Abt Report

July 2021

NYC Opportunity Response to Abt Associates

Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYC Government Poverty Measure

July 2021

The Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYC Government Poverty Measure was conducted in the summer

of 2018, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity

(NYC Opportunity) and Abt Associates sought to better understand the diversity of lived experiences and

challenges facing New Yorkers living near or below the poverty line.

In 2018, New York City was experiencing an extended economic expansion, with continuing job growth

and rising incomes. However, despite the economic growth, 3.5 million New Yorkers, 41.3% of the total

population of the city, were poor or near-poor in 2018 according to the New York City government

(NYCgov) poverty measure. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly transformed the

landscape of poverty in the city. It has caused extraordinary losses of jobs and income, driving low-

income New Yorkers further into poverty. As we release this report in the summer of 2021, the findings

and challenges detailed in the report are as relevant as ever and have taken on even greater urgency.

NYC Opportunity is the City of New York’s anti-poverty innovation unit. Our office helps the City

improve its systems and identify effective responses to poverty and its related challenges. NYC

Opportunity also produces the annual NYCgov Poverty Measure which provides detailed insights into the

scope of poverty using NYC specific costs of living and incorporating the benefits of NYC public policy

across the city. While the data from the NYCgov poverty measure has been used as an important tool in

fighting poverty, we recognize that numbers alone cannot show how poor or near poor individuals and

families experience hardship, make decisions and trade-offs, and navigate complex and unpredictable

events. We also recognize that poverty is not a permanent experience. Over the course of a lifetime

people may cycle in and out of poverty. And importantly, we know too that the best solutions often come

from the insights and recommendations of those closest to the problem. The following report presents

qualitative findings which help highlight the triggers that move people in and out of poverty and elevate

the voices of those who experience economic challenges.

The study took place in the South Bronx, a community with one of the highest poverty rates in the city-

and the nation as a whole. A commitment to understanding New Yorkers’ experiences from their own

perspectives led the study team to use community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods.

As part

of CBPR, Abt Associates partnered closely with BronxWorks, a trusted local service organization,

community researchers from Lehman College in the Bronx (a public college part of the City University of

New York), and researchers from the Columbia Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau, and

Hunter College throughout the project. At the conclusion of the study, findings were shared back with

participants in the research as well as other stakeholders.

Community-based participatory research methods involve community members as research partners—not only as

respondents—throughout the project, from the formulation of research questions through data collection, analysis, writing, and

dissemination of findings.

In exploring how income, work, community resources, health, housing, and other factors contribute to or

alleviate poverty, the study showed how much these issues intersect, complicate, and compound on one

another. The most significant theme confirmed by this study was the inextricable relationship between

income, work, and housing. Participants in the study spoke about jobs that provide insufficient wages and

hours to make ends meet, the inability to pursue education and training to improve work opportunities,

the threat of losing public benefits as incomes increase, and the high cost of housing which collide to keep

many poor New Yorkers from advancing along a permanent path out of poverty. Public benefits have

powerful anti-poverty effects, but the study found that they may not provide enough assistance for many

participants and often present a new set of challenges and constraints to navigate. Overall, study

participants expressed a desire for the experience of poverty and the needs of the poor to be better

understood and more publicly discussed. And they noted that while increasing awareness of existing

resources was important, it was also necessary to offer more resources for those in need.

Since the fieldwork for this study was completed, there have been a number of new initiatives and

policies working to support moving families out of poverty and near-poverty, as well as ongoing efforts to

support improved access to government benefits, affordable housing, and higher education. These include

the increase in minimum wage which reached $15 an hour in 2019, implementation of the nation’s first

minimum pay rate for app-based drivers, introduction of 3-K for all, launch of a new phase of the

affordable housing program YOUR Home NYC among other initiatives that play a role in reducing

poverty. There has also been significant aid to many low-income families provided as part of Covid relief

efforts.

Throughout the pandemic, the Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity worked alongside our

colleagues to respond to the public health, economic, and racial justice crises, while also advancing our

ongoing mission to help New York City address the underlying challenges of poverty and inequality that

these crises have highlighted and made even more urgent. NYC Opportunity remains committed to lifting

up and learning from the lived experiences of New Yorkers living in poverty and applying this knowledge

as we build an equitable recovery in a city facing unprecedented challenges.

Jean-Marie Callan

Deputy Director of Programs and Evaluation

David Berman

Director of Programs and Evaluation

Christine D’Onofrio

Director of Poverty Research

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report

Acknowledgements

This report would not be possible without the contributions of the community research team: Shakira

Alejo, Desiree Higgins, Lany Matos, Lysa Vanible, and Jacqueline Wright. These individuals skillfully

conducted thoughtful and compassionate interviews with all of our research participants, provided critical

insights into the research plan, and helped us to understand the context of poverty in New York City.

The Abt study team is grateful for the generous support provided by BronxWorks and for the guidance of

our Community Advisory Board members during the research process: Eliana Cruz, Liana Fox, Mark

Levitan, Juwan Stone, and Christopher Wimer. We also thank Debipriya Chatterjee, Christine D’Onofrio,

Daniel Edelman, Jin Kim, and Vicky Virgin.

We are all deeply indebted to the research participants for their willingness to share their personal stories

with us. We hope that this report honors your voices and experiences.

CONTENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Research Design and Methodological Approach ................................................................... 2

1.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Summary of This Report ........................................................................................................ 4

2. Experience of Poverty .................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Compounding Challenges and Catch-22s .............................................................................. 5

2.2 Finances ................................................................................................................................. 6

Use of Budgeting Strategies ................................................................................................... 7

Changes in Finances Over Time .......................................................................................... 11

Effects of Poverty in Shaping Financial Outlook ................................................................ 13

2.3 Work ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Approaches and Challenges in Finding Work ..................................................................... 17

Importance of a Living Wage .............................................................................................. 18

Elements of Job Quality ....................................................................................................... 19

2.4 Public Benefits and Other Resources ................................................................................... 22

Use of Public Benefits and Other Resources ....................................................................... 24

Experiences Seeking Benefits .............................................................................................. 26

Mistrust in the Public Realm ................................................................................................ 30

2.5 Health ................................................................................................................................... 31

Effects of Poverty on Mental Health .................................................................................... 31

Effects of Poverty on Physical Health ................................................................................. 33

Challenges With Medical Costs ........................................................................................... 33

2.6 Housing ................................................................................................................................ 36

Experiences Navigating NYC Housing Market ................................................................... 37

Seeking, Obtaining, and Using Housing Assistance ............................................................ 40

Threats to Housing Stability ................................................................................................ 41

Inadequacies in Housing Quality ......................................................................................... 42

2.7 Neighborhoods ..................................................................................................................... 44

Overall Neighborhood Assessment ...................................................................................... 44

Presence and Quality of Resources ...................................................................................... 45

2.8 The Role of Trigger Events in the Experience of Poverty ................................................... 46

Financial Shocks .................................................................................................................. 46

Accidents, Illnesses, and Health .......................................................................................... 47

Other Negative Trigger Events ............................................................................................ 47

CONTENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report

2.9 Strengths and Actions of New Yorkers in Poverty .............................................................. 47

Coping Mechanisms ............................................................................................................ 48

Budgeting ............................................................................................................................. 49

Public and Private Resources ............................................................................................... 49

Support Networks ................................................................................................................ 50

3. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 52

3.1 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................... 52

3.2 Research Participant Recommendations .............................................................................. 55

3.3 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 56

Appendix A: Resource Guide................................................................................................................... 58

Appendix B: City Initiatives & Resources .............................................................................................. 59

Appendix C: Poverty Thresholds ............................................................................................................ 62

Appendix D: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix E: Research Setting and Population ...................................................................................... 68

Appendix F: Data Collection Instruments .............................................................................................. 74

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. i

Executive Summary

Overview

In New York City, 3.7 million people (43.5% of the City’s total population) were poor or near-poor in

2016, according to a New York City–specific measure of poverty (NYCgov poverty measure) that New

York City government developed in 2008 and updates annually.

However, such data cannot convey how

individuals and families living in poverty experience it, make decisions and trade-offs, handle the complex

relationships among multiple issues, and use important skills to take action in their lives for the better.

This report presents the results of a qualitative study designed to complement the NYCgov poverty

measure data to answer the question: What are New Yorkers’ experiences living in or near poverty, and

what are the ways that poverty affects their lives?

Research Approach

Our commitment to understanding New Yorkers’ experiences from their own perspectives led us to use

community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods. CBPR involves community members as

research partners—not only as respondents—throughout each stage of the research process. In this

project, we engaged the local resident and service provider community in many ways recommended in

CBPR, beginning with our partnership with BronxWorks,

an active and trusted service organization in

the study area; and convening a Community Advisory Board (CAB) consisting of community researchers

(CRs), BronxWorks staff, and researchers from the Columbia Population Research Center, U.S. Census

Bureau, and Hunter College.

The study team collected data from several sources: a screening

questionnaire, semi-structured interviews in English and Spanish,

and two focus groups. The screening questionnaire was

administered to 101 applicants, from whom we selected a study

sample of 41 people based on eligibility study criteria. We

interviewed 31 of them and 10 participated in focus groups of

five members each.

Data are from 2016, the most recent year data available during the design and implementation of this study.

(https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/18_poverty_measure_report.pdf).

BronxWorks is a multi-service organization that serves 45,000 community members across 38 locations in the Bronx

annually. BronxWorks programming includes children and youth programs, immigration services, eviction prevention,

homeless shelters and services, senior centers, workforce development, and benefit assistance. BronxWorks also hosts or

participates in a number of events that are open to the community. BronxWorks was selected as a partner by the study team

based on the extent of their service locations throughout the Bronx study area, which provided diverse data collection

opportunities; their history as an active and trusted service provider for more than 40 years; and previous experience

successfully partnering with Abt Associates on another research study regarding the effects of neighborhood change on New

York City Housing Authority residents.

Research Sample

(Number of Participants)

• Screening questionnaire sample: 101

• Study sample: 41, including:

− Interview sample: 31

− Focus group sample: 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. ii

The primary data source for this report is 31 semi-structured interviews conducted by CRs (interview

sample). CRs used their judgment to guide the interview and explore as few or as many topics with a

particular interviewee as made sense given each individual’s experiences.

Possible topics included income, work, and gigs; public benefits and city services; support networks;

trigger events and episodes of poverty; assets and financial well-being; neighborhood factors; health and

well-being; and housing. In addition, this report incorporates input from 10 individuals who participated

in focus groups, and summary statistics from 101 screening questionnaires completed by individuals who

were interested in participating in a study interview. For more information on the research approach and

methodology, see Appendix D.

Data collection took place from July 19 to September 7, 2018, primarily in the South and Southwest

Bronx, in neighborhoods that are generally higher poverty, even within the Bronx, and have a

BronxWorks service location. For more information on the research area, see Appendix E.

Findings

In exploring how income, work, community resources, health, housing and more contribute to or alleviate

poverty, it is clear how much these issues intersect with one another, complicate one another, and

compound on one another. Together, challenges related to these issues led to a pervasive feeling of not

being able to get ahead in life. Our findings confirmed the challenges people with low income face in

furthering their education to obtain good jobs, in finding work with regular and sufficient hours while

teetering on the edge of the “benefits cliff,” and the effects on physical and mental health of persistent

deficits of nourishment and shelter. Public benefits provided very important supports, but interviewees

had mixed experiences in applying for and using those benefits. While the sections below focus on

individual themes, it should not be underestimated how much challenges in one area, such as work,

reverberate in others, such as childcare, health, access to benefits, and housing options.

Finances

Chronic poverty, emergency episodes, and high rents make it very difficult for poor New Yorkers to get

on a permanent path out of poverty.

Most respondents to the screening questionnaire and most interviewees report that they regularly

experience challenges meeting routine needs. Among respondents who answered screening questions:

• 73% said that they often worry that food will run out before they have enough money to buy more

(n=66 of 90).

• 61% said that in the last year they or other members of their household ran out of money before rent

was due (n=51 of 83).

• 49% said that they have had a utility cut off in the last year because of a lack of money (n=43 of 87).

Throughout the report, we include how many interviewees reported each theme and how many were asked the question.

Each theme, therefore, should be interpreted as the minimum number of interviewees experiencing a given theme; if

anything, we are underestimating these issues for the individuals we interviewed. Given the nature of the interviews, some

topics are covered more thoroughly and with more nuance than others, and that is reflected in our report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. iii

For interviewees who do not experience these

issues (10 of 31), public assistance helps them

make ends meet, including Supplemental

Security Income (SSI), food assistance,

homeless shelters, permanent housing

assistance, and cash assistance. For more on

ways in which public resources help New

Yorkers, and the ways in which they fall

short, see Section 2.4/Public Benefits and

Other Resources.

In addition to regular challenges in meeting

daily needs, financial shocks, such as job loss,

accidents, or medical expenses for themselves

or loved ones, also have a far-reaching effect on interviewees’ financial and personal well-being.

The cost of housing places a significant burden on the budgets of poor New Yorkers. It was one of the

two most frequently cited expenses that were most difficult to meet, because it is the biggest portion of

income. The other expense that is most difficult to meet is food, since it is difficult to plan for.

Interviewees discussed the strategies they use to get by while living below or close to the poverty

threshold, such as careful budgeting, going without things that others might consider necessities,

staggering expenses, prioritizing certain debts or bills to pay, and using credit cards to get by. To navigate

the high cost of housing, interviewees rent out or sublet rooms, or live with friends, family, and non-

family roommates (doubling up

) in a variety of formal and informal arrangements. These strategic

approaches to budgeting and finances are discussed further in Section 2.9.2/Budgeting and in

Section 2.6.1/Experiences Navigating NYC Housing Market.

The barriers to exiting poverty are at odds with opportunities interviewees perceived. Interviewees believe

their best opportunity to improve their financial situation is through better employment gained through

attainment of work-related trainings, certificates, or college degrees. However, for many interviewees the

compounded stressors of chronic poverty, the high cost of rent, and financial shocks preclude them from

pursuing education and training opportunities they believe would improve their income and overall

financial well-being, either because of a lack of funds or the inability to secure a loan. For more on this

subject, refer to Section 2.2/Finances.

Work

Our study sample felt they were “working but not moving forward,” as most of the jobs currently held by

or available to them can be described either as low-wage or with limited hours – or both.

Most working

interviewees described the content of their jobs as satisfying but that their wages were inadequate to cover

“Doubling up refers to two or more adults or families residing in the same housing unit, which has been an increasing trend

in the United States in recent decades. Within the past 14 years, the number of households containing more than one family,

related or unrelated, has more than tripled.” Source: Hannah Bush and Marybeth Shin, (2017), “Families’ Experiences of

Doubling Up After Homelessness.” Cityscape 19(3), 331-356.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol19num3/article19.html

Those who were not working were generally out of the labor force due to their own disability or the need to care for a family

member.

Key Finding: Chronic poverty, emergency episodes, and

high rents make it very difficult for poor New Yorkers to get

on a permanent path out of poverty through education or

training alone.

Key Finding: More than half of interviewees have some

trouble paying for routine expenses, such as food, rent, and

bills, every month. Ten interviewees do not report such

regular challenges, and public assistance and support

networks help these interviewees make ends meet.

Key Finding: Some interviewees reported that their

situation had improved in the past year, often for reasons

related to work, such as gaining employment and finding a

better-paying job.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. iv

their living expenses, especially since most

worked part-time and/or erratic schedules

despite wanting to work more hours. Their

experiences accord with a growing body of

research on the detrimental effects of

unpredictable hours and low wages on

keeping workers in poverty.

Three major themes about work emerged

from the interviews. First, participants felt

that all their income goes towards taxes and

bills with little left over. Second, participants

indicated that the current minimum wage is

not a living wage. None of those making minimum wage

reported feeling like it was enough to get by;

one interviewee said she did not think it was enough because many of the people she knew who made

minimum wage were homeless. In our study sample, the consensus seemed to be that $17-20 per hour is a

living wage, with the caveat that people need enough hours in a week from their employer. Relatedly,

underemployment is a common issue. Interviewees need access to good jobs – those they defined as

having reliable, consistent, and sufficient hours – and decent wages to help them exit poverty.

Indeed, among those who reported improvements in their financial situation in the past year, work is the

most common driver of actual positive shifts in finances, including gaining employment and finding

better paying jobs. Many of these individuals had been able to complete work-related trainings,

certificates, or college degrees. For more on these issues, refer to Section 2.3/Work.

Public Benefits and Other Resources

Public benefits were an important source of financial support for many interviewees; most received some

type of public benefit, most commonly health insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) and Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps). However, interviewees also described

ways in which benefits fell short. Many of those who received SNAP reported the amount they received

was not enough to meet their food needs. Relatively few reported receiving housing assistance, though

many desired it. Several interviewees reflected on their experiences with the benefits cliff

where an

Sophie Collyer, Matthew Maury, and Christopher Wimer, (2017), Shortchanged: Underemployment in New York City,

https://robinhoodorg-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/PovertyTracker_Underemployment.pdf

Lonnie Golden, (2015), “Irregular Work Scheduling and Its Consequences,” http://www.epi.org/publication/irregular-work-

scheduling-and-its-consequences/

Pamela Loprest and Demetra Nightingale, (2018), “The Nature of Work and the Social Safety Net,”

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nature-work-and-social-safety-net

Jesse Rothstein, (2012), “The Labor Market Four Years into the Crisis: Assessing Structural Explanations,”

https://www.nber.org/papers/w17966

New York City minimum wage was $13 per hour at the time of our research. It increased from $7.25 in 2013 to $15

effective January 1, 2019 for large employers (11 or more employees) and January 1, 2020 for small employers (10 or less).

The benefits cliff refers to income thresholds placed on various public benefit levels and programs that trigger a loss of that

support if recipients work more hours or their income increases beyond the threshold amount. This effect is exacerbated in

New York City as the local minimum wage has risen. Although increased incomes have benefitted low-income New

Yorkers considerably, it has also made them encounter benefits cliffs much faster than previously.

Key Finding: Interviewees perceive work as the key to

getting out of poverty. Obtaining a better job was reported

to be the most common driver for those in the study whose

financial situations improved in the last year.

Key Finding: Underemployment and low wages in the

labor market are a bigger issue than is a lack of jobs. Few

interviewees worked regular, full-time schedules despite

reporting wanting to work more hours. Good jobs—those

with reliable, consistent, and sufficient hours—and decent

wages were needed among this population to facilitate their

exit from poverty.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. v

increase in their work hours or pay triggers

the loss or reduction of various public

benefits, resulting in an overall neutral or

even negative change in their income and

sometimes quality of life.

Interviewees reported having a range of

experiences applying for benefits, though

these experiences should be interpreted with

the knowledge that interviewees were not

asked to provide an exhaustive list of their

current or former benefits received. While

two interviewees appreciated the ease with

which they were able to apply for SNAP

benefits online through the ACCESS HRA web portal, and interviewees residing at a shelter noted the

ease of being connected to benefits there, most interviewees characterized the general application process

as confusing, difficult, and time-consuming.

Past negative experiences often led interviewees to be reluctant to seek support, but there were other

barriers to applying for benefits. These included beliefs about eligibility requirements or about who public

assistance was for more generally, lack of knowledge about resources and where to go for help, and

stigma or pride.

Participants often either did not know or did not specify which type of entity was funding or providing

different benefits or services. For example, interviewees rarely described specific workforce or training

programs by name or with much detail. They often referred generally to “school” or something like a

“Microsoft Office training” and did not provide enough detail to know whether they meant a government

or nonprofit program, a community or other college, or a proprietary school or for-profit training

provider. This sort of description was common, and while it means that this research is not always able to

tease out programmatic differences, it is an important finding in telling us more about the way in which

New Yorkers experience and receive benefits and programs. Benefits seem to be experienced as a

monolith, in which the provider or funder is not always apparent to the applicant or recipient of services.

Therefore, differences across programs in terms of eligibility or application requirements and procedures

seem nonsensical to applicants and further disconnect the recipient from the experience or provider of

services.

For more on this subject, refer to Section 2.4/Public Benefits and Other Resources as well as

Section 2.6.2/Seeking, Obtaining, and Using Housing Assistance.

Health

The financial stressors of poverty have a disproportionate negative impact on study participants’ mental

health and their ability to treat and recover from physical ailments.

Poverty affected participants’ mental health by contributing to depression, anxiety, and lack of sleep.

According to interviewees, stress over the inability to make ends meet, pay bills on time, and afford basic

necessities triggered worry and anxiety, sometimes leading to depression. Sometimes this high level of

stress contributed to physical manifestations, such as tension in their body.

Key Finding: Most interviewees received some type of

public benefit. While these benefits were an important

support in helping to meet material needs, they may not be

substantial enough to meaningfully enhance quality of life or

provide pathways to exiting poverty.

Key Finding: The most common benefit received was public

health insurance (Medicaid or Medicare), followed by SNAP.

Key Finding: Housing assistance was the most desired

support.

