2009 Long Island Index

09

Long Island Index Working Together in New Ways for Long Island’s Future The Index is a status report on the Long Island region that aims to engage the larger Long Island community in thinking about the region’s future and to be a catalyst for corrective action. Director, Long Island Index Ann Golob Project Consultants Thomas Amper Doug Henton Michael Holzman Communications & Public Relations Patricia L. Randolph— Long Island Index Deanna Morton—InfiniTech Robert Simkins—InfiniTech Website www.longislandindex.org

Advisory Committee Nancy Rauch Douzinas, Publisher Rauch Foundation Richard Amper Long Island Pine Barrens Society Drew Bogner Molloy College Diane Cohen Nassau University Medical Center Matthew Crosson Long Island Association John Durso Long Island Federation of Labor Sandy Feinberg Middle Country Public Library George Frank Rauch Foundation Robert Gaffney Dowling College Margarita Grasing Hispanic Brotherhood of Rockville Centre Elaine Gross ERASE Racism Patrick Halpin Institute for Student Achievement Richard Hawkins Hawkins & Associates Organizational Learning Consultants

Lawrence Levy Hofstra University David Kapell Kapell Real Estate and Antiques Jeffrey Kraut North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System James Large, Jr. Dime Savings Corporation (retired) Robert Mackay Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities Nadia Marin-Molina The Workplace Project Ken Morrelly Long Island Forum for Technology David Ochoa NuAlliance, LLC John Racanelli Farrell Fritz, P.C. Janice Rohlf Stony Brook University Joseph Scaduto Long Island Life Sciences Initiative Howard Schneider Stony Brook University School of Journalism Robert Scott Adelphi University Bruce Stillman Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Paul Tonna Energeia Edward Travaglianti Commerce Bank Long Island Reginald Tuggle Nassau Community College John Wenzel Rauch Foundation Michael White Long Island Regional Planning Board

Technical Committee Center for Governmental Research Charles Zettek Jr., Lead Joseph Stefko

CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research Steven Romalewski, Lead Lee Hachadoorian The Early Years Institute Dana Friedman, Lead Celeste Hernandez Rebecca Sanin Fiscal Policy Institute Frank Mauro Trudi Renwick Hofstra University Marc Silver, Lead Amy Armenia William Mangino Middle Country Public Library Elizabeth Malafi, Co-Lead Sophia Serlis-McPhillips, Co-Lead Salvatore DiVincenzo Sara Fade James Ward Rauch Foundation John McNally Max Poltarak Ravi Ramkeesoon Regional Plan Association Christopher Jones, Lead Richard Barone Robert Freudenberg Juliette Michaelson Katie Nosker Renewable Energy Long Island (RELI) Gordian Raacke Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research Leonie Huddy, Lead Linda Pfeiffer Sustainable Long Island Sarah Lansdale, Lead Lyle Sclair Teachers College Amy Stuart Wells, Lead Bianca J. Baldridge Jacquelyn Duran Courtney Grzesikowski Richard Lofton Allison Roda Miya Warner Terrenda White

Table

of

Contents PAGE

ABOUT THE INDEX

 3

SPECIAL ANALYSIS: Long Island’s Educational Structure: Resources, Outcomes, Options

 4

ECONOMY

32

Goal #1:

Goal #2: Goal #3:

Growth and Prosperity: Our economy grows at a rate that results in an improved quality of life for all.   Gross Metropolitan Product/Gross Domestic Product   Employment Trends   Growth in Wages over the Past 10 Years   Household Income Distribution   Industry Clusters Supportive Business Environment: Long Island provides a business friendly environment for companies to grow.   Local Bidder Preference Laws Innovative Economy: Our economy incubates, supports and retains companies.   Venture Capital Financing   Research and Development Investment

Goal #5:

Goal #6:

Goal #7:

Vibrant Communities: We create exciting communities and downtown centers that offer people a wide choice of places to live, work and play.   Long Island’s Changing Population   Long Island’s Downtowns Affordable Homes: We generate housing options that are affordable to people of all ages and income levels.   Housing Affordability   Housing near Rail Stations   Home Mortgage Trends Safety Net: We assure that people are provided with basic necessities such as food and shelter.   Poverty   Hunger Transportation: We increase mobility by investing in an integrated, regional transportation system and by encouraging creative problem solving to find transportation alternatives.   Transit Ridership   Vehicle Miles Traveled Healthy People: All people have access to quality affordable health care that focuses on disease and illness prevention.   Paying for Hospital Care

44 49 51 55 57 59 60

61 62

63 65

EDUCATION Goal #9:

41 43

63

HEALTH Goal #8:

39

44

OUR COMMUNITIES Goal #4:

32 34 34 35 37

Educational Readiness: All students are prepared to learn at each stage of the educational pipeline.   Poverty Index   Percent of Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)   Performance Tests   College Readiness   Availability of Child Care   Child Care Affordability

65 67 68 70 71 72

OUR ENVIRONMENT

73

Goal #10: Natural Resource Conservation: We promote the conservation and efficient use of the region’s natural resources.   Land Preservation   Brownfields Redevelopment   Energy Consumption

73 75 77

GOVERNANCE

79

Goal #11: Managing for Results: Long Island’s counties, towns, villages and other jurisdictions manage their costs and provide quality local and regional services.   Expenditures and Revenues

79

REFERENCE MAPS

84

HOW TO USE www.longislandindex.org

86

Note to readers: You will find our full Appendix including sources and methodology on our website, www.longislandindex.org.

page 1

Page 2  |  2009 Long Island Index

>>

about the index Good Information Presented in a Neutral Manner Can Move Policy About the Index The Long Island Index is a project that gathers and publishes data on the Long Island region. Our operating principle is: “Good information presented in a neutral manner can move policy.” The Index does not advocate specific policies. Instead, our goal is to be a catalyst for action, by engaging the community in thinking about our region and its future. Specifically, the Index seeks to:   • Measure where we are and show trends over time   • Encourage regional thinking   • Compare our situation with other similar regions   • Increase awareness of issues and an understanding of their interrelatedness   • Inspire Long Islanders to work together in new ways to achieve shared goals The governing board of the Long Island Index is the Advisory Committee, composed of leaders from Long Island’s business, labor, academic and nonprofit sectors. The Rauch Foundation acts as the convener of the Advisory Committee and the financial underwriter of the project. Initially funded for a three year period, the Foundation has since decided to continue the project. What Are Indicators? Indicators are facts that help show how a region is doing, the way the unemployment rate helps show the health of the economy. Measuring these kinds of data helps communities:   • Identify existing conditions   • Measure progress toward goals   • Mobilize action to improve the region How to Use the Index Each Long Island Index is centered on the following components:

(1) We define 11 goals to measure the region. The goals span six major areas of investigation: economy, our communities, health, education, our environment, and governance.



(2) Next, there are key findings. These are the indicators, specific measures of how we are doing. Example: The largest industry cluster on Long Island is Health with more than 150,000 employees. The findings are presented through both written and graphic analyses.



(3) Next is, “Why is this important?” This explains why the indicator is a good measure of progress toward a particular goal.



(4) “How are we doing?” puts the information in context.

page 3

Page 4  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Special Analysis 

Long Island’s Educational Structure: Resources, Outcomes, Options Introduction The Long Island Association describes the region’s schools as “the centerpiece of our lifestyle” and “the driving force behind this region’s economic vitality and attractiveness to business.” But while some of our schools are the best in the country, many are not doing well at all. What accounts for these differ­ ences? The Long Island Index set out over the past year to study our region’s educational system. We approach the subject not from the standpoint of pedagogy—we are not educators—but rather in structural terms. We quantified how educational services are deliv­ ered on our island. By unraveling the intricate relationships between funding sources and educational outcomes in a way that hasn’t been done before, we find that while we pay a lot in taxes, we don’t always get what we expect and sometimes we don’t get what we need. We worked with several research teams to uncover the multiple aspects of this problem. Hofstra University completed a statistical analysis of the relationships between disparities in educational resources, challenges, and out­ comes. Fiscal Policy Institute studied the impact of New York State’s complex and shifting for­ mulas for educational funding. The Survey Center at Stony Brook University polled Long Islanders on their opinions about our edu­ cation system and their attitudes toward proposed reforms.

What we found is significant. • There is a tremendous differ­ ence in what districts spend per-pupil. Even the state fund­ ing formula which is supposed to even out the disparities between districts does not end up doing that when all the funding streams are looked at in their totality. • There is a great difference in educational needs. • Where needs are highest, we spend the least; unsurprisingly, outcomes are the lowest. Con­ versely, where we spend the most, student needs are the least; in these districts, edu­ cational outcomes are not sig­ nificantly better than in the middle range. • Isolating high-needs students compounds low performance. Our study showed that highneeds students in relatively wealthy districts significantly outperformed high-needs stu­ dents in poor districts. Access to more resources and inter­ action with a more diverse student body promote better achievement. Long Island has resisted tinker­ ing with its educational system. Over the years, proposals to create more opportunities for students, con­solidate districts, build mag­ net schools have gone nowhere. Yet maintaining the status quo will not work either—it is both too expensive to sustain and not delivering the necessary out­ comes for the region. As we have done in past Index reports, we

conducted an in-depth survey of Long Islanders to gauge their knowledge of the current situa­ tion and openness to change. We were surprised to learn how many Long Islanders are unaware of how unevenly educational resources are delivered across the region. But we were heartened to find that there was significant support for solutions that would give poorer students and the communities they live in access to wider opportunities. We were particularly struck that those individuals who understood the scope of the problem were the most supportive of considering alternatives. With so many school districts, Long Island has evolved a zerosum mentality—if one district gains, another loses. There are other options. We look at what other parts of the country have done to address these same prob­ lems, and we find there are many ideas for Long Islanders to con­ sider and adapt for our situation. Starting a discussion on Long Island’s delivery of educational services is tough in good economic times, and conventional wisdom would say it is dead on arrival in the current economic climate. But if the current system is too expensive and doesn’t offer what we need to move the region for­ ward, then perhaps this is the best time to consider new ideas. They have worked elsewhere, and they hold a strong potential to address our issues. It is with this goal that the Long Island Index conducted this research and makes it available here.

I. District Structure The Legacy of the One-Room Schoolhouse In comparison to the rest of the state, and the country, the most conspicuous feature of Long Island’s educational landscape is the number of districts we have. Our historic development has separated Long Island into local districts that vary enormously in size, race, income, and other features. Indeed, our region is exceptional, both in how many school districts we have and in how segregated they are.

We currently have well over 100 school districts. Nassau contains 56 and Suffolk 68, placing them seventh and fourth—out of 3,066 counties in the nation—in the number of districts per county. In the first three centuries of European settlement in this area, single-school districts and oneroom schoolhouses were the norm. By 1905, New York State had accu­ mulated 10,625 districts. Seeing the need to consolidate, the state reorganized in 1947 and again in 1958. By 1965 the number of school districts had been brought down to 792. There the process stopped. Today the overwhelming

majority of counties in the state include only 15 districts or less. Long Island is the stark exception. Not surprisingly, most of our dis­ tricts are small, in both enroll­ ment and area: 75% enroll fewer than 5,500 students. Eighty-three percent cover less than fifteen square miles, and 36% less than five square miles. This fractionated structure, as we will see, aside from being intrinsically unwieldy, produces a great range of anomalies and aberrations: in school revenues, expenditures, and educational outcomes.

Long Island counties have far more districts than most places in New York and the country.

page 5

Long Island districts vary greatly in enrollment, but 75% have fewer than 5,500 students.

Thirty-six percent of districts cover less than five square miles. Another 47% cover 5–15 square miles.

*

*

“Home Rule” Lives. But Not

125 School Districts? Are You Sure? We keep saying that Long Island has 125 school districts. But: • In discussing results on achieve­ ment exams, we refer only to the 124 school districts that include all or some of Grades K–12. • The 125th, Little Flower, is a “Special Act Public School” established to provide educa­ tional services to residents of the Little Flower Residential Treatment Center. • When we refer to state financ­ ing, we count 121 districts. New Suffolk, Sagaponack, and Wainscott are too small to receive state funding; Little Flower receives its funding through different mechanisms.

*

in Its

Original Home.

The proliferation not only of school districts but police dis­ tricts, fire districts, sanitation districts, water districts etc., is a relic of Long Island’s colonial history. Home Rule is an ancient concept of English law that spread across Long Island like trans­ planted sparrows. Interestingly,

the English themselves (along with other European countries) found that Home Rule interfered with their efforts to modernize and have buried the concept. Only in the New World does this medieval idea live on.

• Three districts are high school only: Bellmore-Merrick, Sewanhaka, and Valley Stream. Eleven elementary school only districts feed these high school districts. Another eight districts are also elementary only, and an additional five are elemen­ tary and middle school only.

multiple common school districts, “free” from the restrictions that had barred them from operating high schools.

What’s

in a

Name?

Common School Districts repre­ sent the original type of school district. Today there are only 11 left in New York State, four of them on Long Island. By law, they may not operate high schools, and therefore must contract with neighboring districts to provide secondary education. Ninety-seven of our districts, 78%, are Union Free School Districts. This indicates that they were formed from the “union” of

page 7

Central School Districts are the most common type in New York State, but only 22 are found on Long Island. These were formed through the consolidation of common, union free, and/or cen­ tral school districts. In general the laws governing their struc­ ture are the same as union free school districts. We have three Central High School Districts, which provide secondary education to students in two or more common or union free districts. We have two City School Districts: Glen Cove and Long Beach.

Page 8  |  2009 2008 Long Island Index  Index |  Special Analysis  |  II. Revenues

II. Revenues The Revenue Jungle Revenue streams for Long Island schools are complicated and vary greatly from district to district. The principal sources are local real estate taxes, state aid to edu­ cation, and local commercial taxes. (Federal funding for Long Island schools is small and rela­ tively evenly distributed.) In each of these revenue streams, there are great anomalies and disparities. Put together, educa­ tional revenues seem madden­ ingly inconsistent and capricious.

• Long Island taxes have increased 20% in the past ten years; state­ wide, the increase was only 6%. Among all our local taxes, school taxes have grown the most. • Per capita property taxes on Long Island are comparable to those in peer counties such as Westchester, Bergen, and Fairfield. However, they are almost 60% higher than those in Fairfax, Virginia, an area of comparable wealth. The big difference in Fairfax: a single school district serves the entire county. School

taxes vary drastically

between districts

A. Real Estate Taxes School taxes are the largest component of local property taxes, which on Long Island are oppressively high. Indeed, Long Islanders consistently name prop­ erty taxes as our region’s Number One problem. • According to a 2006 study by the Long Island Index, Long Island property taxes are 2.5 times the national average.

Because property values vary so greatly between communities, reliance on real estate taxes pro­ duces enormous disparities. For one thing, wealthy districts are able to raise far higher revenues than poor districts. At the same time, the system inflicts hardship on taxpayers at both ends of the spectrum. Residents of wealthy districts pay enormous sums. These are an

overwhelming burden for many, particularly senior citizens or other long-term owners forced to pay taxes on houses that are now worth much more than when they bought them. On the other hand, people in dis­ tricts where income and property values are low are forced to tax themselves at extraordinarily high rates, and still are not able to raise adequate funds for their schools.

chart for page 9

hart A Long Island Schools and Government Percent Change in Real Property Tax Levy Compared to Inflation 1998-2006

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

100%

102%

105%

108%

111%

114%

118%

123%

127%

School Districts

100%

104%

109%

116%

126%

137%

148%

161%

172%

Consumer Price Index Change in Real Property Tax Levy: County Governments

100%

101%

109%

116%

127%

144%

144%

146%

146%

Town Governments

100%

102%

104%

109%

111%

117%

121%

128%

133%

Village Governments

100%

101%

107%

110%

115%

123%

132%

143%

150%

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

School taxes on Long Island have climbed 172% in eight years—faster than any other levy, and much faster than the rate of inflation.

School District Expenditures Pupil Total School District Revenue Per Per Pupil $30,000 $30,000

%

REPLACED WITH NEW CHART 9

20072007 Dollars

25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 00

’95 ’95

’96 ’96

’97 ’97

Top Top10% 10%

’98 ’98

’99 ’99

’00 ’00

’01 ’01

’02 ’02

Middle Median

’03 ’03

’04 ’04

Bottom 10% Bottom 10%

Source: Source:New NewYork YorkState StateEducation EducationDepartment; Department;Hofstra HofstraUniversity. University.

From 1995 to 2005, the gap in per-pupil revenues between the wealthiest 10% of districts and the poorest increased from $8,756 to $11,032, in constant dollars.

Gap in Achievement: Highest Obstacles vs. Lowest Obstacles 50%

Percentage Points

40 30 20 10

’05 ’05

page 9

0

The

effort required to raise revenues for education varies SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 4 tremendously across long island. Tax Increase on a $450,000 Home If District Raises Expenditures by $250/Student Fire Island Amagansett Bridgehampton Quogue Montauk Oysterponds Fishers Island Southampton Remsenburg-Speonk Shelter Island Sag Harbor East Hampton Tuckahoe Springs East Quogue Southold Oyster Bay-East Norwich Port Jefferson Locust Valley Manhasset Island Park Greenport Great Neck Mattituck-Cutchogue Lawrence New Hyde Park-Garden City Park Westhampton Beach Bellmore Merrick Floral Park-Bellerose Bellmore-Merrick Central High Port Washington Franklin Square Jericho Hampton Bays Cold Spring Harbor Sewanhaka Central High Valley Stream 30 North Shore Garden City Valley Stream Central High Mineola Valley Stream 13 Valley Stream 24 East Williston Roslyn Northport-East Northport Hauppauge Long Beach City North Bellmore Glen Cove City Syosset North Merrick Riverhead Carle Place Hewlett-Woodmere Herricks Huntington East Moriches Half Hollow Hills Elmont Hicksville Rockville Centre Plainview-Old Bethpage Shoreham-Wading River Malverne Massapequa Bethpage East Rockaway Three Village South Huntington Oceanside Kings Park West Hempstead Lynbrook Smithtown Farmingdale Amityville Seaford Connetquot Babylon Commack Harborfields Elwood East Meadow Uniondale Bayport-Blue Point Deer Park Plainedge Bay Shore Baldwin Wantagh South Country Westbury Miller Place Longwood Sachem Brookhaven-Comsewogue Sayville Island Trees Mount Sinai Center Moriches Islip Levittown Patchogue-Medford West Islip Middle Country West Babylon Eastport-South Manor East Islip North Babylon Rocky Point Copiague Lindenhurst Freeport Central Islip William Floyd Roosevelt Hempstead Wyandanch Brentwood

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute.

Some districts could raise per-pupil revenues $250, just by adding a few dollars to the tax on a $450,000 home. For other districts, it would cost hundreds.

$350

tacle schools ffluent communities

• The tax increase needed depends on the number of

students in the district and the overall wealth of the community (i.e., more homes with higher property values).

• It would cost a Fire Island tax­ payer $1.72 per $450,000 home to raise the funds; in Brentwood the cost would be $325.67.

• In districts with high wealthper-pupil, a relatively small tax increase will significantly raise per-pupil revenues. Where wealth-per-pupil is low, a much greater tax increase is needed.

• When districts of similar size are compared, poor districts must increase taxes up to 6.5 times as much as wealthy dis­ tricts, in order to raise the same per-pupil revenue.

SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 5_7

Tax Increase on a $450,000 Home If District Raises Expenditures by $250/Student Comparison of Eight Districts

School District Name

NYS Defined Need Level

Number of Students in District

Tax Increase

Wyandanch

2,254

3

$314.39

Locust Valley

2,284

6

$ 47.81

Roosevelt

2,945

3

$303.92

Mineola

2,865

6

$ 76.57

Hempstead

6,913

3

$312.35

Syosset

6,677

6

$ 83.48

William Floyd

10,191

3

$270.27

Smithtown

10,541

6

$130.28

Percent Higher in High Need Districts 658%

397%

374%

207%

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute. NYS Defined Need Level* 3 = High Need Districts 6 = Low Need Districts *These categories are based on a measure of a district's ability to meet the needs of its students with local resources. This measure is caluclated by dividing a district's estimated poverty percentage by its Combined Wealth Ratio.

When districts of similar size are compared, poorer districts must increase taxes up to 6.5 times as much as wealthier districts to achieve in Schools per-pupilin revenue. Math Resultsthe forsame Highincrease Obstacle Most Affluent and

Least Affluent Communities Percent Meeting NYS Standard

tacle schools ffluent communities

The disparity can be seen in an analysis provided by the Fiscal Policy Institute. They asked how much, in each Long Island dis­ trict, taxes would have to rise on a $450,000 home in order to increase revenues by $250 perpupil. The Institute found:

100% 80 60 40 20 0 GAP

Math 4

Math 8

Regents Math A

11%

17%

19%

High Obstacle Schools in Most Affluent Communities

High Obstacle Schools in Least Affluent Communities

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

page 11

Page 12  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Special Analysis  |  II. Revenues

B. State Aid All districts receive funding from the state. But here again, amounts differ greatly. Because wealthier districts raise so much more money from property taxes, state aid is provided disproportionately to poor districts. The additional state aid, however, does not come close to bridging the gap: the wealthiest districts end up with almost 50% more revenue per-student than the poorest districts. When districts are grouped by affluence, these disparities become apparent. The more affluent the community, the more total reve­ nues they raise, and the higher the percentage coming from local taxes. Some

aid programs undo the

work of others

Formulas for apportioning state aid are complicated. Moreover, aid comes from a variety of pro­ grams. Some programs redistrib­ ute aid in ways that undercut the equalizing effect of the current state “Foundation Formula.” Prior to the current formula being enacted, in the academic year 2005–06, the 20% of districts with the highest proportion of students in poverty received twice the amount of total state aid perpupil as the 20% of districts with the lowest proportion of students in poverty. This formula, chal­ lenged in court by the Campaign

for Fiscal Equity, was found to be inadequate, because it did not take sufficient account of the greater educational obstacles that poor districts confront. A new formula to direct aid based on district need was established for the 2007–08 academic year. The Foundation Formula weighed sev­ eral indicators of a district’s need (e.g., poverty, Limited English Proficiency, regional cost of living differences), as well as the dis­ trict’s ability to provide resources to meet those needs (e.g., district property wealth, income per-pupil, and combined wealth ratio). As shown in the chart on page 13, the poorest districts were now to receive about three times as much as the wealthiest. This, however, is not what hap­ pened, because of the effects of other state aid programs—two in particular. The STAR (School TAx Relief) program provides property tax relief for homeowners by paying a portion of the school taxes on owner-occupied, primary resi­ dences. STAR pays to each resi­ dent’s local district the school tax on the first $60,096 of prop­ erty value in Nassau County and the first $56,436 in Suffolk. (An enhanced STAR program pro­ vides additional assistance to elderly homeowners who meet a maximum income requirement.)

Aid to High Tax Districts is an aid program particularly targeted toward Long Island and other downstate suburban school dis­ tricts. The plan employs a com­ plex formula, which despite the use of “high tax” in the name, directs aid mainly based on high per-pupil expenditures. The pro­ gram distributed a little over $200 million statewide, of which 70% came to Long Island. The effect of STAR and Aid to High Tax Districts is to reduce the equalizing effect of the Foun­ dation Formula. That formula would have provided Long Island’s neediest districts with almost three times as much aid as the wealthiest districts. When the two other programs are included, the aid dropped to only 1.8 times the aid to the wealthiest districts. That’s actually less than the 2005–06 level, which had been found inadequate. One way to correct the imbalance would be to take the total amount of state education aid coming to Long Island, including STAR and Aid to High Tax Districts, and divide the whole sum in accord­ ance with the Foundation Formula. If this were done, Long Island’s high poverty districts would receive an average of 20% more aid per-student.

