Mark Stern links cultural assets to health and education outcomes
Stern says DCLA funding shifts were swamped by inequality, describes four community well-being clusters, and finds cultural assets in lower-income neighborhoods correlate with fewer strokes, fewer low-weight births, and higher test scores.
Although DCLA followed the cultural plan's recommendation to address the inequitable distribution of program funds to lower-income neighborhoods,
These policy changes were swamped by the city's increased economic inequality.
As I mentioned, we used a variety of
sources to calculate 11 dimensions of well-being in addition to cultural assets.
They range from economic well-being to health, school effectiveness, to environmental factors like pollution and heat vulnerability.
We then use cluster analysis to identify four types of community well-being clusters.
Central advantage, neighborhood advantage, diverse and struggling, and concentrated disadvantage.
Many community well-being, although
Sorry, many community well-being dimensions mirror neighborhoods'economic standing.
In other words, residents'chances to enjoy good health, effective schools, and strong social connection are all associated with their neighborhoods'per capita income.
Although most cultural clusters remained stable over the last decade, two sets shifted in notable ways.
A number of neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens that had been disadvantaged or diverse and struggling became advantaged.
And secondly, in addition, many neighborhoods, particularly some in central Brooklyn and eastern Queens, that had been concentrated disadvantage became diverse and struggling.
The net effect was to reduce the number of concentrated
disadvantaged neighborhoods from 65 in 2016 to 52 in 2025,
which resulted in the number of residents living in concentrated disadvantaged neighborhoods to fall from 3.1 million to 2.5 million.
In other words, over a half million fewer New Yorkers
live in a concentrated disadvantaged neighborhood than did so a decade ago.
If we turn to the relationship of cultural assets to well-being, controls for social advantage, we found that among affluent neighborhoods, culture had no unique influence on measures of well-being.
But among lower income neighborhoods,
we find significant and strong relationships between cultural assets and morbidity, birth outcomes, school effectiveness, and personal social connection.
If we translate these statistics to examine individual risks and benefits, we find that compared to other
lower income neighborhoods.
Living in a low income neighborhood with more cultural assets leads to fewer strokes, fewer low weight births, and higher math and English and language arts scores.