AJR 22, as introduced, Mullin. Federal poverty level measurement.
This measure would urge the federal government to take steps to reform the outdated and inadequate Official Poverty Measure to better reflect poverty and the unmet needs demonstrated by the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
Fiscal committee: no.
P1 1WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure is determined by
2the United States Census Bureau and is instrumental in determining
3an individual’s eligibility for a number of government programs,
4including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program;
5Medicaid; School Lunch Program; Women, Infants, and Children
6Program; Housing Assistance; and others; and
7WHEREAS, The method we use today was developed in 1964
8by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration; and
9WHEREAS, Orshansky’s method used before-tax cash income
10to determine a family’s resources, which was then compared to a
11poverty threshold; and
P2 1WHEREAS, In determining this poverty threshold, Orshansky
2used a food plan developed by the federal Department of
3Agriculture that was designed for “temporary or emergency use
4when funds are low,” and then multiplied the cost of the plan by
5three because, at the time, a family typically used about a third of
6their income on food; and
7WHEREAS, Other than minor changes, the method has remained
8the same over time, despite significant economic and governmental
9changes, including the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid,
10the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, welfare
11reform of the 1990s, and the general stagnation of wages; and
12WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure is a one-size-fits-all
13policy that leads to a distorted perception of poverty and an
14inefficient allocation of resources to fight poverty; and
15WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure has failed to
16accurately measure poverty because it has not kept up with the
17changes to our economy and social science research; and
18WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not take into
19account that families no longer spend one-third of their income on
20food; they currently spend between 5 to 10 percent; and
21WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
22for noncash transfers, such as the Supplemental Nutrition
23Assistance Program or Medicaid, as income; and
24WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
25for variations in cost of living in different regions of our country;
26and
27WHEREAS, Low-income working families in California are
28especially disadvantaged by the Official Poverty Measure due to
29our state’s high cost of living, which results in the denial of
30federally funded assistance to families living above the federal
31poverty line, but who are unable to meet their basic needs; and
32WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
33for the increase in child care expenses due to the rise in the
34workforce participation of both parents; and
35WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
36for variations in health care coverage and out-of-pocket medical
37costs; and
38WHEREAS, Historically, there has been widespread agreement
39among analysts, advocates, and policymakers that the Official
40Poverty Measure is inadequate, leading to a 1990 Congressional
P3 1appropriation that was made for an independent scientific study
2on a new calculation method; and
3WHEREAS, This study was performed by The National
4Academy of Sciences, which established the Panel on Poverty and
5Family Assistance. The panel released a report in 1995 entitled
6“Measuring Poverty: A New Approach,” which established
7guidelines for creating a new method; and
8WHEREAS, Fifteen years later, in 2010, the Interagency
9Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty
10Measure and the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor developed
11an alternative poverty measure known as the Supplemental Poverty
12Measure; and
13WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure was designed
14to take into account changes in the United States economy over
15time, cost-of-living variations in different parts of the country, and
16the changing role of government; and
17WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure more
18accurately measures poverty by using a basic set of goods that
19includes food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, adjusted to reflect
20the needs of different family types and to account for geographic
21differences in living costs to establish what is known as a poverty
22threshold; and
23WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure defines family
24resources as the value of cash income from all sources, plus the
25value of noncash benefits, including nutrition assistance, subsidized
26housing, home energy assistance, tax credits, and other benefits
27that are available to buy the basic bundle of goods, minus the
28necessary expenses for critical goods and services not included in
29the thresholds; and
30WHEREAS, Necessary expenses include income taxes, Social
31Security payroll taxes, childcare and other work-related expenses,
32child support payments, and contributions toward the cost of
33medical care and health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket
34medical costs; and
35WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure offers a more
36accurate measure of poverty than the general Official Poverty
37Measure; and
38WHEREAS, The use of the Official Poverty Measure can have
39a detrimental effect on policies to combat poverty because it results
P4 1in less efficient and less accurately targeted policies and
2expenditures; and
3WHEREAS, It is vital that we implement a fair poverty measure
4that allows us to efficiently allocate resources and focus on regions
5and populations that need help the most; and
6WHEREAS, Given the numerous inadequacies of the Official
7Poverty Measure as a tool to accurately target and efficiently
8allocate antipoverty resources, the Supplemental Poverty Measure
9should guide the reform and updating of the Official Poverty
10Measure for administrative purposes in determining financial
11eligibility for programs intended to reduce poverty; now, therefore,
12be it
13Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of
14California, jointly, That the Legislature of California urges the
15President and the Congress of the United States to take steps to
16reform the outdated and inadequate Official Poverty Measure to
17better reflect poverty and the unmet needs demonstrated by the
18Supplemental Poverty Measure; and be it further
19Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
20of this resolution to the President and the Vice President of the
21United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to
22the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to each Senator and
23Representative from California in the Congress of the United
24States, to the Governor of California, and to the author of this
25resolution.
O
99