2

3

4

5 Top 20%

Aid Per Pup

1 Bottom 20%

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

ent 20%

a2

2,000 1,000 0

Source: York Affluent State Education a4 NewMost 20% Department; Hofstra University.

a3

3,000

1 Bottom 20%

2

3

4

5 Top 20%

SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 14_16

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University.

ecial Analysis client excel chart #14

Coree did not SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 14_16 make sense to start at -1000

Foundation Aid Per Pupil, 2008-2009

$30,000

Aid Per Pupil, 2007 AidDollars Per Pupil, 2007 Dollars

Revenue Per Pupil, 2007 Dollars Aid Per Pupil, 2007 Dollars

Revenue Source Per Pupil byTalked Affluenceto

25,000

client excel chart #15 notSpecial Analysis 20,000 Foundation Aid Per Pupil, 2008-2009 -1000 15,000

ent 20%

a2

ent 20%

$7,000 10,000 6,000 5,000 5,000

0 a34,000 20% 3 1a4 Most Affluent 2 4 5 3,000 Bottom 20% Top 20% 2,000 Least Most 1,000 Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent a3 0 a4 Most Affluent 20% 1 Revenue 2 3 4 Federal Revenue 5 Local State Revenue Bottom 20% Top 20%

a2

$7,000 6,000 5,000 Total State Aid Per Pupil, 2008-2009 4,000 3,000 $12,000 2,000 10,000 1,000 8,000 0 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University.

a2

State Aid Per Student Aid Per Pupil, 2007 Dollars

Aid Per Pupil, 2007 Dollars

Total State Aid Per Pupil, 2008-2009

20%

$12,000 10,000 8,000 Most Affluent 20%

4,000 2,000

a3

0

a4 1 Most Affluent 2 20% Bottom 20%

3

4

8,000 Effect of Distributing All State Aid According to the Foundation Formula 6,000 $16,000 4,000 14,000 2,000 12,000 10,0000 8,000

1 6,000 Bottom 20% 4,000 2,000

5 Top 20%

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

Total Aid Including STAR

Total Aid Including

on Foundation Aid Formula

14,000 12,000

State Aid Per Student

$16,000

$16,000 State Aid Per Student

4

STARtoDistributed Based Formula Effect of Distributing All State Aid According the Foundation

Effect of Distributing All State Aid According to the Foundation Formula

14,000 12,000 10,000

4,000

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute.

If all state aid were distributed according to the Foundation Formula, Long Island’s neediest districts would receive 20% more aid.

8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Most Affluent 20%

6,000

1 Bottom 20%

2

3

4

5 Top 20%

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

2,000 0

3

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

In practice, Long Island’s poorest districts receive only 1.8 times as much state aid as our wealthiest districts—less than under the Foundation Formula, and not enough to compensate for huge differences in local revenues.

a4

2

0 Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University. 1 2 3 4 5 Bottom 20% Top 20%

5 Top 20%

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University.

10,000 a3 8,000

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University. 1 2 3 4 5 Bottom 20% Top 20%

10,000

Special Analysis client excel chart #16

a2

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

$12,000

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

20%

5 Top 20%

Total State Aid Per Pupil, 2008-2009

Special Analysis client excel chart #16

a4

4

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University.

Special Analysis client excel chart #15

a36,000

3

Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

Source: New York Education Fiscal Policy Institute; Hofstra University. wealthiest, butState still lag farDepartment; behind in total school revenues.

a2

2

Under the Foundation Formula, the poorest districts would receive Least Most about three times as much as the wealthiest.

Least Most Affluent Affluent -------------------------------------------------------Long Island’s poorest districts get much more state aid than the

ent 20%

1 Bottom 20%

1 Bottom 20%

2

3

4

5 Top 20%

Total Aid Including STAR

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent Total Aid Including STAR

Total Aid Including STAR Distributed Based page on Foundation Aid Formula

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute.

Total Aid Including STAR Distributed Based on Foundation Aid Formula

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute.

13

Page 14  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Special Analysis  |  II. Revenues

*

What Some Places Are Doing. In 1997, in response to a lawsuit, the state supreme court ordered that these “gross inequities in education opportunities” end. In designing a new system, the state sought greater statewide equity while allowing communi­ ties to make their own decisions about funding their schools. At its simplest, here’s how it works:

Dealing

with

Disparity

Funding inequalities exist in many states. Vermont had huge inequities between towns with ski resorts, industrial plants, malls, or vaca­ tion homes—and few children— and towns with small tax bases and many children.

C. Commercial Taxes Besides differing in private wealth, Long Island’s school districts also vary enormously in revenues from commercial real estate taxes. Under existing law, these reve­ nues go entirely to the school district in which the business is

• T here are no longer local school taxes. Public education is funded by state taxes depos­ ited in the state Education Fund. • School taxes on primary resi­ dences are based on property value or household income, whichever is less. A base perpupil spending level and base tax rates (on both property and income) are set by the legisla­ ture for primary residences.

located, and this results in enor­ mous disparities. In communities with a large num­ ber of commercial properties, schools can be very well funded, while homeowners’ tax burden is light. In places with little commer­ cial development, residents often

• Local school boards may pro­ pose, and communities may elect to spend above the base level. Residential tax rates (property and income) in each commu­ nity increase proportionally as voted spending per-pupil increases above the base. • The legislature sets one school property tax rate—not variable with local school spending— for all non-residential property (land, businesses, second homes) statewide. The system, which has been tin­ kered with over the years, has largely succeeded in eliminating disparities between districts, while preserving local control. Work continues to address differences in educational achievement includ­ ing the issue of higher-need dis­ tricts receiving more funding to successfully address their needs.

pay crushing property taxes and still schools remain underfunded. Homeowners in Uniondale, for example, pay only 29% of the school district tax levy, while those in districts such as Roosevelt, Mount Sinai, and Herricks shoul­ der more than 90%.

Between one district and its next-door neighbor, per-student revenues from commercial taxes can fluctuate widely.

SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 17_18

Commercial and Industrial Tax Revenue Per Student by School District

10 Lowest Districts

10 Highest Districts Valley Stream 24

$14,246

Cold Spring Harbor

$162

Valley Stream 30

$14,037

Sagaponack

$261

Carle Place

$11,831

Springs

$300

Mineola

$10,620

Roosevelt

$376

Uniondale

$10,488

Shoreham-Wading River

$376

Hauppauge

$ 7,923

Locust Valley

$407

Great Neck

$ 7,898

Miller Place

$442

New Hyde Park-Garden City Park

$ 7,307

William Floyd

$474

Wainscott

$ 6,693

Kings Park

$496

Jericho

$ 6,314

Eastport-South Manor

$503

Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute.

Commercial taxes in some districts bring in more than $14,000 per-student; in other districts only a few hundred dollars.

All

White

Black

Latino

Favor the creation of magnet schools

66%

63%

76%

75%

Favor consolidation of school districts

64%

61%

82%

77%

Favor allowing children in failing school districts the chance to attend better schools in nearby districts

64%

64%

79%

76%

Those Who Said They Strongly or Somewhat Agree

Page 16  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Special Analysis  |  II. Revenues

What Some Places Are Doing.

*

“The Minnesota Miracle” In regions where school districts are large, revenue disparities are less glaring. But even where dis­ tricts are small, inequities can be reduced by sharing or “pooling” commercial taxes among neigh­ boring districts. Commercial tax pooling was most famously implemented in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, where the Mall of America and other commercial development brought in huge revenues to Bloomington, while nearby communities lan­ guished. The Fiscal Disparities Act in 1975 brought a sevencounty area into a tax-sharing pool. Existing commercial reve­ nues were left untouched, but

each county contributes 40% of the growth of its commercial sector, with the pool distributed based on population and property values. Now in its fourth decade, the pro­ gram, known as “The Minnesota Miracle,” has reduced disparities and is credited with saving older towns from insolvency.1 Harvey Levinson, former Chair­ man of Nassau County’s Board of Asses­sors, has raised the idea of pooling in relation to the pro­ posed Nassau Hub. If all of the added tax revenues from this development went to one school district—Uniondale—homeown­ ers there could see their taxes cut in half, while residents in neigh­ boring communities would get no relief at all. Levinson suggests that the benefits be more widely

distributed, with Uniondale receiv­ ing extra shares to offset local impacts from the development.

* SURVEY *

SURVEY x

SURVEY

The idea of tax pooling appeals to Long Islanders. In a Long Island Index survey this year, 73% said they would support “a proposal to pool commercial property taxes and distribute them equally throughout the county’s school districts.” The 2006 Suffolk County Home­ owners Tax Reform Commission agreed that regionalizing com­ mercial taxes could promote greater equity, but noted that “implementation would be difficult.”2

1

 yron Orfield and Nicholas Wallace, “The Minnesota Disparities Act of 1971: The Twin Cities’ Struggle and Blueprint for Regional Cooperation,” William Mitchell M Law Review, Volume 33, Number 2, March 7, 2007, pages 591–612.

2

 uffolk County Homeowners Tax Reform Commission, Report delivered to the Suffolk County Legislature on December 27, 2006; Section IV: Fixing the Existing S System, Page 6.

Revenue

venue

venue

Impacts

on

Schools

Lower expenditures translate into We have seen how the educa­ substantial educational disadvan­ School Poverty on Long Island: tional landscape creates anoma­ tages for Long Island’s poorest Percent in of revenues. Students Meeting NYS Eighth Grade Mathematics lies and imbalances schools. Comparing key features 100% Turning to school expenditures, in Long Island schools, Hofstra we find similar inconsistency University researchers discovered: 80 and irrationality. Often schools • Schools in the poorest com­ with the60greatest needs get the munities have larger numbers fewest resources, while elsewhere 40 of students than those in large sums are spent that do not wealthier communities: an improve20educational achievement. average of over 800 compared To begin0with, the vastly different to about 600. ’02districts ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 revenues raised’01 by school •  T he poorest communities have result in huge differences in perLow-Poverty Mid-Poverty High-Poverty higher student-teacher ratios: pupil expenditures. On average, Schools (10%) Schools Schools (10%) 15:1, compared to 13:1 in the almost $8,000Source: moreNew is spent each York State Education Department; Hofstra University. wealthiest districts. year on a child in one of the wealthiest districts than a child • Almost all teachers, 97%, have in one of the poorest. a Master’s degree or higher in Percent Meeting NYS Standard

verty Schools (10%)

Resources vs. Needs

Average School Expenditures Per Pupil by Community Affluence Expenditure Per Pupil, 2007 Dollars

verty Schools

SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 1_3

$26,000 22,000 18,000 14,000 10,000

1 Bottom 20%

2

3

4

5 Top 20%

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

Schools spend 45% more—almost $8,000 more—per child in the wealthiest one-fifth of districts than the poorest.

Revenue Source Per Pupil by Affluence er Pupil, 2007 Dollars

verty Schools (10%)

III. Resources

$30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000

page 17

schools in the wealthiest com­ munities, compared to 82% in the poorest. In some of the latter schools, only 50% of teachers have a Master’s degree. • Schools in the wealthiest dis­ tricts have twice as many com­ puters, essential educational tools today, as schools in the poorest districts. • Wealthy districts also provide newer text books, better facili­ ties, more Advanced Placement courses, and more specialized classes such as art and music. Differences in resources make Long Island’s poorest and wealthi­ est schools very different places.

County Governments

100%

101%

109%

116%

127%

144%

144%

146%

146%

Town Governments

100%

102%

104%

109%

111%

117%

121%

128%

133%

Village Governments

100%

101%

107%

110%

115%

123%

132%

143%

150%

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 8_10

4 read ncy?

100% $30,000 80 25,000

REPLACED WITH NEW CHART 9

2007

60 20,000 15,000 40

10,000 20 5,000 0 0 1 ’9520%’96 Highest

2 ’97

’98

’99

3

’00

’01

4

’02

5 ’03 Lowest’0420% ’05

Middle Bottom MostTop 10% Least 10% Obstacles Obstacles ------------------------------------------------------Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University. Math 4

Math 8

Math Regents

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

The fewer the obstacles, the higher the achievement. But the quintile that faces the greatest obstacles is by far the most affected.

Low High Obstacles Percentage Points ------------ Obstacles

Obstacles by Community Affluence 70% 60

Gap in Achievement: Highest Obstacles vs. Lowest Obstacles

50 50% 40 30 40 20 30 10 0 20 10 0

1 Bottom 20%

2

3

4

5 Top 20%

Least Most Affluent Affluent Math 4 -------------------------------------------------------Math 8 Math Regents Source: Source: New New York York State State Education Education Department; Department; Hofstra Hofstra University. University.

The achievement gap for children with the most obstacles, significant in fourth grade, becomes overwhelming by eighth.

30%

Percent LEP

25 20 15 10 5 0

’01

’02

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

’03

’04 Mid-Poverty Schools

’05

’06

Long Island school districts differ greatly not only in their resources, but also in their needs. Some schools face special educational hurdles, including high poverty, high population of students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and a high degree of racial segre­ gation—Whites and Asians sepa­ rated from Blacks and Latinos. The researchers grouped the schools from those with the greatest obstacles to those with the least, and correlated the obstacles with academic achieve­ ment. They found that achieve­ ment in high-obstacle schools consistently lagged behind that in low-obstacle schools. • Students in the highest-obstacle group showed by far the poorest performance. Gaps between other groups were slight. • T he gap widens as students grow older. By eighth grade the difference in math proficiency reaches 45 percentage points— 2.5 times the fourth grade gap. (The seemingly lower gap in Regents scores is misleading: many underperforming students have dropped out of school by then and do not take the test.) • Similar patterns were found for scores on English examinations, graduation rates, and overall college readiness.

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

%)

%)

Addressing Educational Obstacles

Percent Passing Math Exams: School District Per Pupil Elementary, MiddleExpenditures and High Schools

’07

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Most Least Obstacles ------------------------------------------------------- Obstacles Math 4

Math 8

Math Regents

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

alysis client excel chart #9

Structural Mismatches

Obstacles by Community Affluence

a3

a4

Low High Obstacles ------------ Obstacles

Schools facing higher obstacles obviously require greater resources. But here again our local district structure creates anomalies. Not surprisingly, the schools with the highest obstacles exist in commu­ nities with the least affluence, as the accompanying chart shows.3 These20% schools start out with less Most Affluent

70% 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

money, and have to devote more of it to everything from more ESL (English as a Second Language) staff to remedial programs to greater school security. That leaves less money available for all those other things: the small class-sizes, qualified, experienced teachers, computers, enrichment programs, alysis client excel chart #10and so on.

Most Obstacles

White

'07

a2

a3

a4

4

5 Top 20%

Schools in the least affluent communities are the ones that face the greatest educational obstacles. These schools need more resources; instead they get less.

School Poverty on Long Island: SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 19 Proficiency (LEP) Percent of Students with Limited English 30% 25 Proportion of Students Percent LEP

'06

3

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

Black ’05

2

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent

Meanwhile, in other districts large sums are spent that do not translate into higherHigh-Poverty achieve­ Schools (10%) Special Analysis client chart #8math Schools Mid-Poverty ment.excel On eighth grade tests, for example, 80% of stu­ Schools (10%) Low-Poverty dents in Long Island’s wealthiest schools are proficient—no better Asian than in mid-range schools. Latino

04

1 Bottom 20%

20 15 100% 10 80 5 60 0 40 20 0

Least Obstacles

Learning Obstacles by Race

’01

’02

’03

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

’04

’05

’06

Mid-Poverty Schools

’07

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

1 Highest 20%

2

3

4

5 Lowest 20%

Most Least Obstacles ------------------------------------------------------- Obstacles White 3

Black

Latino

Asian

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

 he greater presence of obstacles in the most T affluent 20% of schools is an anomaly based on a number of very affluent districts, particularly in the East End and on the South Shore, where there are a large number of second homes which adds to the communities’ affluence but the fulltime residents are not as wealthy. There are also a few districts where a high percentage of wealth­ ier families send their children to private school rather than the local public schools. Both factors contribute to this slight upward trend in obstacles within the schools compared to the community as a whole.

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

Obstacles fall heaviest on people of color. Schools facing the greatest learning obstacles are, taken together, almost 80% Black and Latino, while schools with the least obstacles are over 90% White.

page 19

Least Most Affluent -------------------------------------------------------- Affluent Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

30%

%)

25 Percent LEP

%)

Meeting the LEP Challenge

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

20 15 10 5 0

’01

’02

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

’03

’04 Mid-Poverty Schools

’05

’06

’07

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

One major obstacle to student achievement is Limited English Proficiency. LEP students need special instruction, which can add to school costs. The problem is aggravated because the poorest schools have the highest percent­ ages of LEP students—five times the percentages of low- and midpoverty schools. In other words, the schools with the most LEP students have the least resources to help them. What is more, the percentages of LEP students are rapidly rising.

*

What Some Places Are Doing. Greater Resources, More Flexibility “You have a whole system react­ ing to a problem.” That’s how one town mayor explained one big advantage of schools in Northern Virginia. Fairfax and neighboring Loudoun County in the suburbs of Northern Virginia (NVA) resemble Long Island, in both levels of affluence and levels of poverty—and in exceptional student achievement. The big difference is that in NVA each county has a single consoli­ dated school system. That gives them the ability to focus resources where they are needed. Adding more ESL

teachers in schools with high immigrant populations, for exam­ ple, or reducing class sizes where necessary to meet the needs of struggling students. “I believe we must support these students to ensure they graduate with the same skills as their peers,” says Fairfax Superintendent Jack Dale. There is no question that Long Island superintendents share his goals. They simply do not command the overall level of resources, or the flexibility to put them where they’re needed.

Closer

to

Home

The New York State Commission on Property Tax Cap recently

proposed consolidating districts with fewer than 1,000 students, as a way to reduce school costs and taxes. The plan would autho­ rize the State Commissioner to require consolidation of districts up to 2,000 students. ERASE Racism examined the effect of consolidating Long Island’s districts along town and city lines. This would produce a total of 15 districts, which would be far less segregated by race and income. The new districts would greatly reduce differences in per-pupil spending, and provide the flexibility to direct resources more effectively.

If districts followed town and city boundaries, none would have an overwhelming proportion of poor students. Also, more resources would be available to target specific needs.

page 21

Page 22  |  2009 2008 Long Island Index  Index |  Special Analysis  |  III. Resources

What Some Places Are Doing.

*

Top Students Need Resources, Too

and top districts vary in what they offer:

In New York City, acclaimed schools such as Stuyvesant and Bronx Science offer peerless educational opportunity to topperforming children from across the city. A large district can do that on a level that small districts cannot match.

• One district may have an unbe­ lievable music program: it would be perfect for Angela, but too bad—she lives in the next vil­ lage over.

But even where districts remain independent, regional highperformance schools are possible. In the 1980s and again in the 1990s “high schools of excel­ lence” for the best and brightest students were proposed for New York State, including one for Long Island. Such schools provide a path to outstanding achievement for chil­ dren in districts that lack the resources to offer such programs. Wealthier districts are able to nurture such students within their own schools, through AP programs, special art programs, and the like. But even wealthy schools can’t do everything,

• Over 20% of the semi-finalists in Intel’s national Science Talent Search in the last ten years have come from Long Island schools—but half of them came from just seven districts. Imagine what Long Island’s kids would do if they all had access to what’s going on in those seven districts. Indeed, when Governor Cuomo came to Hauppauge to drum up support for a high school of technology for gifted students, he emphasized the role of such schools in growing a corps of top graduates with the talent to reju­ venate the business sector. Cuomo said of Long Island, “You either make this place a high-tech capital of the United States or it won’t develop.” 4

Opposition comes mainly from the top districts, which fear that such schools would skim off their best students, as well as state aid based on enrollment. But experi­ ence elsewhere shows that students in districts with solid programs for the gifted and talented usually stay there. Most of the children in high-performance schools come from the districts, both rural and urban, where educational resources are limited.5

* SURVEY *

SURVEY x

When Long Islanders were asked whether they would support a magnet school to provide in-depth instruction in science, mathematics, or the arts, two-thirds said that they would. When asked if they would support the creation of such a school in their own dis­ trict, support did not waver— 63% said that they would.

4

“Cuomo Pledges Technology School for Talented,” New York Times, August 25, 1994.

5

Pearl R. Kane, “Send Gifted Kids to High School Together,” Newsday, Section: Viewpoints, December 5, 1988, page 51.

SURVEY

IV. Outcomes Troubling Disparities

in poor communities face added obstacles to learning. Their schools need more resources to help these children, but because of disparities in local tax reve­ nues, they usually have less.

Poor Children Fare Poorly There is a wide and persistent gap in educational achievement between schools on Long Island, with low-poverty and mediumpoverty schools far outstripping schools where poverty is high. A comparison of eighth grade Mathematics tests, a key indicator of high school and college suc­ cess, showed 80% of Long Island students in low- and mediumpoverty schools meeting state standards. In high-poverty schools the rate plummets to 40%.

Segregation Long Island districts are separated by race as well as by income. Blacks and Latinos are clustered in areas of such extremely high concentrations, that to achieve racial balance across the region, 74% of Blacks would have to move. That makes Long Island the third most racially segregated region in America.6 Segregated communities mean segregated schools: island-wide, half of all Black and Latino students attend schools that are at least 95% The source of this disparity has SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 1_3 students of color. already been discussed. Children

Segregation patterns emerged in the postwar era from housing development that was often seg­ regated by design. Long Island’s most famous suburb, Levittown, is a prime example. The original Levittown deeds forbade occu­ pancy by “any person other than members of the Caucasian race.”7 Despite the Supreme Court’s 1949 ruling finding such restrictive covenants unconstitutional, pri­ vate restrictions remained in effect until the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The impact of these restrictions persists. Today 89.3% of Levittown’s residents are White, 9.7% are Latino, 4.7% Asian and 0.6% are Black. Much of Long Island reflects a similar pattern.

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students Meeting NYS Eighth Grade Mathematics

verty Schools (10%)

verty Schools

verty Schools (10%)

100% 80 60 40 20 0

’01

’02

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

’03

’04

’05

Mid-Poverty Schools

’06

’07

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

Students in the wealthiest third of school districts do no better than those in the middle third. But in our poorest schools, proficiency rates drop by half.

Average School Expenditures Per Pupil by Community Affluence 7

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.

upil, 2007 Dollars

6

john powell, Institute on Race and Poverty, Racism and the Opportunity Divide on Long Island (Briefing paper prepared for ERASE Racism, 2002), p. 5. $26,000

22,000

page 23

Page 24  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Special Analysis  |  IV. Outcomes

By 1965 concerns about segrega­ tion had moved the State Educa­ tion Department along with the New York State Commission for Human Rights to investigate the matter. They found the situation on Long Island particularly worri­ some. In Nassau County, twelve communities were found to have a very high concentration of non­ whites; in Suffolk County, nine communities. According to the 1965 report, “Racial and Social Class Isolation,” as Long Island’s population expanded, nonwhites remained an isolated group. “Numbers of nonwhite residents advanced in only a few commu­ nities,” the report observed in classic understatement, “and there the proportions were mark­ edly greater than in neighboring locations... .”8

been understood—and has been the law of the land—that going to school in separate facilities is harmful to children. Over the decades, countless national studies have confirmed that kids do not do well in segregated conditions. They do worse in segregated schools than in integrated ones. Within integrated schools, they do worse in highly tracked, sub­ stantially segregated classes than in heterogeneously grouped classes.

