BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 40|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 40
Author: Mullin (D)
Amended: 5/5/14 in Assembly
Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-20, 5/5/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Federal poverty level measurement
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution memorializes the California
Legislatures request to the President of the United States and
Congress to replace the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) with the
new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
ANALYSIS : Existing law annually establishes the federal
poverty line based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau
and provides that the poverty line shall be used as a criterion
of eligibility for anti-poverty programs that fall under the
community services block grant authorized in 42 United States
Code (U.S.C.) Section 9904. (42 U.S.C. Section 9902)
This resolution makes the following declarations:
1. The OPM is determined by the U.S. Census Bureau and is
instrumental in determining an individual's eligibility for a
number of government programs including the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, School Lunch Program,
Women Infants and Children, Housing Assistance, and others.
CONTINUED
AJR 40
Page
2
2. The method we use today was developed in the 1964 by Mollie
Orshanksy of the Social Security Administration, and that
method used before-tax cash income to determine a family's
resources, which was then compared to a poverty threshold.
3. Other than minor changes, the method has remained the same
over time, despite significant economic and governmental
changes, including the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid,
the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, welfare
reform of the 1990's, and the general stagnation of wages.
4. The OPM is a one-size-fits-all policy that leads to a
distorted perception of poverty and an inefficient allocation
of resources to fight poverty.
5. The OPM does not take into account that families no longer
spend one-third of their income on food; they currently spend
between 5% to 10%.
6. The OPM does not account for the increase in child care
expenses due to the rise in the workforce participation of
both parents.
7. The SPM was designed to take into account changes in the
U.S. economy over time, cost-of-living variations in
different parts of the country, and the changing role of
government.
8. The SPM more accurately measures poverty by using a basic
set of goods that includes food, clothing, shelter, and
utilities, adjusted to reflect the needs of different family
types and to account for geographic differences in living
costs to establish what is known as a poverty threshold.
9. The use of the OPM can have a detrimental effect on policies
to combat poverty because it results in less efficient and
less accurately targeted policies and expenditures.
10.Low-income working families in California are especially
disadvantaged by the OPM due to our state's high cost of
living, which results in the denial of federally funded
assistance to families living above the federal poverty line,
but who are unable to meet their basic needs.
CONTINUED
AJR 40
Page
3
11.It is vital that we implement a fair poverty measure that
allows us to efficiently allocate resources and focus on
regions and populations that need help the most.
This resolution urges the federal government to take steps to
reform the outdated and inadequate OPM to better reflect poverty
and unmet needs demonstrated by the SPM.
Comments
Although the formula used to calculate the OPM relies on a
formula developed in the early 1960s, it is still used as a
means of measuring the number of people living in poverty and as
a baseline for determining eligibility for federally funded
anti-poverty programs. This joint resolution seeks to apply a
more appropriate standard for assessing and addressing poverty
by calling on the President of the U.S. and Congress to reform
the OPM.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/14/14)
California Primary Care Association
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
County Welfare Directors Association of California
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Western Center on Law and Poverty
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "The Official
Poverty Measure must be reformed to better reflect the poverty
and unmet needs demonstrated by the Supplemental Poverty
Measure. While the Supplemental Poverty Measure was never
intended to replace the Official Poverty Measure, it paints a
more accurate picture of poverty in the United States. It is
vital that we implement a fair poverty measure that allows us to
efficiently allocate resources and focus on regions and
populations that need help the most."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-20, 5/5/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
CONTINUED
AJR 40
Page
4
Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall,
Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones,
Linder, Maienschein, Nestande, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron,
Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Logue, Mansoor, Melendez, Olsen, Vacancy
AB:k 5/14/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED