![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Background and Purpose: Poverty in the United States, and in states and localities, is typically measured using an income-based approach. That is, some measure of income is compared against a set poverty line. But a strict focus on income poverty alone misses the fact that many people above the poverty line are also struggling. In addition, poverty is typically measured at a single point in time, which obscures the fact that many individuals exit and enter poverty over time. This study examines poverty and well-being using a broader set of measures, collected over multiple points in time, in a representative sample of New York City residents. In doing so, it sheds light on the true extent of disadvantage in NYC, as well as factors that influence that disadvantage.
Methods: This study draws from a random sample of NYC residents who participated in a panel survey conducted by the Columbia Population Research Center. The survey consists of a fixed panel of approximately 2,300 residents of NYC and provides a dynamic picture of poverty, material hardship, and well-being. Annual measures include comprehensive measures of income poverty, multiple measures of material hardship (e.g., inability to pay bills), and broader measures of well-being (e.g., work-limiting health conditions). In addition, the panel is asked about factors that may be associated with disadvantage. This study focuses particularly on two: (1) service utilization from non-profit agencies and the government; and (2) assets and debts. High debt burden may leave even some non-income poor families struggling with routine expenses, while utilization of government and community-based organizations’ supports may help other families improve their situation.
Results: Results indicate that a much higher proportion of New York City residents are struggling than even improved income poverty statistics would suggest. While just over 20% of NYC residents were poor in 2012, fully 37% reported a severe material hardship, and over half reported being either income poor, having a severe hardship, or having a severe health condition. Moreover, this static picture misses the fact that a greater proportion of New Yorkers experience these conditions across two years, and a smaller (though still large) group experiences persistent poverty and disadvantage. For instance, about 25% experience a severe material hardship in two consecutive years. People who tap government and non-profit agencies are more likely than other New Yorkers to exit poverty and hardship over time, while those struggling with high debt are more likely to remain mired in poverty and hardship.
Conclusions and Implications: Understanding the dynamics of poverty and hardship can help service providers design better and more effective programs to reduce these disadvantages. If more people were connected to helpful services, persistent disadvantage and hardship might be less of an issue for vulnerable families. Reducing debt burden among vulnerable populations might also make it more likely for families to be able to meet routine expenses and avoid severe hardships.