Improving Outcomes for Poor, Students of Color

Looking ahead, the report said, “If the existing population pat­ terns persist, there will be even greater concentrations of non­ whites in given suburban com­ munities as the over-all increases occur.” Forty-plus year later, this prediction stands confirmed.

To isolate the role of school dis­ tricts themselves in educational achievement, researchers at Hofstra compared students in poor schools in poor districts to students in poor schools in wealthier districts. Across the board—in achievement tests at different grade levels and in high school graduation rates— the students in wealthier districts outperformed those in poor dis­ tricts. On state math tests, stu­ dents from wealthier districts scored 11 to 19 points higher than those in poor districts.

Segregation and education Since Brown vs. Board of Educa­ tion over a half-century ago, it has

Two factors help explain the difference. One is the greater resources of wealthier districts,

which translate into smaller classes, more experienced teach­ ers, and the rest. The other is a different educational environment. As Richard Kahlenberg explains, It’s an advantage to have peers who are academically engaged and expect to go to college; parents who actively volunteer in the classroom and hold school officials accountable; and highly qualified teachers who have high expectations. On average, all these ingredients [of] good schools are far more likely to be found in middle-class than poor schools.9

8

Robert P. O’Reilly, Racial and Social Class Isolation in the Schools: Implications for Educational Policy and Programs, 1970, Praeger Publishers, New York, page 61.

9

Richard Kahlenberg, “Radical idea: Open the doors of affluent schools to Chicago students”; Chicago Tribune, August 22, 2008.

rt #5

Long Islanders See Diversity as an Important Goal

* SURVEY * Don't Know / Refused SURVEY x Disagree / Opposed Agree / Favor

SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 5_7

Do you agree or disagree: Children who attend schools with a mix of students from different ethnic, racial and economic backgrounds Tax Increase on a $450,000 Home If District Raises Expenditures by $250/Student are more prepared for Comparison the diverse of Eight Districts settings of college and the workplace than children who Number of NYS Defined Percent Higher in attend segregated schools. School District Name Students in District Need Level Tax Increase High Need Districts SURVEY

Wyandanch To what extent do you favor or Locust oppose the consolidation of Valley school districts if it would help to include children of all racial Roosevelt and ethnic backgrounds in the Mineola same school district? Hempstead Syosset

0%

William Floyd

Agree/ Favor

Smithtown

3

$314.39

2,284

6

$ 47.81

2,945

3

$303.92

2,865

6

$ 76.57

6,913 40% 6,677

80% 3 100%

60%

$312.35

6

$ 83.48

Don't Know/ Refused

Disagree/ Opposed

10,191 10,541

3

$270.27

6

$130.28

658%

397%

374%

207%

Source: New YorkInState Department; Fiscal Policy Institute. our Education poll 79% strongly or somewhat agree that when children

attend schools that are more diverse it better prepares them for NYS Defined Need Level* college and the workplace. 64% support consolidation to make 3 = High Need Districts 6 = Low Need Districts the schools more diverse. *These categories are based on a measure of a district's ability to meet the needs of its students with local resources. This measure is caluclated by dividing a district's estimated poverty percentage by its Combined Wealth Ratio.

rt #6

Math Results for High Obstacle Schools in Most Affluent and Least Affluent Communities Percent Meeting NYS Standard

High obstacle schools in least affluent communities

100% 80 60

White/Asian

Percent Receiving Regents Diploma

High obstacle schools Rockville Centre Regents Diploma Rates by Year of Entry and Race/ Ethnicity in most affluent communities 40

Black/Latino

rt #7

20%

2,254

100% 80 60

20 0 GAP

40

Math 8

Regents Math A

11%

17%

19%

High Obstacle Schools in Most Affluent Communities

20 0

Math 4

High Obstacle Schools in Least Affluent Communities

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

’95

’96

White and Asian

’97 students ’98score 11–19 ’99points higher '00 in wealthier '01 districts than similar Poor students in similar schools in poorer districts. Black and Latino

Source: New York State Education Department; Carol Burris.

Ooops I think is actually the exact same graph?? Racial Composition by Level of Poverty in Long page 25Island Schools

Long Islanders See Diversity as an Important Goal

Page   2009 Long Island Index  |  Special Analysis  |  IV. Outcomes Do26  you|agree or disagree: Children

ree / Opposed

e / Favor

who attend schools with a mix of students from different ethnic, racial and economic backgrounds are more prepared for the diverse settings of college and the hat ome laces workplace than children who attend segregated schools. Unbounded Success To what extent do you favor or Pursue Excellence oppose theequity. consolidation of will follow, believes Carol Corbett school districts if it would helpBurris, toprincipal include children of all Side racial High of South and ethnic backgrounds in the School in Rockville Centre. She same school district?

*

W

S

P

Are Doing. the classes by ability and race, and they taught a new, more rig­ orous curriculum to everyone.

for Blacks and Latinos shot up to 77%. What about the Whites and Asians? They climbed to 94%.

What happened to achievement?

Intuition might tell you that the low-track students might go up, 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Administrators in Rockville0% but the high-track students would Centre were troubled by the per­Agree/ go down. That’s not what educa­ Disagree/ Don't Know/ Favor tional research Opposed shows, however. Refused sistent achievement gap between, on the one hand, Blacks and And it’s not what happened in Latinos, and on the other, Whites Rockville Center. and Asians. They were troubled, too, by the over-representation • In 2000, the last year biology of Blacks and Latinos in lowclasses were tracked, 48% of achieving classes. Black and Latino students passed the State Regents exam, And so in the late 1990’s they and 85% of White and Asian started de-tracking their classes. students. In 2001, with hetero­ Instead of isolating all the “gifted” geneous classes and a more rig­ students in one class, the “slow orous curriculum, the pass rate learners” in another, they mixed speaks from experience.

• When South Side opened Advanced Placement calculus to all its students, enrollment jumped 40%. Despite all those extra “low achievers,” the class average on the AP exam went up. And so it went in class after class. All groups went up. And the achievement gap closed. Burris draws a lesson from her experience. Give all students access to first-class learning opportunities, she concludes, and everyone wins.

Rockville Centre Regents Diploma Rates by Year of Entry and Race/ Ethnicity Percent Receiving Regents Diploma

Know / Refused

100% 80 60 40 20 0

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

White and Asian

'00

'01

Black and Latino

Source: New York State Education Department; Carol Burris.

In Rockville Centre, when heterogeneously grouped classes were introduced, Blacks and Latinos dramatically closed the achievement gap.

2

35,000 30,000 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 Long Island

United States

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

*

What Some Places Are Doing. Smart Move

In Thousands, 2007 Dollars

Seven regions across the country promote educational opportunity through Voluntary Inter-District Transfer programs.

25

-2007

30

Finance & Insurance

Business Services Students from struggling schools, Information/Communication Services typically in inner cities,Manufacturing attend & Freight Services school inTransportation nearby suburban dis­ Biomedical tricts. The programs are voluntary Education & Building Materials for both Construction the transferring students Health Services and the receiving schools. Yet Retail Regional Recreation the programs have been running for 45 years, and have grown in size—to as many as 8,000 chil­ dren, and as many as 37 districts.

These are win-win programs, in which both the transferring stu­ dents and the receiving schools

Geographically, transfer programs benefit. A study of Boston’s would be quite practical on Long METCO program found that aca­ Island: the small size of our dis­ demic achievement for the trans­ Comparison of closely Averagemirrored Salary andthe Change in tricts Employment, Long Island would make transportation fer students manageable. high achievement of the suburban students. The transfer students * SURVEY * attend college at nearly the same rate as their suburban classmates, Our poll asked Long Islanders and at a rate 10% higher than what they thought of offering the statewide average. 100% of a limited number of children METCO seniors passed the 10th in failing school districts the grade state achievement exams in chance to attend better schools English and math, compared to in nearby districts where space -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% $075% $10in$20 $40 $50 $70 10$80 the$30 Boston city $60 schools. is available: 67% were in favor In a 1997 evaluation of METCO, Average Pay Per Cluster, in Employment, and onlyChange 27% were opposed. researchers found that 82% of 2008, in Thousands 2003-2008 When asked if they would favor students surveyed reported a good such a Change plan inintheir own school Average Wage, Long Island Average Employment, Long Island or excellent experience with the district, support did not signifi­ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University. program.11 cantly decrease: 64% were in favor and only 30% opposed. SURVEY x

No Title?

City and Program Name

Year Founded

Current Student Enrollment

Participating Districts

St. Louis, MO Voluntary Interdistrict Transfer Plan

1983

8,000

16

Seats available for 31% of the students who apply.

Hartford, CT Choice Program

1997

1,070

27

Estimated to be in the thousands; exact records not available.

Boston, MA METCO Program

1996

3,300

37

Reported to be as high as 13,000.

Milwaukee, WI Chapter 220 Program

1976

3,000

22

Seats available for 19% of the students who apply.

Rochester, NY Urban-Suburban Transfer Program

1965

800

7

Seats available for 20% of the students who apply.

Tinsley (Palo Alto, CA) Interdistrict Transfer Plan

1986

824

1

Seats available for 75% of the students who apply.

Minneapolis (MN) The Choice Is Yours Program

2001

2,000

10

Waiting List

N/A

Source: Holme, J. J. & Wells, A.S. (2008). “School Choice Beyond District Borders: Lessons for the Reauthorization of NCLB from Interdistrict Desegregation and Open Enrollment Plans” In Richard Kahlenberg (Ed.) Improving on No Child Left Behind. New York, NY: The Century Foundation.

10

METCO Program publication, Education Policy Initiatives, January 19, 2007; http://www.metcoinc.org/METCO_Policy_Initiatives_Updated_1-19-07.pdf.

11

“ METCO Study Finds Broad Support from Parents/Students,” The Harvard University Gazette, September 25, 1997; http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/09.25/METCOStudyFinds.html.

page 27

SURVEY

Page 28  |  2009 2008 Long Island Index  Index |  Special Analysis  |  V. The Future

V. The Future

Our examination of education on Long Island shows us a school system with a rich history, but an unpromising future. A system handed down over centuries now lacks efficiency and flexibility. From kids with learning disabili­ ties to budding artistic prodigies, too many of our children aren’t getting what they need. Our costs keep soaring, while thousands continue to fail.

The Imperative Change

xcel chart #11

for

The failures and enormous dis­ parities of our school system raise concerns both ethical and practical. On the one hand, these condi­ tions do not match our values. Such vast inequity violates our most basic concept of fairness, and America’s foundational belief in equality of opportunity.

US

From a practical standpoint, our

Long Island failure to meet the needs of so

08

many students threatens the eco­ nomic viability of our region.

A study for the Lumina Founda­ tion found that at current rates, by 2025 the nation will face a shortfall of 16-million collegeeducated workers. Nationwide, the race is on among regions both to attract educated workers and to “grow them locally.” In successful, high-tech centers like Silicon Valley and San Diego, region-wide groups are focused as never before on raising school achievement.

have raced past us. Today collegedegree rates are increasing faster in every other country tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) than here in America.

In this environment, a region that leaves significant numbers of its children undereducated is heading for disaster. Already Long Island’s economy is stag­ nating. Growth in high-paying skilled jobs has stalled, and our Nations around the world have decades-long income advantage joined the competition, and are over the rest of the country has gaining on the United States at now disappeared. Our economic alarming rates. We used to have future hinges on whether we can the highest college-education succeed in incubating new busi­ rates in the world, and still do nesses in next-generation tech­ among those aged 55–64. But nologies such as biotech. That among those aged 25–34, we’ve simply will not happen without a SPECIAL ANALYSIS CH 11_13 fallen to tenth, as other nations highly educated young workforce.

Average Pay Per Employee, U.S. and Long Island $50,000

2007 Dollars

Taking up the Challenge

In a post-industrial, hightechnology society, a region’s economic survival stands or falls on the talent of its workforce.

45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 Long Island

United States

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

Long Island was long known for high incomes. That advantage has all but disappeared.

xcel chart #12 ds, 2007 Dollars

ance vices vices ring vices

Comparison of Average Salary and Change in Employment, Long Island Finance & Insurance Business Services Information/Communication Services Manufacturing Transportation & Freight Services

The Path

to

Change

To meet the challenge, we need to come together in a vigorous and sustained regional dialogue. We must elevate education to the top of our regional agenda. Leaders and ordinary citizens, experts and advocates, educators and business­ people, must come to the table— and stay for as long as it takes. We’re going to need both leader­ ship and cooperation. We’ll also need to study hard, and think big.

Openness The problems we face are longstanding and have deep, struc­ tural roots. We need a vision as big as the challenge. We need a wide search for solu­ tions, not a narrow one. This Special Analysis has offered snapshots of some of the many approaches being tried in other places. Now is a time to lay all options on the table and earnestly explore each one: Could it work here? How might it be adapted to make it work? We need an unbounded vision. We must preserve what’s best in our schools, without being constrained by the way it’s always been.

page 29

Centuries have shaped our local perspective, which now views education as a zero-sum game. If one district gains, another must lose. If a magnet school opens, districts that send their students will lose funding. If ESL students get more, regular education pro­ grams will get less. The conver­ sation stops. The answer is no. Such has been the history of our region, and it has to change. To change it, we must maintain the bigger picture. Stay clear about how our region depends on better educated students. Keep in sight that we will stand or fall together.

Commercial and Industrial Tax Revenue Per Student by School District Page 30  |  2009 2008 Long Island Index  Index |  Special Analysis  |  V. The Future 10 Highest Districts 10 Lowest Districts Valley Stream 24 Valley Stream 30 SURVEY

$14,246

Cold Spring Harbor

$162

$14,037

Sagaponack

$261

• 61% believe that a Black or Latinos than Whites. In part, the Carle Place $11,831 Latino child inSprings Long Island difference may$300 reflect the fact Mineola $10,620 Roosevelt $376would most Awareness public schools receives the that these groups Uniondale $10,488 Shoreham-Wading same quality of education as aRiver directly benefit$376 from proposed Poll data reveal that many people White child, and 57% believe reforms. But a second factor are as yet unaware of our educa­ $ 7,923 Hauppauge $407 Locust Valley poor children receive the same may also be at work: Blacks tional realities. For example: Great Neck $ 7,898 Miller Place $442 quality as middle-income and Latinos are more aware of Hyde Park-Garden $ 7,307 William Floyd $474 • Half New of all Black studentsCity Park children. the problems. attendWainscott schools that are 95% $ 6,693 $496 Kings Park Polls$ show a majority ofManor The Long Island non-White, Jericho but only 34% 6,314 that Eastport-South $503Index commits Long Islanders support systemic itself to the effort to increase of Long Islanders realize Source: New York State Education Department; Fiscal Policy Institute. changes to decrease inequities, public awareness and under­ this fact. reduce segregation, and bring standing in regard to our educa­ • Only 26% of Long Islanders more resources to poor students tion system; we urge individuals know that expenditures vary and students of color. But while and groups from across the Island greatly from one school dis­ all groups support change, sup­ to join in the effort. trict to another. port is higher among Blacks and

* SURVEY *

x

SURVEY

All

White

Black

Latino

Favor the creation of magnet schools

66%

63%

76%

75%

Favor consolidation of school districts

64%

61%

82%

77%

Favor allowing children in failing school districts the chance to attend better schools in nearby districts

64%

64%

79%

76%

Favor offering White parents the option of sending their child to a more racially diverse school outside their district, including a magnet school

60%

58%

77%

62%

Favor pooling commercial property taxes

73%

69%

87%

80%

Favor housing for lower-income families in middle class and wealthier neighborhoods

61%

57%

84%

70%

Those Who Said They Strongly or Somewhat Agree

An Urgent Challenge Our school system, though admi­ rable in many ways, does not reflect our values, nor serve our needs. As the demand for a welleducated workforce becomes more urgent, so does the necessity of securing a top-flight education for every student. Failure to do so now threatens to blight not only the dreams of our children, but the viability of our region. The status quo is not an option.

The can-do spirit that made Long Island America’s leading suburb in the post-war era came mainly in local, individualized efforts. Today we must harness that spirit to a new cooperative effort. Time is not on our side. Our economy is losing ground—to regions that have made educa­ tional reform a top priority. It is unreasonable to think conditions will improve for us, if we don’t take steps to improve them. The

“I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together—unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction—towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.” Barack Obama

page 31

coming generation of children may well be Long Island’s last best hope for economic renewal. Our actions in just the next few years will determine whether we nobly save or meanly lose that hope.

Page 32  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Economy

Economy Goal #1—Growth Our

and

Prosperity

economy grows at a rate that results in an improved quality of life for all.

Indicator:

Gross Metropolitan Product/Gross Domestic Product Long Island’s economy may be at the beginning of stagnation. Why is this important? The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of the extent of economic activity within a defined geo­ graphical region or within a sector of a defined economic region. When referencing a defined metropolitan area it is sometimes referred to as the Gross Metropolitan Product (GMP). Essentially the GDP/GMP measures the economic output of a region and can be used to compare overall economic activities across regions, or the contributions of various sectors.

0 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08

0 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 '07 '08

Includes private sector, non-farm/fishing/hunting/private household employment. Excludes government sectors. Source: Economy.com; Hofstra University.

$140

7

120

In Billions, 2007 Dollars

8

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Long Island

a01

a02

a03

a04

Growth in Long Island’s GMP Compared to U.S. GMP 8%

US

100

7

Long Island

80 60 40 20

6 5 4 3 2 1

0 ’98 ’99 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 a05 a06 a07 ’00a08

0

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

Sector

’06

’07

’08

United States

Includes private sector, non-farm/fishing/hunting/private household employment. Excludes government sectors. Source: Economy.com; Hofstra University.

Source: Economy.com; Hofstra University.

Economy client excel chart #3 Long Island Average Annual Employment 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

How are we doing? 1400 Growth in Long Island’s GMP Compared to U.S. GMP The total private sector GDP for Long Island in 2008 was about $129 billion. This was up only from $128 1200 billion in 2007. Overall, Long Island’s private sector1000 of the economy has grown by 32% from 1998 to 2008. 8% Growth has averaged about 3% per year. However, there was greater growth earlier in the period and slower 800 7 growth more recently. Growth in GDP from 2004 to600 2008 has averaged about 2%. There was almost no 6 change between 2007 and 2008 (growth of .08%). Significantly, Long Island’s growth trails the U.S. 5 400 4

Private sector

200

Public sector What 3 does “2007 dollars” mean? 0 a99 a00 a01 a02 a03 a04 a05 a06 a07 a08 2 ’01purchasing The changes over time. If the items we buy generally cost more today than ’99 ’00 ’02 ’03 ’04 power ’05 ’06of’07a dollar ’08 1 they did ten years ago, then one dollar today is worth less than a single dollar was back then. Therefore, Changes side scale value Public Sector Private Sector it0 is necessary to adjust for that in order to create a common scale when we compare dollar values (e.g., ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 when comparing wages) over several years. By picking a single year as the standard (say, 2007), dollars From 1999 to 2008, Private sector employment grew by 6%. Long Island States Price Index in order to estimate what those ear­ Public from sector employment grew by almost earlier years can be15%. “inflated” using theUnited Consumer Source:lier Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University. dollars would be able to buy in 2007. Similarly, dollars from later years can be “deflated” to what their purchasing power would have been in 2007. By converting all values to the same scale it is much easierSource: to detect the presence or absence of any trends over time (e.g., are wages actually rising, falling or Economy.com; Hofstra University. remaining the same?).

Economy client excel chart #3

ent

’08

’05

Long Island

Annual Growth

US

a00

Employment in Thousands

a99

ECONOMY CH 1_3

Gross Metropolitan Product for Long Island

Annual Growth

nomy client excel chart #2

Long Island Average Annual Employment 1,400

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 a99 a00 a01 a02 a03 a04 a05 a06 a07 a08

Changes side scale value

Private sector Public sector

page 33

Employment in Thousands

1400

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 Public Sector

Private Sector

A

2 1

1

0

0 a99

a00

a01

a02

a03

a04

a05

a06

a07

a08

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

Long Island

Page 34  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Economy

’07

’08

United States

Source: Economy.com; Hofstra University.

Economy client excel chart #3

my client excel chart #4

Long Island Average Annual Employment Long Island

a03

a04

a05

a06

1200

1,000

1000

800

800

600

600

400

a080

Public Sector

Private sector

Public sector 0 35,000 a99 a00 a01 a02 a03 a04 a05 a06 a07 a08 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08

’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08

Changes side scale value Long Island

Private Sector

United States

From 1999 to 2008, Private sector employment grew by 6%. Public sector employment grew by almost 15%. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

my client excel chart #5 Indicator: Employment Trends

00 A01 A02 A03 A04 A05

45,000

400 40,000 200

200

a07

50,000

Overall employment growth decreased in the Top 10% of LI Households last twelve months. LI Median

Why is this Bottom important? 10% of LI Households Job gains or losses measure regional economic US Median vitality. This chart shows annual average private non-farm employment, government and military, and total employment on Long Island during the A06 A07 past ten years. How are we doing? Long Island’s overall private sector employment grew by about 6% between 1999 and 2008. That reflects an average annual increase of .7% and an absolute increase of about 55,000 jobs. More recently, between 2007 and 2008, private sector employment fell by 3% (about 28,000 jobs).

my client excel chart #6

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

Indicator: Household Income Distribution of Long Island Residents a Household Four Growth inRepresenting Wages over theof P ast $250,000 10 Years

200,000 Long Island wages stagnate, while U.S. wages increase. 150,000

2007 Dollars

a02

1400$55,000

US

2007 Dollars

Employment in Thousands

1,200

Average Pay Per Employee, U.S. and Long Island

Why 100,000 is this important? Average pay per employee is a basic measure of 50,000 the economy’s health. Increasing or decreasing 0 inflation-adjusted pay per employee reflects the ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 relative economic vitality of Long Island. It does not, however, assess Long whether Long of eco­ Longthe returns Island Island nomic activityIsland are being distributed equally Top 10% Bottom 10% Median throughout the workforce.

U.S. Median

Source: 2007 ? Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey; Hofstra University. How are we doing Average pay per employee on Long Island increased 3% from 1999 to 2007, compared to the U.S.Major which roseClusters 7%. Between 2007 and 2008 Industrial in Long Island’s Economy, 2008 Long Island wages per employee actually fell 2.00 5%, while the U.S. figure rose 3%. In con­ stant 2007 dollars, average pay Retail per employeeBiomedical Manufacturing Education was1.50 $834 lower in 2008 than it was in 1999. Employment Concentration, 2008 (Relative to U.S.)

01

2

Finance and Insurance 1.00

0.50

0 -30%

Information/Communication Services Regional Recreation

Construction & Building Materials Business Services

Transportation & Freight Services -20%

-10%

Health Services

0%

10%

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

20%

30%

35,000 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 Long Island

United States

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

5

Household Income Distribution of Long Island Residents Representing a Household of Four $250,000 Top 10% of LI Households

Bottom 10% of LI Households US Median

2007 Dollars

200,000

LI Median

150,000 100,000 50,000 0 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 Long Island Top 10%

Long Island Median

Long Island Bottom 10%

U.S. Median

Source: 2007 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey; Hofstra University.

