pdf.

25 RealtyTrac, “March and First Quarter 2013 Foreclosure Market Report,” April 11, 2013, http://www.realtytrac.com/content/foreclosure-market-report/march-and-first-quarter-2013-foreclosure-market-report-7683.

26 Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, “Tax Foreclosure and Tax Sales as a Redevelopment Tool,” Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.hcdnnj.org/tax-foreclosure-and-tax-sales.

27 Ibid.

28 Education Week, “Student Mobility,” Education Week, August 4, 2004, http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/student-mobility.

29 Chester Hartman, "High Classroom Turnover: How Children Get Left Behind," in Rights at Risk: Equality in an Age of Terrorism, ed. Dianne M. Piche, W.L. Taylor, and R.A. Reed (Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights, 2002), 227–244.

30 Russell W. Rumberger and Katherine A. Larson, "Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout," American Journal of Education, 107, no. 1 (1998): 1–35.

31 Julia B. Isaacs, “The Ongoing Impact of Foreclosures on Children Brookings Institute,” The Brookings Institute, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/04/18-foreclosures-children-isaacs.

32 David M. Cutler and Adriana Lleras-Muney, “Education and Health,” National Poverty Center, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief9/.

33 Anne Case, Angela Fertig, and Christina Paxton, “The Lasting Impact of Childhood Health and Circumstance,” Center for Health and Wellbeing, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.princeton.edu/~accase/downloads/The_Lasting_Impact_of_Childhood_Health_and_Circumstance.pdf.

34 Anibal Ramos, (Newark North Ward Council Member) interview with the authors, April 28, 2013.

35 Advocates for Children of New Jersey, “2012–2013 Newark Kids Count”

36 Kendell Sprott (Senior Associate Dean of Clinic Affairs in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey) interview with the authors, April 10, 2013.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 If a primary care provider was listed at more than one office space, only the first office location has been referenced on the figure.

40 Anibal Ramos, (Newark North Ward Council Member) interview with the authors, April 28, 2013.

41 Michigan Nutrition Standards, “The Link Between Nutrition and Academic Achievement,” Michigan Nutrition Standards, accessed May 19, 2013, http://michigan.gov/documents/mdch/7-_Linking_Nutrition_and_Academic_Achievement_368748_7.pdf.

42 Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy, “The Links Between Nutrition and Cognitive Development in Children,” Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy of Tufts University, (1994).

43 Susan Brownlee, Jolene Chou, Dorothy Gaboda, Kristen Lloyd, Punam Ohri-Vachaspati, and Michael Yedidia, “New Jersey Childhood Obesity Survey,” Rutgers University Center for State Health Policy, 2010, http://www.cshp.rutgers.edu/Downloads/8660.pdf.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 American Nutrition Association, “USDA Defines Food Deserts,” Nutrition Digest, 36, no.3 (2011).

47 Margarita Muniz, (Deputy Mayor of the City of Newark, New Jersey) interview with the authors, August 21, 2013

Notes

47 Bleeker StreetNewark, NJ 07102Tel: 973-353-1750Fax: 973-353-1753E-mail: [email protected]

barriers to upward mobility: a spatial analysis of newark and the

Documents