Key Finding: The benefits cliff, a phenomenon in which an

increase in earned income triggers public benefits to

decrease or end, also contributed to the study sample’s

perception of the inadequacy of public benefits.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. vi

Poverty affected interviewees’ physical health

in myriad ways by impeding their access to

key resources for proper care. Interviewees

described avoiding medical costs altogether

via alternative treatments or delaying care, or

by finding ways to increase their ability to pay

for treatments, even if that worsened their

condition. In addition, interviewees often lack

healthy food (reported by eight interviewees),

either because it was not available in their

neighborhood or was too expensive. Some described not having enough time to prepare food and having

to rely on the efficiency of processed food.

Seven interviewees cited Medicaid as an important factor in covering medical costs. In fact, according to

the American Community Survey,

of residents in the study area with health insurance, 61.8% have

public health insurance, compared to 41.1% in New York City as a whole. Some 15% of all residents in

the Bronx study area have no health insurance coverage. While many interviewees mentioned Medicaid

as their primary form of insurance, several mentioned their need to reduce their income in order to qualify

for it. Given the cost of health care, they considered this a prudent and calculated move.

For more on this subject, refer to Section 2.5/Health. For discussion on the relationship between

unexpected costs related to accidents, illnesses, and health events and interviewees’ entry into poverty or

worsening financial position, refer to Section 2.8.2/Accidents, Illnesses, and Health.

Housing

The cost of rent is one of the biggest

challenges facing our study sample and

housing assistance was the type of

government support they most frequently

requested. The financial burden of rent holds

poor New Yorkers back from their goals in a

multitude of ways, from limiting their

financial security and savings, impeding their

ability to pursue education and training goals,

and their capacity to absorb unexpected

expenses without serious consequences.

Interview participants prioritized paying their

rent over all other expenses due to a fear of

eviction and homelessness. Nonetheless, due

to compounding financial pressures, 61% of screening questionnaire respondents reported that in the last

year they or other members of their household ran out of money before rent was due.

NYC Planning Population FactFinder (2012-2016 American Community Survey).

https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/#12.25/40.724/-73.9868

Key Finding: Rent presents the biggest financial burden to

study participants. This holds poor New Yorkers back in

several ways, including limiting their financial security and

savings, their ability to pursue education and training goals,

and their capacity to absorb unexpected expenses without

serious consequences.

Key Finding: High rent-to-income ratios challenge most

interviewees. They drive interviewees’ fears of, and

experiences with, eviction and housing insecurity.

Key Finding: Few interviewees have housing assistance

but many need and call for it. Having a housing voucher is

not a guarantee of securing housing in New York’s

increasingly tight and expensive housing market.

Reported mental and physical health effects of poverty:

• Anxiety

• Depression

• Stress

• Physical tension

• Trouble sleeping

• Lack of healthy food

• Inability to properly care for ailments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. vii

Our research indicates that housing assistance interventions are not sufficient given the prevalence of

rental cost burden. While about 57% of units in NYC are rent-regulated in some way,

forty percent (12)

of interviewees reported receiving some form of housing assistance, including through a Housing Choice

Voucher, shelter housing, senior rental assistance program, New York City Housing Authority public

housing (NYCHA), or a rent-regulated apartment. Despite the prevalence of rent regulation, 51% of rental

households in New York City are cost-burdened, paying more than 30% of their household income on

rent and utilities.

Our findings are similar.

Despite the high price many tenants pay in rent each month, some still endure housing conditions that are

inadequate. Participants reported a variety of housing quality issues, namely persistent maintenance issues

and overcrowding, that affected their daily lives, safety, and housing stability.

Overcrowding was another issue faced by interviewees, especially for those living in the shared living

arrangements described above. For example, one participant noted that she and her spouse slept with their

children in a single bedroom in order to rent out a room in their apartment. A man in his mid-50s

subletting a room in a shared apartment complained that the one bathroom shared by the six roommates is

always in use, and that living in his tiny bedroom causes him depression.

For more on this subject, refer to Section 2.6/Housing.

Neighborhoods

Interviewees in this study resided in neighborhoods

throughout the Bronx and had varying

characterizations of their neighborhoods. Those with

positive perceptions of their neighborhood described

areas that were quiet, peaceful, community-oriented,

and with good access to resources. Those with

negative perceptions of their neighborhoods

described places that were sometimes violent,

disorganized, and with a physically dirty environment.

Generally, interviewees reported good access to transit and centrality to amenities, such as bodegas, fast

food, transit, parks, and schools. Some noted a lack of access to fresh vegetables and other healthy foods,

as well as steep prices for those items.

Study participants identified some areas of need in their communities. They wanted more parks,

recreation activities, and other community spaces. Particularly, they wanted activities for youth and

children. Some noted that parks in their neighborhood were not well maintained, especially compared to

parks in other parts of the city.

For more on this subject, refer to Section 2.7/Neighborhoods.

According to the Housing and Vacancy Survey, “of the 2,183,064 occupied and vacant rental units reported in the most

recent HVS, 42.9% were unregulated, or “free market.” The remaining units were rent regulated, including pre-war (pre-47)

rent stabilized (31.7%), post-war (post-46) rent stabilized (12.5%), rent controlled (1.0%), or regulated under various other

types of programs (11.8%).” Source: New York City Rent Guidelines Board, (2018), “2018 Housing Supply Report,”

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/rentguidelinesboard/pdf/18HSR.pdf

American Community Survey (2012-2016).

Key Finding: Interviewees with a largely positive

assessment of their neighborhood described these

areas as quiet, peaceful, community oriented, and

as having good access to resources. Those with a

largely negative assessment mentioned violence,

disorganization, and dirty environments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. viii

Key Takeaways

Our research shows that every day, poor and near-poor New Yorkers must make important decisions and

trade-offs to live with poverty’s myriad effects on their lives. This suggests the need for policy

interventions that are equally nuanced and responsive to intersecting issues. The following section

presents recommended actions from research participants to make the most of their contributions to this

research, as well as a summary of key takeaways from this research.

It was most important to research participants (n=14) to see New York City “do something,” as they were

eager to see change for themselves, their families, and their communities. Second, more than half of

respondents to this question desire for the experience of poverty and the needs of the poor to be better

understood and more publicly discussed. The latter request is twofold, meaning a desire both to share

experiences that may be negative with peers and to discuss the needs of the poor in a wider audience of

New Yorkers and policymakers in order to craft more effective solutions. Last, research participants

hoped the City would provide more resources to alleviate poverty. Three participants recommended

increasing awareness of existing resources, but eight participants said it was necessary to offer more

resources for those in need. While lack of knowledge about existing resources may be problematic,

research participants were more adamant that existing resources are simply not abundant enough to meet

the needs of low-income New Yorkers.

Key takeaways from the Abt study team and CAB cohere around eight main findings:

• By definition, poverty is a lack of sufficient income or resources to cover one’s present needs.

• Poverty also carries a profound sense for one’s future of not being able to get ahead.

• For most participants, their poverty was a result of a series of financial shocks and other setbacks

rather than a singular trigger event.

• For a subset of participants, health challenges were the single trigger that sent them into and kept

them in poverty.

• Underemployment and low wages in the labor market are bigger issues than a lack of jobs.

• Public benefits reduce hardship but, for a variety of reasons, are often not enough.

• The phenomenon of a benefits cliff means that an increase in earned income can sometimes leave

households the same or even worse off, when it triggers public benefits to decrease or end.

• New Yorkers near or below the poverty line are strong, resilient, and strategic in navigating poverty.

For a complete list of key findings across study areas, including recommendations from research

participants and recommendations for next steps in research and dissemination of findings, refer to

Section 3/Discussion.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. ix

Conclusion

Our research expands on the understanding of the lived experiences of poverty and the multiple ways in

which challenges intersect with and compound one another. Poor and near-poor research participants in

this study face burdensome housing costs, jobs that provide insufficient wages and hours to make ends

meet, and health challenges arising from their economic conditions.

The most significant theme confirmed by this study is the inextricable relationship between income, work,

and housing. As described in this report, inadequate work opportunities, the inability to pursue education

and training to improve work opportunities, the threat of the benefits cliff, and the high cost of housing

collide to keep many poor New Yorkers from advancing along a permanent path out of poverty. Solutions

to reduce poverty will need to address these inter-related challenges together.

INTRODUCTION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 1

1. Introduction

New York City is home to more than 8.5 million people, 3.7 million (43.5%)

of whom are poor or near-

poor, according to a New York City–specific measure of poverty developed by the City of New York in

2008 and updated annually. This measure, the NYCgov poverty measure, has been designed to represent

the cost of living in New York City more accurately than the Federal Poverty Level or even the Census

Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure.

14, 15

The NYCgov poverty measure and other NYC-specific poverty research, including an annual report from

the Office of the Mayor, have contributed greatly to understanding the scale of poverty in NYC and

identifying specific challenges of living in poverty. What these numbers cannot show is how individuals

and families living in poverty experience it, make decisions and trade-offs, handle the complex

relationships among multiple issues—such as between childcare, unpredictable scheduling, access to

health care, ability to pursue further education or training, and transportation—and use important skills to

take action in their lives for the better.

This report presents the results of a qualitative study designed to complement the NYCgov poverty

measure, by portraying the complexities of living poor in New York City using residents’ own words.

The New York City Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity solicited this research in order to gather

information where little data are currently available at the city level, including data on burdensome costs,

the varied and complex ways that poverty affects the lives of low-income New Yorkers, and perspectives

from low-income New Yorkers on what supports would be most helpful in exiting poverty. This research

asked the key question: What are New Yorkers’ experiences living in or near poverty, and what are the

ways that poverty affects their lives?

A primary finding of this study is the extent to which the various areas of investigation—finances, work,

public benefits and other resources, health, housing, and neighborhoods—intersect with one another,

complicate one another, and compound on one another. Together these challenges led to a pervasive

feeling of not being able to get ahead in life among poor and near-poor residents interviewed. Our

findings confirmed the challenges people with low income face in furthering their educations to obtain

good jobs, in finding work with regular and sufficient hours, and the damage wrought on physical and

mental health by inadequate food and shelter. Public benefits provided very important supports, but

interviewees had mixed experiences in applying for and using those benefits. While sections in this report

Data are from 2016, the most recent year data available during the design and implementation of this study.

(https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/18_poverty_measure_report.pdf

The Federal poverty level uses a formula developed in the 1960s to set a poverty threshold relative to the cost of a minimum

diet. It accounts only for pre-tax cash income. It is adjusted each year based on changes in consumer prices. The Census

Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure was created in 2011 to take into account the effect of some government programs.

For details on the Supplemental Poverty Measure, see Fox, Liana, (2018), The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2017.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-265.pdf

NYCgov’s poverty measure quantitatively captures many nuances including high local housing costs, utilities, childcare and

transportation expenses, medical expenditures, food, and clothing. The NYCgov poverty measure also includes the effects of

public programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Earned Income Tax Credit, on

moving people out of poverty. For details on how the NYCgov poverty measure is calculated, see NYC Opportunity, (2018),

New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-2016. An Annual Report From the Office of the Mayor,

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/18_poverty_measure_report.pdf

INTRODUCTION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 2

focus on individual themes, it should not be

underestimated how much challenges in one area, such as

work, reverberate in others, such as childcare, health,

access to benefits, and housing options.

Our commitment to understanding New Yorkers’

experiences from their own perspectives led us to use

community-based participatory research (CBPR)

methods. CBPR involves community members as

research partners—not only as respondents—throughout

the project, from the formulation of research questions

through data collection, analysis, writing, and

dissemination of findings.

This research is distinguished from other research on

poverty in New York City by its participatory and

qualitative approach, and by the breadth of participants

interviewed, who included individuals reporting

household incomes that placed them up to (and in two

cases, above) 150 percent of the NYCgov poverty threshold.

1.1 Research Design and Methodological Approach

In this project, we engaged the local resident and service provider community in many ways

recommended in CBPR, beginning with our partnership with BronxWorks,

an active and trusted service

organization in the study area; and convening a Community Advisory Board (CAB) consisting of our

community researchers (CRs; see text box above), BronxWorks staff, and researchers from the Columbia

Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau, and Hunter College. Our CAB was involved

throughout the research process, from the formulation of research questions through data collection,

analysis, and writing. For more information on the research approach and methodology, see Appendix D.

Almost all interviewees for this study were working-age adults (26 of 31) and most were women (19 of

31). Most interviewees identified as Black or as Hispanic of any race. Eighteen (18) interviewees resided

in households without children, and 13 resided in household with children present.

The sample of New Yorkers interviewed is not representative or random. Compared to all NYC residents

living in poverty, our research sample is less White and Asian, and more Black and Hispanic. This is in

part due to the demographics of the Bronx study area, which is almost entirely Black and Hispanic. Our

sample also underrepresents men living in poverty; this might be due to the smaller presence and

involvement of men at BronxWorks locations or maybe that men were less interested in our study. Just

23% of applicants who completed a screening questionnaire were men, although men represent nearly

half of all people in poverty. Due to Institutional Review Board concerns, youth under age 18 were not

BronxWorks is a multi-service organization that serves 45,000 community members across 38 locations in the Bronx

annually. BronxWorks programming includes children and youth programs, immigration services, eviction prevention,

homeless shelters and services, senior centers, workforce development, and benefit assistance. BronxWorks also hosts or

participates in a number of events that are open to the community.

Unique Role of

Community Researchers

Community researchers (CRs) were vital to this

project at every stage, from formulating research

questions, to collecting the majority of the data,

through analysis and interpretation of findings.

CRs were recruited through Lehman College in

the Bronx, based on their social science research

qualifications and personal connections to the

study’s focus neighborhoods. CRs also had

varying degrees of personal and professional

experience addressing issues of poverty.

CRs brought their research training, local

knowledge, and personal insights to each aspect

of the project—for example, pitching the study to

prospective participants, building trust, and

correctly interpreting findings—in ways that

strengthened the project overall.

INTRODUCTION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 3

included in the research sample. See Appendix E for more

information on the demographic characteristics of NYC

residents in poverty compared to study applicants and

participants.

We also interviewed New Yorkers living at different levels

of poverty. More than two out of every five City residents

(43.5%) are poor or near-poor. Our research aimed to speak

with residents living both in poverty (below 100% of the

NYCgov poverty threshold) and in near-poverty (100% to

less than 150% of the threshold). In addition, we were

interested in learning about the experiences of those

residents whose income is 150% or higher than the threshold but who still report experiencing income-

related hardships such as not having enough food to eat or being unable to pay their utility bills or rent on

time. More than half of the study participants were poor, slightly less than one-third were near-poor, and

the remainder were either above the poverty threshold or did not provide an income. Not all interviewees

chose to provide data on their income and household size. See Appendix E for more detail on sampling

decisions.

1.2 Data Collection

The study team collected data from several

sources: a screening questionnaire, semi-

structured interviews in English and Spanish,

and two focus groups. Exhibit 1 uses concentric

circles to describe the research sample visually.

The large circle represents the screening

questionnaire sample. The screening

questionnaire was administered to 101

applicants, from whom we selected a study

sample of 41 people based on eligibility criteria

developed for the study. To be eligible for the

study, individuals needed to be at least 18 years

of age; live in New York City; and be either

poor, near-poor, or report experiencing one or

more of the financial hardships specified by the

screening questionnaire.

After confirming an applicant’s basic eligibility, the study team selected interviewees to maximize our

sample’s diversity by age, race/ethnicity, preferred language, foreign-born status, gender, family

composition, and depth of poverty. Of the 41 study participants (represented by the bright blue semi-

Using semi-structured interviewing means that not all 31 interviewees were asked the same questions. Throughout the

report, we include how many interviewees reported each theme and how many were asked the question. Each theme,

therefore, should be interpreted as the minimum number of interviewees experiencing a given theme; if anything, we are

underestimating these issues for the individuals we interviewed. Given the nature of the interviews, some topics are covered

more thoroughly and with more nuance than others, and that is reflected in our report.

Exhibit 1: Research Sample

How is ‘Poverty’

Defined in this Study?

This research uses the terms poor and near-

poor in alignment with the NYCgov poverty

measure. Households defined as poor report

incomes up to 100% of the NYCgov poverty

threshold, and near-poor households report

incomes from 100% to less than 150% of the

NYCgov poverty threshold. See Appendix C

for the NYCgov Poverty Threshold Table.

INTRODUCTION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 4

circle in the middle with dashed lines), 31 were interviewed and 10 participated in focus groups of five

members each. The first exploratory focus group helped to raise themes and topics for discussions in

interviews and the second focus group was used to confirm findings and gather additional detail.

CRs conducted the majority of data collection by collecting screening questionnaires and conducting the

interviews. Abt staff supervised and assisted with these activities and led the focus groups. The primary

data source is 31 semi-structured interviews conducted by CRs. CRs used their judgment to guide the

interview and explore as few or as many topics with a particular interviewee as made sense given each

individual’s experiences.

To give a broader context to our interview findings, we also incorporate

summary statistics from 101 responses to the screening questionnaire completed by individuals who were

interested in participating in a study interview. We also include responses from open-ended screening

questions about what would help individuals to live a better life in New York City. For more information

on this topic, see Appendix D. Data collection took place primarily in the South and Southwest Bronx, in

neighborhoods that are generally higher poverty, even within the Bronx, and have a BronxWorks

presence. For more information on the research area, see Appendix E.

1.3 Summary of This Report

The remaining chapters of this report present detailed descriptions of the lived experience of poverty in

New York City. These experiences are presented from the perspective of study participants. This data is

presented according to the way in which information was told to the research team, without editing or

alterations, and their individual experiences should not necessarily be understood as the way in which

programs or policies are designed to be implemented but rather as the way in which the individual or

group lived through a certain circumstance or situation. In some places, we also include contextual

information about New York City and public services to help readers more fully understand a particular

topic.

Chapter 2 summarizes key themes within each of our primary topic areas: finances, work, public benefits

and other resources, health, housing, and neighborhoods. We also discuss the trigger events that are

associated with entries into or exits from poverty, and challenges facing NYC residents in poverty and the

strategies they use to meet these hardships. In Chapter 3, we present key takeaways of this research; share

participants’ own words about the outcomes they would like to witness as a result of this study; and suggest next

steps for further research and dissemination.

Throughout the report, we include how many interviewees reported each theme and how many were asked the question.

Each theme, therefore, should be interpreted as the minimum number of interviewees experiencing a given theme; if

anything, we are underestimating these issues for the individuals we interviewed. Given the nature of the interviews, some

topics are covered more thoroughly and with more nuance than others, and that is reflected in our report.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 5

2. Experience of Poverty

This chapter attempts to convey how New Yorkers living in poverty navigate that reality day-to-day.

Sections focus on specific topics such as work, health, and housing; throughout each section we discuss

the ways in which problems in that topic area reverberate throughout the respondents’ lives and the

innovative strategies they use to manage these multifaceted trials. This chapter also includes four profiles

presenting a small portion of an interviewee’s life.

2.1 Compounding Challenges and Catch-22s

So you know, I don’t want to say it’s a loop or a cycle or something to keep you held

back, but in a way it is. No matter how much better jobs you want to get, you still have to

think about this, that, and the third with that closing your door with the next month. So I

mean, it’s a sick cycle. It’s a sick cycle.

The quote above explains one of interviewees’ key experiences: their circumstances present them with a

series of contradictory requirements or pressures that make it difficult for them to align everything they

need to better their situations. In this participant’s case, and echoed by others, he was confronting the

income thresholds imposed by public benefits and other programs, over which recipients lose the support

if they work more hours or earn more pay (known as a “benefits cliff”). The quoted interviewee reported

his understanding that if he earned above a certain income, he would be disqualified for his SEPS

voucher and public assistance. He added that these contradictions set up a “sick cycle” for people trying

to abide by program requirements while making a living, thereby keeping people in poverty. In light of

this cycle, we also heard from many interviewees that they are unable to find work that pays wages and

assigns enough hours so that they could become wholly financially secure and independent from

government benefits.

For some, conflicts between competing demands feel like an impossible catch-22 to overcome. The

conflicts sometimes arise between finding work, finding shelter, and staying within the boundaries of

parole requirements. One participant described how because of his felony record and lack of experience,

he had a hard time finding work. The work he could find required overnight shifts, which conflicted with

curfew at the shelter where he was currently staying.

While he wanted to leave the shelter and find

housing on his own, he needed a paying job to do so.

Pseudonyms have been used and all identifying detail has been removed to protect the privacy of our research participants.

New York City’s Special Exit and Prevention Supplement (SEPS) Program aims to help a variety of low-income, vulnerable

populations (individuals and families in Department of Homeless Services (DHS) shelters, previous military members,

recently evicted or displaced families and those at risk of eviction). In addition to their status in one of the aforementioned

groups, eligible recipients of SEPS Rent Supplement vouchers must have a household income below 200% of the federal

poverty level (at the time of initial SEPS eligibility determination, applicants must also be receiving Public Assistance). The

SEPS Rent Supplement Program provides one year of rent supplements, with options for extending up to four years if funds

are available. Enrolled households must contribute 30% of their household income towards an apartment or $50 towards a

room rental. The total household income includes employment earnings and passive income, such as SSI/SSD. Source: NYC

DHS. 2018. “The SEPS Rent Supplement Program.”

