AJR 40, as amended, 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This measure would urge the federal government to take steps to reform the outdated and inadequate Official Poverty Measure to better reflect poverty and the unmet needs demonstrated by the Supplemental Poverty Measure.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.
P2 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, andbegin delete Children;end delete
6begin insert Children Program;end insert Housing Assistance; and others; and
7WHEREAS, The method we use today was developed inbegin delete theend delete
8 1964 by Molliebegin delete Orshanksyend deletebegin insert Orshanskyend insert of the Social Security
9begin delete Administration, and that method used before-tax cash income to begin insert Administrationend insert; and
10determine a family’s resources, which was then compared to a
11poverty thresholdend delete
12WHEREAS, Orshansky’s method used before-tax cash income
13to determine a family’s resources, which was then compared to a
14poverty threshold; and
15WHEREAS, In determining this poverty threshold,begin delete Orshanksyend delete
16begin insert Orshanskyend insert used a food plan developed by the federal Department
17of Agriculture that was designed for “temporary or emergency use
18when funds are low,” and then multiplied the cost of the plan by
19three because, at the time, a family typically used about a third of
20their income on food; and
21WHEREAS, Other than minor changes, the method has remained
22the same over time, despite significant economic and governmental
23changes, including the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid,
24the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, welfare
25reform of thebegin delete 1990’s,end deletebegin insert 1990s,end insert and the general stagnation of wages;
26and
27WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure is a one-size-fits-all
28policy that leads to a distorted perception of poverty and an
29inefficient allocation of resources to fight poverty; and
30WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure has failed to
31accurately measure poverty because it has not kept up with the
32changes to our economy and social science research; and
33WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not take into
34account that families no longer spend one-third of their income on
35food; they currently spend between 5 to 10 percent; and
36WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
37for noncash transfers, such as the Supplemental Nutrition
38Assistance Program or Medicaid, as income; and
P3 1WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
2for variations in cost of living in different regions of our country;
3and
4WHEREAS, Low-income working families in California are
5especially disadvantaged by the Official Poverty Measure due to
6our state’s high cost of living, which results in the denial of
7federally funded assistance to families living above the federal
8poverty line, but who are unable to meet their basic needs; and
9WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
10for the increase in child care expenses due to the rise in the
11workforce participation of both parents; and
12WHEREAS, The Official Poverty Measure does not account
13for variations in health care coverage and out-of-pocket medical
14costs; and
15WHEREAS, Historically, there has been widespread agreement
16among analysts, advocates, and policymakers that the Official
17Poverty Measure is inadequate, leading to a 1990 Congressional
18appropriation that was made for an independent scientific study
19on a new calculation method; and
20WHEREAS, This study was performed by The National
21Academy of Sciences, which established the Panel on Poverty and
22Family Assistance. The panel released a report in 1995 entitled
23“Measuring Poverty: A New Approach,” which established
24guidelines for creating a new method; and
25WHEREAS, Fifteen years later, in 2010, the Interagency
26Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty
27Measure and the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor developed
28an alternative poverty measure known as the Supplemental Poverty
29Measure; and
30WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure was designed
31to take into account changes in the United States economy over
32time, cost-of-living variations in different parts of the country, and
33the changing role of government; and
34WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure more
35accurately measures poverty by using a basic set of goods that
36includes food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, adjusted to reflect
37the needs of different family types and to account for geographic
38differences in living costs to establish what is known as a poverty
39threshold; and
P4 1WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure defines family
2resources as the value of cash income from all sources, plus the
3value of noncash benefits, including nutrition assistance, subsidized
4housing, home energy assistance, tax credits, and other benefits
5that are available to buy the basic bundle of goods, minus the
6necessary expenses for critical goods and services not included in
7the thresholds; and
8WHEREAS, Necessary expenses include income taxes, Social
9Security payroll taxes, childcare and other work-related expenses,
10child support payments, and contributions toward the cost of
11medical care and health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket
12medical costs; and
13WHEREAS, The Supplemental Poverty Measure offers a more
14accurate measure of poverty than the general Official Poverty
15Measure; and
16WHEREAS, The use of the Official Poverty Measure can have
17a detrimental effect on policies to combat poverty because it results
18in less efficient and less accurately targeted policies and
19expenditures; and
20WHEREAS, It is vital that we implement a fair poverty measure
21that allows us to efficiently allocate resources and focus on regions
22and populations that need help the most; and
23WHEREAS, Given the numerous inadequacies of the Official
24Poverty Measure as a tool to accurately target and efficiently
25allocate antipoverty resources, the Supplemental Poverty Measure
26shouldbegin delete supplantend deletebegin insert guide the reform and updating ofend insert the Official
27Poverty Measure for administrative purposes in determining
28financial eligibility for programs intended to reduce poverty; now,
29therefore, be it
30Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of
31California, jointly, That the Legislature of California urges the
32President and the Congress of the United States to take steps to
33reform the outdated and inadequate Official Poverty Measure to
34better reflect poverty and the unmet needs demonstrated by the
35Supplemental Poverty Measure; and be it further
36Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
37of this resolution to the President and the Vice President of the
38United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to
39the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to each Senator and
40Representative from California in the Congress of the United
P5 1States, to the Governor of California, and to the author of this
2resolution.
O
96