Is New York City the best place to be poor? If the measure of quality of life for the poor and troubled is the number of people hired to provide them with services, it certainly appears, at first glance, to be one of the best places. Or at least it should be.
In 2004, according to data from the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau attached to a prior post here, the City of New York employed 278 persons in “public welfare” agencies for every 100,000 residents. The national average was 93; the rest of New York State averaged 231 and New Jersey averaged 121. Much of the social service work in the city, however, is actually done by private, mostly non-profit agencies in the Social Assistance sub-sector which, according to the current industry classification system, “provide a wide variety of social assistance services directly to their clients.” According to covered employment (ES202) data for the second quarter of 2005, New York City had 1,857 people employed in this sub-sector for every 100,000 residents. The national average was 708; the rest of the New York State averaged 1,048 and New Jersey averaged 730.
Put another way, a total of 174,715 people worked in industries and agencies that generally serviced the less fortunate in 2005. According the 2004 American Community Survey, also from the U.S. Census Bureau, New York City had approximately 1.6 million poor people that year. That means that there was more than one social service agency or industry worker for every ten poor people in the city.
And while their average pay is not high, the total cost of all those workers is not low. According to 2004 local government finance data from the U.S. Census Bureau, also attached to an earlier post, New York City spent $14.60 on social services (other than cash payments to the poor and Medicaid) for every $1,000 earned by its residents; the national average was just $3.15, the New Jersey average just $1.54, and average for the rest of New York State just $6.43. In comparison, the amount spent on cash welfare paid directly to low income persons, just $2.88 per $1,000 of personal income, was a pittance – and had been even at the welfare peak in 1995.
Most of the city’s social services are paid for with federal and state aid, of course. According to the Fiscal 2007 City of New York Executive Budget, local tax dollars paid for just 46% of the budget of the Department of Homeless Services and 33% if the budget of the Administration for Children’s Services. Since New York City pays more in state and federal taxes than it receives state and federal funding overall, however, it is possible that any additional aid the city receives in these categories is offset, and then some, by lower aid in other categories. So city residents and businesses are, in fact, paying the full bill for those social services after all, in state and federal taxes and in reduced spending in other categories.
One might expect to hear, given these vastly greater-than-average expenditures for vastly greater than average social service employment, that the quality of life of poor and troubled people in New York City is relatively high, and that they are more likely than elsewhere to advance out of poverty. That certainly was the case a century ago. There aren’t very many desperately poor people of Irish, Italian or Jewish descent, or street criminals from those backgrounds, in New York City anymore, but there were plenty back then.
Today, however, one hears just the opposite. Report after report by advocates and analysts claims that the poor are in fact worse off in New York City than elsewhere. Indeed, not too long ago, a report by homeless advocates claimed that New York City was one of the most uncaring places in the country for those without a home. One of the worst, after a payment of nearly 1.5% of our income in taxes to fund social welfare services here.
Some of this may be explained by the press of numbers. ACS data shows that in 2004, New York City’s poverty rate was 20.3%, compared with a national average of just 13.1%, and even lower poverty in the rest of New York State (9.7%) and New Jersey (8.5%). New York City’s poverty rate, therefore, was 54% higher than the national average. Its employment in the Social Assistance sub-sector relative to population, however, was 154% higher than the national average — 2 ½ times that average. That’s a ratio similar to the high number of police officers the city employs, also the subject of a prior post.
One could make the case that the life of the poor in New York City is not a good one. Poor people here are far less likely to be employed, or even looking for work, than the national average. In 1960, in contrast, the share of city adults working or looking for work was above the national average – it has been lower since some time in the 1960s. New York State’s economic problems are often exaggerated, but it is true that there is a shortage of high end jobs upstate, and low end jobs in New York City relative to the rest of the country. And the city’s poor need low-end jobs because so few of them graduate from high school with marketable skills. Then too, family life for New York City’s poor is worse than in the past. The share of children who, after being born, come home to a household where their father is present is shockingly low.
One could, however, also make that case that the city’s army of social welfare workers hasn’t succeeded in making the life of the poor better, despite its high cost, and in contrast with historical successes. Not according to reports produced by advocates. This raises the question, “what are all those people doing?” Using more detailed ES202 data for 2004, I’ll try to shed some light on this in my next post.