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dhs/downloads/pdf/SEPS/SEPS-fact-

sheet.pdf

All shelter residents with employment are eligible for a pass that waives curfew if it conflicts with their job (i.e., due to

overnight shift or other schedule). The participant interviewed may not have been familiar with the waiver or perceived

some barrier to getting it.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 6

Other research participants described a three-pronged challenge posed by the relationship of work,

childcare, and benefits. In this situation, individuals find that it is more economically beneficial for them

to receive SNAP; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and other benefits than to work a low-wage job

with limited or unpredictable hours plus the added expense of childcare. Well documented in the

literature,

this particular benefits cliff is an ongoing challenge for many.

In a focus group, one participant placed a water bottle on the table before her as she said, “This is

poverty.” She took bottles from other participants and heavily placed them in a circle around the first

saying, “This is depression…addiction…stress…loneliness…family problems…sickness.” The other

focus group participants nodded their heads vigorously along with her, and her analogy of the close

relationship between poverty and many related struggles was borne out in interviews with many other

research participants.

Throughout the remainder of this report, we will highlight specific challenges (such as finances, health,

housing, etc.). At the same time, it is paramount to keep in mind the intersections of different issues and

how these play out in the hardships and experiences of some of our research participants in the profiles

included throughout. Connections such as:

• Income, work, and benefits, including barriers to increasing income via education or training and the

threat of the benefits cliff.

• Limited finances and poor housing quality, such as ignoring persistent housing problems to avoid

landlord retaliation and maintain a relatively affordable rent.

• Housing quality and health, including the risk of lead poisoning to children.

• Health conditions and the inability (due to both time and money) to both treat the condition and

continue to work to pay the bills.

• Engaging in creative and non-traditional activities in order to meet basic needs.

Every day, individuals living in poverty or near-poverty must make critical decisions navigating the trade-

offs between these many different factors. This suggests the need for policy interventions to be responsive

to the need for people’s issues to be addressed in concert. The following sections describe these

experiences of poverty in more detail.

2.2 Finances

Living in poverty in New York City forces residents to face complicated financial difficulties, from

making ends meet day to day to being able to save for investments in their future or for an unexpected

emergency. Regular financial stresses prevented individuals in our study from accumulating savings. The

screening questionnaire,

completed by individuals who were interested in participating in the study,

S. Roll, and J. East, (2014), “Financially Vulnerable Families and the Child Care Cliff Effect,” Journal of Poverty, 18(2),

169-187.

During recruitment events, the study team set up a recruitment table for individuals to approach, approached individuals to

invite them to learn more about the study, and asked BronxWorks staff to help spread the word to their clients. Interested

individuals completed a one-page screening questionnaire which provided the study team with key demographic

information; data about their personal outlook on past and future experiences; and input on opportunities for the City to

address the most pressing challenges facing New Yorkers in poverty.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 7

included three questions designed to assess financial well-being and hardship, and the majority of its

respondents reported unmet basic needs. Of respondents who answered each question:

• 73% said that they often worry that food

will run out before they have enough

money to buy more (n=66 of 90).

• 61% said that in the last year they or

other members of their household ran

out of money before rent was due (n=51

of 83).

• 49% said that they have had a utility cut

off in the last year because of a lack of

money (n=43 of 87).

In a context of persistent need, interviewees

discuss the many ways in which chronic

financial hardship resonates in other areas of their life. With no money to spare, every cent goes towards

meeting basic daily needs and accumulating savings for the future is an impossibility for many in our

study. Housing costs place a significant pressure on the budgets of low-income New Yorkers (discussed

in Section 2.6/Housing). Chronic financial hardship also precludes many from being able to invest in

their future through education and training opportunities that could help to secure a better-paying job. For

more on the opportunities and challenges in work for poor and near-poor New Yorkers, see Section

2.3/Work and Mariama’s Story.

This section will explore respondents’ financial status and strategies, including managing household

budgets, navigating unexpected expenses, changes in financial situations over time, and their perceptions

of their own financial situation.

Use of Budgeting Strategies

Routine Expenses

Of interviewees who discussed how they manage routine expenses, slightly more than half (12 of 22)

indicated having some trouble meeting these costs, ranging in frequency from daily to monthly.

Interviewees reporting difficulties in meeting routine expenses tended to fall within the age range of 35-

64 and were less likely to receive benefits or supplementary sources of income than those who did not

express difficulty with routine expenses.

Interviewees who struggle with routine expenses described the challenges they faced especially when due

dates can pile up, and described having to budget carefully to cover routine bills. One interviewee

explained: “From the 28th to the fifth of the next month, I have trouble because everything piles up. I

have to pay the car, the cell phone, the rent, bills, everything.” This interviewee discussed how he had to

learn to budget carefully to manage routine expenses. Rent was cited as the routine expense hardest to

meet by most interviewees, and confirmed by our second focus group, and was usually the first bill paid

(see Section 2.6/Housing for further discussion on how households strategically manage this large cost).

One interviewee noted, “It’s already the middle of the month, and I already have to start taking money out

of all my checks so that I can get it for the first of the month.”

Key Finding: Chronic poverty, emergency episodes, and

high rents make it very difficult for poor New Yorkers to get

on a permanent path out of poverty through education or

training alone.

Key Finding: More than half of interviewees have some

trouble paying for routine expenses, such as food, rent, and

bills, every month. Ten interviewees do not report such

regular challenges, and public assistance and support

networks help these interviewees make ends meet.

Key Finding: 42% of interviewees reported that their

situation had improved in the past year, often for reasons

related to work, such as gaining employment and finding a

better-paying job.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 8

Exhibit 2: Interview Sample Reporting Routine Expense Hardest to Fulfill

Other routine expenses that interviewees struggled to cover were food, credit card debt, utility bills, cell

phone bills, and school-related expenses for children. One individual alluded to her food insecurity by

describing how she would prioritize feeding her children before herself, noting, “I have to make sure that

my children eat, I cannot see a starving child. I will go without food. If anything, I will go without a meal.

But my children, I can’t see them without food. I just can’t.”

Utility bills, particularly electricity bills, were cited as the easiest routine expense to meet, due to the

flexibility of the electricity provider, Con Edison. However, 5 individuals expressed some level of

financial strain from air conditioning utility expenses. Participants found that Con Edison was easy to

work with and gave residents several payment options, such as enrolling in a payment plan or paying half

the bill at the due date and having half the bill deducted from the individual’s paycheck.

For discussion of how households strategically manage their budgets and navigate poverty, see

Section 2.9.2/Budgeting.

Ten interviewees who discussed their routine expenses faced little to no challenge in making ends meet

day to day. As one interviewee noted, “Nowadays I don’t really struggle to make [ends meet].” These

interviewees cited assistance they received in the form of SSI, SNAP, homeless shelter housing, cash

assistance, housing vouchers, and shared housing with family and friends to keep the cost of rent low, as

factors that allowed them to navigate routine expenses. These individuals also tended to be optimistic

about their present and future financial situation. All 10 of these participants reported their economic

situation had improved or remained the same in the last year, and most of them reported that they believe

their financial situation will improve in the next year.

Savings

While a majority of interviewees (16 of 26, or 62%) reported having some savings, their comments

suggest that their level of savings is very low and has little opportunity to accumulate. When asked in a

focus group about savings, participants in the group laughed aloud, and one participant replied, “Pennies.”

Rent, (10, 53%)

Food, (3, 16%)

Child's

Educational

Expenses

(e.g., supplies,

tuition), (2, 11%)

Car Insurance,

(1, 5%)

Cell Phone,

(1, 5%)

Credit Card

Debt, (1, 5%)

Bills , (1, 5%)

n=19

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 9

Given study participants’ regular financial pressures, they might often dip into any money they held in

savings. One interviewee noted, “There are times when I have emergency funds put away and then there

are times when I have to dig into it just for groceries or to get the kids something new.…You barely can

have emergency funds put away.” Other participants described storing money, but did not keep these

savings in a bank account. Of those with savings, half (8 individuals) specifically mentioned having either

a bank OR an account of some kind (checking or savings). Those without savings in an account did not

discuss the reasons for not using a bank, but two of

them expressed the intention to open an account soon.

Furthermore, only three individuals referenced their

savings when asked about how they would deal with a

$250 unexpected expense, which reveals that while

many individuals said they had savings, they may not

regularly maintain at least $250. The largest amount of

savings a participant described having was enough to

cover one month’s worth of rent.

Interviewees’ ages and their depth of poverty (that is,

how near or far they are from the NYCgov poverty

threshold) were associated with savings behavior. We

observed a U-shaped curve in the relationship between

age group and savings. Those age 18-25 had the highest

reported rate of savings (80%). The rate declined for

age groups 26-35 (75%), 36-50 (33%), and 51-64 (29%), before increasing again at age 65+ (67%).

Given the small sample size, additional data are needed to confirm this finding and better understand the

results. As people become better off in relationship to the NYCgov poverty threshold, their likelihood of

reporting having savings increases. Among those below the NYCgov poverty threshold, 25% reported

having savings. Of those from 100% to less than 150% of the poverty threshold, 70% reported having

savings. Of those whose income is 150% or more than the poverty threshold, 100% reported having

savings.

Unexpected Costs

In our interviews, we found that many of the same interviewees who reported having little to no savings

also reported that they could come up with $250 if they needed to. Research participants described a

variety of strategies they used to cover unexpected expenses despite a lack of savings. These included

borrowing money, selling something, and “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” meaning to neglect one thing to

give to another, as ways they managed to cover unexpected and emergency expenses.

Seven interviewees discussed going to family and friends to borrow money to cover an unexpected

expense. Some interviewees discussed navigating this in the form of having money loaned to them as

reciprocity for loaning to others in the past. As one interviewee noted, “When I have financial trouble I

reach out to one or the other [sibling]. It’s a loan that you eventually pay back. I’ve done it before where I

have to lend to borrow.” Others spoke more broadly of simply receiving the sufficient funds. As one

Of respondents to this question without children in their household, 53% reported having savings compared to 45% of those

with children in their household.

Savings,

16, 62%

Savings,

10, 38%

Exhibit 3: Interview Sample Reporting Savings

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 10

interviewee noted, “My father would pay for it no problem.” Another participant noted how her father

“would find a way” to secure the funds to cover the unexpected cost.

One individual discussed waiting until the end of the month to draw from any available money left over

from paying other necessary expenses such as rent; another stated that she would draw the money from

her credit card. One additional interviewee discussed how he would “get out and do a side job” to cover

the unexpected costs. In addition to these strategies, member check focus group participants noted that

they or those they know also used pawn shops in emergency situations. Pawn shops are located on “every

other block” in our research area and often give sellers the option to buy their item back (for more money)

later on, when the individual has money again. In this manner, pawn shops function as a provider of

short-term loans for those with limited credit.

Eight interviewees stated that they would not know what to do if they were faced with an emergency $250

expense. One participant stated, “Cry. I’m serious. There’s nothing else. You just sit down and cry

because there’s no way of getting it.”

Among households living in poverty, unexpected costs place a disproportionate burden on finances. At

the time of the interviews, research participants reported recently or actively navigating a variety of

unexpected costs including family- and health-related costs.

Five interviewees discussed unexpected expenses related to their children and parents. One interviewee

shared how her daughter’s unplanned pregnancy created an additional financial burden on the family. The

interviewee described searching for clothes and donations because the family did not have clothes or a

crib for the newborn twins. She eventually received some donations from friends, but described feeling

despair in becoming the primary caretaker of her daughter’s children, since her daughter suffered from a

severe disability. Another interviewee discussed going to similar lengths to provide for her newborn child

years ago. Her son needed diapers at the time, yet the family’s means were low, and she resorted to

stealing diapers. One other interviewee shared that she faced unexpected expenses following her father

moving out of the household, because he took most of the items from the home with him. The interviewee

discussed how she had to allocate her limited funds to replace everyday items, such as a trash bin and

cleaning products.

Four interviewees discussed unexpected expenses related to hospital visits. Two of them discussed how

the transportation costs of getting to the hospital were the biggest challenge. These interviewees felt they

had no way to avoid the unexpected expense of an ambulance or taxi, as the situation had been life

threatening. As one interviewee shared, “Well, my son is an asthmatic, so sometimes he has to be in and

out of the hospital, and that [requires] cab money.” Another interviewee shared how she and her mother

had to scramble to retrieve her grandfather who was out of state on vacation when he suddenly fell ill. She

discussed how this unexpected expense was a challenge because “you barely have emergency funds put

away. Everything is for day-to-day, you know?” For more on the intersection of poverty, finance, and

health care, see Section 2.5.3/Challenges with Medical Costs.

Several interviewees described challenges with unexpected or irregular expenses. Two interviewees

discussed unexpected funeral costs. As one interviewee noted, “I think that’s when things started failing.

When things started [failing and we started] getting behind on everything.” She discussed how the death

of her family member put her back thousands of dollars and precipitated a further decline into poverty.

Two immigrant interviewees discussed unexpected costs related to remittances and expenses in their

home country. One interviewee discussed his frustration with the unexpected costs of public services,

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 11

noting the high costs of replacing government-issued personal identifications. One interviewee described

rent as an unexpected expense, noting how she had to search for a job to make ends meet when her rent

was increased.

Changes in Finances Over Time

The screening questionnaire collected data measuring individuals’ perceptions of their change in financial

situation over the past year and whether they expected their financial situation in the next year to improve,

stay the same, or worsen.

Of screened individuals, 87 responded to this question. More reported that

their situation had improved (34%) or stayed the same (38%) than had worsened (28%).

Exhibit 4: Change in Financial Situation in Last Year

Interviewees whose financial situations had improved often did so because they found employment or a

better-paying job. One interviewee shared how her financial situation improved after securing a job that

allowed her to work overtime hours, which was important because she could increase her overall number

of hours compared to her previous job and be paid time-and-a-half for overtime hours. Another

interviewee shared how he was able to “make extra ends meet on the side” by getting his license as a

home insurance agent.

One interviewee expressed how he stayed focused on completing his community service and searching

for a job after his release from prison, attributing this focus to an improved financial situation: “I could

have given up at the end, after doing my time…and just stop working and go back to doing what I was

doing in the street…I just stay involved, and I’m going to keep moving forward, but I’m trying to find

another job.”

We recognize the Robin Hood Poverty Tracker survey for informing the wording of this question.

100

Improved Stayed the Same Worsened

Percentage of Sample

Financial Situation in Last Year

Screening Questionnaire Sample, excluding Study Sample (n=49) Study Sample (n=38)

n=14

n=18

n=15

n=16

n=9

n=16

n=15

n=18

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 12

Of the two interviewees who described their financial situation getting worse, one shared how this was

because she had additional expenses resulting from her daughter enrolling in college, which contributed

to her falling behind financially.

Of 88 individuals who responded to the screening questionnaire item about the future, the majority (69%)

expected their financial situation to improve in the next year.

Exhibit 5: Financial Outlook in Next Year

When we asked interviewees (n=12) how they felt their economic situation would change in the next

three years, nine of these 12 cited employment as the potential catalyst to improving their economic

situation. Interviewees referenced completing work-related trainings, certificates, or college degrees

leading to higher wages. For example, one interviewee noted how he did not want to get complacent in

his job and was always looking at job mobility. Two interviewees referenced a change in their children’s

employment that would improve their own financial situation. As one of these interviewees noted, “I hope

that it will change because now my daughters are working. They don’t depend on me. So now the very

little that I make I hope I get to keep for myself.” Two interviewees who predicted that their economic

situation would improve noted that once they secured housing of their own they would be better off

economically, suggesting that housing stability would play a pivotal role in their financial situation. One

of these individuals is currently in a homeless shelter, and the second is living in an eight-person

household.

100

Improve Stay the Same Worsen

Percentage of Total Sample

Financial Outlook in Next Year

Screening Questionnaire Sample, excluding Study Sample (n=49) Study Sample (n=39)

n=4

n=2

n=26

n=35

n=12

n=9

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 13

Effects of Poverty in Shaping Financial Outlook

Short-Term Financial Outlook

Individuals generally expressed a negative outlook towards their day-to-day experience navigating

poverty. When discussing the short-term financial outlook, individuals described just trying to get by. At

times, this focus on making ends meet day-to-day prevented them from thinking in the longer term. As

one interviewee noted, “It’s kind of hard because I can’t think about long term. It’s hard for me to save

money.”

Some interviewees contextualized their short-term financial situation optimistically by discussing how

their financial difficulties could be much worse, reflecting on previous experiences living in deep poverty.

This was common among interviewees who had immigrated. Older individuals were also more likely to

hold a positive short-term outlook, coming to terms with their experience living through years of poverty.

As a 51-year-old woman from the Dominican Republic noted, “When I was younger, I would dream

about having a car, home, etc. I stopped dreaming and now I live in reality. I live day by day. If I have

$20, I thank God for those $20 and I don’t worry if the next day I will have anything or not.”

It was evident from the interviews that older individuals framed their financial outlook in terms of the

baseline that was sufficient to get by, whereas younger individuals perceived their financial situation

within the context of their financial goals or key milestones such as owning a home, buying a car, or

investing in a college savings account for their child. Their aspirations contributed to the younger

respondents’ more negative outlook on their financial situation. Younger individuals discussed feeling

trapped and without a way to make progress towards meeting their financial goals, given that they were

struggling to get by day-to-day.

Long-Term Financial Outlook

Individuals were generally much more positive when discussing their longer-term financial outlook. For

many individuals, hopes for better employment opportunities were fueling this perspective. Interviewees

discussed job mobility via promotions, implementing long-term career plans, and fulfilling educational

requirements that would allow for higher wages as several reasons why they were hopeful about their

financial outlook. For some interviewees, their religious faith played a role in shaping their long-term

financial outlook. Two interviewees discussed how “God does not send you something you cannot

handle”; a third interviewee noted how he sees himself as “where God wants me to be.”

Individuals also presented psychological grit and a sense of determination when discussing their long-

term financial outlook. One interviewee discussed how he was going to break the perpetuation of poverty

for those in his community by focusing on his career, presumably increasing his financial assets to lift his

family out of poverty. Another interviewee discussed that she would persevere through her studies and

job, noting, “I got to do what I got to do.”

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 14

Rosa’s Story

“Dios aprieta pero no ahorca [God tightens his grip

but does not hurt us].”

Rosa is a 54-year-old woman who has been living in the United States since the age of seven. A single mother with

three adult children and three grandchildren, she works part-time as a home attendant in the mornings and an

unspecified short part-time job in the evenings, with a household income that places her below the poverty line. Rosa

described how she financially supported her son and daughter through college and has also taken on the role of

caretaker for her grandchildren.

Rosa discussed feeling liberated when she went off welfare and entered the workforce as a home attendant through

training that she received from the benefits office. However, she described being in a precarious situation: although

she would like to work more hours to increase her income, she is limited by the need to care for family members with

health issues, including her daughter who suffers from epilepsy and her mother who has Alzheimer’s disease. In

addition, as a Housing Choice Voucher recipient, Rosa noted her understanding that she has to work fewer than

40 hours a week in order to remain income-eligible for the voucher.

As the primary breadwinner for her family, Rosa described struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis, noting how

she has to budget her earnings closely:

If I pay rent this week, next week is bills, and [the] following is cars. I also have to send money to my mom

and send her $150 a month. I have to take care of my mom. So every week I have to limit myself. So if this

week I spent $20 on laundry, next week I have to save X amount. And when I go to the supermarket I look

for the cheapest item. I divide my groceries each week. One week I buy meats, the other week I buy this,

and I divide the expenses.

Rosa’s calculated approach to her expenses leaves her with no room for financial flexibility. She has no access to

savings and does not know what she would do with an unexpected expense exceeding $250.

Despite these financial struggles, Rosa generally maintains a positive outlook. She notes that she feels good about

her short-term, day-to-day financial situation. She is optimistic that her financial situation will improve in the future as

her children begin working, which will allow her to begin to invest in savings of her own. As she says, “Dios aprieta

pero no ahorca [God tightens his grip but does not hurt us].”

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 15

2.3 Work

There has been an increasing recognition that

many people living in poverty in NYC today

are in the labor force and are part of the

working poor, or are underemployed, working

gigs or part-time jobs and are looking for

another job.

There are a variety of City

workforce initiatives such as Career

Pathways, HireNYC, New York Works, and

ApprenticeNYC,

which aim to create a more

inclusive workforce and connect New Yorkers

to quality, living wage, high-growth industry

jobs. However, the experiences of the

research participants show the challenges and

needs that continue to exist.

In general, underemployment and low wages seemed to be a larger issue for those we interviewed than

was a lack of jobs altogether. Those who were not working were generally out of the labor force due to

their own disability or the need to care for a family member.

Exhibit 6 below reports employment among 101 respondents to the screening questionnaire and 31

interviewees. Because most of our recruitment events took place during the work week, it is likely the

sample included relatively fewer people who are employed, particularly those employed full-time in jobs

with traditional weekday schedules.