6 Indicator:

Employment Concentration, 2008 (Relative to U.S.)

Major Industrial Clusters in Long Island’s Economy, 2008 2.00

Manufacturing

1.50 Household Income Distribution Finance and

Insurance

Biomedical Retail • Real incomes for households at the top 10% Education rose by 9%.



How to Read Thi

Higher concentration but decreasing Highe numb number of employees QUA and ex

• Median household income has been relatively stagnant. Lower concentration and decreasing

Household income for the top 10% continues 1.00 to grow while the middle stagnatesInformation/Communication and the Construction number of employees—“Worst” Services & Building Health Quadrant reflecting decline bottom 10% declines. Median household incomeServices has declined relatively Materials Regional Recreation 0.50

steadily since 2003. In constant 2007 dollars, the Business Services Why is this important? Transportation & typical household of four earned 6% less in 2007 Freight Services This measure shows how Long 0Island’s standard as compared to 2003. -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% of living among households at different income Change in Employment, 2003-2008 levels has changed from year to year. It tracks These patterns indicate a widening of income Bubble size represents cluster’s employment concentration in Long Island’s economy. the income of a representative four-person house­ inequality on Long Island and an increased eco­ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University. hold. The chart plots the family-of-four house­ nomic burden on Long Island households. hold income of the top 10%, the median and the bottom 10% of the income distribution. How are we doing? Looking at the long-term trend from 1998 to 2007:

• Real incomes for households in the bottom 10% actually dropped 4%.

page 35

Lower growin

’98 ’99 Island ’00 ’01 Island ’02 ’03 Island ’04 ’05 ’06Median ’07 Top 10%

Long Long U.S. Long Source: 2007 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey; Hofstra University. Island Island Median Island Top 10% Bottom 10% Median Page 36  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Economy Employment Concentration, 2008 (Relative to U.S.)

Major Industrial Clusters in Long Island’s Economy, 2008

Source: 2007 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey; Hofstra University. 2.00

1.50

How to Read This Chart

Biomedical

Retail Manufacturing

Education Higher concentration but decreasing Higher concentration and growing number of employees—“BEST” number of employees QUADRANT reflecting growth and expansion

Finance and Insurance

Employment Concentration, 2008 (Relative to U.S.)

Major1.00 Industrial Clusters in Long Island’s Economy, 2008 2.00

Information/Communication Services Regional Recreation

0.50

Transportation & Freight Services

0 -30%

-20%

Manufacturing

1.50

Construction & Building Materials

Lower concentration and decreasing number of employees—“Worst” Quadrant reflecting decline

Health Services

How to

Biomedical

Retail

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Education

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

Higher concentration but decrea number of employees

Finance and Insurance

Bubble size represents cluster’s employment concentration in Long Island’s economy.

1.00

Information/Communication Services Regional Recreation

0.50

Construction & Building Materials

-20%

Lower concentration and decrea number of employees—“Worst” Quadrant reflecting decline

Health Services

Business Services

Transportation & Freight Services

0 -30%

Lower concentration but growing number of employees

Business Services

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

7

ECONOMY 7-9

Bubble size represents cluster’s employment concentration Wages, Employment Growth and Employment Concentration in Long Island’s economy.

Source: BureaubyofClusters, Labor Statistics; Hofstra Long Island, 2008 University.

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

40%

Education Biomedical Business Services

Health Services

30 20

Construction & Building Materials Retail

10

How to Read This Chart

Finance and Insurance

Wages,0 Employment Growth and Employment Concentration Regional -10 by Clusters, Long Island, 2008 Recreation Manufacturing 40% 30

Median Pay

-20

Transportation & Freight Services

-30 -40

Information/ Communication Services

Increasing number of employees but lower wages

Increasing number of employees and higher wages—“BEST” QUADRANT reflecting growth and expansion

Declining number of employees and lower wages—“Worst” Quadrant reflecting decline

Declining number of employees but higher wages

Education Biomedical $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 Business Services 2008 Average Annual Wage in Thousands (2007 Dollars)

Health Services $0

$10

20

Bubble size reflects 2007 employment concentration.

Construction Building Materials Source: Bureau of& Labor Statistics; Hofstra University. Retail

10

Finance and Insurance

0

Regional Recreation

-10

Median Pay

-20 -30 -40

Manufacturing Transportation & Freight Services

$0 In Thousands, 2007 Dollars

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

t #8

Bottom 10%

Median

$10

$20

Information/ Communication Services

and Change in Employment, Island $30 Comparison $40 of Average $50 Salary$60 $70 $80 Long$90

2008 Average Annual Wage in Thousands (2007 Dollars) Finance & Insurance

Business Services Bubble size reflects 2007 employment concentration. Information/Communication Services

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University. Manufacturing Transportation & Freight Services Biomedical Education Construction & Building Materials Health Services Retail

EC

How to R

Increasing number of employees b lower wages

Declining number of employees an lower wages—“Worst” Quadrant reflecting decline

Indicator:

Industry Clusters Retail, which pays below-average wages, is the most concentrated industrial sector. Health Services and Education, which pay nearaverage wages, continue to be the sectors with the greatest employment growth. Why is this important? Long Island’s industry clusters make up approxi­ mately 70% of Long Island’s employment base. An industry cluster is a geographic concentration of interdependent firms in related industries and includes a significant number of companies that sell their products and services outside the region.

How are we doing? Reading the two charts in relationship to each other, a critically important trend becomes appar­ ent. Overall, employment in these strategic clusters is relatively stagnant. We are not growing high wage opportunities; rather, low wage jobs are expanding in our region. Employment opportu­ nities tend to be increasing in sectors of the economy that pay wages close to or somewhat below the median, and declining in those sectors that generally offer higher wages and salaries. How do these bubble charts show us that?

• The first chart shows that the most concen­ trated cluster relative to the U.S. economy is Biomedical. The least concentrated is Transpor­ tation and Freight Services. The second chart indicates that these two clusters are close to the median wage divide. Overall, Long Island’s economy reflects a similar pattern to the U.S. as a whole with respect to the relative presence of these clusters.



• The clusters experiencing the greatest employ­ ment growth have been Education (15% in the past five years) and Health Services (26%). Both are among the three most concentrated clusters (each representing about 11% of employ­ ment). The second chart indicates that both pay close to median level wages.



• For Long Island, those clusters yielding the highest average pay tend to be both the smaller sectors and those that have experienced employ­ ment declines between 2003 and 2008 (Infor­ mation and Communication Services fell 3%, Manufacturing fell 6%, Finance and Insurance fell 6%).

The first bubble chart illustrates three key dimen­ sions of Long Island’s industry cluster:

• The cluster’s employment concentration relative to the nation (vertical axis).

Employment concentration measures the percentage of employment on Long Island compared to the same cluster, nationally. A concentration greater than one indicates that Long Island has relatively more employ­ ment in that sector as compared to the national economy as a whole.

• Change in employment from 2003 to 2008 (horizontal axis).



• Concentration in 2008 (size of circle). Concen­ tration shows the size of the cluster relative to the Long Island economy as a whole. The second bubble chart illustrates key dimensions of Long Island’s industry clusters in relationship to wages and employment growth from 2003 to 2008. On each chart, the upper right hand quadrant represents those clusters with the most positive indicators in concentration and employment (first chart) or employment and wages (second chart).

page 37

-40

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

2008 Average Annual Wage in Thousands (2007 Dollars) Bubble size reflects 2007 employment concentration. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

Page 38  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Economy

chart #8

0

In Thousands, 2007 Dollars

Comparison of Average Salary and Change in Employment, Long Island

25

Finance & Insurance Business Services Information/Communication Services Manufacturing Transportation & Freight Services Biomedical Education Construction & Building Materials Health Services Retail Regional Recreation

30

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Average Pay Per Cluster, 2008, in Thousands

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

02-2007

Average Wage, Long Island Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

chart #9

1

Investment in Millions, 2007 Dollars

ollars Invested

Total Venture Capital Investment in Long Island Firms,

Another way to view this data is to compare the average growth in wages with the average change in 1998-2007 employment. Again we see that growth is occurring in those industries where salaries are near the average $350 1.4% rather than in the higher paying clusters. ADDITIONAL 1-3 300

1.2

Investment as Percent of U.S. VC Investment

rms %

Average Change in Employment, Long Island

For more 250 information on employment by occupations, see 1.0 Economy Indicators, at www.longislandindex.org. 200

0.8

150

0.6

100

0.4

What People in the Region Are Saying 50 0

0.2

0 Overall, what do you think is the MOST important ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 problem facing residents of Nassau/Suffolk % of All U.S. Investment County today? Dollars Invested

nts?

DABLE HOUSING

OMY

80%

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™. Report based on data from Thomson Reuters; Hofstra University.

60 40 20 0

’04 Taxes

’05

’06 Economy

’07

’08 Affordable Housing

Local residents have been deeply concerned about high local taxes in all recent Long Island Index polls, but the level of concern about taxes and the economy has risen in response to the bleak national economic outlook.

What People in the Region Are Saying

Goal #2—Supportive Business Environment Long Island

provides a business friendly environment for companies to grow.

Indicator:

Local Bidder Preference Laws Nassau and Suffolk counties both enacted local laws in the early 1990’s which provide a 10% pricing preference to local bidders. Why is this important? The intent of local preference laws is to give local businesses a competitive advantage for winning awards for local government work. However, many companies and governments perceive local pref­ erence laws to be anti-competitive. Thus, while local preference laws may benefit specific local companies, these laws also may drive up the costs of goods and services to all taxpayers, which get reflected in the form of higher taxes. For this reason, local preference laws are not widely utilized across the state and country. page 39

How are we doing? Public Work Projects and Purchase of Goods and Services: Both Nassau and Suffolk have equiva­ lent language stating that the county may award the bid to a bidder “other than the lowest bidder” who “maintains a place of business in or sells sup­ plies, materials or equipment manufactured in the county…or an adjoining municipality and submits a sealed bid not exceeding ten percent more than the other lowest bidder… .” These statutes refer specifically to public works projects and purchases of goods and services. In a telephone survey of the 36 most populous counties in New York State (out of a total of 62 counties), only three were found to contain local preference statutes: Nassau and Suffolk counties each have a defined upper limit of 10% for a vendor to receive a preference, and Erie County has an upper limit of 5% and

Page 40  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Economy

can only invoke the statute for projects larger than $100,000. A series of additional phone calls made to other comparable suburban counties—Fairfax, VA, Fairfield, CT, Santa Clara, CA, Bergen, NJ— indicates that none of these regions use local bidder preference laws. Further, a review of state laws using the Lexis-Nexis database found that 43 states do not provide for local preference for stateawarded contracts (New York State is included in this group). Seven states allow local contractors to have preference if they fall within certain guide­ lines. The rationale for the types of local bidder preferences and the specific preference thresholds vary widely across these states. Percentages vary from 1% to 15% with the most common threshold being in the range of 5%. Professional Services: Large contracts are also awarded for professional services which are sub­ ject to competitive requirements set forth by each local government. In general, the rules for soliciting

proposals and making awards for professional services allow local governments to take into account factors other than price in awarding con­ tracts. Thus, for professional service contracts, localities are allowed to develop their own solici­ tation and award criteria, which often incorporate either an implicit or explicit local preference. Typically this gives local professional service con­ tractors, including architects and engineers, a competitive advantage over outside companies. Since pricing is typically only one of the criteria considered in a professional services contract award process, a specific local preference price advantage threshold is not required, nor does it appear to be commonly described in law. Hence, it is not possible to measure the impact of local vendor preferences on these types of services. For more information on local bidder preference laws, see Economy Indicators, at www.longislandindex.org.

Regional Recreation -5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Average Pay Per Cluster, 2008, in Thousands

Change in Employment, 2003-2008

Change in Employment, 2002-2007

Average Wage, Long Island

Average Change in Employment, Long Island

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Hofstra University.

Firms %

1.2 1.0

Dollars Invested

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

06 a07

Total Venture Capital Investment in Long Island Firms, 1998-2007 $350

1.4%

300

1.2

250

1.0

200

0.8

150

0.6

100

0.4

50

0.2

0

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

Dollars Invested

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

0

Investment as Percent of U.S. VC Investment

1.4

Investment in Millions, 2007 Dollars

yeary client excel chart #9

% of All U.S. Investment

keep scales at even increments? Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™. Report based on data from Thomson Reuters; Hofstra University.

Goal #3—Innovative Economy Our

economy incubates, supports and retains companies.

Indicator:

Venture Capital Financing Long Island’s venture capital investment sunk to its lowest level in more than ten years. Why is this important? New venture capital investment is an indicator of innovation and dynamism within the economy. Venture capitalists generally seek to invest in new enterprises that have a potential for strong growth.

page 41

Typically, only firms with potential for exception­ ally high rates of growth over a 5- to 10-year period will attract venture capital. Thus, a high rate of venture capitalist investment suggests a changing and dynamic economy with relatively new enterprises entering the scene. A lower rate of venture capitalist investment suggests a less dynamic mix of economic enterprises in the regional economy.

Page 42  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Economy

0

ECONOMY 10-11 Total Venture Capital Investment by Industry on Long Island, 1998-2007 Biotechnology Business Products and Services Computers and Peripherals Consumer Products and Services Electronics/Instrumentation Financial Services Healthcare Services Industrial/Energy IT Services Media and Entertainment Medical Devices and Equipment Networking and Equipment Retailing/Distribution Semiconductors Software Telecommunications

300

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Investment in Millions (2007 Dollars) Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™. Report based on data from Thomson Reuters; Hofstra University.

nt excel chart #11

Funds Awarded, in Millions (2007 Dollars)

40 30 20 10 0

10 5 0

’00-’01 ’01-’02 ’02-’03 ’03-’04 ’04-’05 ’05-’06 ’06-’07 Funds Awarded

% of Total NYSTAR Funds Awarded

Source: NYSTAR; Hofstra University.

Long Island as a % of Total NYSTAR Funds Awarded

How are we doing? and 2007 (from $47 million down to $5 million). Since 2002, venture capitalist investment in As a percent of total U.S. investment, the 2007 Long Island firms has ranged between a high amount represented only .02%. NYSTAR Funds Awarded to Long Island, 2000-2007 of $47 million and a low of $5 million in 2007 The four industries receiving the largest investments dollars. As a percentage of total venture capital $25 over100% the past ten years are Telecommuni­cations, 90 investment in U.S. firms, there was a slight Industrial/Energy, Media and Entertainment, and 80 20 increase over the three years prior to 2007 (from 70 Software. .08% to .17% of15total U.S. investment). However, 60 50 venture capital investment fell 89% between 2006

0

250

Telecommunications

300

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Investment in Millions (2007 Dollars) Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™. Report based on data from Thomson Reuters; Hofstra University.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A07

NYSTAR Funds Awarded to Long Island, 2000-2007 100% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

$25 20 15 10 5 0

Long Island as a % of Total NYSTAR Funds Awarded

Funds Awarded, in Millions (2007 Dollars)

st yeary client excel chart #11

’00-’01 ’01-’02 ’02-’03 ’03-’04 ’04-’05 ’05-’06 ’06-’07 Funds Awarded

% of Total NYSTAR Funds Awarded

Source: NYSTAR; Hofstra University.

Indicator:

Research and Development Investment Long Island’s funding from NYS increased last year but it was a smaller share of the overall available funds. Why is this important? R&D (Research and Development) investment in Long Island’s universities, labs and private sector helps to drive regional innovation. R&D dollars support the development of technologies that cre­ ate economic benefits for the regions in which they are developed and for the nation as a whole.

page 43

How are we doing? New York State provides funds to firms through the NYSTAR program of the New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Inno­ vative Leadership. In 2006–07, Long Island firms received almost $10 million in NYSTAR funding. That represents an 88% increase in funding dollars from the prior year. However, that dollar amount was actually a smaller percentage of total state funding than in prior years. Between 2000 and 2006, Long Island averaged 12% of total state funding under the NYSTAR program. In 2007, the percentage fell to about 6%.

Page 44  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

Our Communities Goal #4—Vibrant Communities We

create exciting communities and downtown centers that offer people a wide choice of places

to live, work and play.

INDICATOR:

Long Island’s Changing Population According to a recent revision of U.S. Census estimates, in response to a successful challenge by Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island’s population has grown by 111,000 since 2000. A review of the new estimates and comparison with the original data is included below. Why is this important? The level of population growth is a fundamental benchmark of how attractive Long Island is as a place to live. New residents require more housing and services, but can also add to the vibrancy of growing com­ munities, increase sales for local businesses and provide additional tax revenues. Increasing diversity can provide a cultural richness that many people value, but can also add to social tensions. In addition, some economists have found that workforce diversity leads to a stronger regional economy.

COMMUNITIES CH 1_3

el chart Change in Population for the New York Metropolitan Area, 2000-2007

Population Change in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, 2000-2007, Change Original and Revised Census Estimates 5%

1,550,000

% Population Change

Population

1,500,000 1,450,000 1,400,000 1,350,000 1,300,000 1,250,000 1,200,000

thwesternNorthern, CT NJ

Hudson Valley

2 1

Southwest Northern CT NJ

How are we doing? With a recent challenge to U.S. Census counts by Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the modest growth estimated by the Census for Long Island from 2000 to 2007 has been revised substantially upward. The Census uses a model to estimate the compo­ nents of population change which includes data on natural increase (births over deaths) plus net migration (internal and international) using local health records, data on migration from the Internal Revenue Service and other sources. In challeng­ ing the Census counts, the Counties cited popula­ tion figures gathered independently by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). Since 1998, LIPA has been estimating its own population counts, building from Census figures and updating the counts based on the utility records of active elec­ tric meters. Each year, LIPA’s figures are reviewed and adjusted to reflect any demographic change they detect. LIPA’s estimates also factor in local trends towards various types of housing—includ­ ing apartments, condos, senior housing and per­ sons in group quarters (health facilities, jails and dormitories). LIPA data was used to calculate the new population estimates for 2007 accepted by the U.S. Census Bureau, and were slightly higher than the LIPA figures. Estimates for prior years will also be calculated. page 45 55+

3

0 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 New Long LIPA York City Island Data Nassau Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Revised Revised Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

nd 2007

4

Hudson New York Valley City

Long Island– Original Census

Long Island– Revised Census

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

The differences between the two methods are apparent when reviewing the changes in popu­ lation since 2000. Under the previous estimates, Nassau’s population declined by 28,000 between 2000 and 2007 while Suffolk’s grew by 34,000. Under the revisions, Nassau has grown by 19,000 people and Suffolk has grown by 92,000. The discrepancies in population counts present two different pictures of Long Island in the region over the last seven years. Comparing areas whose population was calculated using different methods can lead to misleading comparisons, but the dif­ ferences between Long Island and other parts of the region change substantially using the two different sets of assumptions. Using the original Census estimates, Long Island appears to be approaching 0% population growth between 2000 and 2007. Compared to the rest of the region, which is growing at rates ranging from around 2% in southwest Connecticut to nearly 4.5% in the Hudson Valley, Long Island appears to be an outlier amongst its urban and suburban neighbors. Using the revised Census figures, Long Island is amongst the strongest in growth since 2000 with a 4% increase in population, placing it above New York City’s 3.3% growth.

Page 46  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

Communities client excelbychart #4and Long Island, 2000 and 2007 Share of Population Age, U.S. Long Island US

35%

16

06

Long Island

30

US

14

25

Percent of Population Aged 25-34, U.S. and Long Island

14 12 10

20

00

16%

8

12

15

6

10

4

10

5

2

0

8 0-19 ’00

’02 20-34 ’03 ’04

’01

’05

’0635-54 ’07

Long Island 2000 U.S. 2000

0

55+

’00

Long Island 2007 U.S. 2007

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

United States

Long Island

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Communities client excel chart #5 All of the following population measures, it should be noted, use pre-Challenge Census data for analysis,

Share of Population That Is Black, Latino, Asian or Other, 1990-2007

and should therefore be used with caution. However, it is likely that the shares of Long Island population for the different age, race and ethnic groups shown below are likely to 40% change far less than the overall size Long Island of the population. Future reports will incorporate recalculated Census 35 data.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ’90

Age distribution Compared to national trends, Long Island’s popu­ lation is experiencing growth at higher rates for those 55 and over. While this share of the popu­ lation is not the largest—those 35 to 54 are— the entry of Baby Boomers into this cohort have ’00population by 3.3% ’07 since 2000 com­ increased its pared to the national average of 2.3%. The next generation of 35–54 year olds is well-represented on Long Island, and has experienced changes consistent with the national trend. Younger adults—those aged 20–34—have decreased by nearly 2%—more than the national average decline of 1%.

United Stated

30

downward trend is well outside of the national 25 average—which has also decreased due to lower 20 birth rates in 15 the 1970’s. Nationally, 25–34 year 10 nearly 14% of the population in olds comprised 2007. For the5 same year on Long Island, that number was 0just under 10%. The most precipi­ ’90 ’00 ’07 tous drop in 25–34 year olds has taken place since 2003, when this age group Long Islandrepresented 12% of United States the population. Long Island’s increasing lack of affordable housing, limits on employment oppor­ Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; tunities and a shortage of vibrant data compiled by RPA. downtowns that attract this age group may help to explain Long Island’s “brain drain.”

The trend is even more dramatic when narrowing down thischart group #6 to those aged 25–34. Tracking Communities client excel the growth of this age group, it is evident that its 100000 100000 80000 80000 60000 60000 40000 40000 20000 20000 0 0 -20000 -20000 -40000 -40000 -60000 -60000 -80000 -80000 -100000 -100000

Migration Between Long Island and the Rest of the U.S. In-migration Out-migration Net Migration

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000 -80,000 -100,000 ’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’04 20 ’05 10 0

’06

’07

’04

’00 ’05

’06

’07

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

0 United States

Long Island

’08

’06 20’07 ’04

’05

Taxes

’06

’07

Economy

’08 Affordable Housing

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Local residents have been deeply concerned about high local taxes in all recent Long Island Index polls, but the level of concern about taxes and the economy has risen in response to the bleak national economic outlook.

What People in the Region Are Saying

Share of Population That Is Black, Latino, Asian or Other, 1990-2007

How likely is it that you will move out of Nassau/Suffolk County to an area with lower housing costs and property taxes in the next five years?

40%

nal Graphs what people Long are Island saying client excel chart #2 35 30

United Stated

25

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

80%

Somewhat likely

20

Very likely

15

60

10

40

5 0

20

’90

’07 18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

’00

0

Long Island

’07 18-34States United

35-49 50-64 Responses by Age Group

Very Likely

65+

Somewhat Likely

Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

The desire to leave Long Island remains most common among younger people, aged 18-34, 67% of whom say they are somewhat or very likely to leave in the next five years.

R ace and ethnicity Migration Between Long Island and the Rest of the U.S. What People in the Region Are Saying Race and ethnicity generally change gradually, How long have you lived in Nassau/Suffolk County? 100,000 and Long Island’s profile in 2007 was little differ­ In-migration 80,000 in 2006. A excel slight increase in the Latino nal Graphs what peopleent arethan saying client 60,000chart #3 Out-migration population was balanced by a slight decrease in 40,000 Migration theNet White population.20,000

04

100 80 60 40

20 ’05 0

’06

’07 Latino

0 All my life -20,000Island Over the long term, Long continues to Over 10 years become more racially -40,000 and culturally diverse. Less than 10 years Since -60,000 1990, the White population -80,000 has declined from 84% to 72%. Latinos-100,000 are both the largest and ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03

100% 80 60 40

’04

’0520 ’06

’07

most rapidly growing ethnic population, having increased from 6% to nearly 13% in the last Out-migration 0 Net Migration In-migration Latino Black White Black decade and a White half. Asians have also increased Less than Over 10 Years All My Life rapidly, more than doubling in population from 10 Years 2.3% to 5%. The Black population has increased Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: Internal Revenue Service; data compiled by RPA. only modestly since 1990, growing from 7% to 9%. Almost 80% of Blacks and Latinos interviewed for our poll are long-term residents These trends reflect both national and regional of Long Island. trends, in terms of the general trend toward greater diversity and in the rapid growth of Latinos and Asians specifically.

page 47

0 ’90

’07

’00

’07

Long Island

United States

Page 48  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

#6

Migration Between Long Island and the Rest of the U.S. In-migration Out-migration Net Migration

3

’04

’05

’06

100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000 -80,000 -100,000

ADDITIONAL 1-3 ’00

’07

’01

’02

In-migration

’03

’04

’05

Out-migration

’06

’07

Net Migration

What People in the Region Are Saying

Overall, what do you think is the MOST important problem facing residents of Nassau/Suffolk Source: Internal Revenue Service; data compiled by RPA. County today? al Graphs what people are saying client excel chart #1 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMY

60

TAXES

’04

Migration Both the number of people leaving and moving to Long Island declined slightly in 2007 following several years of increasing net out-migration. In ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 2007, there were 21,000 more Long Islanders who left than those who arrived from other parts of the United States. This is a modest improvement from 2005 and 2006, when there was a net out­ flow of 23,000 and 25,000 people. These statistics do not include foreign immigration, for which there is no reliable annual data.

New York City is still the location from which the largest number of people moved to Long Island, though this number has declined almost another 2% since last year. At the same time, the number al Graphs what people are saying client excel chart #2 of people moving from Long Island to Manhattan, Queens and other parts of the city continued to 80 increase by another percentage point overlikely last Somewhat 70 Veryto likely year. This movement has continued be fueled 60 by the substantial growth of new housing in the 50 40 five boroughs compared to Nassau and Suffolk. 30 20 10 0

80%

18-34

35-49

For those Long Islanders not remaining in the tri-state area, the most likely destinations con­ 65+ North Carolina, Pennsylvania, tinue50-64 to be Florida, Georgia, and California. Much of the migration to these often sunnier or lower tax states can be attributed to either retirees or those taking advantage of the higher housing prices that were still abundant on Long Island in 2007.

40 Movement between Nassau and Suffolk Counties was 20 also significant. Nearly 11,000 residents moved from Nassau to Suffolk County in 2007, which 0 is about 5,000 more residents than moved from ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 Suffolk to Nassau. This reflects the greater abun­ Taxes Economy Affordable dance of new development and more affordable Housing housing further from the border of New York City. Local residents have been deeply concerned about high local taxes in all recent Long Island For Index polls, but the level ofon concern about taxes and the economy information charitable organ­ has risen in response to the bleak national economic outlook.

izations, see Communities Indicators, at www.longislandindex.org.

What People in the Region Are Saying How likely is it that you will move out of Nassau/Suffolk County to an area with lower housing costs and property taxes in the next five years? 80% 60 40 20 0

18-34

35-49 50-64 Responses by Age Group

Very Likely

65+

Somewhat Likely

The desire to leave Long Island remains most common among younger people, aged 18-34, 67% of whom say they are somewhat or very likely to leave in the next five years.

Indicator:

How are we doing? For the last two years, the Long Island Index has conducted a survey of downtowns, selected to represent a diverse range of places of various size across the Island. Thirty downtowns were sur­ veyed in 2008, an increase of seven over the 23 places surveyed in 2007. The current survey was completed as Wall Street was beginning an his­ toric decline and the question remains, how will this be felt on Main Street? As of September– October 2008 when the survey was conducted, the national financial decline was not apparent here. Overall vacancy rates are on par with previ­ ous years and new construction was continuing. The question is how Main Street will fare as the national economic pictures evolves, what will these rates look like a year from now?

Long Island’s Downtowns Long Island’s downtowns have maintained similar vacancy rates as last year but as the changes on Wall Street begin to filter down, this next year will be critical to watch. Why is this important? There are more than 100 downtowns in Nassau and Suffolk counties. These centers are not only important as places to work, live and shop, they also help define the character of surrounding communities and provide places to meet and interact. Downtowns can also promote walking and transit use. With less open space left for new development, downtowns provide the potential for Long Island to consider adding new housing, stores and offices.

Long Island’s Downtowns Storefronts

Downtown

Retail vs. Service

Per 100 People

Number of Banks New Construction Change from Sites in the Number in People/ 2008 Rates 2007 Downtown Downtown Bank Vacancy Rate

% Retail

% Service

Babylon

169

2.7

65%

35%

3%

1%

0

4

1,591

Bay Shore

195

3.0

53%

47%

21%

2%

3

2

3,211

Brentwood

46

0.9

27%

73%

2%

N/A

1

1

5,267

Cedarhurst

188

4.9

72%

28%

7%

(3)%

2

6

640

47

1.3

51%

49%

4%

N/A

0

0

—

Farmingdale

120

1.9

54%

46%

10%

N/A

0

2

3,146

Freeport

221

2.1

61%

39%

7%

0%

1

2

5,356

Glen Cove

143

4.5

54%

46%

11%

N/A

0

3

1,065

Great Neck

475

2.7

60%

40%

11%

3%

2

19

938

Greenport

125

6.1

83%

17%

8%

2%

0

2

1,024

Hempstead Village

371

2.4

56%

44%

7%

(1)%

1

7

2,189

Hicksville

200

3.9

46%

54%

6%

(1)%

0

3

1,697

Huntington

358

7.3

71%

29%

7%

1%

7

10

490

Huntington Station

145

1.5

46%

54%

8%

(3)%

2

1

9,820

Copiague

Number

75

1.6

54%

46%

5%

(1)%

0

2

2,322

Long Beach

214

1.0

54%

46%

4%

(1)%

5

9

2,467

Lynbrook

119

5.4

59%

41%

6%

N/A

3

4

549

Mineola

114

2.1

49%

51%

7%

(1)%

2

3

1,798

Oyster Bay

119

5.9

55%

45%

10%

N/A

0

2

1,003

Patchogue

151

2.0

61%

39%

15%

(1)%

2

3

2,480

Port Jefferson

170

4.6

65%

35%

5%

(2)%

2

3

1,225

70

1.8

49%

51%

19%

9%

0

2

1,903

Riverhead

146

2.6

49%

51%

26%

7%

1

3

1,871

Rockville Centre

304

5.8

55%

45%

5%

1%

1

11

476

91

1.2

45%

55%

8%

0%

1

1

7,382

Sayville

121

4.1

60%

40%

4%

(2)%

2

2

1,472

Smithtown

150

3.1

59%

41%

9%

6%

0

7

695

Southampton

243

10.4

75%

25%

9%

3%

0

5

466

Valley Stream

157

10.3

46%

54%

16%

N/A

1

2

764

Westbury

185

3.8

41%

59%

5%

(2)%

1

3

1,637

56%

44%

9%

1%

Islip

Port Jefferson Station

Roosevelt

Average

Source: Research by Rauch Foundation, September-October 2008; data analyzed by RPA.

page 49

Page 50  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

Number and occupancy of storefronts The number of storefronts per person indicates the amount of retail and service options available to residents, workers and visitors. The overwhelm­ ing majority of downtowns have between 100–300 storefronts. When adjusted for population, the average downtown had 3 storefronts per 100 peo­ ple. These ranged from Southampton and Valley Stream, with over 10 storefronts per 100 people who lived in the downtown, to places like Long Beach and Brentwood which had less than one storefront per 100 people. This does not necessar­ ily mean that these places are underserved, since the size and diversity of establishments are also important, but they do show that some places have far more options relative to their population. The number of vacancies is one indication of the health and vibrancy of these downtowns as com­ mercial centers. Storefront vacancy rates refer to the percentage of downtown storefronts that are vacant at the time of surveying. Lower vacancy rates indicate that a downtown has a healthier economy while a high vacancy rate is a sign that businesses have left or are not attracted to a down­ town. The lower the vacancy rate, the more likely that a resident or visitor will find the retail or service opportunity they are looking for in their downtown, and the more it will convey a sense of stability and community health. The average storefront vacancy rate of our 30 fieldsurveyed downtowns was 9%. For the 23 down­ towns field-surveyed last year, the rate is also 9%, an increase of 1% over last year’s 8% vacancy rate. Those downtowns with the largest increases include Smithtown, Port Jefferson Station and Riverhead where vacancy increased by about 6, 7 and 9% respectively. Those downtowns with improved vacancy rates include Sayville, Cedar­ hurst and Huntington Station where improvements

were around 2–3%. Brentwood, Babylon and Long Beach have the lowest vacancy rates of our surveyed downtowns, each under 5%. Downtown construction Construction projects—be they major renova­ tions or new construction—in a downtown area, indicate new investment in housing, jobs and/or services. Some construction is to be expected over time even in stable communities, simply to replace or upgrade obsolete buildings or accom­ modate normal rates of turnover. High rates of construction indicate more rapid change or growth. Cumulatively, tracking downtown con­ struction is one indication of how much Long Islanders are changing their perception of down­ towns as a place to live, work and shop. Of our 30 field-surveyed downtowns, 11 had no construction and eight had only one construction project underway at the time of survey. Huntington and Long Beach had at least five projects occurring in their downtown area. These projects ranged from refurbishing storefronts to the development of new multi-unit housing. On the whole, this appears to indicate a relatively low level of con­ struction and redevelopment. Banks per person Services vary one downtown to another. Recently there had been a significant increase in the num­ ber of banks coming to Long Island so the Index measured how many retail bank establishments were available in each downtown. On average, there is one bank for every 4,500 people living in a downtown. This covers a wide range, from less than 1,000 people per bank in places like Southampton and Rockville Center, to nearly 10,000 people per bank in Huntington Station.

20

20 15

15

Share of Households that spend between 35% and 49% of their income on housing

10 5 0

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

10 5 0

’07

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

Share of Households That Spend Between 35% and 50% of Income on Housing

’05

’06

’07

Share of Households That Spend > 50% of Income on Housing

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

COMMUNITIES CH 7_9

Communities client Share excelofchart #8 with a High Housing Cost Burden, Long Island, Households

Share of Households with a High Housing Cost Burden, Metropolitan New York Area, 2006 and 2007

2000-2007

’05

’06

’07

Share of Households That Spend > 50% of Income on Housing

Share of Households That Spend Between 35% and 50% of Income on Housing

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

G

#5—A

H

45% excel chart #9 ouseholds Communities client oal ffordable omes 40 more than ome 35 25 We generate housing options that are afford­ 30 20 25 able to people of all ages and income levels. 15 ouseholds 20 10 between 15 percent Indicator: 5 9% of 10 Housing 0 5 ousing ffordability 0 -5

H

residentsPercent to stay, and for the adult children of resi­ Change in Median Housing Sales Price, Long Island, 2000-2008 (1st Half) dents to start their families in the region. 25%

How are 20 we doing? The15collapse of the U.S. housing market in 2008 has 10 clearly begun to affect Long Island. Following more5 than a decade of rapid growth, sales prices 0 on Long Island declined in the first six months of -5 2008. However, the long run-up in housing prices -10 has created large2002disparity between costs 2000-a 20012003- 2004 - 2005-housing 2006- 2007’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 and income. 1st Half

That Spend Between

Westchester 2007

Westchester 2006

Monmouth 2007

Monmouth 2006

’00 -’01 ’01 -’02 ’02 -’03 ’03 -’04 ’04 -’05 ’05 -’06 ’06 ’07 -’07-’08 1st half

Bergen 2007

Bergen 2006

Fairfield 2007

Fairfield 2006

Suffolk 2007

Suffolk 2006

Nassau 2007

Rising housing cost burdens leveled off in 2007 and home sale prices started to decline in 2008. New building permits declined to its lowest point in three decades. Share of Households High housing cost burden Share of Households

Nassau 2006

-10

A

That Spend > 50% of

W35% hy is important? andthis 50% of Income on Housing Income on Housing As housing costs represent a large share of the household budgetCommunity on Long Island, housing afford­ Source: 2006-2007 American Survey; data compiled by RPA. ability is an issue for everyone.

25% 20 15 10

From one perspective, rising housing costs are a sign that Long Island continues to be a place where people desire to live. However, higher housing costs deplete the quality of life for the many fami­ lies struggling with rent and house payments and Percent Change in Median Housing Sales Price, Long Island, make it difficult for employers to recruit and retain 2000-2008 (1st Half) workers. Overtime, the limited supply of lower cost housing can change the cultural, demographic and economic character of the region. Increasing housing cost burdens make it harder for longtime

5 0 -5 -10

Share of Households That Spend > 50% of Income on Housing

Source: 2006-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Share of Households with a High Housing Cost Burden, Metropolitan New York Area, 2006 and 2007

page 51

Westchester 2007

Share of Households That Spend Between 35% and 50% of Income on Housing

’04

Westchester 2006

’03

Monmouth 2007

’02

Monmouth 2006

’01

Bergen 2007

’00

Nassau 2006

0

Bergen 2006

Westchester, 2007

Westchester, 2006

Monmouth, 2007

Monmouth, 2006

Bergen, 2007

Bergen, 2006

Fairfield, 2007

Fairfield, 2006

Suffolk, 2007

Suffolk, 2006

10

Nassau, Nassau, 2006 Suffolk, 2007 Suffolk, 2006 Fairfield, 2007 Fairfield, 2006 Bergen, 2007 Bergen, 2006 Monmouth, 2007 Monmouth, 2006 Westchester, 2007 Westchester, 2006 2007

Fairfield 2007

15

Fairfield 2006

Share of Households that Spend between 35% and 49% of Income on Housing

20

Suffolk 2007

25

Suffolk 2006

30

Nassau 2007

35

5

45% 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Share of Households that spend more than 50% of income on housing

40%

Nassau, 2007

Nassau, 2006

45 seholds 40 0% 35 or income 30 25 20 15 10 seholds 5 tween 35% 0 income heir

The share of households who spend more than Source: Long Island Real Estate Report; data compiled by RPA. 35% of their income on housing on Long Island increased from 27% in 2000 to 38% in 2007. The share of U.S. households with such a high housing cost burden was only 29% in 2007. Suffolk County in particular experienced a sharp jump, with the number of households in this category increasing 12 percentage points. In Nassau, where the housing cost burden has been slightly higher for most of the past six years, the share increased 10 percent­ age points. Although there was a slight decrease this past year, housing cost burden is still much higher than it was earlier in the decade and it continues to be higher than our neighboring sub­ urban regions.

Share of Households That Spend Between 35% and 50% of Income on Housing

Share of Households That Spend > 50% of Income on Housing

American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA. Page Source: 52  | 2006-2007 2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

s client excel chart #10 Percent Change in Median Housing Sales Price, Long Island,

Share of Homes Sold, by Price Bracket, 2000-2008 (1st Half)

2000-2008 (1st Half) 25%

$625,000 and more

20

$500,000 to 624,999

15

$375,000 to $499,999

10

$250,000 to $374,999

5

$125,000 to $249,999

0

Less than $125,000

-5

30

40

50

60-10 70 80 90 100 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004 - 2005- 2006- 2007’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 1st Half

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (1st Half)

Source: Long Island Real Estate Report; data compiled by RPA.

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than $125,000

$125,000 to $249,999

$250,000 to $374,999

$375,000 to $499,999

$500,000 to $624,999

$625,999 and More

Source: Long Island Real Estate Report; data compiled by RPA.

ADDITIONAL 4-6

nmouth Fairfield 10 0

’03

60% 50

10 40 30

0 20 10 0

’04

Very Difficult

’05

’06

’07

’08

Somewhat Difficult

Source: 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA. Over half (54%) of all Long Islanders continue to report that it is somewhat or very difficult to meet their monthly rent or mortgage payments.

What People inRents the Region Are 2000-2007 Saying Gross Monthly on Long Island,

s client excel chart #12 $1,500 or more

Graphs what people are saying client excel chart #5 $1,000 to $1,499 $500 to $999

0

Don't Know/Refused

Please think about the quality of education provided by your local schools. What would you say is the value 2000 local residents get back from property taxes in terms 2001 of the quality of education? 2002 2003

Poor

2004 100 2005

0

Fair

200680

0

Good

200760

Less than $500

0

030

’03

NY Region excl. NYC

20

Even with this moderation, however, the escalation in home values and prices since 2000 remains Bergen Westchester striking.NY In 2000, the share of homes that sold for Region less than $250,000 was 63%—by 2008, that share excludes ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 York City was New 10%. Similarly, the share of homes that sold for more than $500,000 was 9% in 2000 but more than three times that in 2008 (33%).

20

Westchester

30

30

Bergen

40

Island and Surrounding Regions, In anLong average month, how difficult is it 2007 for you and

40% your family living with you to pay the rent or mortgage?

Fairfield

increases, home sale prices have leveled off since 2005, and even decreased in the #4 first half of 2008, Graphs what people are saying client excel chart by 6.3%. The median sales price of a home in the first half of 2008 was $417,000, down from 60 Somewhat Difficult $445,000 in 2007 but still almost as high as in 50 Very Difficult 2005 ($430,000).

Share of All Housing That Are Renter-Occupied What People in theUnits Region Are Saying on

Monmouth

rentals

Suffolk

sales prices

Nassau

Home

ient excel chart #11 Following several consecutive years of double-digit

0

0%

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Excellent

400% 20

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Long Island Real Estate Report; data compiled by RPA.

2000 2001

$1,000 to $1,499

2002

$500 to $999

20

NY Region excl. NYC

Gross Monthly Rents on Long Island, 2000-2007

$1,500 or more

30

Westchester

Source: 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Share of All Housing Units That Are Renter-Occupied on nities client excel chart #12 Long Island and Surrounding Regions, 2007 40%

Bergen

$625,999 and More

Fairfield

$500,000 to $624,999

Monmouth

$250,000 to $374,999

Suffolk

olk Monmouth Fairfield

$125,000 to $249,999

Nassau

0

Less than Bergen Westchester $125,000NY Region $375,000 to excludes $499,999 New York City

2003 2004

Less than $500

2005

10

2006 90

100

NY Region excl. NYC

80

Westchester

70

Bergen

50

Monmouth

40

Suffolk

30

Nassau

20

Fairfield

2007

060

2001 2002 2003 2004

Rents Rental units, whether single-family homes rented Gross Monthly Rents on Long Island, 2000-2007 by the owner or apartments in multi-family build­ ings, constitute less than 1 in 5 homes on Long Island. The share of units that are rented in the New York region excluding New York City is almost twice Long Island’s share.

2005 2006 2007 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than $500

$500 to $999

$1,000 to $1,499

$1,500 or More

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Source: 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

2000

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than $500

$500 to $999

$1,000 to $1,499

$1,500 or More

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

page 53

After many years of steadily rising prices, rents on Long Island leveled off in 2007—most likely the sign of the overall cooling off of the real estate market, not a reduction in long-term demand for rental housing. Rents are still expensive, however, with nearly 4 in 10 rentals costing more than $1,500 a month (only 12% of rentals were in that price range in 2000).

Change in Median Household Incomes

Page 54  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

United States

Westchester

Bergen

Fairfield

Monmouth

Long Island

Bergen Westchester United States

Suffolk

Nassau

andMonmouth Fairfield

Change in Median Value of OwnerOccupied Units

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

ommunities client excel chart #13

Change in Median Household Incomes and Median Value of COMMUNITIES CH 13_15 Owner-Occupied Units, Metropolitan New York Area, 2000-2007 150% Ratio of Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units to Median Household Incomes

ChangeValue in Median of Value of client excel chartChange #14 in Median Household Incomes and Median Owner-Occupied Units

Owner-Occupied Units, Metropolitan New York Area, 2000-2007

2

Change in Median Household Incomes

United States

Westchester

Bergen

Long Island

Westchester

Fairfield

Bergen

Monmouth

Fairfield

Suffolk

Nassau

0

1 0

Nassau Change Suffolk Monmouth Fairfield in Median 2006

Change in Median Value of OwnerOccupied Units

Ratio of Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units to Median Household Incomes

8

Ratio of Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units to Median '2006Household Incomes

7

client excel chart #15

6

'2007 Home values compared to household incomes From 2000 to 2007, household incomes on Long 6 5 Island increased by 26% while home values shot 4 up 124%. This trend isNY apparent throughout region excl NYC 3 the larger New York region though it is most 2 Northern New Jersey 1Monmouth pronounced in Nassau and particularly Suffolk Fairfield Bergen Westchester SW Connecticut 0 Counties. Nassau Suffolk Monmouth Fairfield Bergen Westchester

Hudson Valley

Stabilized home values,Long along with rising 2007 house­ Island have slightly improved the ratio New York City of home value to income from 2006 to 2007 on Source: 2006-2007 American Community Survey;have data compiled by RPA. Long Island, as they in the New York region (excluding New York City). Yet this ratio is still than ommunities client excelmore chart #15twice the conventional rule of thumb, which is that a household’s house value should be Share of All Building Permits Issued for Multi-Family Housing, 2.5 times its income. Long Island and Surrounding Region, 2000-2007 2006

A04

A05

Percent

C

y

A00

A01

A02

100% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 A03 20 10 0

A06 hold A06 incomes,

What’s getting built? region excl NYC The number of building permitsNYissued on Long Northern New Jersey Island in 2007 was lower than at any other point SW Connecticut in the last three decades. Much of Long Island Hudson Valley was built up following World War II and both the Long Island A04shrinking A05 A06 A06 availability of land for new residential New York City subdivisions and the weakening housing market appear to’05the decline. ’00 ’01to have ’02 contributed ’03 ’04 ’06 ’07 Long Island been significantly New York City has also Long Islandproducing Hudson Valley SW Connecticut Northern units as NYitregion lower shares of multi-family continued New Jersey excl. NYC on its downward trajectory of building multi-family housing. Every other part of the tri-state region Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Percent

7

Share of All Building Permits Issued for Multi-Family Housing, Long Island and Surrounding Region, 2000-2007

has 5 seen strong increases in the number of multi4 family 100% units built since 2000, but on Long Island 3 90 share of multi-family units built decreased the 280 more than four-fold, from 28% to only 6% in 170 2007. This 6% share contrasts with the 48% share 060 Nassau Suffolk Monmouth Fairfield Bergen Westchester in50the New York region, excluding New York City. 40

2006

2007

30 Many of the problems associated with housing on 20 Long 10 Island—including its high cost and lack of 0 rental units—can be traced to low rates of housing Source: 2006-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA. ’00 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 production, and’01particularly low rates of multifamily units Newproduction. York City Long Island Hudson Valley

SW Connecticut Northern NY region NYC Share of All Building Permits New IssuedJersey for Multi-Familyexcl. Housing, Long Island and Surrounding Region, 2000-2007

Percent

8

A03

Value of Owner2007 Occupied Units

Source: 2006-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

ommunities client excel chart #14

Suffolk

Bergen Westchester Change in Median

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2001-2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

Nassau

Household Incomes

United States

Bergen Westchester United States

Westchester

0

3

25

Suffolk Long IslandMonmouth Fairfield

Monmouth

25 Bergen

4

50

Fairfield

5

50

Nassau

75

6

'2007

75

100

7

Monmouth

100

8

Long Island

Change in Median Household Incomes

'2006

125

Nassau

lue of s

125

Suffolk

150%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; 100% 90 data compiled by RPA. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 New York City

Long Island

Hudson Valley

SW Connecticut

Northern New Jersey

NY region excl. NYC

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population, 2007 American Community Survey; data compiled by RPA.

