The Petition for a True Measure of Poverty in Dutchess County

Do you think that Dutchess County should smartly follow the good example set by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (see much on this below)-- and change the way poverty is measured here locally as well?

If you do, sign on to this petition, pass it along to all you know, and send a letter to [email protected]; let's not wait until 2009, 2019, or 2049 to make sure we have a true and accurate measure of poverty right here in our own county.

Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislature Environmental Committee Chair
County Legislator, Clinton/Rhinebeck
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]
(845) 876-2488

[for more on this see NYC.gov/html/ceo/html/home/home.shtml-- and to see what the true self-sufficiency standard is for Dutchess County, see Fiscal Policy Institute info: FiscalPolicy.org/ssscounties.htm]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Povertys Real Measure"
[New York Times editorial July 22, 2008]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/opinion/22tue2.html

For some 40 years, the nation has used the same formula for calculating poverty, using the cost of food as a gauge and applying a single poverty threshold across the nation from Boise to the Bronx. After a year of work, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York has presented a new formula for measuring poverty that creates a far more realistic view of life in the city. It should stand as an example to other cities and, ultimately, the federal government.

Recasting the federal formula that has been in place since the 1960s, the Bloomberg administration found another 400,000 poor people in New York City and came up with a poverty rate of 23 percent, compared with about 19 percent. That result was tempered by fewer extremely poor people (those whose incomes are half of the poverty threshold), which may be explained by the reach of programs like temporary assistance to needy families.

But the city found that 32 percent of the elderly are poor far higher than the 18 percent under the former measure. Out-of-pocket medical costs were a consistent big drain on the wallets of residents 65 or older.

No formula would be perfect, but Mr. Bloombergs employs common sense. It is absurd, for example, that the poverty threshold in New York City, one of the most expensive, has been the same as the least expensive: $20,444 for a family of four. The mayor raised New Yorks poverty ceiling to a more believable $26,138.

Washingtons obsolete measure looks only at the cost of food relative to income. Mass production and other efficiencies have generally made food less costly, while housing, transportation and energy costs have risen. The mayors formula, taken from recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences, factors in those big-ticket items, as well as government assistance.

Mr. Bloombergs approach is rightly getting attention from other cities and Capitol Hill. The campaign of Senator Barack Obama has endorsed it. The next step, which should be taken quickly, is for the mayor to use what he has learned and what we already knew to get more help to New Yorks many poor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Measuring Poverty: Federal Definition of Poverty is Challenged by Local Government"
[The Economist July 17th 2008]
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750666&fsrc=RSS

Fed up with the slow-moving federal government, Americas local municipalities and states have recently launched many reform plans themselves, including health care (Massachusettss universal health initiatives) and global warming (Californias emissions caps). New York City, already a model in policing and an emerging one in school reform, is now tackling poverty. To fight it properly you need good figures; as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you cant solve a problem until you can measure it. So Michael Bloomberg, New Yorks mayor, announced on July 13th an alternative to the federal poverty measure.

This measure, now 40 years old, assesses pre-tax cash income against a number of thresholds, based primarily on food spending. But this has decreased from one-third to one-eighth of average household spending over the past four decades. Housing, which now makes up more than 30\% of family expenditure, is not taken into account. Nor are regional cost-of-living differences. A two-bedroom apartment, for instance, costs $1,318 a month in New York City and $1,592 in San Francisco, contrasting sharply with the national average of $867 and one Mississippi countys $498. On the income side, non-cash benefits such as subsidised housing and food stamps, are ignored. So is the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy geared towards the working poor.

The new formula is based on recommendations made at Congresss request in 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences, but never implemented federally. Defining who is poor is a touchy subject. The NAS measures reflect spending on food, clothing, shelter and utilities, which are assumed to equal about 80\% of median family expenditures. Adjustments are made for transport costs, child care and out-of-pocket medical costs.

This measure increases the numbers of New Yorks poor, from 19\% of the population to 23\%. Under the new calculus, the new poverty line for a family of four is $26,138, not the official federal level of $20,444. The new measure reveals that a smaller number of New Yorkers live in extreme poverty, but shows a higher proportion of working poorand a shocking poverty rate among the elderly: 32\%, compared with the federal estimate of 18\%.

The mayors of Los Angeles, Miami and Cincinnati have praised New Yorks boldness. Congress may also be inspired to change the national poverty formula, and was due to start hearings on July 17th.
Poverty is an important part of Mr Bloombergs agenda. He set up the Centre for Economic Opportunity (CEO) in 2006 specifically to reduce it. The centre created Opportunity NYC, Americas first experiment in tying some benefits to conditions, such as turning up for parent-teacher meetings, having health-insurance or even going to the dentist. Last month it opened a financial-counselling centre for poor folk in the Bronx. Now the task of tackling poverty can truly get started.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"City Refines Formula to Measure Poverty Rate"
by Cara Buckley [New York Times July 14, 2008]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/nyregion/14poverty.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin

The Bloomberg administration unveiled a new measure on Sunday for gauging poverty levels, one that takes into account the cost of housing, child care and clothing, among other expenses not included in the formula used by the federal government.