All 31 interviewees had held jobs in the past and the analysis that follows in this section includes

interviewees’ descriptions of those jobs. It is also worth noting that of the 90 respondents to a question

about level of education, 67 had at least a high school diploma; 39 had at least some college. The

occupation mentioned most frequently was home health aide or home care attendant; seven interviewees

or focus group participants mentioned holding such jobs. None of our methods of recruitment was likely

to have led to the health care occupational field being overrepresented. This is an important field to

consider in addressing poverty, as it is one of the fastest-growing occupations but has low average

Sophie Collyer, Matthew Maury, and Christopher Wimer, (2017), Shortchanged: Underemployment in New York City,

https://robinhoodorg-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/PovertyTracker_Underemployment.pdf

Lonnie Golden, (2015), “Irregular Work Scheduling and Its Consequences,” http://www.epi.org/publication/irregular-work-

scheduling-and-its-consequences/

Pamela Loprest and Demetra Nightingale, (2018), “The Nature of Work and the Social Safety Net,”

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nature-work-and-social-safety-net

Jesse Rothstein, (2012), “The Labor Market Four Years into the Crisis: Assessing Structural Explanations,”

https://www.nber.org/papers/w17966

The City provides initiatives such as Career Pathways, a framework for workforce development that provides a range of

supports, from basic job readiness preparation to career advancement; HireNYC, which launched in 2015 to fill jobs created

by the City’s purchases and investments; New York Works, a $1.5 billion initiative to create 100,000 jobs with good wages

over 10 years in the areas of cyber security, life sciences and health care, industrial and manufacturing, and cultural sectors;

ApprenticeNYC to create apprenticeships in the industrial, health, and tech sectors. Refer to Appendix A/Resource Guide

and Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more information.

Key Finding: Interviewees perceive work as the key to

getting out of poverty. Obtaining a better job was reported

to be the most common driver for those in the study whose

financial situations improved in the last year.

Key Finding: Underemployment and low wages in the

labor market are a bigger issue than is a lack of jobs. Few

interviewees worked regular, full-time schedules despite

reporting wanting to work more hours. Good jobs—those

with reliable, consistent, and sufficient hours—and decent

wages were needed among this population to facilitate their

exit from poverty.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 16

wages.

Four of the interviewees who were working full-time, regular hours were working seasonal jobs

with the Parks Department.

Other occupations noted by interviewees included housekeeping, childcare,

security, and retail. Five interviewees reported generating income through informal jobs or services such

as braiding hair, decorating for baby showers, selling handmade bracelets, entertaining at parties, and

designing clothes.

Exhibit 6 summarizes employment reported by interviewees. Full-time employment is defined as any

combination of full- or part-time jobs which regularly total 40 or more work hours per week.

Exhibit 6: Reported Employment

Few interviewees worked regular, full-time schedules. It was more common that interviewees described

jobs with irregular schedules, such as having to call in to find out how many hours they would be working

and when, including some who worked multiple jobs with varying schedules. For example, one

interviewee who worked security described working the night shift, and then coming home in the morning

and braiding hair to earn extra money. Irregular scheduling poses additional challenges in meeting

financial obligations, arranging childcare, and piecing together multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook [online], “Home Health Aides and

Personal Care Aides,” accessed September 20, 2018,

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home-health-aides-and-personal-

care-aides.htm

This was likely an overrepresentation because a recruitment event took place at a city recreation center and generated

significant interest among NYC Parks Department employees. These individuals may have been part of the NYC Parks

Opportunity Program (POP). The POP program hires applicants referred by the Human Resources

Administration/Department of Social Services to clean and green NYC parks, playgrounds, and other facilities citywide.

POP Workers receive orientation, on-the-job training, career coaching and specialized training opportunities during their six

months of employment with NYC Parks.

Lonnie Golden, (2015), “Irregular Work Scheduling and Its Consequences,” http://www.epi.org/publication/irregular-work-

scheduling-and-its-consequences/

No Paid Work

Side Gigs

Part-Time

Full-Time

Screening Questionnaire Sample (n=70) Interview Sample (n=31)

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 17

Those who were not working but had worked in the past described several reasons for having lost those

jobs. The most common was their own injury or disability (seven interviewees) or to care for another

family member (four interviewees). Two retired, one left due to pregnancy, and one described being fired

due to a false allegation.

Approaches and Challenges in Finding Work

Given the importance of a job to generating income, and

the focus on finding work in many anti-poverty

programs, it is important to understand how those in our

study looked for and found work and what prevented

them from finding and holding jobs. Fifteen (15)

participants described how they had found a current or

prior job; of these, seven found work through family or

friends. Five others found work through connections

with public agencies or benefit offices. Three of these

five found their current position through a referral from a

public assistance agency;

one was working through a

job program mandated as part of his parole; and one had

been hired by the Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for WIC office that she had visited as a new

parent. The three others found work in a variety of ways.

One interviewee found a job by knocking on the doors of

businesses who might hire her, another by applying

online, and another by using an app to work short-term

gigs, which he was doing while he looked for more

stable employment.

Interviewees reported an array of barriers to working.

Some described barriers that prevented them from

working altogether, others described challenges in

securing a job in a desired field, and some interviewees

reported multiple barriers. The most common barrier was

a lack of qualification, noted by four interviewees. Two

of them reported that they felt the qualifications were not

necessary for the job, such as needing a bachelor’s

degree for a retail or food service position.

Three interviewees discussed wanting to avoid scams in

their search for employment. One focus group participant

mentioned seeking out jobs through “agencies,” but

having difficulty telling legitimate job opportunities from

scams. He noted that in the past he had used an agency to

find a job, but that more recently the agency requested

This may have been more common because of interviews with Parks Department staff who had been referred from the

City’s Human Resources Administration when they applied for cash assistance.

CHARLES

Charles is a 30-year-old man who was living in a

homeless shelter after spending seven years in

prison. Before being incarcerated, he had worked

as an emergency medical technician but had left

to care for his mother as she was dying of cancer.

After his mother passed away in 2007, he was

unable to return to that job due to a citywide hiring

freeze during the recession. He worked for

minimum wage, but it wasn’t enough to get by,

and he engaged in illegal activities.

Since being released, Charles has been living at

a homeless shelter and is currently pursuing a

bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and taking

several training courses. He reported that it was

difficult to find a job given the constraints of the

programs mandated by his parole:

They don't care about nothing other than

you have to do a program, because they

know if you don’t complete the program,

you going back to jail. So they’re very

inconsiderate about you trying to work. If

you do get a job, inevitably you have to

quit it, until you finish the program.

Charles also explained that he was no longer

licensed as an emergency medical technician.

With only a high school equivalency diploma, it

was difficult to work in any other field—he needed

either experience or a degree. Having a criminal

record further limited his options to certain fields.

He was hoping to eventually find a job in the

reentry field and wanted to earn $50,000 so that

he could afford to buy a house that was in

foreclosure. He expressed optimism—saying that

he had a long-term plan and his current situation

was only temporary.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 18

payment from his first paycheck, and he expressed

uncertainty that the job was legitimate.

Another

interviewee described possibly having fallen victim to a

scam, in which she thought she would be working

repairing computers (an occupation she had held before

immigrating to the United States). After one day of work

and giving them her bank details and Social Security

number, she was told she was not hired after all, with no

further explanation.

Other barriers, each mentioned by one interviewee,

included being overqualified, having to know someone to

get a job, lack of experience, not being able to write in

English, speaking with an accent, discrimination due to

pregnancy, age, needing to comply with mandated

programs while on parole, and lack of a stable residence

and address. Several people mentioned barriers associated

with technology, such as only being able to apply for jobs

if you could do so via smartphone (versus needing a

computer), not being able to apply for jobs because of the

lack of a phone to receive callbacks, and not wanting to

give out a Social Security number online.

Many interviewees reported that their challenge was not

finding a job in general but securing a job in a desired

field. Five interviewees discussed needing the appropriate license or certification for certain jobs. One

interviewee who was working security noted that she would earn more if she had a fire guard license.

Interviewees did not go into detail about why they did not obtain desired certificates and licenses; training

time and fees may be barriers. Two interviewees who worked in the home care field mentioned that the

agency they worked for covered exams and fees.

Importance of a Living Wage

Rising inequality and changes in the economy over the last 30 to 40 years have meant that a rising share

of jobs are low-wage service-sector jobs that do not offer opportunities for promotion or career

advancement, nor pathways to high-skill, high-wage jobs. Recent research confirms that the vast majority

of low-wage workers remain in low-wage jobs, with only a very small share of low-wage workers able to

transition to higher-wage jobs.

Understanding job quality—and potential ways to improve job quality—

for low-wage workers is therefore a key strategy to mitigating poverty.

As this issue was discussed in the focus group, it was not clear what type of agency participants were discussing.

Todd Gabe, Jaison R. Abel, and Richard Florida, (2018), “Can Low Wage Workers Find Better Jobs?,”

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr846.pdf

CARMEN

Carmen is a 51-year-old woman who

immigrated from the Dominican Republic and

works as a home care attendant, earning

$13 per hour and working a split shift in which

she works from 9 am to 1 pm and then returns to

work at 5 pm. Carmen completed her training

and certification for this position with assistance

from a public program. She described her work

as rewarding, because she cared for others

“when everyone else has forgotten about them.”

But she described her job as difficult and felt her

wages were too low: “Sometimes we do stuff

that a nurse does but we get paid what a

housekeeper does, not even sometimes…. This

is a hard job. We do the work of housekeeping,

of a nurse, of a psychologist, of a daughter, of

family. There is a lot of responsibility.”

She went on to say that she thought her wage

should be at least $20 per hour because of the

physical and emotional demands of the job,

which would make it difficult to keep working as

she aged.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 19

Of the 15 interviewees who reported an hourly wage from a current or recent job, all reported making

between the New York City minimum wage (at the time interviews took place) of $13 per hour, and about

$20 per hour.

Three reported making less than minimum wage, though they may have been reporting

after-tax wages. They reported that these wages were inadequate to cover their living expenses, since

most worked part-time and/or erratic schedules despite wanting to work more hours. None of those

making minimum wage reported feeling like it was enough to get by; one interviewee said she did not

think it was enough because many of the people she knew who made minimum wage were homeless.

Others noted that after paying taxes and various bills, there was very little left. Many of those who were

making slightly higher wages felt they were in a better situation, but still struggling. One man reported

making $17 per hour in a past job: “That was not even enough, but it’s reasonable.” Another interviewee

said, “$20 is not even…it’s like enough to kind of eat. It’s not enough to have a successful future.” Focus

group participants all agreed that wages close to the minimum wage were too low, one adding, “It was

like I was making money but I wasn’t.” As noted above, wages at or close to the minimum wage are

particularly inadequate if individuals work less than full-time, as many do.

Several study participants who currently earned low wages or were not working had held relatively high-

paying jobs in the past. One focus group participant reported that she had previously made $63,000

annually in a job working for the state. She left the job after developing health problems so that she would

be eligible for Medicaid; her job offered private insurance, but the premiums were too high. An

interviewee reported having had a job working for the City for eight years, making a salary of $40,000,

but lost his job when he was injured. For more on the relationship between work and health events, refer

to Section 2.5/Health

Elements of Job Quality

Along with wages, predictable and sufficient hours, a positive work environment, and job satisfaction are

among the key elements of job quality according to interviewees and a report by the Federal Reserve

Bank of Boston.

Wages are obviously an important part of the picture regarding the lives of people in

poverty, but interviewees discussed numerous factors of job quality, as summarized in the text box. While

many of the challenges interviewees discussed related to their ability to count on predictable earnings

(especially given childcare and other obligations), issues like specific job duties, the work environment,

and potential for promotion mattered, too.

As noted earlier, few of the interviewees worked full-time jobs with regular hours. Of those working part-

time, several would have preferred to work more, including one focus group participant who worked

about 20 hours per week for a government agency providing training on breastfeeding. She said that

working only part-time was a greater barrier financially than that she was paid minimum wage. Others

who were working part-time did not have a regular schedule and described the challenge of wanting to

work more hours and earn more money but also have a schedule that was predictable enough to allow for

other commitments.

New York City has steadily increased the minimum wage, from $7.25 per hour in 2013 to $15 per hour effective January 1,

2019 for large employers (with 11 or more employees).

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, (2017, November 6), “Anatomy of a Quality Job” [website],

https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/invested/series-one/issue-one/anatomy-of-a-quality-job.aspx

. Additional

considerations include benefits such as paid leave, health insurance, retirement plans, job stability, and the opportunity to

advance.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 20

One interviewee who worked in the food

service industry reported that her manager

had been “playing” with her hours so that the

number of hours she worked per week varied

from fewer than 20 to almost 40. She

described, “It’s hard to have an

understanding with your manager when you

want to have a certain type of schedule

because of other stuff, and they make it kind

of hard for you to get. You can talk to them a

billion times and they still ignore…so it

makes you look bad if you have to call out

because you told them that you couldn’t

make it this day because of that.” The same

interviewee mentioned that her hourly wage

of $14.75 was decent, depending on how

many hours she was given. Another

interviewee who worked as a home care

attendant noted that she would sometimes

ask her coworkers for shifts in order to get

enough hours.

Two interviewees had experience working in

the “gig economy” for websites and apps

such as Handy and Shiftgig. One interviewee

reported that working for a cleaning service

she was not sure how much she actually

earned per hour when she subtracted costs

for cleaning supplies that she paid for out-of-

pocket, fees associated with being late, and

factored in the long, unpaid commute times between jobs. Refer to Leonard’s Story for another example

of work in the gig economy.

In describing their jobs, a number of interviewees spoke about issues unrelated to pay, but that affected

the quality of their job. Thirteen (13) interviewees responded affirmatively when asked whether their job

was rewarding; only one said no. Five interviewees who worked with children said it was rewarding to do

so. Three others described that they found it rewarding to have a job and be earning money to support

themselves and their family members. One interviewee who worked as a home health aide noted that her

job was challenging, but she found it rewarding to help people, even if they were mean to her.

Two interviewees spoke about the importance of supportive and understanding bosses. One interviewee

said that she’d had to take a significant amount of time off to address her son’s health and behavioral

needs. She said that if she had held any other job, she would have been fired. Another interviewee said

that his long commute meant he was frequently late for work, but expressed appreciation that his boss was

understanding.

What Makes a Job “Good” or “Bad”

from the Perspective of Interviewees?

• Reliable hours so one can arrange childcare, and have a steady,

predictable flow of income. Unreliable hours can mean higher

childcare costs and lower overall earnings, and can make it

difficult for the individual to keep the job.

• Relationships with boss and coworkers; positive relationships can

allow for flexibility during tough times. Negative relationships

make working more stressful and can lead to reductions in hours

and pay.

• Hourly wage that reflects job responsibilities and allows

interviewee to support themselves/their family.

• Potential for promotions; a lower paying job is more desirable if

there is a way for workers to advance into higher paying jobs.

• Respondents had different perspectives on day/night shifts. Some

found night shifts desirable for reasons related to childcare; others

found it difficult to work in those hours.

• Safety/comfort/ risk of injuries on the job; some interviewees were

not technically disabled but found it difficult to be on their feet for

long hours. Others mentioned previous workplace injuries and

preferred lower risk occupations.

• Location; some interviewees mentioned long and unreliable

commutes as a barrier to keeping a job. Others mentioned safety

concerns about working in certain neighborhoods or needing to

return to their home neighborhood late at night.

• Benefits and being unionized. Focus group participants noted that

a good job would be one that offered health insurance and other

benefits or unionized jobs. However, they said, unionized jobs

were “like unicorns” and they did not know anyone who had one

or how to get one.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 21

Leonard’s Story

“If it’s a bunch of seasonal jobs… overnight jobs or a bunch of

non-stable jobs, then it really means nothing.”

A black man in his mid-30s, Leonard was born and raised in Queens and Brooklyn. He reports his income from doing

“odd jobs here and there” as less than $5,000 in the last year. At the time of the interview, he was homeless and

moving from place to place. He sometimes stays with his children’s mother but does not want to continue doing so for

fear of violating the terms of her lease. He has a SEPS voucher and has been looking for an apartment to rent for

almost a year, but has been unable to find a one-bedroom for the maximum amount of his voucher or less.

Leonard was living on income from public assistance, SNAP, and doing “odd jobs here and there.” He added that he

just started using two gig employment apps, but that such unstable employment is only suitable for people in school

and those who already have something stable, since the app does not guarantee gigs and relies on the laborers to

search for listings. Leonard said he was working hard to piece together various streams of waged income, but that he

was not being paid the wages he wanted or deserved.

When it comes to work, Leonard reports that he will do whatever it takes to make sure his kids are provided for, even

if this includes piecing together a patchwork of unstable or temporary jobs: “So as long as I can do that, however I

need to do it, I’m going to do it. You understand what I’m saying? If I got to work 20 temp jobs and that unstable job

and whatever, I’m going to do it.”

At the same time, Leonard is cognizant of maintaining the best possible economic situation for himself and his family,

and this sometimes means not seeking out more work or better-paying positions. Leonard felt that the income limits

of his SEPS voucher created a disincentive to work more or seek out better-paying positions, since he would do so at

the risk of losing his voucher come the next pay cycle: “See, right now, I have this SEPS voucher thing and I’m not

sure as far as the living situation or working situation, but I know I can’t make a certain amount of money because

that’s for that situation. That’ll disqualify me or not keep me with requirements from that.” Leonard’s knowledge of the

benefits cliff awaiting him mitigated his desire to seek out better work and pay.

He talked about his job in stark life-and-death terms, because in his eyes, a job is what stands between him and his

family being able to survive. This illustrates a precarious, paycheck-to-paycheck existence: “You're approaching this

job every day like this is your life, like this is your bread and butter. This is how your kids eat. This is how you eat…. If

you don’t go to work this next day, everything starts to deplete from the next day, from the next check on.”

He added that although he is working all the time, his combination of multiple unstable, seasonal, or overnight jobs

means that his busy work life does not add up to much: “So, I mean, because you can keep and bear in mind me

saying I’m constantly working doesn’t mean anything. If it’s a bunch of seasonal jobs or a bunch of overnight jobs or

a bunch of non-stable jobs, then it really means nothing.”

_______________

In areas with competitive housing markets, voucher recipients can face challenges utilizing their vouchers, which are assigned

a value based on metropolitan area fair market rent (FMR) a value which is calculated annually by HUD. The FMR, and therefore

maximum rent allowed by the voucher, may be less than prevailing market rents.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 22

2.4 Public Benefits and Other Resources

Public benefits and resources play an

important role both in keeping individuals out

of poverty and in reducing poverty’s harmful

effects. The 2016 New York City annual

poverty report analyzed the effect of various

income supports on the poverty rate. It found

that the support keeping the most New

Yorkers out of poverty is housing assistance,

including public housing and rent

stabilization. Without these supports, the

poverty rate in 2016 would have been 6.1

percentage points higher (25.6% rather than

19.5%). Social Security lowered the poverty

rate by 5.6 percentage points, and SNAP by

3.3 percentage points.

Public benefits were an important source

of financial support for many

interviewees; most received some type of

benefit, and these benefits often

represented a large portion of the

interviewees’ income and allowed them to

meet material needs. However,

interviewees also described ways in which

benefits fell short. A variety of City,

state, and federal health and human

service benefits are available, but those

resources may not always align with the

needs New Yorkers identify for

themselves, be substantial enough to

meaningfully enhance quality of life, or

offer pathways out of poverty. In addition,

the timing of this research made the issue

of the benefits cliff much more salient.

Beginning in 2013, the minimum wage for

workers in New York City increased from

$7.25 per hour through a series of phased-

in increases to the target of $15 per hour,

reached in 2019. Since many benefits are

New York City Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity (2018). New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-2016.

An Annual Report From the Office of the Mayor,

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/18_poverty_measure_report.pdf

Refer to Appendix A/Resource Guide and Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more information on City

initiatives to address poverty and available programs and services.

Key Finding: Most interviewees received some type of

public benefit. Though these benefits were an important

support in helping to meet material needs, they may not be

substantial enough to meaningfully enhance quality of life

or provide pathways to exiting poverty.

Key Finding: The most common benefit received was

public health insurance (Medicaid or Medicare), followed by

SNAP.

Key Finding: Housing assistance was the most desired

support.

Key Finding: The benefits cliff, a phenomenon in which an

increase in earned income triggers public benefits to

decrease or end, also contributed to the study sample’s

perception of the inadequacy of public benefits.

The Benefits Cliff

• Eligibility for benefits is determined by recipients’ income and the

federal poverty threshold ($26,000 for a family of four in 2019). As

workers’ incomes rise, they might experience a decrease in benefits

they receive, leaving them in need of but not eligible for benefits. This

phenomenon is known as “falling off the benefits cliff.” The cliff may

arrive quickly (as with SNAP) or taper off more gradually (as with some

tax credits). In either case, some of the increase in income is offset by

benefit loss. As wages continue to increase, they eventually

compensate for lost benefits.