COMMUNIT

6

rt #3 Residential Buildings near Rail Stations 400,000

Single-family

Number of Buildings

Multi-family

350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0

one mile+

Within Half Mile

One Mile or More

Within Half Mile

Nassau

Half to One Mile

One Mile or More

Suffolk

Single-Family

Multi-Family

Source: Nassau County, Suffolk County; data compiled by RPA.

County (Train Line)

Indicator:

Area (Square Miles)

Population Density (Population/

Number of Commuter

% of Population within .5 Mile

areMile) we doing HowSquare Rail ? Stations of Station Connecticut (Metro-North) Only 11% of Long Island residential buildings are Housing near RailFairfield, Stations 27 626 1,410 within a half-mile Connecticut located of a8%Long Island Rail 8 2% New Haven, Connecticut 1,361 Few Long Islanders live within walking dis­ 606 Road (LIRR) station, a distance frequently used tance of rail stations.Hudson Valley, NY (Metro-North) by planners as a distance that people are generally 11 3% 802 350 Dutchess, New York willing to walk to transit. Two-thirds of residential 418 7 1% 816 Why is this important?Orange, New York buildings are more 2%from a rail station, 231 414 6than a mile Putnam, New York Housing in close proximity to transit can offer a 5 Rockland, New York 174 1,646 meaning that for many, train6% stations are more number of environmental benefits, mainly tied 22% 2,134 43 Westchester, New York 433 than a short car ride away. Multi-family buildings to the reduced dependence of residents on auto­ Long Island (LIRR) are more likely to be located near rail stations— mobiles, which impactsNassau, air New quality 4,655 65 19% York and climate 287 27%1,556 are within a 37 half-mile, but 47% are located Suffolk, New York 912 6% change. Communities near transit—particularly more than a mile from transit. Since multi-family rail stations—are often more compact and walk­ Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population; data compiled by RPA. buildings have more housing units than singleable, offering greater options in housing, retail family buildings, the number of units near transit and employment. In addition, the train system is higher than 11%. However, since 82% of Long can offer access to regional employment centers, Islanders live in single family homes, the percent­ like Manhattan, and other destinations such as age living near transit is still relatively small. regional retail and entertainment centers.

7

Home Mortgage Loans on Long Island, 2004-2007

8

0

Half to One Mile

Prime loans

2004

High cost loans

2005 2006 2007

50000

0

10,000 Prime Loans

20,000

page 55

30,000

40,000

50,000

High-Cost Loans

0 Within Half Mile

Half to One Mile

One Mile or More

Within Half Mile

Nassau

Half to One Mile

One Mile or More

Suffolk

Page 56  |  2009 Long Island Index  | Single-Family Our Communities

Multi-Family

Source: Nassau County, Suffolk County; data compiled by RPA.

Area (Square Miles)

Population Density (Population/ Square Mile)

Number of Commuter Rail Stations

Fairfield, Connecticut

626

1,410

27

8%

New Haven, Connecticut

606

1,361

8

2%

Dutchess, New York

802

350

11

3%

Orange, New York

816

418

7

1%

Putnam, New York

231

414

6

2%

Rockland, New York

174

1,646

5

6%

Westchester, New York

433

2,134

43

22%

Nassau, New York

287

4,655

65

19%

Suffolk, New York

912

1,556

37

6%

County (Train Line)

% of Population within .5 Mile of Station

Connecticut (Metro-North)

Hudson Valley, NY (Metro-North)

Long Island (LIRR)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population; data compiled by RPA.

Prime loans

High cost loans

In Nassau County, 48% of the buildings are within Westchester and Nassau Counties have by far the a mile from a rail station; in Suffolk County, it is highest percentages of population living within Home Mortgage Loansof onthese Long Island, 2004-2007 22%. The differing development pattern a half-mile of a rail station. They also have the two counties explains these disparities. More of highest number of rail stations and the greatest Nassau County was developed earlier and around population densities. However, Westchester 2004 the rail stations of the LIRR. Much of Suffolk County—where 22% of its residents lived within County developed later, when the automobile was a half-mile—has a higher share than Nassau’s 2005 the major means of transportation. 19% even though it has fewer stations and a lower population density. Much of Westchester’s popu­ Using 2000 Census 2006 population data, we can also lation is clustered in cities around the rail station compare Nassau and Suffolk to counties served while much of the northern county remains by Metro-North. 2007Although this data is not com­ sparsely populated. Suffolk has almost as many pletely comparable to the 2007 data for residential rail stations as Westchester, but is over twice the 0 10,000 findings. 20,000 40,000 50,000 buildings, it shows some interesting These 30,000 land area and has only 6% of its population near shares are determined by a number of factors—the transit. The Metro-North Prime Loans High-Cost Loans counties most compa­ amount of rail service, the county’s overall density rable in terms of people living near transit are and concentrations near the stations. In other Rockland County (6%) and Connecticut’s Fair­ words, counties with higher population densities field County (8%), even though both of these and larger numbers Source: of railHome stations (Nassau and Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by have fewer train stations and lower densities than Westchester) also have theMapping highest percentage of for Urban Research. CUNY Service at the Center Suffolk County. population within a half-mile of stations, while those counties with low population density and scarce rail stations (Orange, Putnam, Dutchess and New Haven) have very low percentages.

Rockland, New York

174

1,646

5

6%

Westchester, New York

433

2,134

43

22%

Nassau, New York

287

4,655

65

19%

Suffolk, New York

912

1,556

37

6%

Long Island (LIRR)

Source: 2000 U.S. Census of Population; data compiled by RPA.

Home Mortgage Loans on Long Island, 2004-2007

8

00

Prime loans

2004

High cost loans

2005 2006 2007 0

50000

10,000

20,000

Prime Loans

30,000

40,000

50,000

High-Cost Loans

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research.

Indicator:

Home Mortgage Trends High-cost loans account for 24% of all mort­ gages on Long Island between 2004 and 2007. Why is this important? Despite high home prices, high housing costs and anemic new construction on Long Island, homes continued to sell at record levels through 2006 and did not drop off until mid-2007. In part the expansion of the real estate market was due to a national trend to make credit more easily avail­ able. In some cases mortgages were made possible to prospective home buyers who did not meet the traditional credit thresholds by offering higher than usual interest rates, referred to as “subprime loans.” Learning who received these loans and how many were made are critical facts to under­ standing which communities are most at risk of losing their homes through foreclosure.

page 57

How are we doing? High-cost loans are defined as those which exceed the federal Treasury rate by three percentage points or more for a Treasury security of comparable maturity. Subprime loans are those loans where the recipient is considered a higher risk of poten­ tial default due to a lower credit score. While not all high-cost loans are subprime, the relationship is consistent enough that many housing research­ ers now use high-cost as a proxy for subprime. Based on data collected under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), high-cost loans on Long Island rose from 12% of all mort­ gages in 2004 (the first year for which data is available) to 35% of all mortgages just two years later. In fact, during the four year period from 2004 to 2007, high-cost loans accounted for 24% of all mortgages on Long Island.

'05

'06

20 10 0

'07

’05

’06 Black

’07 Latino

Unknown/Other

Page 58  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

White

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research.

COMMUNITIES CH 19_21

Percent of Prime Loans by Race/Ethnicity s client excel chart #20 100% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 '06

r

o

Amer.

'05

Percent of High Cost Loans by Race/Ethnicity

White Unknown/Other Hispanic/Latino Black/African Amer. Asian

’04

'07

’05

Asian

’06

’07

Black

Unknown/Other

100% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

’04

Latino

Asian

White

Unknown/Other

’05

’06 Black

’07 Latino White

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research.

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research.

Percent of High Cost Loans by Race/Ethnicity

The subprime market did help to diversify Long

s client excel chart 100% #21 Island’s housing market with an influx of non90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0 r

o5

Amer. 0

5

0

’04 Asian

’03

’04

Island White home buyers. FromLong 2004 to 2006 there was a steady and substantial increase the number New York in State of Black and Latino homebuyers coupled with a United States decrease in White homebuyers. However, the loans that the majority of Blacks and Latinos were obtaining fell into the high-cost category. The percentages across race/ethnicity categories of ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 prime loans’07 were relatively consistent throughout ’05 Asian ’06 Black Latino this period. But the proportion of high-cost loans Unknown/Other purchased by Whites was relatively small to White begin Note: Results maythan not add40% to 100% to rounding. with (less indue 2004) and fell to less than Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by 30% in 2006. The percent of high-cost loans to CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research. Blacks, Latinos, and Asians grew from 50% to almost 60% in the same time.

Percent of All Individuals Below Poverty Line, 2003-2007* 20% 15 10 5 0

’03 Long Island

’04

’05 United States

’06

’07 New York State

of All Individuals Below 2003-2007* As the Percent economy weakens and thePoverty terms Line, of many of the high-cost loans are resetting, recent evi­ 20% dence from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the U.S. Department of Housing and 15 Urban Development indicate that Long Island’s communities of color are at greatest risk of fore­ 10 closures. In an August 2008 study based on the 5 Federal data, by Empire Justice Center on the impact of foreclosures on the Black community 0 in particular, they’04found that in Nassau County, ’03 ’05 ’06 ’07 Black homeowners are four times more likely to United New York live in theLong most impacted ZIP codes than White States State Island homeowners. In Suffolk County, Black homeown­ *Poverty rates differ from reports from prior years based on new data source. ers are three timesrepresent moretwo-year likelyaveraging to liveofin the most Data reported ACS annual data. Source: Community Survey, Hofstra University. impacted ZIP2002-2007 codes American than White homeowners. Similar statistics for Latino homeowners were not available.

For more information on home mortgage trends, see Communities Indicators, at www.longislandindex.org.

0

'07

’04

’05

’06

Asian

’07

Black

Latino

Unknown/Other

White

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data 2004-2007; compiled by CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research.

Percent of All Individuals Below Poverty Line, 2003-2007* 20%

Long Island New York State

15

United States 10 5 0

’07

’03 Long Island

’04

’05

’06

United States

’07 New York State

*Poverty rates differ from reports from prior years based on new data source. Data reported represent two-year averaging of ACS annual data. Source: 2002-2007 American Community Survey, Hofstra University.

Goal #6—Safety Net We

assure that people are provided with basic

necessities such as food and shelter.

INDICATOR:

Poverty

How are we doing? Long Island has lower rates of poverty than exist in New York State and nationally. In 2007, the poverty rate for individuals on Long Island was 5.3%. This compares with a NYS rate of 14% and a national rate of 13.2%. The poverty rate for chil­ dren under 18 was somewhat higher. In 2007, 6.3% of Long Island children were in poverty.

Poverty rates increase. Why is this important? For both individuals and for families, the experi­ ence of economic hardship places greater strains on the quality of life in many aspects. The ability to obtain adequate shelter, nutrition, clothing and education are directly tied to one’s economic situation.

page 59

The trend between 2003 and 2007 is toward increasing poverty. There was a 22% increase in poverty through that period.

Average Monthly Participation in Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program, Long Island, 2002-2008 Children

40,000 35,000

Infants

30,000

Women

25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

'08

’02

’03

’04

Women

’05

’06

’07

Infants

’08 Children

Source: NYS Department of Health, Hofstra University.

Percent Change in Ridership, 2006-2007 8% 7 6 unger 5 Reliance on Food Stamps 4 and other food 3 supplement programs continue to increase. 2 Why is this important? 1 0 population of people The existence of a growing -1

INDICATOR: Percent

H

Westchester County Bee Line

Suffolk County Transit*

New Jersey Transit, Bus

Suffolk County Transit*

New Jersey Transit, Bus

Long Island Bus

Long Island Bus

Westchester County Bee Line

New Jersey Transit, Commuter Railroad

New Jersey Transit, Commuter Railroad

Percent

Metro-North Railroad

New nty ine Transit* Jersey Transit, Bus

The number of WIC recipients increased 37% between 2002 and 2007. There were 7% more WIC recipients in 2007 than in 2006. The per­ centage of children under 5 years of age receiving WIC increased 41% between 2002 and 2008. Over 13% of Long Island’s children under the age of 5 are enrolled in the WIC program.

without reliable access to adequate nutritious food is a major national concern. The Food Stamp Program is a nationally funded program that gives low-income families secure access to nutritious foods. Most food stamp recipients are children and the elderly. The Special Supplemental Nutrition *Suffolk County (WIC) data includes Huntington Area Rapid Transit. Program for Women, Infants and Children Source: MTA, NJ Transit, Suffolk County and Westchester County Bee Line; serves low-income (185% of the official poverty data compiled by RPA. level) pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to age 5 in who Percent Change Ridership, 2000-2007 are at nutrition risk.

Metro-North Railroad

New Jersey Transit, Bus

How are we doing? On Long Island, there was a 33% increase in the number of households receiving food stamps between 2002 and 2007 but the figures were generally stable between 2006 and 2007.

Long Island Railroad

folk unty nsit*

COMMUNITIES

Long Island Railroad

07

Page 60  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

40% 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

’04New

’05

’06

’07

’08

Jersey Transit, Infants Bus

Children

Source: NYS Department of Health, Hofstra University.

New Jersey Transit, Bus

’02 ’03 Long Westchester Suffolk Island County County Bus Bee Transit* Women Line

Suffolk County Transit*

0 Long Metro-North New Island Railroad Jersey Rail Road Transit, Commuter Railroad

Westchester County Bee Line

5,000

Long Island Bus

10,000

New Jersey Transit, Commuter Railroad

15,000

Metro-North Railroad

4 3 2 1 0 -1

20,000

Long Island Railroad

4 3 2 1 0 -1

*Suffolk County data includes Huntington Area Rapid Transit. Source: MTA, NJ Transit, Suffolk County and Westchester County Bee Line; data compiled by RPA.

Communities client excel chart #24 Percent Change in Ridership, 2006-2007

5

New Jersey Transit, Bus

Suffolk County Transit*

Westchester County Bee Line

Long Island Bus

New Jersey Transit, Commuter Railroad

Long IslandMetro-North Rail New Road JerseyRailroad Transit, Commuter LongWestchester Island Railroad Bus County SuffolkBee County Line NewTransit* Jersey Transit, Bus

Metro-North Railroad

0

Long Island Railroad

0

10

Long Island Railroad

5

15

New Jersey Transit, Bus

10

20

Suffolk County Transit*

15

25

Westchester County Bee Line

20

35 30

Long Island Bus

25

40%

Percent

New Jersey Transit, Commuter Railroad

30

8% 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

Metro-North Railroad

Percent40 35

Percent Change in Ridership, 2000-2007

*Suffolk County data includes Huntington Area Rapid Transit.

*Suffolk County data includes Huntington Area Rapid Transit.

Source: MTA, NJ Transit, Suffolk County and Westchester County Bee Line; data compiled by RPA.

Source: MTA, NJ Transit, Suffolk County and Westchester County Bee Line; data compiled by RPA.

Percent Change in Ridership, 2000-2007 40% 35 30 25

G20oal #7—Transportation 15 10

New Jersey Transit, Bus

Suffolk County Transit*

Westchester County Bee Line

Long Island Bus

New Jersey Transit, Commuter Railroad

Metro-North Railroad

We increase mobility by investing in an inte­ 5 0grated, regional transportation system and Long Island Railroad

Percent

by encouraging creative problem solving to find transportation alternatives.

Indicator:

*Suffolk County data includes Huntington Area Rapid Transit. Transit Ridership Source: MTA, NJ Transit, Suffolk County and Westchester County Bee Line;

dataLong compiled Island by RPA. The Rail Road saw an increase in ridership in 2007 but growth still lags other rail systems in the larger New York region.

Why is this important? Increased transit ridership helps reduce traffic congestion by taking motor vehicles off the road. An efficient transit system can provide quicker access to jobs, reduce air pollution and help to improve the overall livability of our communities. How are we doing? In 2007, the Long Island Rail Road experienced one of its largest gains in ridership in recent years, growing 5% over 2006. There are likely multiple reasons for increased ridership, including a growing economy in 2007, increasing gas prices, service

page 61

improvements and growing highway congestion that gives people a greater incentive to use transit. Bus ridership, by contrast, leveled off after several years of strong growth in both Nassau and Suffolk. Since 2000, the Long Island Rail Road has grown more slowly than other commuter rail systems in the New York region. Its 2% growth from 2000– 2007 compares to 12% for Metro-North and 20% for New Jersey Transit. Some of this is the result of faster population growth in their service areas. However, both Metro-North and New Jersey Transit have added services including MetroNorth’s third track and New Jersey’s increased commuter trains, while the LIRR has not. The Long Island Bus, which has experienced an 8% gain in ridership since 2000, has grown signifi­ cantly more than the LIRR. Suffolk County Transit has grown by 35% over the same time period, a much more robust growth than other commuter bus systems in the region. This is due in part to population growth in Suffolk and in part to ser­ vices that were added earlier in the decade. Many of these bus services provide a connection from local neighborhoods to LIRR stations and/or pro­ vide limited north/south intra-island mobility for Long Islanders.

New York City

client excel chart #26

10 8 6 4 2 0

Suffolk

Rest of New York State

Source: New York State Department of Transportation and New York State Department of Motor Vehicles; data compiled by RPA.

Indicator:

V

M

T

ehicle Percent Change iniles Vehicle raveled Registrations, 1997-2006 12% 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2

Percent Change in Vehicle Registrations, 1997-2006 12%

VMT per Vehicle

Suffolk

Rest of New York State

COMMUNITIES CH 25_26

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by an Automobile Registered in Change Nassau, Suffolk, New York City and the Rest of New York State 45% 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 York City New York City New NYS Rest of Nassau NYS

Suffolk

Source: New York State Department of Transportation and New York State Department of Motor Vehicles; data compiled by RPA.

Page 62  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Communities

ehicle

Nassau

Long Islanders are driving more, and currently drive 35–40 miles per day for each vehicle they own. Why is this important? The number of miles traveled by cars, trucks and other motor vehicles is a major factor in determin­ ing the amount of congestion on our roads and highways. The more we drive, the more crowded Nassau Suffolkbecome, New leading York New York workRest of our roadways to lost time City State New York and productivity and higher air pollution. State How are we doing? The average person in Nassau travels 35 miles per dayNew forYork each heof or sheVehicles. owns, compared to Source: Statevehicle Department Motor 40 miles per day in Suffolk. Nassau is on par with New York City; Suffolk is only slightly higher than the average for the rest of New York State. Presumably, the higher number for Suffolk County is because there are longer distances between downtowns, job centers and other destinations than in Nassau, and because transit is less available.

-2 Nassau

Suffolk

New York City

New York State

Rest of New York State

Source: New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.

From 1997 to 2006 the number of vehicles grew by 12% in Suffolk but only 2% in Nassau. From this data we can infer that the number of miles traveled increased substantially in Suffolk but only modestly in Nassau. This does not necessarily mean that congestion has grown more in Suffolk than in Nassau. Nassau is already densely settled, and a small increase in auto use can result in a disproportionate increase in congestion. On the whole, the data indicate that an increasing num­ ber of cars on the road have added to highway congestion over the last decade. With limited road capacity and high levels of existing congestion, any future increases could have a disproportionate affect on time spent in traffic. By comparison, the number of vehicles declined in New York City and grew by 7% in the rest of New York State during the same period. A large increase in sub­ way and bus ridership in New York City may help explain the decline in auto ownership during this period.

Health Goal #8—Healthy People All

people have access to quality affordable health care that focuses on disease and illness

prevention.

INDICATOR:

Paying

for

Hospital Care

Health care coverage is unavailable for almost 15% of Long Islanders. Why is this important? Health care costs are a major factor in almost every household budget. Costs associated with a single hospital stay may quickly wipe out savings and move people into debt. Thus, having some reliable and comfortable way of covering major medical costs is an important element in preserving our quality of life.

Pay

r

care

caid

mercial/HMO

0

20

40

60

80

100

0%

20%

40%

Commercial/ HMO

60%

80%

Medicaid

*Excluding newborns

Page 64  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Health

Source: North Shore-LIJ Health System Office of Strategic Planning and Program Development; Hofstra University.

Health client excel chart #2

HEALTH CH 1_2 Percent of Adults without Healthcare Insurance: 2004-2006

Method of Payment for Inpatient Hospital Care, Adults and Children, 2004-2006

Children*

Adults

NYS

0%

20%

40%

Long Island Commercial/ HMO

60% Medicaid

80%

100%

Medicare

18% 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

New York State

Long Island

Self-Pay

Other *Excluding newborns

Source: North Shore-LIJ Health System Office of Strategic Planning and Program Development; Hofstra University.

Percent of Adults without Healthcare Insurance:

How are we doing? 2004-2006 For the period between 2004 and 2006, about 18% 16 14% of adults on Long Island did not have any 14 health care coverage at all compared to 16% for 12 New York State as a whole. During that same 10 8 period, about 4% of adult residents of Long Island 6 report that they did not receive health care treat­ 4 ment because they could not afford it (compared 2 0 to 7.5% for the state as a whole). New York

Long Island

Medicare Self-Pay

Other

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

100%

WhenState looking at hospitalizations, the combina­ tion of Medicare (46%) and commercial insurance/ HMO plans (37%) continues to provide health care coverage forof most adults on Long Island. Source: NYS Department Health, 2004-2006; American Community Survey; Hofstra University. With respect to pediatric hospitalizations, 64% were covered by commercial insurance/HMO plans, and 28% were covered by Medicaid.

Source: NYS Department of Health, 2004-2006; American Community Survey; Hofstra University.

Education Goal #9—Educational Readiness All

students are prepared to learn at each stage of the educational pipeline.

Indicator:

Poverty Index While overall poverty levels on Long Island are low, there are areas where at least 50% of the children receive free lunch. Why is this important? Scholarly research shows that poverty is the most significant factor in determining how a child will perform in school. A child’s own family income is central, but it is not the whole story. The socioeconomic status of the community in which a child lives and goes to school is also important. Concentrated poverty—where many families in a certain area are poor—is far more disadvantageous than individual poverty alone. A common measure of school poverty is the percentage of students in a school who are federally defined as eligible for free lunch. Using percent free lunch, schools can be thought of as “high” and “low.” In “highpoverty schools,” many students receive free lunch and thus poverty is highly concentrated. In “low-poverty schools,” few students receive free lunch.

cation client excel chart #1

YS Schools

P

’02 ’01

Students in LI Schools

10 0

70%

'07 |  Education Page 66  |  2009 Long Island Index  Percent Free Lunch

'06 ’05

EDUCATION CH 1_3 ’04 ’03 ’02 ’01

60 50

*Excluding NYC

40

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

30 20 10

ation client excel chart #2 Percent of Students Receiving Free Lunch in NYS* and NYS Schools Students in LI Schools

0

Long Island Schools

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

40 30 20 10 0

’01 ’02#2 ’03 cation client excel chart 03 ’04 ’05 '06 '07 ’04 ’05

’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Students in

Mid-Poverty Schools

Low-Poverty Schools Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

(10%)

Percent of Students

verty Schools (10%)

10%)

dle Poverty Schools

60 50 40 30

How are we doing? In 2007, 13% of students in Long Island schools Asian received free lunch. This rate has stayed constant Hispanic since 2004. The trend for New York State is more Black dramatic with state schools averaging 24% free White lunch in 2007.