Under the new model, announced by Linda I. Gibbs, the citys deputy mayor for health and human services, at the N.A.A.C.P.s annual convention in Cincinnati, the poverty rate in New York City would increase to 23 percent of the population, compared with the official level of roughly 19 percent. Also, fewer people in the city would fall into the category of extreme poverty, partly because the new measure factors in government aid programs like housing assistance, food stamps and tax credits.

Ms. Gibbs said that the new measures would not automatically affect any federal funding the city receives, or the number of people getting aid. But, she said, the change could affect local programs and policy decisions, like how the city cares for the elderly.

According to the current federal measure, fewer than one in five New Yorkers 65 or older are poor. But under the new model, that figure grows to one in three, largely because higher medical costs are taken into account.

City officials hope that the new model will be adopted by other cities and states, and will also start a national re-examination about the way poverty is gauged.

The next step, Ms. Gibbs said during a conference call with reporters, is issuing a very detailed report so our sister jurisdictions can adopt this approach.

Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research institute in Washington, said the need to recalibrate how poverty is calculated was long overdue.

There is a very broad agreement that the existing measure has a lot of problems, he said.

The nations poverty measure was developed in the 1960s and was based on a 1955 study that showed that poor Americans spent roughly a third of their after-tax income on food. Ever since then, the countrys poverty levels have been gauged by tripling the annual cost of groceries.

That model, while updated for inflation, has been criticized for being out of date, inaccurate and not taking into account how expenses like housing vary nationwide. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, families nowadays spend one-eighth of their income on food, with more money going to transportation, child care and housing. Nor does the federal model measure the financial impact of government assistance programs.

The citys formula was developed by its Center for Economic Opportunity and modeled on a proposal developed by the National Academy of Sciences. Both set the poverty threshold at roughly 80 percent of the median amount of what families spend on expenses like food, shelter, utilities and clothing. The New York model also factors in regional differences in the cost of living.

Under the new calculus, the poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children in New York City would be a $26,138 annual income compared with the official level of $20,444.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"NYC Mayor Offers New Poverty Gauge in NAACP Speech"
by Dan Sewell |Associated Press July 13, 2008]
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/politics/ny-bc-ny--naacpconvention0713jul13,0,4583127.story

CINCINNATI - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is offering a new way of gauging poverty in the United States.

Bloomberg had planned to discuss the city's alternative to the current federal poverty measure in a speech Sunday evening at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People national convention. However, his office said bad flying weather forced him to cancel his appearance.

Bloomberg, who says the 1960s-developed federal formula for deciding who is living below the poverty line is outdated, said in prepared remarks that were released by his office: "If we're serious about fighting poverty, we also have to start getting serious about measuring it."

A deputy mayor, Linda Gibbs, in town to give an earlier briefing on the new measure, spoke briefly to the convention for Bloomberg.

New York's new measure factors in more costs than the current one, which is heavily weighted to grocery spending, Gibbs said. The city's version counts tax credits and other government benefits, while adjusting for geographic differences such as housing costs.

The new formula provides "a more accurate picture of who is poor and what that word means today in 2008," Bloomberg said in his prepared text.

The city's Center for Economic Opportunity, established by Bloomberg in 2006, used Census data, earlier research into the federal measure and poverty experts to come up with the new threshold last week.

City officials can't use the new measurement in programs that receive federal and state funding, so it won't immediately change funding or eligibility for city social services programs, but will help in anti-poverty policy and planning, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said.

A telephone message The Associated Press left for U.S. Census Bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein Sunday night was not immediately returned.

Under the federal formula, which is $20,444 for a family of four, some 19 percent of New Yorkers are considered poor, city officials said. Under the new formula, which takes into account New York's high cost of living, the poverty line is at $26,138 and 23 percent of New Yorkers are below it.

The new measure indicates a larger proportion of the city's poor is elderly, and that more working families are under the poverty line than in the federal measure. It has slightly lower poverty rates for children living in single-parent homes and people living in extreme poverty, indicating government programs are helping, officials said.

New York will offer help to other cities that are interested in the measurement. Bloomberg, who considered an independent presidential run this year, also urged the presidential candidates to make poverty a priority issue in their campaigns.

"So in Washington, while there's a never-ending debate about how to confront poverty, there is hardly any clarity on who is actually poor," said Bloomberg, a billionaire businessman, in the prepared text. "I spent most of my career in the private sector, and I'm a big believer in the saying, 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it."'

Some advocates say changing the federal poverty measure, which has been under study for years, is needed to better assess U.S. poverty and the impact of government programs, helping better target resources. How poverty is measured is politically sensitive because it helps determine eligibility for some federal programs.