• In New York City, as the minimum wage rose from $7.25 to $15,

earnings more than doubled for minimum wage workers, but benefits

received fell for many. For example, a married couple with two

children, working full-time (35 hours per week for 50 weeks) at

minimum wage in 2019 made $52,500, an amount that was higher than

the income threshold for Earned Income Tax Credit eligibility set at

$52,493. The maximum Earned Income Tax Credit amount for this size

household for 2019 would be reached at just under $25,000 in

earnings and is $5,828, equal to about 10 weeks of full-time work at

$15 an hour. On the other hand, the increase in wages to a $15

minimum from $7.25 eventually resulted in a $19,200 increase in

annual earnings.

• Our interviews took place during this period of rising minimum wages

when increasing numbers of New Yorkers were hitting the benefits cliff.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 23

tied to the federal poverty threshold, this meant that at the same time low-wage New Yorkers were

experiencing increases in income they were being closed out of federally-determined benefits like

SNAP.

Despite the contribution of public benefits, participants also experienced the landscape of multiple benefit

systems as a complex challenge to navigate and access. Major benefit programs – SNAP, Medicaid,

housing assistance, and cash assistance – are entirely or primarily benefits that are regulated by the

federal and New York State governments. As such, the rules around application and eligibility processing

are not controlled by the City. In administering benefit programs, the City has made efforts to streamline

processes, raise awareness, and promote access through dedicated outreach in communities and tools such

as the ACCESS HRA

web portal and mobile app and NYC Opportunity’s ACCESS NYC.

This section describes the types of resources research participants used, their experiences applying for and

receiving benefits, and barriers to applying for and receiving benefits. Finally, we discuss a theme raised

organically by some interviewees: mistrust of the public realm and government, which can make them

less willing to access government resources and impede the government’s ability to successfully promote

benefits.

It is important to note that interviewees often spoke in general terms about their experiences applying for

and receiving benefits, making it difficult to discern in some cases whether they were referencing a public

or private entity. Interviewees might also conflate City, state, and federal government entities.

Interviewees rarely described programs or benefits by name or with much detail (when a specific service

provider or administrator was referenced, we name it). From the recipients’ perspective, entities could be

experienced or perceived as a monolith. Differences across programs in their eligibility or application

requirements and procedures seem nonsensical to applicants, when some benefits (e.g., SNAP) are

administered by the City’s HRA office according to federal guidelines and others (e.g., WIC, Medicare)

are administered by a state or federal agency. These distinctions did not seem to matter to interviewees

and even furthered their sense of disconnection from the process and providers.

Several caveats are in order for this section: It was not always possible to tease out which programs

interviewees referenced. We did not ask interviewees to list all the services or benefits they had accessed

over time so it should not be interpreted as an exhaustive and specific summary of benefits they have

accessed. Nor did we distinguish between services that are not available and services that exist but study

participants are not aware of. Still, these findings are important in telling us more about how poor New

Yorkers experience and receive benefits and programs.

During this time the federally mandated minimum wage remained constant at $7.25 per hour. Other states and localities that

have elected to exceed this minimum find a similar disconnect between an increased wage and benefit eligibility.

ACCESS HRA (https://www.nyc.gov/accesshra) allows New Yorkers to apply and recertify for SNAP and more generally

manage their SNAP and cash assistance case(s) through the web portal or mobile app. Refer to Appendix A/Resource

Guide and Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more information.

ACCESS NYC (https://access.nyc.gov/) is a free public online screening tool that New Yorkers can use to see which City,

state, and federal benefits they are eligible for, from cash assistance, childcare, and food assistance to health care, housing,

and employment programs. Refer to Appendix A/Resource Guide and Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more

information.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 24

Use of Public Benefits and Other Resources

A large majority of interviewees (n=25) reported relying on one or more public benefit programs; six

interviewees indicated they were not receiving any public benefits or assistance. The most common

benefit received was public health insurance (Medicaid or Medicare), followed by SNAP. Participants in

our member check focus group confirmed that these benefits were the most commonly received, either by

themselves or by people they knew, and helped to ensure the household had access to health care and

food to eat. As noted in Section 2.5/Health, widespread access to public health insurance means that

insurance coverage rates in the study area are nearly comparable (3.5 percentage points lower) to those in

New York City overall.

Relatively fewer (26%) interviewees indicated receiving housing assistance, though this was the most

commonly requested benefit.

A barrier that came up specifically in regards to housing assistance was

the lack of available housing even for those who held a housing voucher. We describe experiences

searching for housing with vouchers in Section 2.6.2/Seeking, Obtaining, and Using Housing

Assistance. Interviewees also reported long waits for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)

housing and affordable housing buildings.

Three interviewees indicated they also benefit indirectly by exchanging SNAP benefits or food purchased

with SNAP benefits with friends or family. One woman described how she shared SNAP benefits with

neighbors and her daughter. She said that she and her daughter purchased food for each other using their

Electronic Benefit Transfer cards when they had extra SNAP benefits to spare, such as when her daughter

took temporary disability.

To have enough food for their household some interviewees reported using food pantries, regularly or as

needed. Use of food pantries was exclusively reported in our study sample among elderly women and

women with children. Two food pantry users reported receiving food at their regular visits to

BronxWorks locations for other services (e.g., senior center programming). One food pantry user

supporting herself and her disabled son alone said that food pantries help during the months when her

health care costs are high, such as when purchasing medication for her son or covering hospital visits for

herself.

Some interviewees shared negative experiences they had using food pantries. One woman reported that

the food pantry she regularly uses provides vegetables that are already a few days old and therefore spoil

quickly: “After two or three days—the vegetables are fried already—they are spoiled by that point. A

fried tomato is not good. The items need to be fresh.”

Interviewees’ perceptions of the value of benefits depended on the type and level of benefits they

received. Some interviewees who were receiving benefits reported that benefits played a key role in

covering important expenses such as rent and food. Others reported that the public benefits they received

were too minimal to actually help. Part of this has to do with the way in which federal benefit and transfer

programs are calculated and administered to be consistent across the nation, regardless of regional

Among all cash and non-cash transfers, housing assistance had the largest effect on reducing the NYCgov Poverty Rate in

2016. According to the data, housing assistance alone was responsible for a 6.1 percentage point decrease in the rate. Note

that NYC Opportunity’s analysis includes market adjustments such as rent stabilization. Interviewers did not always

specifically inquire about rent stabilization, and it is not clear whether interviewees would have discussed it as a public

benefit.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 25

variation in the cost of living. The NYCgov poverty measure recognizes the higher cost of living in New

York City compared to the country or the state overall, but not all benefits are adjusted to account for this

higher cost of living.

Therefore, in New York City and other areas where the cost of living is high,

public benefits do not go as far towards alleviating poverty.

Four interviewees receiving SNAP benefits reported that their benefits have decreased from their original

amount. These changes in benefits levels were most often because they hit the benefits cliff after getting a

job or a pay raise. One interviewee reported that when her Social Security benefit increased, her SNAP

benefits were reduced due to the change in her income. She had hoped that the increase to her Social

Security benefit would leave her better off. She was left frustrated that improvements in one area of her

financial life did not result in a net improvement to her quality of life. Another woman started receiving

SNAP after being laid off and believed she would receive $107 a month regularly. However, for the

second and third months she received only $66, and after that only $15. She is frustrated by how low this

benefit amount is and wondered aloud to the interviewer: “What can I buy with $15?”

For more

discussion on the benefits cliff,

refer to Leonard’s Story.

Some interviewees who do not meet income eligibility requirements for benefits reported feeling they still

need public benefits to get by. One woman emphasized that eligibility should be determined based off net

income, not gross income. Although her gross income is high enough not to qualify for some benefits, she

does not take home a lot of that income and is still struggling. A different woman alluded to the benefits

cliff, reporting that she makes just five dollars too much and is turned down for any amount of assistance.

Another interviewee with adult children was told she no longer qualifies for a certain benefit because she

does not have a minor in her home, despite her still feeling that she needed the benefit to get by.

SNAP benefits are set at the federal level. Cash assistance, shelter allowances and Medicaid benefits are based on New York

State calculations that include regional cost of living as a factor. Fair market rent, a component of affordable housing

eligibility, relies on regional data.

For instance, a brief published by the Center on Poverty & Social Policy at Columbia University found up to a $12,000

differential in the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) threshold between two states due to differences in the cost of

living. In the state with the highest cost of living (Hawaii), the SPM threshold is $33,122 for a household of two adults and

two children, in the state with the lowest cost of living (West Virginia), the poverty threshold is $21,389. The official federal

poverty measure threshold for a household of this size is $24,339. The implication is that the same income goes further in

West Virginia and other low cost of living states than it does is Hawaii and other high cost of living states, and that many

federal benefits do not take into account local cost of living when determining eligibility for benefits or the benefit amount.

Source: Christopher Wimer, Luke Aylward, and Sophie Collyer, (2018), “Effectiveness of Antipoverty Policies and State

Differences in Cost of Living,”

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2018/12/19/supplemental-poverty-

measure-shows-that-high-costs-of-living-erode-the-impacts-of-antipoverty-policies

$15 was the minimum SNAP benefit based on federally set income standards at the time this interview was conducted. This

minimum was increased to $16 as of October 1, 2019. It is not clear from the interview whether the participant’s eligibility

and receipts of any other benefits had changed.

The benefits cliff refers to income thresholds placed on various public benefit levels and programs that trigger a loss of that

support if recipients work more hours or their income increases beyond the threshold amount.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 26

Experiences Seeking Benefits

There are multiple reasons an individual may not be receiving benefits, including ineligibility for various

reasons (e.g., exceed income eligibility, household composition, long waiting lists for non-entitlement

benefits), as discussed in the prior section. Additionally, research shows that individuals who are eligible

for benefits often do not apply for them; for example, one Robin Hood study found that 31% of eligible

New Yorkers do not apply for SNAP benefits.

In this section, we describe interviewees’ experiences

applying for benefits as well as the various barriers that may prevent them from applying at all.

Experiences Applying for Benefits

Many public benefits offer options to apply for benefits online, in person at a government agency, or in

person at affiliated organizations. Interviewees shared some of their experiences with these different

options. Some interviewees currently receiving assistance said that applying was relatively

straightforward and easy, pointing to internet-based applications and one-stop shops for benefits

applications as saving them time and hassle. Two interviewees reported internet-based applications for

SNAP benefits made life easier for them, although one woman said she still preferred to apply for benefits

in person. Interviewees living at shelters said they were connected to their benefits and housing vouchers

through the shelter case managers. For one, the one-stop shop benefits applications at a shelter home

allowed him to sign up quickly for SNAP and cash assistance: “I went there and just signed up. I went

really, really early in the morning, so I was one of the first to be seen. I was in and out of there in 40

minutes…. Initially signing up it was quick, it was easy.”

Others found the process of applying for benefits confusing and difficult. A few interviewees reported not

knowing where to go to access or apply for benefits. One participant said that people at college would tell

her to apply for various benefits, but she felt like she did not know whom to ask about public benefits:

“They’re not giving a lot of information about it. It’s kind of hard for me to go out on my own and look

for it…. I don’t know who to ask. I don’t know where to go.” Six interviewees described negative

interpersonal experiences with benefits office staff. One described how frustrating it can be to go to the

benefits office seeking short-term assistance, saying that she has to “prep herself” to go in for help

because she feels like some of the workers can be rude, discouraging, or begrudging in delivering

services.

In addition to negative experiences with staff, some interviewees described a negative environment more

generally, and office spaces that were chaotic, stressful, and antagonistic. More generally, some

interviewees described the process of applying for benefits as very time-consuming. One woman said of

waiting at the SNAP office for her appointment: “It can take hours. [You’re] just sitting there [while] your

child could be hungry.” Speaking broadly about her experiences getting legal aid and trying

unsuccessfully to secure public assistance and SNAP benefits, one woman said, “So that’s very hard to sit

around and wait for funding when you’re on the verge of being evicted.” Her quote indicates that the

urgency of her need does not line up with the pace of benefits applications and processes. This theme was

echoed in a focus group where participants told us that to apply for benefits “you better pack a lunch”

Robin Hood Poverty Tracker, (2017), “Spotlight on SNAP: Going Hungry: Which New Yorkers Are Leaving Food on the

Table?”

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/5a68c39c085229e2db877fa0/1516815263912/robin-

hood-poverty-tracker-snap-spolight.pdf

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 27

because you’d be there all day, but then noted they were not allowed to eat while they waited.

addition to waiting times in an office, one homeless man emphasized the lengthy waiting period involved

in getting his voucher.

Seven interviewees had direct experience applying for and being denied benefits (SNAP, Medicaid, or

SSI). In all but one case, they were denied for being over the program’s income threshold; the remaining

interviewee was denied SNAP because she did not yet have five years as a permanent resident in the

United States (a federal law). Two of these seven went on to say that they would not apply for SNAP

benefits again because they had been denied in the past.

Barriers That Prevent People From Applying

Respondents reported that several barriers prevented them from applying for benefits altogether. These

included documentation and application requirements, beliefs about eligibility requirements or about who

public assistance was for more generally, lack of knowledge about resources and where to go for help,

family dynamics that complicate one’s ability to apply for or access benefits, and stigma or pride. They

echo the results of a 2016 Robin Hood study that identified three primary reasons for not accessing

benefits: lack of knowledge, particularly about nonprofits and the resources they can offer; “survival

fatigue,” which is the exhaustion individuals experience as a result of living in poverty and the subsequent

inability to access resources; and emotional barriers, such as pride.

When asked whether there were any benefits they were aware of but not pursuing, 11 interviewees

answered affirmatively and some explained their reasoning why. Four said they were not applying for

benefits because of past experiences being denied (two interviewees) or having negative past experiences

receiving assistance (two interviewees). For example, one woman teared up when reflecting on the times

during her childhood when her mother lived on cash assistance and would still have to borrow money for

things such as school shopping, remembering how hard it was for her mother to pay back the debts she

accrued during those periods. Because of that experience, she said she would not apply for welfare even

though she believes she is eligible.

Documentation and Application Requirements

Four interviewees mentioned that documentation requirements when applying for benefits discouraged

them from submitting applications. One woman living with her mother described her reasoning in

deciding to discontinue her SNAP application:

When you are in someone’s home there are always problems because it is not your home.

You don’t feel comfortable there. And so these papers I never completed because I never

collected the supplemental documents. I never asked the head of household for the

supplemental documents. You had to ask them for proof that you live there and don’t eat.

I felt like I couldn’t fill those forms out. I don’t want to lie.

It is not clear when the events described by interview participants took place. According to HRA [NYC Open Data

(https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/SNAP-Center-Wait-Time/gqk4-hny9)], wait times in SNAP Centers have

declined substantially in recent years as HRA has leveraged technology to reduce the need for applicants and clients to come

to SNAP Centers in person. Based on data from January to December 2019, wait times in SNAP Centers average

25 minutes, with monthly averages ranging from 19 to 34 minutes. Individual experiences may vary.

Vicki Lens, Margo Nugent, and Christopher Wimer, with Antonina Pavlenko, (2016), “Why Don’t Low-Income New

Yorkers Seek Help?” http://povertytracker.robinhood.org/download/poverty_tracker_winter_2016.pdf

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 28

Another interviewee could not provide a single address for her employer because she works as a

housecleaner for many different people at different locations. She was unsure of how to properly

document this on a SNAP application.

Beliefs About Eligibility

Eligibility requirements and what people have heard about them seem to be perceived as a significant

barrier. Some interviewees described this in very specific terms regarding eligibility requirements. One

woman was told by her friends receiving higher SNAP benefits that her income was too high to receive

similarly high levels of assistance: “I know some people getting $192; they told me, with my income, it

was too much. I didn’t meet the qualifications or whatever for the food stamps. Which I think that’s bad.

If you need the food stamps, it should be changed.”

In other cases, these beliefs took the form of broad statements about for whom government assistance is

intended and targeted—and who is left out in its implementation. Several interviewees spoke about a lack

of benefits for single people and/or those without children. One woman who was born in Korea stated that

other governments provide benefits to meet the needs of all people who are lacking, but that in the United

States people who are single do not receive the help they need. One man in his 50s connected his inability

to find affordable one-bedroom housing to NYCHA’s de-prioritization of single individuals and men. He

has been on a low-income housing wait list with NYCHA for more than six and a half years, and in that

time he has not found an affordable place to move himself. As a single male, he is aware that he is a lower

priority than others on the housing wait list:

“They don’t want people single, they want people with

children, women with children.” Another interviewee in his early 20s pointed out that there are not

benefits for people his age or students in college:

I don’t think there are any benefits for people my age, honestly. Seriously, I can attest

that the brokest demographic is college students, and then once you graduate college,

you think that you’re going to get a job and everything’s going to be easier, but you’re

attacked with more problems.

Lack of Knowledge About Resources or Where to Go for Help

Multiple interviewees described experiences wherein they did not know where to go for help or to find

out what resources were available. Two interviewees said the reason they had not applied was that they

did not know about the available benefits or programs. Two other interviewees reported they did not

apply for benefits for which they were likely eligible because they did not know where to go for help or

information concerning public benefits.

One man reported that even when attending a health fair with resources and staff ready to assist, he still

felt like he was not receiving the help and guidance from individual service providers he needed to access

health-related resources.

In accordance with federal regulations, NYCHA applicants are assigned a priority code based on the information provided

by applicants. It is difficult to determine the waiting period, as applications are selected for vacancies based on priority,

certification date, and apartment availability. For more information on NYCHA priority codes, visit

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/eligibility/what-expect.page

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 29

Emotional Context and Family Complexities

When completing program or benefits applications, individuals consider more than whether or not they

might meet the technical eligibility requirements. They also consider how their application or receipt of

benefits might affect their loved ones. There exists a tension between the technical eligibility

requirements and the realities of complicated family and household arrangements that can influence an

individual’s ability to apply for and access benefits. Interviewees described some of the conflicts they

experienced in eligibility requirements while completing program or benefits applications, such as when a

grandson taking up his own SNAP benefits when he moved out on his own would mean a reduction or

elimination of the benefit his grandmother relies on. The interviewee’s grandmother had him listed as part

of her household for her SNAP benefits, and she would receive the benefits and sometimes pass along

some to him. He would like to receive more SNAP benefits—all those allotted to him—but he said he

would not take away food from his grandmother, who had raised him, and he did not plan to change the

current arrangement.

In another case, a mother of four discussed her desire to provide for her family and the challenges she

faced in doing so. She lives with her teenage son, and one of her two adult sons also moved back in with

her recently. The interviewee also has a daughter who attends college out of state, but spends part of the

year residing with her family in New York. When her daughter returns home for the summer and other

holidays, the interviewee struggles to cover food costs for her family. Because her daughter has a separate

SNAP case of her own and also lives out of state much of the time, she was not considered part of the

interviewee’s household when calculating its SNAP benefits. Nonetheless, the interviewee feels

compelled as a mother to care for her family personally, despite the challenges and the toll it takes on her:

So I know that’s a little stressful and kind of, everything is a lot on me. Not that I have to

have it [all of the responsibility], but you know… it’s just like a mother. [Being] a mother

is something that you cannot...it’s something that you cannot overcome.

A third interviewee discussed how her household arrangements hindered her ability to apply for SNAP.

She sublets one room of an apartment from her uncle, who lives outside of New York City. She says her

uncle told her that he wouldn’t let her apply for it, but the reasons are complicated. She thinks that part of

the reason she was told not to apply is because of where she lives, since she is subletting a room without

the landlord’s permission. However, she also thinks her uncle is using the household SNAP benefits for

his own family.

Family bonds are strong and add an additional layer of complexity to deciding how to report household

composition for the purpose of accessing benefits. This is especially so when household composition is

fluctuating or when individuals have emotional debts or other dependencies on each other.

Stigma and Pride Surrounding Benefits Use

Pride and one’s upbringing seemed to be critical factors for a few interviewees in shaping stigma towards

benefits seeking and use. When asked what it was like to apply for benefits, one married mother of three

(with one disabled son living at home) said that she does not know, because her father instilled in her

family a pride such that she did not even consider welfare as an option when she lost her job.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 30

When asked about her and her husband’s use of public benefits, one mid-70s woman born in Bangladesh

stated that they came to this country not wanting to be “liabilities” to anyone, and that she is proud they

have continued to work and support themselves into their old age:

The intention was when I’ll be here, both of us should not be liabilities to government or

to my villages. He don’t want to be liabilities on anyone. Though he’s now 71 years old,

more than 70…. Still he’s doing hard work. For his job, he has to walk six to seven miles

per day, every day.

Another interviewee described her reluctance to seek out help as related to her Hispanic identity or

culture:

I think it’s more of a Hispanic type of thing, too, though, because I’ve noticed that a lot,

too. My dad is the same way; he wouldn’t go out of his way to go look for stuff that’s

going to help him unless it’s right in front of his face, you know?

Mistrust in the Public Realm

Throughout data collection, a theme emerged around mistrust in the public realm. Interviewees were not

often clear about which entity specifically their comments were directed towards. That ambiguity seems

to be a function of the way in which participants receive and experience services, whether they be funded

or delivered via public or private sources. The sentiment described here is as presented by interviewees.