20

On Long Island, the concentration of poverty is extreme. In 2007, the 10% of schools classified as 0 0 20 40 60 80 ’01 ’02 100 schools ’03 ’04 56%’05 “high-poverty” had of their’06 students’07 cation client excel chart #3 receiving free lunch, “middle-poverty” schools High-Poverty Mid-Poverty Low-Poverty (80% of(10%) all schools) averaged students Schools Schools about 9% ofSchools (10%) Asian qualifying for free lunch, and the 10% of schools Poverty Schools (10%) Hispanic classified as “low-poverty” had almost no students Source: New York State Education Black Department; Hofstra University. qualify for free lunch (.13%). Since 2001, the pro­ iddle Poverty Schools found separation ofWhite school children by income levels has continued unabated in this period.

verty Schools (10%)

Poverty Schools (10%)

0

10

R ace, ethnicity and education by Level of Poverty Historically, racial and ethnic groupsinin the United 20 40 60 Racial 80 Composition 100 Long particularly Island SchoolsBlacks and Latinos, are over­ States, represented among the poor. The cumulative Low-Poverty impact of economic and racial segregation means Schools that these populations are also over-represented in schools impacted by poverty. This creates a cycle Middle-Poverty Schools in which those who need quality education most to raise their future socioeconomic statuses tend High-Poverty to go to schools that have highly concentrated Schools poverty. On Long Island, Black and Latino 0%

20% White Latino

40%

60%

50 40

80%

100% Black Asian

Students in Long Island Schools

*Excluding NYC Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

30 20 10

70%

’01 ’02 on Long ’03 Island:’04 ’05 School Poverty Percent of Students Receiving Free Lunch High-Poverty Mid-Poverty Schools (10%) Schools

’06

’07

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

60 50 40

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

30 20 10 0

School Poverty on Long Island:

’03 ’04 ’05 '06 #3 '07 ation client excel chart Percent of Students Receiving Free Lunch

70%

Students in NYS Schools

60

0

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Long Island Schools High-Poverty Schools (10%)

*Excluding NYC

(10%)

Percent of Students

Mid-Poverty Schools

50

School Poverty on Long Island: ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 Percent of Students Receiving Free Lunch

70%

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

60

Percent of Students

Percent Free Lunch

70%

’01 ’02 of’03Students ’04 ’05 Receiving ’06 ’07 Free ’01 Lunch ’02 ’03in’04 ’05 and ’06 ’07 Percent NYS* Long Island Schools Students in Students in NYS Schools Long Island Schools

Composition ’01 Racial’02 ’03 by Level ’04of Poverty ’05 in

’06

’07

Long Island Schools students are much more likely to attend a highHigh-Poverty Low-Poverty poverty schoolSchools (defined as 10% ofMid-Poverty schools with (10%) Schools Schools (10%) Low-Poverty the highest proportion of students receiving free Schools lunch) than either White or Asian students. 89% New York State Education Hofstra University. of studentsSource: in high-poverty schoolsDepartment; are either Middle-Poverty Schoolsor Latino. In contrast, in low-poverty Black schools, only 14% of students are either Black High-Poverty or Latino. Schools

Low-Poverty Schools

Composition Level of80% Poverty100% in 0%Racial20% 40% by60% Long Island Schools White Black Latino Asian

Middle-Poverty Schools

Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

High-Poverty Schools 0%

20% White Latino

40%

60%

80%

100% Black Asian

Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

’02

n NYS Schools

Students in LI Schools

5

’01

0

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Students in Long Island Schools

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

EDUCATION CH 4_6

ucation client excel chart #2of Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Percent

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

in NYS and Long Island Schools

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

30%

25

Mid-Poverty Schools

25

20

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

20

15 10

Percent LEP

Percent LEP

30%

5

Students in NYS Schools

0

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 Students in Long Island Schools

ols (10%)

20

Percent LEP

ols

25

'07 Percent of Students with Limited '06 English Proficiency (LEP)

10

’05

One out of four students ’04 in high-poverty schools has limited English proficiency. ’03

Why is this important? ’02 ’01 economic and social Not all children experience 0 Students in LI Schools’02 that ’03 ’01 ’04 to perform ’05 ’06 best’07 conditions allow them their in our public school system. Like poverty, Limited High-Poverty Mid-Poverty Low-Poverty English (LEP) is an indicator Schools of stu­ (10%) SchoolsProficiency (10%) Schools dents at risk of performing poorly in school. It also reflects Long Island’s changing population Source: State Education Department; Hofstra University. and New theYork resulting increase in disparity across schools and districts. 5

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

Fourth Grade Language Arts (ELA): Percent of Students Meeting NYS Standard 100% 80 60 40 20 0

’03

’04

’05

Mid-Poverty Schools

’06

’07

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Fourth Grade Language Arts (ELA): Percent of Students Meeting NYS Standard

Indicator:

15

’02

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

30%

’01

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

ools (10%)

n NYS Schools

’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 '06’01 ’02 '07

’05

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Students in Long Island Schools

page 67

How are we doing? 100% Overall, Long Island as well as New York State schools 80 are experiencing steady growth in the number of LEP students. The year 2007 represents 60 the seven-year high of the students having limited 40 proficiency. On Long Island, however, the English number of LEP students has remained constant 20 in the low-poverty and middle-poverty schools. 0 high-poverty schools that are bearing It is the ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 the overwhelming responsibility. In 2001, one in seven students wasStudents LEP ininthese schools; in Students 2007, in NYS Schools Long Island Schools the numbers increased to one in four. As a result of the concentration of students requiring addi­ tional resources in York a small numberDepartment; of school dis­University. Source: New State Education Hofstra tricts, the challenge for these districts is high, both financially and educationally. Percent Meeting NYS Standard

’04

10 5

0 ’03

15

’07

5 0

’01

’02

’03

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

’04

’05

Mid-Poverty Schools

’06

’07

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Page 68  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Education

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

EDUCATION CH 7_9

tion client excel chart Fourth#7 Grade Language Arts (ELA):

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students Meeting Fourth Grade ELA

’04

100%

’05

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

80

Mid-Poverty Schools

60

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

40 20 0

’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 '06’01 ’02 '07

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

Percent of Students Meeting NYS Standard 100% 80 60 40 20 0

Students in Long Island Schools

'06

Overall Long Island’05 schools’ outperform New York State. But the ’04 gap between low-poverty and high-poverty schools remains consistent. ’03 Why is this important’02 ? ’01 According to the NYS Education Department, Students in LI Schools the Grade 4 English Language Arts (ELA) exam and the Grade 8 Mathematics exam reflect bench­ marks that identify those students who are on target to pass, and those who may have difficulty passing, the English and Mathematics Regents Exams when they reach high school. These are part of the requirements for graduating with NYS’ Regents Diploma.

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

'07

Performance Tests

Mid-Poverty Schools

’06

’07

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

80 60 40 20 0

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Students in Long Island Schools

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

Mid-Poverty Schools Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students Meeting NYS Eighth Grade Mathematics

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

'07

’05

100%

tion client excel chart #9

'06

’04

Eighth Grade Mathematics: Percent of Students Meeting NYS Standard

Indicator:

’05

’03

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

tion client excel chart #8

’04

’02

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

S Schools

’01

100% 80 60 40 20 0

’01

’02

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

’03

’04 Mid-Poverty Schools

’05

’06

’07

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

0 Students in LI Schools ’01

’02

Percent

Percent

in NYS Schools

’02

20

’01 ’03

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

’04

’05

Mid-Poverty Schools

’06

20 0

’07

ls (10%)

60

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

40 20 ’01 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 '06 ’02 ’03'07

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Students in Long Island Schools

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

Percent Meeting NYS Standard

ls

Mid-Poverty Schools

100% 80 60 40 20 0

’01

’02

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

’03

’04

’05

Mid-Poverty Schools

School Poverty on Long Island: 100% 80 60 40 20 0

4th Grade English Language Arts In 2007, 81% of Long Island students met the ELA Grade 4 standard. State-wide 68% of stu­ dents met the standard. Both represent a small improvement from the previous year. The gap between low-poverty schools and high-poverty schools remains wide: 88% meeting the standard ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 compared to 63% for each, respectively. Low-Poverty

Mid-Poverty

th Grade 8Schools (10%)Mathematics Schools

’06

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

Both NYS and Long Island schools improved in Grade 8 Math performance, correcting a slight Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University. decrease over the previous three years. In 2007, 75% of students in Long Island schools met the

page 69

Math 8 standard, while state-wide 52% of students met standard. Both the high-poverty and lowpoverty schools improved by 10 percentage points. The gap between the high- and low-poverty schools becomes significantly wider by the middle school years and there has been no change in the size of the gap over the past seven years. While in 4th Grade, 63% of the students in poor schools were meeting the English Language Arts standard, by middle school only 44% meet the standard for the 8th Grade Mathematics requirement. There is no comparable drop-off in the low-poverty schools where 88% meet the English standard in elementary school and 81% meet the 8th Grade Math standard.

’07

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

Percent of Students Meeting NYS Eighth Grade Mathematics H ow are we doing? Percent Meeting NYS Standard

ols (10%)

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

80

0 ’05

Students in Long Island Schools

School Poverty on Long Island: Percent of Students Meeting NYS Eighth Grade Mathematics

Percent of Students Meeting NYS Standard

’04

Students in NYS Schools

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

ducation client excel Eighth chartGrade #9 Mathematics:

’03

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

100%

’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

P

10 0

udents in NYS Schools Students in LI Schools

’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Students in NYS Schools

Students in Long Island Schools

Page 70  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Education

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

EDUCATION CH 10_11

ation client excel chartCollege #11 Readiness and Curriculum Mastery in

School Poverty on Long Island: College Readiness and Curriculum Mastery

NYS and Long Island Schools

High-Poverty Schools (10%)

50%

40

Mid-Poverty Schools

40

30

Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

20 10 0

’05

'06

30 20 10 0

’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

’03

Students in Long Island Schools

’04 Low-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

’05

’06

Mid-Poverty Schools

50%

College Readiness 40

College readiness has been essentially flat 2004, but declined slightly between 20 2006 and 2007. There is a sizable gap in the performance between high- and low-poverty 10 schools. 30 since

0

’07 High-Poverty Schools (10%)

Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University.

School Poverty on Long Island: College Readiness and Curriculum Mastery Indicator:

Percent of Students

hools (10%)

’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 '07 Students in NYS Schools

hools (10%)

hools

Percent of Students

Percent of Students

50%

How are we doing? Overall, Long Island high schools outperform New York State high schools. On average Long Island high schools report that 37% of their stu­ dents who took Regents Examinations in 2007 scored at least 85% on more than one exam. This is down two points from 2006. State-wide, there was a similar decline to 26% in 2007.

Why is’03 this important ? ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 As we Low-Poverty continue into the 21st century, higher High-Poverty edu­ Mid-Poverty cation Schools plays an increasingSchools role in determining (10%) Schools (10%) people’s life chances. Success at the college level is a key individual stepping stone to full partic­ Source: New York State Education Department; Hofstra University. ipation in society and economic security. At the same time, having a well-educated workforce is an important component in maintaining the region’s position in an increasingly complex and compet­ itive world system. The extent to which our pri­ mary and secondary schools are preparing their students for college-level work is a key element.

As with other educational indicators, the schoollevel measure of college preparedness is strongly correlated with poverty. Low-poverty schools report very strong scores on our measure of col­ lege readiness (47% in 2007), but high-poverty schools report much lower scores (15% in 2007). High schools with a large percentage of economi­ cally poor students face a much greater challenge in academically preparing their students for college.

Indicator:

Availability

of

Child Care

Only 46% of Long Island’s children under the age of 6 are in a formal, regulated child care program. Why is this important? Child care enables parents to be employed and productive, thus reducing welfare and improving the economy. It prepares children for school, and when provided in a high quality program it can reduce grade repetition, drop-out rates and juve­ nile delinquency. Early education for children in poverty and those with developmental delays and non-English speaking parents can lower future costs that the public schools would otherwise assume.

Over the past decade new brain research has demonstrated return on investment from high quality preschools. Studies have demonstrated that children in higher quality programs perform better cognitively and socially while in child care, during transition to school and through second grade, and that at-risk children are affected more by the quality of the child care experience than onal Graphs what people are saying client excel chart #7 (GOAL #9) children from middle and upper-income families. Hence, the availability of sufficient, high quality programs is critical as a component of Long Island’s economy, educational system and as a way to meet the needs of working parents. How are we doing? Demand for Child Care: There are 133,185 children under the age of 6 on Long Island where there is no one in the household over the age of 16 as an available These children Environment client excelcaregiver. chart #7 (GOAL #9) require child care in order for their parents to work. Supply of Child Care: There are an estimated 61,841 children who could be served in the formal, Unregulated child care programs regulated market of child care programs on Long Island. This means that only 46% of children Regulated child care programs under the age of 6 can be served by programs that offer some oversight of health and safety standards and the provision of several quality standards. Thus, the majority of Long Island’s preschoolers, 54%, are in the unregulated market of child care (e.g., friends, family and neighbors), and there is no data about whether these environments are safe, nurturing or educational.

page 71

Of the children in child care programs, 59% spend their day in child care programs, including Head Start. Care in the home of a regulated provider with either 6 children or 12 (family child care or group family child care) accounts for 21% of the children. The part-day programs offered by pre­ schools, nursery schools and pre-kindergarten programs can serve 18% of the children needing care, with the obvious need for other care for the rest of the day. A little more than one percent of children are with family members or neighbors who register with the county and can receive gov­ ernment reimbursement for taking care of eligible children. While many more grandparents and neighbors provide such care, many parents are ineligible for government subsidies or the provider does not want to report the income and isn’t iden­ tified to the county agencies. This group of family members and neighbors constitutes much of the informal market of care. ADDITIONAL 7 For parents who work full-time, it is difficult to use the 21% of regulated care that is available for less than three hours per day (e.g., nursery schools and pre-K programs) and if they do use it, they must rely on other child care options for the bal­ ance of the day. The Child Care Councils also report that parents will have a hard time finding infant care on Long Island as well as care during evenings, weekends or on a rotating basis. For more information on availability of child care including definitions of each type of child care program, see Education Indicators, at www.longislandindex.org. Availability of Child Care

Unregulated Child Care Programs 54%

Regulated Child Care Programs 46%

Page 72  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Education

Indicator:

Child Care Affordability 76% of families on Long Island pay more than 10% of their household income for licensed child care programs.

Why is this important? The affordability of child care will affect a family’s ability to work outside the home and help to determine whether their children are in healthy, high quality environments while parents work. With increasing emphasis on the importance of the early years particularly in relationship to brain development, and the potential impact on a child’s later success in school and life, ensuring cation client word doc highchart quality#child care has become increasingly more important. How are we doing? The affordability of child care depends on several factors including: the number and age of the chil­ dren requiring care, the hours and type of care used, the fees charged, family income, geographic location and whether the family is eligible for any government subsidies. Given the gaps in available programs, many parents piece together several programs to meet all of their needs. An analysis of actual child care rates on Long Island for full-year, full-time care using data from licensed child care programs indicates that the average cost is $13,629—more for younger chil­ dren, less for older ones. For most Long Island families with young chil­ dren, these costs exceed economist’s recommen­ dation to spend no more than 10% of household income on child care. For a family needing to pro­ vide care for two children under school age, the costs could be as high as $27,282 ($14,282 for a baby plus $13,000 for an older child). In fact a review of census data reveals that 76% of Long Island families choosing licensed child care programs are paying more than 10% of their household income on child care.

Given the high cost of licensed programs, per­ sonal preference or convenience, many parents choose to use family, friends, or neighbors to care for their children, all of whom are not licensed, but some are registered so they can receive subsi­ dies for the children in their care. On Long Island the average cost for these “legally exempt provid­ ers” is $8,476 for full-year, full-time care (data for non-registered programs is not available). Given these rates, 52% of Long Island families choosing “legally exempt providers” are paying more than 10% of their household income on childcare. For more information on child care affordability, see Education Indicators, at www.longislandindex.org. Annual Full-Time Rates for a Licensed Child Care Center on Long Island by Child’s Age, 2007 Under 18 months

18-24 months

3-5 years

$14,282

$13,606

$13,000

EDUCATIO

Our Environment Goal #10—Natural Resource Conservation We

promote the conservation and efficient use of the region’s natural resources.

Indicator:

Land Preservation Number of acres preserved improved slightly but the region is still falling behind its goals despite record spending. Why is this important? Land preservation is important on Long Island for reasons both environmental and economic. Preserved lands protect the Island’s drinking water, provide critical habitat for wildlife, ensure the viability of the Island’s farming industry and maintain the strength of its tourism sector.

Page 74  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Environment

ENVIRONMENT C Long Island Land Preservation

Acres Preserved Per Year

00000

00000

00000

00000

0000

9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

$300 250 200 150 100 50 0 ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Dollars Spent Per Year, in Millions

00000

ENVIRONMENT CH 1_2

Acres Preserved/Year

Dollars Spent/Year

Long Island Land Preservation

Acres Preserved Per Year

$300

Dollars Spent Per Year, in Millions

9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 s. Goal

Sources: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Nassau County, Nature Conservancy, Suffolk County Planning Department, Town of Brookhaven, 250 Town of East Hampton, Town of Huntington, Town of Riverhead, Town of Shelter Island, Town of Southampton, Town of Southold.

200 150 100 50

John, 0 in Land How are weDoes doing? One reason for the difficulty achieving the Actual vs. Goal Preservation make you? ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85 ’86this ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90sense ’91 ’92 to ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 Year’00 10 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07

Since 1977, New York State, both counties and Island’s preservation goals has been the tremendous Dollars Year 10 Yearescalation 9 37,000In 2007, preservation 37000 towns across the Island cumulatively in theSpent/Year cost of land. 33,300 33300 expended over $1.3 billion for the preservation of entities paid, on average, approximately $143,000 Year 8 Year 9 Yearthe 8 57,535 of Long 29600 Island’s approximately one million per acre. That represents a29,600 22% increase over Year 7 25,900 25900 Sources: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Nassau County, Conservancy, Department, Town of Brookhaven, acres. With experts forecasting theNature Island’s finalSuffolk County Planning approximately $112,000 per acre spent in 2006 and Year 7 Town of East Hampton, Town of Huntington, Town of Riverhead, Town of Shelter Island, Town of Southampton, Town of Southold. Year 6 22,200 22200 build-out to take place within the next decade, Yeara6 staggering 71% increase over the $41,579 spent 18,500 18500 Year 5 the Department of Environmental Conservation’s per acre in 2000. The recent slow down in the real Year 4 Year 5 14,800 14800 (DEC) 2006 plan calls for the additional preserva­ estate market may represent a reprieve from these 11,100 11100 Year 3 4 tion of 25,000 acres of environmentally open space Yearescalations over the next few years. 7,400 Years 1 and 2 Shortfall 7400 and 12,000 acres of working farmland before that Year 3 3,700 3700 John, Years 1 and 2 Actual goals 0would leave the Island with Land Preservation Actual vs. Goal 0 Does thistime. makeThese sense to you? Year 10 Shortfall Year 1&2 92,147 acres of preserved land, nearly 1/10th of its Ten Year Goal build-out. Year 10 Year 9 37,000 37000 total land mass, at the time of final Year 2 Acres

33300 29600 25900 22200 18500 14800 11100 7400 3700 0

8 a record Though Long Island cumulatively Year spent $285 million on preservation efforts in 2007, the Year 7 1,999 acres preserved was still significantly less 6 than would be needed to reach theYear Island’s preser­ vation goals. The 3,457 acres preserved in 2006 Year 5 and 2007, combined, represents approximately 10% Year 4 of the Island’s total preservation goal. At current Year 3 rates, it would take over 20 years to preserve the 37,000 targeted acres. If final build-out does occur Shortfall Year 1&2 within the next decade, Long Island is on course Ten Year Goal Year 2 to fall far short of its goals. Year 1 Actual

33,300 Year 1 Actual 29,600

Year 9

22,200

Year 7 Year 6

18,500 14,800

Year 5 Year 4 Year 3

11,100 7,400 3,700

Years 1 and 2 Shortfall Years 1 and 2 Actual

0

Ten-Year Goal

Year 9 Year 7 Year 5 Year 3 Years 1 and 2 Actual

Ten-Year Goal

Year 8

25,900 Acres

al

Acres Preserved/Year numerous

Indicator:

Brownfields Redevelopment Known sites of environmental contamination are located in more than 100 Long Island communities. Why is this important? New York State defines a brownfield as properties where the presence or potential presence of a haz­ ardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant may complicate plans for expansion, redevelopment or reuse. These sites include buildings that were former factories, dry cleaners, warehouses, vacant commercial lots, shuttered gas stations and auto shops. In addition to frequently being an eyesore in a community, they may pose environmental threats to surrounding areas and may affect ground water and the air supply. Further, they can be obstacles in the way of downtown and community redevelopment. Revitalizing brownfields is critical both for environmental needs as well as to capture potential tax revenue and to fully utilize a com­ munity’s assets. How are we doing? Long Island is home to an estimated 6,800 poten­ tial brownfield sites. This number is based on known sites of contamination due to historic land uses, and chemical or oil spills. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has identified 1,837 known (as opposed to potential) brownfield and state superfund sites, of which Long Island has 231 sites, representing 11% of the total number of brownfields statewide. The road to cleaning up these sites varies by the type, extent and location of contamination. There are three programs that New York State has cre­ ated to facilitate brownfields redevelopment. In all three cases, Long Island is lagging behind in applying for and receiving state funding for rede­ veloping brownfields.

page 75

The first program, the Brownfield Cleanup Pro­ gram, focuses on helping private property owners. In these situations the state provides guidance throughout the cleanup process, offers generous tax credits to help cover the cleanup and redevel­ opment costs, and issues Certificates of Completion at the end of the cleanup. Of the 15 Long Island sites that have enrolled in the program, none have finished the program. The second, the Brownfield Opportunity Area Program, offers state funding for local governments and community organizations to work together and plan for the redevelopment of these sites. In 2004, the first year of the Brownfield Opportunity Area Program and the only year that data is avail­ able, 6 grants (12%) out of 46 statewide were given to Long Island which represents 8% of the total $7 million allocated. The third, the Environmental Restoration Pro­ gram, funds the remediation of brownfield sites owned by municipalities. As a region, Long Island municipalities have received just over $1.1 million dollars out of the $200 million dollars allocated for the program. In addition to the above programs, there are both federal and state Superfund programs where the goal is to ensure that the worst polluter pays for the cleanup. Nationwide about 70% of the clean­ ups regulated by the federal government are paid by polluters, while on Long Island, the polluters paid for only 50% of the cleanups. Under the state program 66% of the Superfund sites on Long Island are being cleaned by the polluter, which is consis­ tent with the statewide average. To see a map of brownfield sites on Long Island, go to www.longislandindex.org and launch the Interactive Maps.

