Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Report actually shows that Queens is in pretty good shape

This came from a press release:

New data released the day before the State of the City reveals a “tale of two children” in Queens. When it comes to economic security, housing stability, educational development, healthcare, and family environment, Queens kids who live just blocks apart have radically different outcomes, and Queens communities rank both the lowest and highest across the city in terms of risks to child well-being.

The new report is a “Community Risk Ranking” from Citizens’ Committee for Children, which ranks the city’s 59 community districts from lowest to highest concentration of risk to the well-being of children. How did Queens stack up? Here are the highlights:

· Bayside is in the top 10 lowest-risk communities in the city (#4); Rego Park/Forest Hills, Sunnyside/Woodside, and Fresh Meadows/Briarwood also rated among the lowest risk.
· Jamaica/St. Albans, Elmhurst/Corona and Jackson Heights are the highest-risk communities in the borough.
· Queens Village and Jamaica/St. Albans are two of the highest-risk communities when it comes to health outcomes and healthcare environment for children.

These findings suggest that, as the Mayor shapes his funding priorities in the Preliminary Budget, resources must be diverted to high-risk Queens communities.

How about giving financial incentives for not having kids instead of the opposite?


JQ said...

"How about giving financial incentives for not having kids instead of the opposite?"

exactly, it's like when they speak of anyone struggling or sick, they never consider or even do studies on single people.

Anonymous said...

I guess Whitestone, Maspeth and Middle Village don't exist.

Anonymous said...

"How about giving financial incentives for not having kids instead of the opposite?"

Right? Why have families? Let's just drive ourselves ot extinction.

Anonymous said...

"Right? Why have families? Let's just drive ourselves to extinction."

No, moron. If you're poor and can't afford to raise kids, you shouldn't. If you have the means to, then yes, go ahead. Expect people to take some personal responsibility for their financial situation and you'll soon see things improve.

Anonymous said...

What do those low ranking communities have in common?

Children being sacrificed at the altar of diversity!

Once upon a time the public school system was a lifeline out of the ghetto for some of these kids, but the Democrat party and the teacher's union have slammed that door shut with failing schools and incompetent teachers. (How can 2/3 of a school not read at grade level yet 97% of the teachers be rated as 'excellent'?)

Many of these politicians will burn in hell for what they have done to these hapless minorities.

Anonymous said...

The real threat to Queens is the ill planned mega development that has reached pandemic proportions. Unless transportation, health care systems, schools, police stations, fire houses are built to keep pace with all the expansion, the good life will vanish. It is being eroded greatly as I post my comment.

nzuss said...

Very confused why you added that comment about not having kids.

So anyone that has children and isn't completely financially stable is guilty of an unforgivable sin, people make mistakes, no?

And the first commenter, what do you mean, how is that relevant?

And as for calling someone a moron that slightly disagreed, if it can be called that, your point is that people are completely solely responsible for their financial situations regardless of the economy or other factors out of their control?

If the data found poverty in those communities why blame them, and to your point, it's the children who suffer. So instead let's advocate for them and not lay blame for persistent poverty at their feet.

Anonymous said...

It's funny, people were responsible for themselves through good times and bad on previous generations. Only now do people remain wallowing in poverty in order to get free phones, tuition, health care, housing, etc. Take the things away and people will become more self sufficient. But dependence is what the governing class counts on so it won't happen.

Jackson Heights Johnny said...

Having lived in Jackson Heights my entire life, I am disheartened by this report. Maybe because my parents struggled to send me and my brother to Catholic Elementary & High Schools, I did not notice what was going on in Public Schools.

As an old-timer (turning 67 this month), I remember my neighborhood the way it used to be in my youth; I am disheartened by what I see now, but I was born here, and I will die here....

Deke DaSilva said...

What is it that makes Bayside, Rego Park/Forest Hills, Sunnyside/Woodside, and Fresh Meadows/Briarwood low risk?

What is it that makes Jamaica/St. Albans, Elmhurst/Corona, and Jackson Heights the highest risk?

Could demographics have something to do with it?

The Queens Democratic Party is always telling me "diversity is our strength!".

Are they lying?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what "high risk" means in regard to this article ?

Anonymous said...

I live in Woodside, pretty diverse (in a good way, very much a neighborhood). I grew up in Flushing and lived there until recently, and it felt less diverse than it was in my youth . . . .

Anonymous said...

Notice that is the "people of color" communities that are the riskiest.