Respondents shared experiences they perceived as witnessing fraud, unfairness, and discrimination at the

hands of service providers. Whatever the cause or origin of their experience, these experiences ultimately

left participants skeptical of government entities and services and to speak with mistrust about

government’s willingness and ability to help low-income New Yorkers.

Participants in a focus group discussed the various ways in which they have seen resources in the public

realm misused, and affirmed one another’s experiences. One participant described paying $100 to an

agency to get a job that might be lost three weeks later. Other participants described experiences at food

pantries where the staff take home extra bags of food or display favoritism among users.

For these participants, in a world of limited resources, the sense of unfairness was likely exacerbated by

the desperation of their need.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 31

2.5 Health

New York City residents living in poverty

experience a disproportionately high rate of

health problems and stressors. A study by the

Columbia Population Research Center and

Robin Hood found that 38% of those in deep

poverty have a severe health problem. Rates

then decrease among those in higher income

brackets, indicating a significant link between

income and health. Specifically, 65% of the

poor reported health problems, as compared

to 48% of the non-poor.

According to the

2016 New York City annual poverty report, out-of-pocket medical expenses have a relatively high

marginal effect on the poverty rate, with the net effect of these costs raising the poverty rate by 2.9

percentage points.

Given this association between income and health, and the accompanying costs, health is a key focus of

our study.

In the following section, we describe the ways in which poverty negatively affects mental health,

contributing to depression, anxiety, and lack of sleep, as well as physical health, by impeding access to

key resources necessary for proper care. We conclude by describing how New Yorkers living in poverty

manage the challenges of medical costs, either by avoiding the costs altogether via alternative treatments

or delaying care, or by finding ways to increase their ability to pay for treatments, even if that means

working extra when unwell.

Effects of Poverty on Mental Health

Focusing first on mental health, interviewees overwhelmingly reported a high prevalence of feelings of

depression. Citing financial stress as a cause of anxiety, they discussed how the inability to make ends

meet, pay bills on time, and afford basic amenities triggered worries and stress, ultimately leading to

depression. One interviewee described the cycle of poverty as “traumatizing people’s minds.” Another

interviewee reported:

C. Wilmer, I. Garfinkel, M. Gelblum, N. Lasala, S. Phillips, Y. Si, J. Teitler, and J. Waldfogel, (2014), Monitoring Poverty

and Well-Being in NYC. Report 1 (New York, NY: Columbia Population Research Center and Robin Hood).

New York City Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity (2018). New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-

2016. An Annual Report From the Office of the Mayor,

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/18_poverty_measure_report.pdf

In January 2019, after our interviews took place, the de Blasio administration announced plans to guarantee health care for

all New Yorkers. The City will serve the 600,000 New Yorkers without insurance by strengthening NYC’s public health

insurance option, MetroPlus, and ensure anyone ineligible for insurance – including undocumented New Yorkers – has

direct access to NYC Health + Hospitals’ services through a new program called NYC Care. There are also existing City

health support services that can be provided in more than 200 languages. Refer to Appendix A/Resource Guide and

Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more information. However, research participants did not specifically

mention awareness of these services.

Reported mental and physical health effects of poverty:

• Anxiety

• Depression

• Stress

• Physical tension

• Trouble sleeping

• Lack of healthy food

• Inability to properly care for ailments

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 32

It stressed me out not being able to provide. I’m going through depression, and I’ve gone

through depression many, many times. I have a bout of my depression now, not knowing

how I was going to be put at my apartment. I just went through a recent eviction.… So

that’s contributing to my health.

This high level of stress manifested physically, as well. When discussing financial stresses, one

interviewee said, “I can feel the vein here is tensing….Sometimes I even lie like this for a long time to

just feel my head. It feels like my head is tied up, they are strangling someone.” Three interviewees

detailed how this stress affects their sleeping habits. When one interviewee was asked why she has

trouble sleeping, she replied:

I go to bed sometimes and I say to myself, “If I pay the rent out of this check, when the

next check comes…my daughter is going to want me to lend her some money.” I’m going

to have to take from Peter to pay Paul.”

Other times, she went on to say, she might fall asleep early and then wake up in the middle of the night

worried and unable to calm herself or go back to sleep for hours.

Research participants had different ways of managing their mental and emotional health. Four

interviewees reported seeing a mental health professional, but others avoided doing so out of either stigma

or fear.

One focus group participant discussed how she had an experience with the Administration for

Children’s Services (ACS) when she was a child related to her mother’s behavior, contributing to her

reluctance to see a professional for her own depression for fear that her children might be taken away.

Four interviewees expressed a need to manage their feelings independently for fear of burdening others

who are also dealing with similar financial stresses, at times contributing to a sense of isolation. Despite a

desire to process these thoughts and feelings, they felt they had to get through it alone. When describing

their stress and anxiety, one interviewee said:

I don’t have anyone to vent to. Because my sister, sometimes she doesn’t want to hear

that. She’s a strong person. She’s very strong, even though she’s probably not strong for

herself. She just wants you to tough it out and suck it in. And when you’re not able to

provide or have someone to talk to and just get it out in open air, I talk to myself. They

say it’s crazy, but I don’t feel like I’m crazy, because I need to get it out.

This inability to process traumatic events and other emotions was reflected nonverbally in the interviews.

CRs reported that a couple of interviewees expressed visible signs of stress with body language, such as

hands on their head. One interviewee in particular had to pause the interview multiple times to compose

himself, wiping away tears, looking up, or using a tissue; he even mentioned that at one point he had been

on the verge of suicide. A focus group participant further expanded on the insidious effects of poverty on

mental health and deleterious coping mechanisms:

How many people you see that are hungry right now and they’re sitting there with a can

of beer or something, drinking…maybe with tears in their eyes because they’re hungry.

But they’ll keep that liquid because mentally they don’t want to feel anything, so they

drink and get high. I did it…I do it when I don’t want to feel something, I pick up a beer

in a minute, it is the truth. But inside of me I’m hungry, I’m hungry but I’m still drinking.

How do you do that? It’s depressing.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 33

Effects of Poverty on Physical Health

Dealing with the daily effects of poverty affected interviewee’s physical health in various ways. One

theme that emerged (eight interviewees) was a lack of healthy food. Some reported that this deficit was

due to inaccessibility; that is, was not available in their neighborhood or was too expensive. Others

described not having enough time to prepare food and having to rely on the efficiency of processed food.

One interviewee described how money affects food decisions:

You’re not making enough money to buy food [so] you’re going to buy what’s cheaper

and what’s faster. So obviously I’m not eating everything that I’m supposed to be eating.

I’m not getting all my vitamins.…If one week I can’t cook, then I’m eating whatever I can

find outside that’s cheap.

Another interviewee self-described as an athlete, but had to reduce time playing sports because they did

not have enough to eat to fuel the physical activity.

Another major physical health impact of living in poverty that a few interviewees mentioned is the

inability to properly care for ailments. The lack of financial resources coupled with physical health

challenges creates a unique problem: people are unable to take time off of work to heal and recover,

which ultimately exacerbates the sickness or injury, thereby further impeding their future ability to work.

Six interviewees described this unhealthy loop. One interviewee summarized the circumstances well:

Regarding lupus, it is a condition I need to take care of, but I cannot give up work. I can’t

sit down because I have lupus but I have to work. So when I feel bad I take a Tylenol and

keep working because I can’t stop working, otherwise how am I going to support myself?

Challenges With Medical Costs

Interviewees reported challenges in covering treatment costs and discussed other coping mechanisms for

dealing with medical costs. Three interviewees pointed to major health problems as “trigger events” (as

described in Section 2.8/The Role of Trigger Events in the Experience of Poverty) contributing to

their descent into poverty or worsening circumstances, due to the challenge of managing the resulting

medical costs. One interviewee, for example, suffered an electrical shock at work and had to take unpaid

leave. She returned to work before she was ready since she was not able to take additional unpaid time off

work to continue physical therapy. Another cited losing a family restaurant as the trigger event, but

having to pay for physical therapy for her chronically sick son as a contributing factor to the financial

setbacks. See Carolina’s Story for further discussion highlighting how the costs of medical expenses

contribute to episodes of poverty and keep people in a cycle of poverty.

Seven interviewees cited Medicaid as an important factor in covering medical costs. In fact, according to

the American Community Survey,

of residents in the study area (the South and Southwest Bronx) with

health insurance, 61.8% have public health insurance, compared to 41.1% in New York City as a whole.

Some 15% in the Bronx study area have no health insurance coverage.

NYC Planning Population FactFinder (2012-2016 American Community Survey).

https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/#12.25/40.724/-73.9868

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 34

While many interviewees mentioned Medicaid as their

primary form of insurance, several mentioned their need to

reduce their income in order to qualify for it and their feeling

that this was a sound financial trade-off.

Aside from health insurance, interviewees described various

other coping mechanisms they use to compensate for high

medical costs or the inability to work due to physical health

problems. One adjustment was to use costly health aids

sparingly to reduce costs. Of the 12 interviewees who

responded affirmatively to having air conditioning at home,

for example, three reported decreasing their use of the

appliance, despite the exceptionally hot summer, including

one respondent with asthma.

As for treatment, people described choosing alternatives to

medical care in order to avoid its high costs. Six interviewees reported using home remedies or over-the-

counter substances to ease pain; others discussed waiting for medical problems to heal themselves to

avoid seeing a doctor. One interviewee, for example, described using holistic treatments such as aloe vera

oil or “Dominican remedies.” Another interviewee said, “As long as it is not essential to go to doctor, I

don’t go, because whenever I have to go I have to pay the copayment.” Another interviewee reported

starting to do home exercises in lieu of going to physical therapy to avoid incurring the co-pay three times

a week: “So then I started to exercise around here, because when you go to therapy, all they do is

exercise. I can do the same thing here. I can do some of the same things at home. Ride the bike. They

have you ride the bike in therapy.” Another interviewee who did not have health insurance reported using

the emergency room as a final resort when medical care was absolutely necessary.

Four interviewees described working overtime to earn money for medical bills, even if the extra hours

were at the expense of their own health. One interviewee said, “If you are sick, you just need to suck it up

and keep working.”

Forgoing medical treatment due to cost is not uncommon, according to a report from the US Federal Reserve: “One-fifth of

adults had major, unexpected medical bills to pay in the prior year. One-fourth of adults skipped necessary medical care in

2018 because they were unable to afford the cost.” Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, (2019),

“Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018,”

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-

report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

IVONNE

Ivonne moved to the Bronx from Puerto

Rico, got married and had five children. She

stayed at home raising her children and then

got a job as a cook at a daycare once her

children were grown. While Ivonne generally

tried to avoid doctors to mitigate costs, once

during a routine visit she was informed that

she needed a biopsy, even though it would

not be covered by her insurance. She left the

$75 bill unpaid, causing her to worry about

whether people would come looking for her to

collect the medical debt.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 35

Carolina’s Story

“Months back my partner got ill... And my boy also got sick….

That was the biggest challenge we have had.”

Carolina is a 28-year-old woman born and raised in Mexico who has been living in New York City for the past eight years.

She lives in a shared apartment with her partner, son, sister-in-law, her sister-in-law’s partner, and her two nieces, and

was pregnant at the time of her interview. Although two households share the apartment, rent is still the most difficult bill to

pay for Carolina and her family, along with childcare fees for her young son. Health care needs have made life difficult to

manage for her family.

When her partner was hospitalized for a period of time and out of work, her household had difficulties affording rent, bills,

and medicine on just Carolina’s income. Carolina described how her partner’s hospitalization and lost income negatively

affected her and her family’s ability to make ends meet: “Months back my partner got ill, he was at the hospital for a bit.

And there we were a bit stretched because I had to take care of the rent, the costs, the medicine. And my boy also got

sick…That was the biggest challenge we have had.”

To cope with the loss of her partner’s income, Carolina said she worked day and night for two weeks. During this time, she

relied on the help of her friends to take care of her child while she was working around the clock. Since then, Carolina said,

she and her family have been making adjustments in their spending and lifestyle to adapt to their new and more precarious

financial situation, but she maintains her positive outlook: “It’s a bit tight. It’s working out now. We have reduced some of

the costs a bit. Before we’d go out to the movies, but now we are trying to reduce the time we go out. But it is all good.”

Carolina started working in house cleaning when she came to the United States, and for years she worked eight hours a

day, five days a week, for different families. She only stopped working in this physically demanding role recently, in the last

few months of her pregnancy. She would like to find a part-time job one or two days a week in order “to live a little more

comfortably” and because she does not like being at home all the time. However, she is doubtful many employers would

want to hire a pregnant woman.

Carolina’s family can generally make ends meet through her and/or her partner’s income and with the help of WIC, the

only public benefits program of which her household is a beneficiary, and which Carolina says is very helpful. She turned

to SNAP for help when she was working full-time because she needed help making ends meet, but said she was denied

for having too high an income.

Since leaving her work as a housecleaner due to her pregnancy, she has not reapplied for SNAP. Carolina explained that

rigid and burdensome documentation requirements made it harder for her to apply for benefits in the past: “I went to apply

for food stamps and rental assistance and they asked me for documents. They said they’d make an appointment to visit

me to see how I was living. And because I couldn’t obtain certain documents they cancelled my appointment.” In

explaining why some people have trouble obtaining necessary documents for benefits applications, Carolina said that she

herself was unable obtain the necessary supplementary documents for her prior SNAP application because as a

housecleaner, she does not have a single, fixed work address or employer: “For example, in my job with housecleaning I

am not in a stable location. It is not through a company. It is work that you get over time. So how can you obtain a certain

document if you are working with various people and not at one fixed location?”

When asked what changes in her neighborhood would improve her quality of life, Carolina said, “The rent. The rent is so

expensive, and they keep raising it…. Every year. They raise it every year.”

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 36

2.6 Housing

Housing figured prominently as a topic of

conversation and concern among the Bronx

residents we interviewed. Most New Yorkers

live in multi-family rental housing rather than

owning homes, and many of these units are

rent-regulated in some way.

Despite public

housing, rent regulation policies, the City’s

ongoing efforts to expand affordable

housing

and other housing supports such as

Housing Choice Voucher and legal services

and support for tenants,

51% of rental

households in New York City are cost-

burdened, paying more than 30% of their

household income on rent and utilities.

As discussed in prior sections, the burden of rent holds poor New Yorkers back in other ways, including

financial security and savings, financial ability to pursue education and training goals, and the capacity to

absorb unexpected expenses without serious consequences.

Most interviewees (84%) were residing in a rented unit at the time of the interview, including some with a

variety of forms of housing assistance (See Section 2.6.2/Seeking, Obtaining, and Using Housing

Assistance). The other interviewees lived in a shelter (two in men’s shelters, one woman in an

unspecified type of shelter, and one woman in a family shelter).

No interviewees currently owned their

housing unit, although one interviewee reported he had owned his own home prior to losing it due to

missed mortgage payments during the 2007 recession.

According to the Housing and Vacancy Survey, “of the 2,183,064 occupied and vacant rental units reported in the most

recent HVS, 42.9% were unregulated, or “free market.” The remaining units were rent regulated, including pre-war (pre-47)

rent stabilized (31.7%), post-war (post-46) rent stabilized (12.5%), rent controlled (1.0%), or regulated under various other

types of programs (11.8%).” Source: New York City Rent Guidelines Board, (2018), “2018 Housing Supply Report,”

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/rentguidelinesboard/pdf/18HSR.pdf

The City’s Housing New York (HNY) plan has financed more than 109,750 affordable homes since its inception in 2014

through June 2018. Access to the new housing opportunities are available on the NYC Housing Portal

(nyc.gov/housingportal). Refer to Appendix A/Resource Guide and Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more

information.

Tenant support services include NYC Department of Social Services’ rental assistance through CityFHEPS, assistance with

rental arrears and eviction proceedings through rental arrears grants and free legal representation in Housing Court. Refer to

Appendix A/Resource Guide and Appendix B/City Initiatives & Resources for more information.

American Community Survey (2012-2016).

In FY 2017, an average of 59,441 men, women, and children slept in shelters each night in New York City. Source: DHS

Data Dashboard, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dhs/about/stats-and-reports.page. In addition, many New Yorkers lived in

doubled-up or other unstable housing arrangements. For instance, in school year 2017-2018, more than 105,000 youth

attending Department of Education (DOE) schools—roughly 10% of the system’s 1.1 million students—self-identified as

living in temporary housing (i.e. shelters or doubled up) for at least part of the year on a school-based residency

questionnaire. Source:

https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Education/2018-2019-Students-in-Temporary-Housing-Citywide-

R/vgqq-m7ux

Key Finding: Rent presents the biggest financial burden to

study participants. This burden holds poor New Yorkers

back in several ways, including limiting their financial

security and savings, their financial ability to pursue

education and training goals, and their capacity to absorb

unexpected expenses without serious consequences.

Key Finding: High rent-to-income ratios drive fears of and

experiences with eviction and housing insecurity for the

majority of interviewees.

Key Finding: Few interviewees have housing assistance

but many need and call for it. Having a housing voucher is

not a guarantee of securing housing in New York’s

increasingly tight and expensive housing market.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 37

Maintaining a home was paramount for interviewees and doing so figured significantly in their budgeting

process. As reported in Section 2.2.1/Use of Budgeting Strategies, rent is often the first bill interviewees

pay, since they prioritize housing over other needs due to a fear of eviction and homelessness. This was so

much so the case that at least one interviewee reports she will go hungry before she misses a rent

payment. Focus group participants, too, conveyed their feeling that a person does not have much if they

do not have a place to live. Nonetheless, due to compounding financial pressures, 61% of screening

questionnaire respondents still reported that in the last year they or other members of their household ran

out of money before rent was due.

This section explores interviewees’ current housing arrangements and past experiences with housing, the

challenges they have faced related to housing, and the steps interviewees take to respond. After discussing

the interviewees’ experiences navigating housing costs, affordability and availability, mobility, and living

arrangements, we analyze the implications of these experiences for interviewees’ housing stability and

quality.

Experiences Navigating NYC Housing Market

Research on tenant insecurity and low-income renters shows that the median contract rent burden

(i.e., median contract rent divided by median household income) on low-income households in New York

City increased by 10% from 1999 to 2014.

This means that median rent increases are outstripping the

income gains of low-income New Yorkers, leaving them feeling the burden of the growing gap between

the two. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the Bronx in 2017 was $1,764, a 4% increase

compared to the previous year.

This sub-section describes interviewees’ reported experiences and

challenges navigating these housing market conditions.

Cost of Rent and Housing Affordability

The cost of rent was the primary factor shaping interviewees’ experiences securing, affording, keeping,

and losing their housing in New York City. Rent was a cost that many interviewees reported having

difficulties paying on a regular or intermittent basis. Interviewees reporting an inability to pay rent at

some point in the past year were economically diverse, including households with incomes ranging from

around $9,000 per year to more than $55,000 per year.

Five interviewees provided specific figures that allowed us to calculate their rent-to-income ratios, which

ranged from 22% to 55%. Using HUD’s thresholds, we calculated that two interviewees were in cost-

burdened households, spending 30% or more of their income on rent. Two interviewees were severely

cost burdened, spending 50% or more of their income on rent. Additionally, a majority of interviewees

(10 or 18) cited rent when asked about the major cost hardest to fulfill.

Among participants who did not provide specific rent and income information, many described situations

in which they were spending enough on their rent to have troubles paying their other basic expenses. For

example, one interviewee in her mid-50s lives by herself on her Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

income reported that she has to use the entirety of her SSI check to pay rent. And even then, she is still

$50 short of her total rent cost: “The SSI check I don’t even see it, because it goes towards rent. The rent

Oksana Mironova and Victor Bach, (2018), Tenants at the Edge: Rising Insecurity Among Renters in New York City,

http://www.cssny.org/publications/entry/tenants-at-the-edge

Rent Café, (2018, September), Bronx, NY Rental Market Trends, https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-

trends/us/ny/bronx/

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 38

is paid, and there goes the check.” She said that she normally manages to pay the remaining rent using her

small pension check, but mentioned there was a time in the past year when she was unable to pay her rent.

The uncertainty of how she pays rent along with her other bills each month keeps her up at night: “It

might be stress, it might be anxiety. It could be some of everything, because the last time I went to bed, I

go, how am I going to pay this bill?”

Strategies to Manage the Cost of Rent

Interviewees at and around the poverty threshold reported multiple budgetary strategies for mitigating

against the high costs of rent: prioritizing rent over other bills and expenses, going without certain things,

asking for support from family members, doubling up, and trying to save money to cover unexpected loss

of income or other expenses.

Interviewees prioritized payment of rent in relation to other bills and expenses in different ways. Some

interviewees explicitly described the order in which they prioritize payment of their bills, and most of

those interviewees reported that they prioritize rent before all other expenses. For one participant living

on his own, prioritizing his rent means putting it on his credit card to ensure he can always pay it on time,

no matter how his income fluctuates. He then pays his living expenses, minor bills, and credit card bill

with cash earned from his employment.