Page 76  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Environment

Brownfield Sites by Community

Community

Number of Sites*

Known State and Federal Funding for Selected Sites and Communities**

Babylon

4

$137,929.27

Baldwin

3

Bay Shore

5

Bayville

Community

Number of Sites*

Known State and Federal Funding for Selected Sites and Communities**

Massapequa

3

$94,000.00

Medford

1

$4,919,961.21

Melville

2

1

Merrick

3

Bethpage

3

Mineola

4

$8,000,000.00

Blue Point

1

New Cassel

8

$380,000.00

Bohemia

1

$2,000,000.00

New Hyde Park

3

$99,468.90

Brentwood

1

$1,095,835.74

North Bellmore

1

Carle Place

1

North Hempstead

2

Central islip

2

North Hempstead/Westbury

1

Copiague

1

North Merrick

1

Copiague

2

North Park

1

Coram

1

North Sea

1

Noyack/Sag Harbor

1

Oceanside

5

Old Bethpage

6

Oyster Bay

1

Deer Park

$1,000,000.00

6

$15,803.16

East Farmingdale

11

$17,650,333.84

East Massapequa

1

East Northport

2

$600,000.00

East Patchogue

2

$3,274.26

Oyster Bay/Glen Head

1

East Rockaway

1

Patchogue

2

Eastport

2

Plainview

2

Elmont

3

Port Jefferson Station

1

Farmingdale

8

Port Jefferson Station

1

Floral Park

1

Port Washington

6

Franklin Square

3

Riverhead

2

Freeport

3

Rockville Centre

2

Garden City

8

$3,000,000.00

Rocky Point

1

Garden City Park

2

$574,497.62

Ronkonkoma

1

Glen Cove

16

$70,850,000.00

Roosevelt

3

Glen Head

2

Roslyn

1

Glenwood Landing

5

Sag Harbor

4

Great Neck

7

Seaford

1

Greenlawn

1

Shirley

1

Greenport

1

$60,000.00

Shoreham

1

Hauppauge

5

$5,954,567.53

Smithtown

2

Hempstead

7

$249,544.23

Southampton

1

Southampton/Westhampton

1

Southold

1

Speonk

1

Syosset

2

Hewlett

$3,008,474.72 $11,000,000.00

$6,388,796.75

4

$1,000,000.00

Hicksville

14

$20,800.00

Holbrook

2

Huntington

3

$617.21

Huntington Station

2

$225,000.00

Upton

2

Inwood

4

Valley Stream

3

Island Park

2

Wantagh

1

Islip

1

West Babylon

4

Lake Success

2

West Brentwood

1

Levittown

2

West Islip

1

Lindenhurst

4

West Sayville

1

Long Beach

1

Westbury

8

Manhasset

1

Westhampton Beach

3

Manorhaven

1

Wyandanch

4

Manorville

1

Yaphank

1

$967,351.38

Grand Total

278

$65,000.00

$38,000,000.00

$7,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00

$1,225,874.42

$3,000,000.00

$1,236,421.55

$1,250,818.54 $6,403,924.36 $271,591.51 $808,170.00 $202,558,056.20

*Sites counted include: New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program, NYS Environmental Restoration Program, NYS Voluntary Cleanup Program, Federal and State Superfund sites, and communities that have received Federal and State funding for Brownfields redevelopment sites may be duplicated if both on the National and State Superfund List. **Funding includes EPA Assessment and Clean Up Grants, Federal Superfund for remediation activities, NYS Superfund for remediation Activities, Environmental Restoration Program Grants Including Pre-2003 Funding.

excel chart #4

Commercial/ Industrial Residential

05 a06 a07

excel chart #5

Megawatt Hours (in Millions)

Electricity Consumption on Long Island, 1997-2007 20 15 10 5 0 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 Residential

Commercial/Industrial

Source: Long Island Power Authority.

To help mitigate the potential impacts of climate change, New York State mandates are to:

Indicator:

Energy Consumption Long Island’s electricity and natural gas consumption keeps growing as well as our carbon emissions.



• Reduce energy consumption 15% by 2015



• Reduce CO2 emissions 25% by 2025

• Generate 25% of the state’s energy from renew­ Why is this important? able sources by 2013 Data from the U.S. Energy Information Admin­ Fuel Sources for Long Island Power Generation, are we 2005 doing? How istration shows that buildings, commercial and The world’s leading climate scientists have issued residential, are responsible for almost half (48%) Wind 0.002% warnings that we need to drastically reduce green­ Other of all energy consumption and greenhouse gasFossil 3% house gas emissions Solar 0.4%in order to avoid catastrophic (GHG) emissions in the United States. Green­ Waste-to-Energy Wind and irreversible effects of climate change. Many 3% house gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide Solar now believe that reductions of 80% below 1990 (CO2), are widely accepted as the main con­ levels are needed by 2050 or even earlier. Other Fossil factors in global climate change. With tributing Gas 1,180 miles of shoreline, LongNatural Island is uniquely New York State has several stated policy goals to Waste-to-Energy 35% disposed to sea level rise and other impacts of reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions, Nat. Gas climate change. Recent modeling released by among them the Renewable Portfolio Standard Oil Architecture 2030, a leading organization study­ requiring 25% of the state’s electricity to come ing the potential impacts of climate change, from renewable fuels like solar and wind by 2013 shows that a sea level rise of even one meter and the 15 x 15 initiative with the goal to reduce Oil 59% would have serious consequences for the U.S., electricity consumption 15% by 2015. leaving it vulnerable to catastrophic property Unfortunately, we are neither on track to achiev­ and infrastructure loss with large population Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. ing such goals nor have we formulated clear and disruptions and economic hardships. Source: U.S. EPA eGRid (solar and wind estimated). binding plans to do so.

page 77

Electricity Consumption on Long Island, 1997-2007

Page 78  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Our Environment Commercial/ Industrial Residential

00

Electricity Consumption

20 15

Natural Gas

00

Data from the Long Island Power Authority shows that residential, commercial and industrial elec­ 00 tricity consumption in 2007 increased 2.5% over 0 a97 a98 a99 a00 a01 a02 a03 a04 thea05previous a06 a07 year, continuing its steady upward trend of 21% over the preceding ten years. Resi­ dential electricity use has grown 27% while popu­ lation grew less than 9% during the same time. In order to achieve the state’s 15 x 15 goals, Long Island would need to curtail its annual electric consumption growth to less than 4/10 of one per­ cent instead of the present 2.5%. Greenhouse Gas Emissions To satisfy this growing hunger for electricity, the Island’s fossil fueled power plants pumped millions of tons of climate changing greenhouse gas emis­ sions into the global atmosphere. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, despite reducing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour slightly (4%), total CO2 emissions from Long Island’s power plants in 2005 (the chart most recent Environment client excel #5 data available) increased by almost 90,000 tons to more than ten million (10,201,971) tons. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by about 2% Wind a year to reach an 80% reduction by mid-century, Long Island’s power plants increased Solar emissions of this greenhouse gas by about 1% from 2004 Other Fossil to 2005 and there is no plan in place that would Waste-to-Energy allow us to reach the needed reductions. Power Sources

Megawatt Hours (in Millions)

00

Environment client excel chart #4

10

Long Island’s residential, commercial and indus­ trial users5 bought almost 14% more natural gas (90,898,704 dekatherms) from National Grid 0 in 2007 than in the prior year which resulted ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 in 5,317,574 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. However, a considerable of that increase Residential portion Commercial/Industrial resulted from converting space heating equipment from oil to natural gas which reduces carbon diox­ ide emissionsSource: by almost a third based on the same Long Island Power Authority. energy input. Renewable Energy On the renewable energy front, there are about 1,400 solar roofs on Long Island with a total of about 10 MW of capacity. LIPA recently issued a request for proposals for 50 MW of solar electric panels. However, despite this step, total solar generation output over the next few years would amount to less than ½ of one percent of fossilgenerated electricity, nowhere near state goals.

Fuel Sources for Long Island Power Generation, 2005

Other Fossil 3%

Wind 0.002%

Waste-to-Energy 3%

Solar 0.4%

Natural Gas 35%

Nat. Gas Oil

While most of Long Island’s electricity is still produced on Long Island, a growing share of it is purchased and transported through long-distance transmission lines and undersea cables from offIsland power sources. In 2005, LIPA imported 37% of our electricity from off-Island sources; in 2007 imports made up 41% of our electric diet. Long Island’s power plants are antiquated and inefficient in converting fuel into electricity but many have the capability to switch from oil to natural gas depending on fuel prices and other factors. In 2005 Long Island’s generators produced 59% of the electricity by burning oil, 35% came from natural gas, and 6% from waste-to-energy incinerators and other fossil sources.

Oil 59%

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: U.S. EPA eGRid (solar and wind estimated).

Governance Goal #11—Managing Long Island’s

for

Results

counties, towns, villages and other jurisdictions manage their costs and provide

quality local and regional services.

Indicator:

Expenditures

and

Revenues

Long Island relies more heavily on property taxes as a percentage of total revenues than the rest of the state and property taxes have increased 20% in the past ten years compared to 6% statewide. Why is this important? Long Island has a large number of local government entities with associated expenditures that are large and growing. In 2007, local taxpayers contributed 79% of the total cost of local government, compared to 66% in other areas of New York State.1 A ten-year history of local government expenditures and revenues, and comparable figures for local governments and school districts, allows Long Islanders to evaluate whether or not efforts to mitigate growth in the cost of local government have been effective.

All benchmark comparisons herein are for all other areas outside of Long Island excluding NYC.

1

Page 80  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Governance

ADDITIONAL 4-6

#1

GOVERNANCE 1-2

Distribution of Local Government Expenditures, 2007

What People in the Region Are Saying

Graphs what people are saying client excel chart #4

In an average month, how difficult is it for you and living with you to pay the rent or mortgage?

your2%family Fire Districts

Counties 30%

60

60%

Somewhat Difficult

50

50

School Very Difficult Districts 51%

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

Cities 1% Towns 13%

Villages 4% 0

’08

’03

’04

’05

’06

Very Difficult

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

’07

’08

Somewhat Difficult

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Over half (54%) of all Long Islanders continue to report that it is somewhat or very difficult to meet their monthly rent or mortgage payments.

#2

Change in Local Government Expenditures on Long Island, 1998-2007 $12

What People in the Region Are Saying

In Billions (2007 Dollars)

ow Increase are we doing? Fire Districts, H 28.4%

10 LongIncrease Island relies more heavily on property taxes School Districts, 38.6% 8 Villages, 24.5% Increase as a percentage of total revenues than the rest of Towns, 15.8% Increase 6 for Long Island in thesaying state (49% of excel all revenues Graphs what people are client chart #5 Cities, 57.7% Increase 4 rest of the state). 2007, compared to 33% for the Counties, 2.3% Decrease From 1998 to 2007, property2taxes increased 20% Don't Know/Refused above the rate of inflation on 0 Long Island, com­ ’98 2 The ’99 largest ’00 pared to 6% for the rest of thePoor state. Fair School Districts, 38.6% increases during this time period were attributable Good Increase to cities, school districts and fire districts.

ExcellentCounties, 2.3%

Please think about the quality of education provided by your local schools. What would you say is the value local residents get back from property taxes in terms of the quality of education?

’01

100

’02

’03

80

Towns, 15.8%

’04

’05

’06

’07

60Increase

Fire Districts, 28.4% Increase

40Villages, 24.5%

Cities, 57.7%

Decrease Increase Increase State revenues are a smaller portion of Long 20 Island’s total revenues (17%) than for other New 0 ’08 ’07 Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC);’06 CGR. York State local governments (27%). Also, Long Excellent Good Fair Island’s local governments rely more heavily on Poor Don’t Know local property taxes, and depend slightly more on Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. sales tax revenues, than do other New York State Fewer Long Islanders feel they are getting back an excellent or good value from governments. their property taxes in terms of the quality of education in 2008 than they did

’06

Fewer Long Islanders feel they are getting back an excellent or good value from their property taxes in terms of the quality of education in 2008 than they did two years ago, 41% today compared to 48% in 2006. 2

two years ago, 41% today compared to 48% in 2006.

 here were also large differences in sales tax growth over the period. Long Island’s grew by 21%, compared to 80% in the rest of the state. The primary reason for T the discrepancy involves new accounting treatment rules instituted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board in 2006. According to the new rules, counties with local sales tax sharing agreements were required to begin recording gross sales tax receipts (i.e., including all revenues, even those to be distributed with local governments). As a result, starting in 2007 many counties across the state showed sharp increases in sales tax revenues. Nassau County, by contrast, has always accounted for its shared sales tax in this way, so the new standards did not result in a similar increase. As Suffolk does not have a sharing agreement, the new standard did not affect it.

THE TABLE THAT USED TO BE HERE IS NOW IN

Cities 1% Towns 13% Villages 4%

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Change in Local Government Expenditures on Long Island, 1998-2007

School Districts, 38.6% Increase Villages, 24.5% Increase Towns, 15.8% Increase Cities, 57.7% Increase Counties, 2.3% Decrease

$12 In Billions (2007 Dollars)

Fire Districts, 28.4% Increase

10 8 6 4 2 0 ’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

School Districts, 38.6% Increase

Towns, 15.8% Increase

Fire Districts, 28.4% Increase

Counties, 2.3% Decrease

Villages, 24.5% Increase

Cities, 57.7% Increase

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Expenditures Total expenditures by Long Island’s local govern­ ments3 amounted to $19.6 billion in 2007. School districts were the largest component of local gov­ ernment expenditures, with county government expenditures the second highest. The functional distribution of expenditures among Long Island’s local governments is reasonably similar to other local governments in the state. Spending by all local governments on Long Island grew 20% faster than inflation between 1998 and 2007. The growth rate reflects the fact that expen­ ditures and revenues for Nassau County prior to 2000 included the county hospital, which was spun off from county operations to a public benefit corporation in 1999 and thus removed from the county numbers. In addition to being the largest component of local government spending (51%),

school districts had the second-greatest increase in spending, rising 39% higher than the rate of inflation over the ten-year period. City expendi­ tures rose 58% higher than inflation, but city expenditures only represent less than 1% of total local government expenditures on Long Island.4 The third fastest increase in expenditures was in fire districts, up 28% higher than inflation. Fire districts represented 1.5% of total local govern­ ment expenditures. Expenditures by school districts on Long Island grew faster than those in the rest of the state due to higher increases in payroll, equipment and capital costs. At the same time, Long Island’s school districts held down expenses for employee benefits, goods/services and debt better than the rest of the state.

3

 ocal governments included in this report were all counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts and fire districts that filed annual reports with the New York L State Office of the State Comptroller. Independent special districts on Long Island are not included, as the Comptroller database does not include information from all these districts. However, based on the information available on reporting districts, CGR believes the total expenditures for special districts not included in these totals is less than $200 million, or less than 1.5% of the total counted in these tables.

4

There are only two cities on Long Island, both in Nassau.

page 81

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR. Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

ave choices of

GOVERNANCE 3-6Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR. Page 82  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Governance All Revenue Sources—Long Island, 2007

GOVERNANCE 3-6Local Revenue Sources—Long Island, 2007

Local Revenue Sources–Long Island, 2007

cel chart #5

xcel chart #5

Federal 4% Local Revenue Sources–Long All Revenue Sources—Long Island, 2007 Island, 2007 State 17%

Local Revenue Sources—Long Island, 2007

Sales Tax 12%

All Other Interest and Earnings Federal 4% All Other State 17% Real Property Tax

Sales Tax 12%

All Other 38%

Interest Sales Taxand Earnings Real Property Tax

All Other 38% Real Property Tax 49%

Sales Tax Local 79%

Real Property Tax 49%

Interest and Earnings 2%

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Interest and

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC);Local CGR.79%

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Earnings 2% Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Local2007—NYS Revenue Sources–NYS (MinusLI) NYC, LI), 2007 cel chart #6 All Revenue Sources, (Minus NYC,

YC, LI)

xcel chart #6

YC, LI)

Local 66%

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Local RevenueFederal Sources–NYS (Minus NYC, LI), 2007 7%

Local Revenue Sources—NYS (Minus NYC, LI), 2007

Local Revenue Sources—NYS (Minus NYC, LI), 2007 Sales Tax 9%

All Revenue 2007—NYS (Minus NYC, LI) State 27% AllSources, Other

Interest and Earnings All Other Real Property TaxFederal 7%

All Other 56%

State 27% Interest Sales Taxand Earnings Real Property Tax

Sales Tax 9%

All Other 56% Real Property Tax 33%

Sales Tax Interest and Earnings 2%

Local 66%

Real Property Tax 33%

Interest and Earnings 2%

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC);Local CGR.66%

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Note: Results may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Revenues Local governments in New Local Revenue Sources—Long Island, 2007York rely primarily on three sources of revenue—local revenues, state funding and federal funding.5 In 2007, 79% of Long Island’s total local government revenues were gen­ Sales Tax 12% Local Revenue Sources—Long 2007 erated from local Island, sources, either property tax, sales tax, interest and earnings or other fees and taxes, up slightly from 78% in 1998. 17% came from state All Other 38% Salessources Tax 12% in 2007. sources and 4% from federal

As noted, on Long Island local revenues were 79% of all revenues, compared to 66% for the rest of the state. The difference may help to explain in part why Long Islanders perceive such a heavy local tax burden. The data show that the relative local tax burden differential between Long Island and the rest of the state has not changed signifi­ cantly over the last ten years.

fourth source of funding is debt financing; however, the debt burdenReal is paid from local, state or federal revenue sources and is included in the figures used in this analysis. Property All OtherA38% Tax 49% 5

Interest and Earnings 2%

Real Property Tax 49%

Long Island Schools and Government Percent Change in Full Taxable Value and Real Property Tax Levy Compared to Inflation 1998-2006 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Consumer Price Index

100%

102%

105%

108%

111%

114%

118%

123%

127%

Average Change in Full Taxable Value

100%

103%

113%

126%

141%

166%

189%

211%

234%

School Districts

100%

104%

109%

116%

126%

137%

148%

161%

172%

County Governments

100%

101%

109%

116%

127%

144%

144%

146%

146%

Town Governments

100%

102%

104%

109%

111%

117%

121%

128%

133%

Village Governments

100%

101%

107%

110%

115%

123%

132%

143%

150%

Change in Real Property Tax Levy:

Source: New York State Office of State Comptroller (OSC); CGR.

Property taxes High property taxes have been identified as a sig­ nificant concern for Long Islanders starting with the very first Index report. As noted above, real property taxes account for 49% of the revenue for local governments on Long Island, which is by far the largest revenue source. Thus, there are two sides to the story about property taxes. On the one hand, they are a significant burden on local tax­ payers. On the other hand, they are a critically important source of revenues, without which local governments could not provide the level of services currently offered, unless corresponding other reve­ nue sources can be found to offset any losses in property taxes collected. Property tax rates are calculated by dividing the real property tax levy6 by the taxable assessed value of the property within the jurisdiction of each government.7 The property tax levy can be affected most directly, on a year-by-year basis by local governments exercising control over costs that have to be paid from local taxes. Local

governments have less direct control over the value of taxable real properties, as these are subject to supply and demand forces from regional and national trends as well as local conditions. During the period from 1998 to 2006 (the most recent data available from the Office of State Comptroller), real property tax levies for all forms of local government on Long Island grew faster than the rate of inflation, but slower than the rate of growth of real property values. For example, real property tax levies for all school districts on Long Island grew 172%, compared to inflation, which grew 127%. How­ever, the real property full taxable value grew by an average of 234%. As another example, for all village governments on Long Island, real property tax levies grew 150% com­ pared to the 127% inflation growth. A key indi­ cator for the future will be, if real property values fall on Long Island, will local governments reduce costs at a correspond­ing rate so that local tax bur­ dens do not increase even more.

6

The amount needed to support total governmental appropriations minus revenues from all other sources.

7

For this report, real property full taxable value as calculated by the state is used to adjust for different assessment rates in local governments on Long Island.

page 83

Page 84  |  2009 Long Island Index  |  Reference M aps

Nassau County Cities, Towns, Villages and Hamlets

City of Glen Cove

Town of Oyster Bay Town of North Hempstead

Town of Hempstead

City of Long Beach

page 85

Town of Babylon

Town of Huntington

Town of Islip

Town of Smithtown

L

O

N

Town of Brookhaven

G

I

S

L

A

A

T

D

L

Town of Riverhead

N

A

N

T

Town of Southampton

S

O

U

I

N

C

Town of Southold

D

O

C

E

A

N

Town of East Hampton

Town of Shelter Island

Suffolk County Towns, Villages and Hamlets

Page 86  |  2009 Long Island Index

New Interactive Mapping Feature available at www.longislandindex.org

We have launched a new feature on our website that makes data about Long Island come alive using innovative mapping tools displaying local and regional trends in revealing ways. Users can choose which data elements they want to see in relation to each other and mix and match data to suit their individual needs and reveal complex relationships in easily understood ways. The visualization tools allow users to quickly find information without having to search multiple sites and resources. Some of the things you can find here include:

• Detailed property-level patterns of residential, commercial, industrial, and other land use types within each village and across Long Island.



• Key population and housing characteristics shown on the maps, plus statistics listed dynamically as users zoom in to each community.



• Transportation and reference features such as satellite photos, bus and LIRR routes, incorporated and unincorporated villages, special districts and legislative districts.



• Bar charts comparing Census statistics.



• Regional views showing villages that meet certain characteristics, such as all the villages across Long Island with more than 10% population growth.



• New mapping tools such as a “dynamic transparency slider” to reveal land use patterns or aerial photos underneath Census maps and Microsoft’s “bird’s eye view” photos integrated directly into the maps (accessible with the click of a mouse).

We will continue to add more data in the coming months and will update current data when new information is available. And as always you can find indicator data, reports and surveys, graphs and the monthly article What Every Long Islander Should Know on our site.

Acknowledgements Special thanks to the following organizations that contributed data and expertise: Center for Governmental Research

New York State Education Department

Center for Urban Research, CUNY Graduate Center Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commission

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 1

Child Care Council of Nassau

New York State Department of Transportation

Child Care Council of Suffolk

North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System

Collaborative Economics

PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™ Thomson Financial

Early Childhood Finance Project Early Years Institute Eastern Suffolk BOCES Empire Justice Center Fiscal Policy Institute Health and Welfare Council of Long Island Hofstra University Long Island Bus Long Island Pine Barrens Society Long Island Power Authority Long Island Real Estate Report Long Island Regional Planning Board Metropolitan Transportation Authority—Long Island Rail Road Middle Country Public Library Miller Business Resource Center Nassau BOCES Nassau County Department of Social Services Nassau County Planning Department National Center for Children in Poverty National Institute for Early Education Research National Women’s Law Center New York State Child Care Coordinating Council

Regional Plan Association Renewable Energy Long Island (RELI) Schuyler Center for Advocacy and Action (SCAA) Stony Brook University, Center for Survey Research Suffolk County Department of Social Services Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Transit Sustainable Long Island Teachers College, Columbia University The Nature Conservancy, Long Island Chapter Town of Brookhaven Town of East Hampton Town of Huntington Town of Huntington HART Bus Systems Town of North Hempstead Town of Oyster Bay Town of Riverhead Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Town of Southold Western Suffolk BOCES

New York State Council on Children and Families

Report Preparation INTRODUCTION Thomas Amper, Michael Holzman PUBLICATION COORDINATION & DESIGN Curran & Connors, Inc. THE LONG ISLAND INDEX 2009 HAS BEEN GENEROUSLY SUPPORTED BY A GRANT FROM THE RAUCH FOUNDATION.

Long Island Index 229 Seventh Street, Suite 306 Garden City, NY 11530-5766 Tel: 516.873.9808 Fax: 516.873.0708 [email protected] www.longislandindex.org

© 2009 The Rauch Foundation

Long Island Index 2009

“Working Together in New Ways for Long Island’s Future”