Interviewees also mediated New York City’s high housing costs by living with friends, family, and non-

family roommates (doubling up

) in a variety of informal and informal arrangements.

Barriers to Housing Mobility

Almost everyone who was asked whether they would like to move to a different home responded

affirmatively (12 of 13 participants), but many reported barriers to moving. Factors motivating them to

consider moving to a different unit were either decreasing rental costs or finding a nicer or bigger unit.

One participant said she wanted to move out of the Bronx to decrease her cost of living and to be able to

live in a place with better educational systems for her kids: “I’m trying to basically move to Jersey. It’s

cheaper to live out there. Also the schools are better, to me. The schools are better out there for my son.”

The main barriers these interviewees perceived to moving were housing costs and availability. The costs

that kept them from moving were both start-up costs (including movers and deposits) and rent. They

pointed out that the variety of start-up costs of moving can be prohibitively difficult to afford and thereby

can affect their mobility: packing and moving, security deposits, and first and last months’ rent deposits.

One man commented on the up-front costs of rent deposits: “So imagine $1,256 [per month in rent]

…first month’s security, first this, that, and the third. That’s a lot of money. You’re talking about maybe

around three, four, five thousand dollars. People don’t have that.” Seven interviewees mentioned the high

cost of rent at a new unit as the main barrier that stopped them from moving.

“Doubling up refers to two or more adults or families residing in the same housing unit, which has been an increasing trend

in the United States in recent decades. Within the past 14 years, the number of households containing more than one family,

related or unrelated, has more than tripled.” Source: Hannah Bush and Marybeth Shin, (2017), “Families’ Experiences of

Doubling Up After Homelessness.” Cityscape 19(3), 331-356.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol19num3/article19.html

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 39

Interviewees commonly reported a trend of shrinking

housing stock for low-income renters in the Bronx and

in New York City more generally.

The increasing

prices of units mean there are fewer options for low-

income New Yorkers to choose from. Specifically,

interviewees pointed out that the stock of affordable

housing and housing for the elderly and single people

is lacking. Multiple interviewees reported that even

with the money or a voucher to find a unit at a certain

price, applying for and securing housing can be

difficult because of barriers landlords erect to screen

out low-income applicants and those using vouchers.

One interviewee in his mid-20s explained his

experiences trying to find housing even with an

income of more than $50,000:

When you’re in New York and you’re trying to rent an apartment, first off you have to

make at least $55,000 a year for them to even look at your application. If you’re making

less than $50,000 nobody’s really going to look at it. And then credit scores. They tell

you to go to college and then you come out with wild student loans. I have almost

$50,000 worth of student loans, and that lowers your credit score.

For multiple interviewees, the increasing rents and shrinking stock of affordable housing and public

housing are parts of a trend in which low-income Bronx renters are being displaced out of their own

neighborhoods by higher-income developers and renters. Two interviewees mentioned gentrification

specifically as the trend pushing poor Bronx residents out of some neighborhoods, and multiple others

connected the rising rents and lack of affordable housing more generally to broader social and political

processes pushing out low-income residents and/or Black or Latino residents. One man connected the

change and displacement he is seeing in the Bronx to a broader apathetic disposition in the United States

towards its poor, Black, and Latino residents: “This country doesn’t care. The poor in this city are

disenfranchised Blacks and Latinos, who they are currently gentrifying out of the city.”

One interviewee’s experience in the Bronx housing market seems to have her on the verge of being

displaced to Queens, where she can find an affordable two-bedroom at a reasonable price – but she

hesitated because of the additional commute it would require. She was unable to find a two-bedroom unit

in the Bronx at a price she can afford after months of searching:

You have to find something in your price range. But I’ve been finding one-bedrooms for

the price range that I got in the Bronx. But I’m like, why would I stay in the Bronx for a

one-bedroom that’s close to my two-bedroom amount? I can go to Queens and get a two-

bedroom for a two-bedroom amount.

Our findings indicate that rental cost is the main reason people want to leave their housing and the main reason they stay in

it. Previous research provides context to such a paradox: the median asking rent for vacant apartment is higher than the

median contract rent in New York City, putting current low-income tenants in a very precarious position. Oksana Mironova

and Victor Bach, (2018), Tenants at the Edge: Rising Insecurity among Renters in New York City,

http://www.cssny.org/publications/entry/tenants-at-the-edge

Reported Barriers to Moving

• Start-up housing costs: The cost of moving personal

belongings and fronting security, first month, and last

month deposits.

• Cost of rent: Interviewees who have lived in the same

place for a long time note that they would have to pay

more for a comparable unit anywhere else.

• Lack of suitable rental units: There are few affordable

rental units available on the market, especially for the

elderly and single people.

• Source of Income Discrimination: Interviewees report

having their rental applications denied when using a

voucher.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 40

Seeking, Obtaining, and Using Housing Assistance

Housing assistance was highly valued and commonly requested among interviewees. Some 40% of them

(12 of 31 interviewees) reported they were receiving some kind of rental assistance or living in assisted

housing. Of those 12 interviewees, three were using Housing Choice Vouchers, four were in shelter (and

while each qualified for a SEPS, CITYFEPS, or LINC voucher,

as of the time of the interview, all had

been unable to secure private-market housing), two were participants in a senior rental assistance

program, one was living in an affordable housing apartment, and two interviewees pointed out that they

lived in rent-regulated apartments.

As noted in Section 2.4/Public Benefits and Other Resources, a

report by the New York City Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity found that the support currently

keeping the most New Yorkers out of poverty is housing assistance.

Interviewees highly valued housing assistance as a way to mitigate against high and increasing rent costs.

Rent regulation, rent schedules, and the knowledge that rent is based on the renter’s income all offered a

sense of security to assisted-household residents. One woman using a Section 8 voucher pointed out that

what makes her feel secure about her current housing is that her rent payment is based on a sliding scale,

with a cap based on her income.

Two interviewees reported they had tried and failed to secure housing assistance in the past. One had

applied for rent regulation and affordable housing and was denied for each of those programs, she

believed, based on her income. The other, mentioned earlier in the report, stated he had been searching for

an affordable housing apartment for six and a half years and was placed in a NYCHA waiting list behind

more than 7,000 other applicants.

Some interviewees succeeded in securing a voucher, only to find they could not locate or secure a unit to

rent. Four interviewees living in shelters at the time of their interviews, including Leonard profiled above,

were in possession of housing vouchers, and all four reported months of searching without finding and

securing the size apartment they needed at the price of the voucher they were given.

Both the Family Eviction Prevention Subsidy (CITYFEPS) and Living in Communities (LINC) rental assistance programs

provide rental subsidies via vouchers to families and single adults in various kinds of shelters or those at risk of entering

shelter due to recent eviction. In October 2018, after the data collection period for this study, both programs were merged

into a single new subsidy – “CityFHEPS.” Source: NYC Department of Homeless Services, “Rental Assistance” [Website],

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dhs/permanency/rental-assistance.page

Interviewers did not always specifically inquire about rent stabilization, and it is not clear whether interviewees would have

discussed this in terms of a public benefit.

Among all cash and non-cash transfers, housing assistance had the largest effect on reducing the NYCgov Poverty Rate in

2016. According to the data, housing assistance alone were responsible for a 6.1 percentage point decrease in the poverty

rate. Note that NYC Opportunity’s analysis includes market adjustments such as rent stabilization.

Refer to note a on Leonard’s Story.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 41

Interviewees not seeking affordable housing options pointed to the benefits of where they currently live to

explain why they are not seeking out low-income or affordable housing. One woman in her mid-40s

explained that the reliable and trustworthy childcare options in her current building make her reluctant to

apply to move into new housing:

That’s why most of the time people tell me, “Try to apply for low-income housing.”

But…what if I’m sick; who am I going to call immediately to come take care of my kids?

But at least my neighbor can come watch the door and said, “Okay guys, come stay here

till your mother comes.”

Finally, interviewees living above and below the poverty threshold discussed the need for income-based

rent schedules, additional affordable housing units, and expanded rental assistance programs targeted

more broadly to include people with higher incomes, single individuals, and the elderly.

Threats to Housing Stability

Multiple interviewees spoke about stable housing as the

foundation to a stable life. However, the prevalence of rental cost

burden led many interviewees to feel insecure or unstable in their

housing. It may be unsurprising that multiple interviewees pointed

out explicitly that their housing stability is a function of their

income security, since they can only keep their housing as long as

their income covers their rent.

Interviewees reported experiences with a multitude of forms of housing insecurity, from past evictions,

threats of eviction from landlords, housing court hearings, doubling up in violation of the terms of a lease,

and homelessness.

Three interviewees mentioned prior experiences being evicted for a non-payment of rent, either as adults

or as children. Two interviewees said that their current landlords had threatened to evict them in the past.

Three interviewees reported they currently are involved in a housing court proceeding related to their

lease terms and rent payments. One of them lamented having to travel to housing court regularly just to

pay her rent, after she and her three children moved into her aunt’s former apartment on the aunt’s lease.

She said this situation and the fears of eviction it prompts keep her up at night.

Among those sharing housing with family, three said they were in a unit in violation of its lease: two took

over extended family members’ apartments without informing the landlord or changing the lease, and one

had her daughter living with her, off-lease, in her Section 8 apartment. The two interviewees who took

over extended family members’ leases were both involved in housing court proceedings related to their

lease status at the time of the interviews.

When asked what would offer him a stable life, one homeless interviewee said, “Just having a place of

residence that I can afford and knowing that I can go home every day and I can pay my rent, I can stay

there and have some place to live, that’s to start.”

“I think what people most suffer from

here in New York is the apartment

situation. I have been all over and

people complain about the housing,

and this is related to income.”

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 42

Inadequacies in Housing Quality

Despite the high price many tenants pay in rent each month, some still endure housing conditions that are

inadequate. Participants reported a variety of housing quality issues that affected their and their

household’s lives, safety, and housing stability: namely, persistent maintenance issues and overcrowding.

One woman reported that her apartment building’s front door does not lock and that the intercom system

broadcasts into all apartments if someone uses it.

We confirmed these findings of poor housing quality in our final focus group. There, one participant said

that the poor-quality housing had directly affected her family’s health. Years ago, her son was exposed to

lead paint in her home and this resulted in learning disabilities. Today, her private landlord continues to

ignore maintenance requests for persistent and severe water leaks, mold, and chipping paint. As a result,

she does not allow her young grandchild to visit for fear that he will suffer the same disability as her own

son.

Overcrowding also seemed to be an issue interviewees face, especially for those living in the shared

living arrangements described above. For example, one participant noted that she and her spouse slept

with their children in a single bedroom in order to rent out a room in their apartment. A mid-50s man

subletting a room in a shared apartment complained that the one bathroom shared by the six roommates is

always in use, and that living in his tiny bedroom “gives” him depression.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 43

Mariama’s Story

“If I didn’t work full-time, I’m probably going to end up in the shelter.

Because I have to pay my rent.”

Mariama is a 38-year-old single mother to three children, with the oldest being age 13. Her income and household

size place her at the “near-poverty” threshold, along with 24% of all New Yorkers. She was born in a West African

country, where her four step-brothers and one biological brother still live. As the eldest among her siblings,

Mariama’s family still in Sierra Leone look to her for help in paying her brothers’ school fees.

She worked in retail for seven years before being fired because of what she described as a false allegation against

her. Mariama was unemployed for a year, before being ultimately hired to a security job at a homeless shelter. She

made an economic and family decision to work night shifts so she could decrease her babysitting costs and still care

for and be in her children’s lives during the day: “I decided to work overnights, because I pay the babysitter less over

the nights than the day…. This way I can pick them up from school, make sure I get them food and everything, put

them to bed before I go to work.” Reporting she gets only two to three hours of sleep a night, Mariama reported she

has “been in this struggling up and down for years.”

Despite her hard work and long hours, Mariama still regularly struggles financially, often worrying about running out

of money before she has finished buying food for her family. In the last year, she had a utility shut off and was unable

to pay the rent when it was due. During a difficult time in her life, she was taken to court for non-payment of rent. With

the help of a legal aid organization, she reached an arrangement with her landlord that included court-ordered rent

payments, though this had not stopped her landlord from raising her rent dramatically.

For Mariama, her ability to keep a roof over her head is directly dependent on her ability to secure and maintain full-

time employment: “If I didn’t work full-time, I’m probably going to end up in the shelter. Because, I have to pay my

rent.” According to the income and rent figures she provided, we calculated that Mariama is currently paying about

55% of her monthly income in rent, but that may reflect only her gross income, since she estimated the figure at

closer to 80% when asked by the interviewer. Both figures would qualify Mariama as “severely cost-burdened” per

HUD’s definition.

Though Mariama holds an associate’s degree, she has been unable to find entry-level work in her field, reporting that

employers are only interested in hiring applicants with previous work experience. Mariama wants to study for and

achieve various security industry certifications that could increase the wages an employer would pay her. But she

said she could not even apply for a student loan because of outstanding student loan debts she took out for past

education. She’s trying to sort out issues with her tax return since missing a payment on the loan due to her job loss,

and she has had debt collection agencies pursuing her aggressively since.

At the time of the interview, Mariama had a few weeks until her rent was due, as mandated by the court. But she also

recently had to have an emergency appendectomy, and her boss hasn’t scheduled her for more than 24 hours a

week since her return from the hospital—even though she is always asking for more hours and even seeks out

others’ shifts to get overtime. She feels caught between the inability to get more hours and the need to obtain

valuable industry certifications to increase her hourly wage, to take care of herself, and to provide for her kids: “[It] is

hard for me right now to take care of myself and my kids and further my education, so I'm stuck.”

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 44

2.7 Neighborhoods

Understanding the built environment is key

when assessing experiences of poverty

because neighborhoods and surrounding areas

have such a significant impact on upward

mobility, safety, and general quality of life.

According to the 2015 report The Effects of

Neighborhood Change on New York City

Housing Authority Residents,

housing

developments surrounded by persistently high-income neighborhoods have lower violent crime rates and

are zoned for public elementary schools with higher standardized test scores than are developments

surrounded by persistently low-income neighborhoods, thereby highlighting poverty as an important

factor in neighborhood quality. Overall, interviewees’ neighborhood experiences and assessments varied

widely, with a few prominent themes, demonstrating how living in a neighborhood characterized by

poverty can function as a limitation to accessibility, amenities, and mobility.

Overall Neighborhood Assessment

The people we interviewed lived in neighborhoods throughout the Bronx, and offered a range of

assessments of their overall neighborhood quality. We classified interviewees’ responses as largely

positive (9 interviewees), largely negative (5 interviewees), neutral (7 interviewees), or mixed

(8 interviewees). Interviewees with a largely positive assessment described their neighborhoods as quiet,

peaceful, community oriented, and as having good access to resources. Those with a largely negative

assessment mentioned violence, disorganization, and dirty environments. Those with mixed assessments

often mentioned both the positive and the negative characteristics described in other interviews. For

example, some acknowledged disturbances (e.g., fights in the hallways of residential buildings) but had

an overall positive assessment, especially when compared to previous neighborhoods.

One interviewee described his current neighborhood as relatively peaceful compared to significantly

worse areas he had lived before. Another said: “I like the fact that I don’t really hear a lot of crimes,

because growing up in my neighborhood, I would hear gunshots and things like that. So I like the fact that

me and the kids can come and go and there’s not a big fear of being caught in the crossfire or something

like that.” On the other hand, seven interviewees complained of violence, including gangs and drug users,

which one interviewee noted prevents them from wanting to sit outside. Three more cited the number of

homeless people in the area as an indicator of poor neighborhood quality, either because it suggested that

people were facing financial troubles or because shelters attracted unwelcome people to an area.

A few other interviewees complained of dirty neighborhoods. One interviewee who had moved from

Brooklyn said the Bronx is “dirty…just disgusting.” Two others complained about the smells and trash,

questioning whether government officials are working to improve conditions. One of them explained:

Samuel Dastrup, Ingrid Ellen, Anna Jefferson, Max Weselcouch, Deena Schwartz, and Karen Cuenca, (2015), The Effects of

Neighborhood Change on New York City Housing Authority Residents,

https://www.abtassociates.com/insights/publications/report/the-effects-of-neighborhood-change-on-new-york-city-housing-

authority

Key Finding: Interviewees with a largely positive

assessment of their neighborhood described these areas

as quiet, peaceful, community oriented, and as having

good access to resources. Those with a largely negative

assessment mentioned violence, disorganization, and dirty

environments.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 45

We just don't know what goes on and how things are controlled within our

neighborhoods and why certain decisions are not being made. Like the smells, the awful

smells. When you walk around in the neighborhood, it’s terrible. The trash. They’re

working on the trash. I see more and more people being more clean with the streets, but

it’s still these horrible smells when you come outside.

Despite the negative qualities reported, a commonly described positive characteristic of the

neighborhoods was the community. Eight interviewees emphasized the strong community and sense of

unity in the neighborhood when asked what they liked about their neighborhood. One expanded and said:

“It’s all about community and helping each other and supporting each other, and that’s what this

community offers.” Interviewees reported knowing their neighbors and feeling a sense of solidarity.

Presence and Quality of Resources

While the study neighborhoods are varied in population and resources, they have some commonalities.

Generally, interviewees reported good access to transit. Six interviewees highlighted the ease of access to

trains and buses and how the transit system facilitates their daily mobility. One interviewee explained:

“The train is not that far of a walk, it’s maybe an eight- to 10-minute walk from my house…I have the 4,

the B, and the D train. So I feel like I can get anywhere with those three trains.”

In addition to transit access, four interviewees noted the centrality of their location as an important feature

that enhances their neighborhood’s quality. Some of the amenities cited include bodegas, fast food,

transit, parks, and schools. One interviewee added others, saying: “This neighborhood, I have a fire

department right in the corner. This neighborhood is good, I like it. You have access to the supermarket.

You have access to the bus. You have access to the library. It’s, you know, I have everything around this

neighborhood.” Although these interviewees highlighted the easy accessibility to various resources and

amenities, three noted the lack of fresh vegetables and other types of healthy foods, as well as the steep

prices for those that were found in the neighborhood.

One type of resource that was frequently highlighted was parks, recreation activities, and other

community spaces. Some mentioned easy access to parks as a positive characteristic of their

neighborhoods, but three interviewees noted the lack of recreational activities for youth in particular and

the poor maintenance of nearby parks. One interviewee compared his local parks unfavorably to parks in

other parts of the City:

You know, all these parks, you know, that they have. Even the parks that are just for the

kids to play in, they don’t fix them up. But if you go to Manhattan, or you go to Brooklyn,

it’s a completely different story, so I believe...that’s why I said the City can do more for

the Bronx. It’s like the Bronx is the forgotten borough or something.

Beyond the need for maintenance, five interviewees emphasized the need for better physical activities and

recreation areas for children. One interviewee mentioned that she has to travel farther upstate “even for a

trampoline place or a bounce house place or bowling or things like that,” which aside from additional

time and travel, is also expensive. Another interviewee was asked what changes in the neighborhood

would improve quality of life: “Recreations, like YMCA. Just stuff for kids, that kids can do. Instead of

just being on the street.”

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 46

2.8 The Role of Trigger Events in the Experience of Poverty

In this section, we examine the role of “trigger

events”—defined here as an incident or

experience in a person’s life that can cause an

entry into poverty or a temporary episode of

poverty—in the experience of poverty in New

York City. We also use information from

interviews to better understand the role trigger

events play in a household living above or below

the poverty threshold.

Asked what events in their life pushed them further into poverty or made it harder for them to make ends

meet, some interviewees were able to point to specific events. The outcomes of these trigger events

radiate throughout interviewees’ lives, including drops in income or outright job loss, psychological

distress (stress, anxiety, or depression), and increases in debt that then hold them back when they are

otherwise doing well financially. Financial shocks and unexpected expenses not only depleted

interviewees’ short-term cash, but they created loans to be honored that hounded and worried

interviewees for months and years after.

Financial Shocks

Financial shocks predominated among the negative trigger events interviewees reported. When asked

what experiences in life had pushed them further into poverty, 10 interviewees described experiences

related to job loss, change of income, or an unexpected expense. One man currently living in a homeless

shelter had previously had a well-paying job working as an EMT for the City that he left to care for his

dying mother. Since he could not work, he turned to criminal activities to pay the bills. When she passed

away, he hoped to return to his former job with the City. He recounts that this was in 2007, during the

recession, and the City had enacted a hiring freeze, meaning that he could not get back his old job.

Instead, he worked for Macy’s for minimum wage, which was under $8 an hour. He recounted how his

inability to find a similarly well-paying job deeply affected him to the point he could not pay his or

mortgage, resulting in him ultimately losing his home. This series of events then precipitated his

incarceration and post-incarceration homelessness.

The debts interviewees incurred to make ends meet when confronted with a financial shock often carried

on the negative effects of the trigger event long after the event in question. One interviewee said that the

expenses she and her brother paid upon their mother’s death disrupted her financial well-being and

stability in the long-term and that she still has not financially recovered: “Before that, everything was on

point. After that, no. It's hard getting back to where I was at…We’re talking thousands of dollars.”

Key Finding: Trigger events are incidents or

experiences that can spark an entry into poverty or a

temporary episode of poverty. Most negative trigger

events cited by interviewees were related to financial

shocks (e.g., job loss, change in income, unexpected

expense) and accidents or illnesses.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 47

Accidents, Illnesses, and Health

The second most common type of trigger event, reported by nine interviewees, related to accidents,

illnesses, and health. Among these interviewees, the events were intimately connected to financial shocks

because of the medical costs incurred. Seven interviewees reported accidents, illnesses, or other health

events, including pregnancy, that were negative financial triggers.

Workplace accidents affected several interviewees’ health costs, current income, and future ability to

work. For example, one man described a work accident that eventually led to him losing his apartment,

car, and daughter:

I was working and I felt something falling above me. I went to the doctor, I went on Monday and

had surgery on Wednesday. The doctor said half of my body was falling asleep. I had to turn in

my apartment, it was a bigger apartment, a bit more expensive. I had a car. At that time I lived

with my daughter. It all went down from there. I had to give up my apartment, my daughter left

with her daughter. I fell into a depression, I had a psychiatrist. It messed me up a bit.

He added that this event marked a distinct shift in his financial and personal well-being: “But the change,

before when I earned a good amount, it was a hard transition. When the accident recently happened, I

became depressed.”

Loved ones’ health events, and need for caregiving, also pushed some interviewees further into poverty.

Two interviewees mentioned the birth of children as a trigger event that pushed their households deeper

into poverty. One of these left his job voluntarily to care for his partner after she gave birth to their son

via C-section: “I wasn't working for a couple months after, since my child was born. Income was low,

income was scarce. Stuff still has to be done. Stuff was still needed. Now stuff is backed up and we even

need it [my income] more.” His statement that “stuff is backed up” seems to imply either their unmet

needs, or that debts piled up during his unemployment and continue to hang over him now.

Other Negative Trigger Events

Four interviewees mentioned their arrest, incarceration, or interactions with police as a trigger event that

has made it harder for them to make ends meet.

Two interviewees born outside the continental United States reported that taking on debt to move to the

mainland has functioned as a negative trigger event pushing them into poverty.

Two interviewees reported the loss of a romantic partner as a trigger event pushing them into poverty.

2.9 Strengths and Actions of New Yorkers in Poverty

Living in poverty is obviously stressful and brings many hardships and challenges. Those in our study

described a range of coping mechanisms, resources, support networks, and strategies they use for

navigating poverty that demonstrate their resiliency in facing these hardships and challenges. Many of

these resources are described in prior sections; here we use interviewees’ framing and words to describe

how these factors are beneficial in their lives.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 48

Coping Mechanisms

Interviewees described a range of mechanisms to cope with the

stresses of living in poverty. Religion was frequently

mentioned as a way of coping with stress and as a way of

understanding difficult life circumstances. Eleven (11)

interviewees said their faith helped them cope and believe that

they would be okay, or expressed a feeling that God had a plan

for them. Of receiving benefits after initially not qualifying,

one interviewee said, “We didn’t qualify until God wanted us

to.” Another said that although he worried about food, he felt

at the end of the day that God always made sure he would eat.

Religion appeared to be especially prevalent as a coping

strategy among interviewees who had been born outside of the

United States; six of them mentioned faith.

Several interviewees noted that their education and training

efforts give them hope because they believe they will lead to

higher-paying and more-stable jobs. One interviewee who had

recently been released from prison spoke about attending three

different education and training programs and said that though

people judged him on his past criminal activity, “I go to school

all day, I focus on trying to better my life,” and he was optimistic about his future. Another who was

attending a training program described that it was helpful to have peers in the same situation:

I was in a dark place for a minute. I was headed even to a more dark place, to be honest

with you. I was ready, and this place [training program], it got me out of that.... It got me

looking around, like, “I'm not the only person with this problem.” Well, I know I wasn’t

the only person with this problem, but sitting around talking out loud about it…[made me

feel like] I’m just going to try.

Other interviewees described having certain attitudes or beliefs about being poor. One interviewee who

had recently graduated from high school described how some of his friends would make decisions such as

taking an Uber home or ordering food, and that he simply could not afford to do so: “You’re really

limited in the things you can do, but I think it’s character-building…And, so I guess with the limited

options, we make the best we can get.”

Another interviewee, who was living in a homeless shelter, acknowledged the toll that stress can take on

one’s health, but felt that his attitude was protective:

Stress over having no money and not being able to support your family and not being

able to survive every day puts a lot of burden on your health.... Like I said, my attitude

doesn’t allow it, I’m not going to kill myself worrying about too much. I don’t worry

about things I can’t control. I can’t control the [housing] voucher, I can’t control how

much rent is…so I have to find a way to fit what I can control into my life. I have to find

housing I can afford. It’s going to take time, I understand that…you put timeframes and

you put limitations on yourself and then when you can’t meet those timeframes and

limitations, then that’s when you’re stressed out going through the motions.

Section Highlights

Coping Mechanisms:

• Religious faith

• Hope, via education and training

• Attitude towards being poor

Navigating Poverty:

• Budgeting skills

• Bill-paying strategies

• Sharing or sub-letting housing

• Maximizing job income

Public and Private Resources:

• Including regular government benefits, food

pantries, and senior centers

Support Networks:

• Family and friends, religious institutions,

and mental health professionals provide

emotional, practical, and financial support

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 49

Budgeting

Interviewees used a number of strategies to navigate the practical aspects of getting by while living below

or close to the poverty threshold. Ten (10) interviewees spoke about careful budgeting, learning to budget,

or adjusting their budget as a way to navigate poverty. One interviewee noted simply, “If you don’t have

it, you don’t spend it” and discussed that if she did not have much money, she would not go outside in

order to avoid spending more (a strategy that resonated with focus group participants). Another

interviewee noted that if she spent $20 to do laundry one week, she would find something to cut from her

budget the following week.

One interviewee felt that her economic situation had improved over the past two years and attributed it to

learning to budget (rather than any change in income or expenses). She said, “I used to just like to shop

and whatever I see, I want to get it…but adults, especially with children, know how to not want

everything that they see in the stores.” Two other interviewees reported that they had not budgeted well in

the past but were planning to do so and were optimistic that it would improve their financial well-being.

Four of those who discussed budgeting also framed it in terms of simply going without things that others

might consider necessities. One interviewee discussed not spending money on things the way his friends

did; two said they did not buy any clothes for themselves; and another said she did not buy cribs for her

grandchildren—they slept in newborn nappers until they turned one.

Four interviewees discussed bill-paying strategies that help them manage their financial situations. Two

interviewees explained that they could not always pay the full amount of their rent, but would pay enough

of it to avoid being taken to court. One said she would keep up with the rent enough to qualify for rental

assistance. She explained that she would prioritize paying for food or rent depending on how far behind in

rent this would leave her, since if she fell too far behind, she would not qualify for assistance. Two

interviewees discussed using credit cards, but paying some of the balance each month; one specifically

discussed the importance of paying each month to avoid a low credit score.

Interviewees discussed numerous strategies to navigate the high cost of housing, including renting out or

subletting rooms, avoiding moving, and more. These strategic approaches to managing housing costs are

discussed further in Section 2.6.1/Experiences Navigating NYC Housing Market.

Other strategies interviewees mentioned included working seasonal jobs. One interviewee did this as he

looked for a permanent job; one noted she was looking for a second job in the summers, when school is

not in session and the amount of her paychecks from the Board of Education is smaller. Another was

delaying retirement and working the night shift to save on childcare costs. Another interviewee spoke

about strategically taking her daughter off her lease to lower the rent in her income-based unit, and

applying for SNAP once her Unemployment Insurance benefits ran out.

One interviewee and several focus group participants discussed using the internet to learn about and apply

for more resources or to learn money-saving strategies.

Public and Private Resources

As noted in Section 2.4/Public Benefits and Other Resources, public benefits and resources were

widely used by those interviewed: 84% said they used one or more government-provided benefits.

Interviewees also made use of a wide array of public and private resources such as food pantries, libraries,

and senior centers. Interviewees frequently discussed taking advantage of services at nonprofit

organizations, though this was likely somewhat overstated since many of those we interviewed were

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 50

recruited from BronxWorks programs. While public benefit programs are critical in providing resources

on an ongoing basis, interviewees often spoke about private charitable resources, such as churches, to fill

in gaps and meet acute needs; they also provided non-material benefits such as recreational and social

experiences.

Some interviewees were knowledgeable and strategic about using benefits and programs in a way that

would best help them meet their needs. One focus group participant who had struggled with drug

addiction in the past noted that she appreciated drug treatment programs over other government programs:

“You know why?… You get breakfast, lunch, and dinner”; also they gave her food to take home when

needed. Another interviewee described leaving her mother’s home to go into the shelter system because

she knew she would be eligible for more assistance that way and did not think she would be able to afford

rent on her own otherwise.

Several interviewees discussed using programs intermittently. One interviewee said she used computers at

a nonprofit organization to print documents when she needed them for job applications. Another said that

when she visited the nonprofit organization where she took ESL classes, she often took advantage of

resource fairs and she liked to get $10 gift cards/vouchers and sometimes food. Three interviewees

recruited from a senior center noted it as an important resource for meals and for classes and activities.

One woman explained, “I do everything; they have the computer class, I take it. They have the sewing

class, I took it. They have the swimming, I took it to keep moving.” Four interviewees mentioned using

libraries to borrow books or take computer classes or use their computers and internet access.

Two interviewees reported learning about resources through health care providers or hospitals. Another

interviewee with several children with medical needs received support from organizations dedicated to

helping individuals with those conditions. She explained:

A lot of people don’t know about them. For example, I have a daughter with epilepsy and

there are organizations that can help with that.… I had to knock on a lot of doors, but

thank god they helped me. My eldest, who suffers from mental retardation, an agency

helped her with rent, some of the bills, and she was able to move into an apartment with

her children.

Support Networks

Family and friends were the most common support networks that interviewees noted, followed by

religious institutions and mental health professionals. These networks provided support in a range of

different ways: emotional, practical, and financial. Sixteen (16) interviewees spoke about their families as

a source of practical and emotional support or spoke about supporting other family members. Many

interviewees lived with members of their extended family or received other forms of financial assistance

from them.

In many situations family members pooled resources. For example, one interviewee discussed using her

family member’s car and another had adult children living with her who did not pay rent, but did pay for

utilities that she otherwise would not be able to afford. Support among family members was sometimes

complicated, however. One interviewee, for example, described relying on her mother for housing and

financial assistance and providing her mother with support at medical appointments, but also noted that

they had a difficult relationship and she eventually needed to move out on her own.

EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 51

Many (14) interviewees mentioned friends as an important source of support. This included financial

support, a place to stay, practical advice and tips, and emotional support. Four interviewees described

either borrowing money from friends or lending money to friends, ranging from “$20 here or there” to

$300 so an interviewee would not miss rent on his apartment. Friends also pooled resources: One

interviewee’s neighbor watched her children while she worked and did not let the interviewee pay when

she was looking for work. Another went grocery shopping with a neighbor so they could pool their food

stamps and cash and share the food. Friends were also an important source of emotional support. One

interviewee who was in her 20s said she had older friends who would offer encouragement, “Oh, don’t

worry, it’s going to be hard now, but it’s going to be so much easier later.”

One interviewee discussed the role of her family and friends in helping her cope. She described going out

with her cousin and sister:

We go out to eat and do certain things on ladies’ night or whatever. We do it as a whole big

group full of women, and we do fun things and we talk amongst each other, whatever. So that’s

helpful. It’s a great way to feel good.… You know, ’cause we are poor and we have to realize it.

Religious institutions, most frequently churches, were mentioned as support networks by nine

interviewees. Some interviewees spoke about practical support (often food) that the church provided.

Others described receiving spiritual and emotional support. As one interviewee described:

Despite the struggles, there are good people out there who feed you, clothe you,

especially the church. There are people that care for you.… Sometimes they provide me

with food they have cooked, and they may not know it, but I share it to feed my family. It

lasts two to three days.

Four interviewees spoke about mental health providers. Two of them described receiving treatment for

depression associated with the financial stress they were facing; one said past treatment for mental health

issues unrelated to her financial challenges helped her to cope with those challenges. One interviewee

contrasted talking to a psychiatrist or therapist with “street or family philosophers” who gave unsolicited

advice:

There’s people you can call for psychiatric evaluations or if you want to talk to a

therapist, because people need to know to stop talking to outside people and get

professional [help]. Talk to somebody professional, because then you might get

information, you know, somebody that’s professionally trained to deal with your

situations or mental situations, be a little more accommodating [than friends or family].

DISCUSSION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 52

3. Discussion

Since nearly half of New Yorkers live in or near poverty, it is important for policymakers and the public

to have in-depth understanding of this experience, in order to both raise public awareness and drive policy

changes that might alleviate the challenges of living in poverty, reduce entries into poverty, and support

individuals on their pathway out of poverty. This report builds on the work of the NYCgov poverty

measure, which defines the extent and depth of poverty, to paint a picture of the experience of living in

poverty in New York City in 2018. This study is the first to provide qualitative evidence about the

experience of living in New York City for the poor and near-poor, defined by the higher NYCgov poverty

measure threshold.

Using in-depth interviews to illuminate the specific experiences of those living in poverty in New York

City, this study finds that New Yorkers living near or below the NYCgov poverty threshold face

burdensome housing costs, jobs that provide insufficient wages and hours to make ends meet, and health

challenges arising from their economic conditions. While public benefits provide very important supports

to interviewees living around the NYCgov poverty threshold, the interviewees report mixed experiences

in applying for and using those benefits. This report also recognizes that both missing services, in some

cases, and a lack of knowledge about existing services, in others, contribute to the service gaps study

participants described.

In response to the multiple and intersecting challenges study participants faced, they demonstrated

creativity, resilience, and determination in facing them. Despite having existing coping mechanisms, they

resoundingly called for additional action to alleviate the burdens of poverty, as discussed in

Section 3.2/Participant Recommendations.

3.1 Key Takeaways

Our research resonates with prior research on the challenges of poverty, both nationally and specifically

in New York City. This section presents key takeaways from this project in conversation with prior

research. While our findings largely reinforce prior work, our in-depth interviews allow us to understand

how poverty presents intersecting and compounding challenges, and how New Yorkers navigate those

challenges. Furthermore, the timing of our research when minimum wage was rapidly rising in New York

City brought into starker relief the tradeoffs low-income residents face when they confront the benefits

cliff. In summary:

By definition, poverty is a lack of sufficient income or resources to cover one’s present needs.

This study found that more than half of interviewees have some trouble paying for routine expenses, such

as food, rent, or bills, every month. Seventy-three percent of respondents to the screening questionnaire

reported that they often worry that food will run out before they have enough money to buy more (n=66

of 90).

Poverty carries a profound sense of not being able to get ahead.

While being poor means many things – lack of adequate health care, nourishment, and shelter – it also

means experiencing a powerful sense of not being able to get ahead – of bills, of recurring sickness, with

advancing one’s education to try to increase one’s income. For much of the study sample, this sense of

not being able to get ahead gets reinforced by events in their life, again and again.

DISCUSSION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 53

For most participants, their poverty was a result of a series of financial shocks and other setbacks

rather than a singular trigger event.

A series of financial shocks and other setbacks can conspire to push people into poverty and then prevent

them from getting ahead. Financial shocks are common and damaging: ten interviewees described

negative experiences related to job loss,

change of income, or an unexpected expense. Study participants

described instances where they begin to make progress or put a little money aside, but then an urgent

crisis required those funds. Such setbacks prevent interviewees from gaining the momentum they need to

exit poverty. Like many Americans,

most study participants have limited savings (less than $250) they

could draw on to help absorb a financial shock. Without savings, the impact of financial shocks is worse

and reinforces the feeling of being unable to get ahead or get out of poverty.

For a subset of participants, health challenges were the single trigger that sent them into and kept

them in poverty.

In contrast to the compounding shocks mentioned above, nine study participants had health events that,

on their own, initiated a decline in their economic condition. Similarly, nationally-representative research

by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has identified strong associations between higher

average financial well-being and excellent or very good health.

Underemployment and low wages in the labor market are bigger issues than a lack of jobs.

Most of our study sample are members of the growing share of the working poor in America, whose jobs

are characterized by irregular and inadequate hours.

Interviewees reported that their wages were

inadequate to cover their living expenses, especially because most worked part-time and/or erratic

schedules despite wanting to work more hours.

Study participants identified a need for good jobs – which they defined as having reliable, consistent, and

sufficient hours – and decent wages in order to facilitate exits from poverty,

but few have been able to

access such work.

Signe-Mary McKernan and Caroline Ratcliffe, (2002), “Events that Trigger Poverty Entries and Exits,”

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/60726/410636-events-that-trigger-poverty-entries-and-exits.pdf

A report by the US Federal Reserve found that many adults would not be able to cover an unexpected expense of $400 in

cash. Twelve percent would not be able to cover the expense at all, 27 percent would need to borrow or sell personal

property to raise the cash, and the remainder would pay for the expense using cash or a credit card (paid off at the next

statement month). Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, (2019), “Report on the Economic Well-

Being of U.S. Households in 2018,”

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-

households-201905.pdf

The same pattern holds true for Americans over age 62, and is even more pronounced. Source: Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB), (2017), “Financial well-being in America,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-

research/research-reports/financial-well-being-america/

Acs, Phillips, and McKenzie, (2000); Collyer, Maury, and Wimer, (2017); Golden, (2015); Loprest and Nightingale, (2018);

Rothstein, (2012).

Interviewees’ belief that a high quality job could improve their economic situation is backed up by research. For example, a

report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that “On average, adults who work for an employer who

offers health benefits, retirement savings benefits, or pension benefits have higher levels of financial well-being than those

who do not.” Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), (2017), “Financial well-being in America,”

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/financial-well-being-america/

DISCUSSION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 54

Public benefits reduce hardship but, for a variety of reasons, are often not enough.

Public benefits were an important source of financial support for many of our interviewees; most received

some type of benefit and they often represented a large portion of one’s income and allowed interviewees

to meet material needs. However, interviewees also described ways in which benefits fell short.

For some, the amount of public benefits may not be sufficient to meet the material needs they described.

The City’s severe shortage of affordable housing means that securing stable housing was a common

challenge among the study sample, even among those receiving housing assistance. Many of those who

received benefits such as SNAP felt that the amount they received in those benefits was not enough.

In other cases, respondents reported that several barriers, found in prior research,

prevented them from

applying for benefits altogether. These included documentation and application requirements, beliefs

about eligibility requirements or about who public assistance was for more generally, lack of knowledge

about resources and where to go for help, family dynamics that complicate one’s ability to apply for or

access benefits, and stigma or pride.

The phenomenom of a benefits cliff means that an increase in earned income can sometimes leave

households the same or even worse off, when it triggers public benefits to decrease or end.

The benefits cliff – where an increase in earned income triggers public benefits to decrease or end,

balancing out or negating the higher income – contributed to participants’’ sense that benefits were

inadequate.

Interviewees described instances in which they became hopeful about an impending

improvement in their quality of life, whether because of finding new housing or increasing their income,

but instead ended up in the same position or even worse off. In other words, earning more income did not

necessarily help them get ahead in the way they expected (reinforcing the point above about not being

able to get ahead despite one’s efforts).

The timing of our research made this issue more salient: Beginning in 2013, the minimum wage for

workers in New York City increased from $7.25 per hour through a series of phased-in increases to the

target of $15 per hour, reached in 2019. Since many benefits are tied to the lower federal poverty

threshold, low-wage New Yorkers were experiencing increases in income but being closed out of

federally-determined benefits like SNAP.

Vicki Lens, Margo Nugent, and Christopher Wimer, with Antonina Pavlenko, (2016), “Why Don’t Low-Income New

Yorkers Seek Help?” http://povertytracker.robinhood.org/download/poverty_tracker_winter_2016.pdf

This phenomenon is well documented in the literature. For example, Edin and Lein (1997) documented tradeoffs single

mothers encountered when entering the workforce. While mothers’ earned income increased, so did their childcare and

transportation expenses, and their overall economic status remained about the same. Source: Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997).

Making Ends Meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

During this time the federally mandated minimum wage remained constant stuck at $7.25 per hour. Other states and

localities that have elected to exceed this minimum find a similar disconnect between an increased wage and benefit

eligibility. This more than doubling of the minimum wage increased the incomes of low-wage workers. At the same time, it

decreased eligibility for benefits. Some of the additional wage income was offset by a loss in benefit-related resources. See

Section 2.4/Public Benefits and Other Resources for an example of the effect of the benefits cliff on a household’s

earnings.

DISCUSSION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 55

Benefits were sometimes so important that interviewees gave up work or reduce their income, even if

they badly want to work, so that they can receive them. Specifically, several reduced their incomes to

qualify for Medicaid. In these cases, access to health care was important enough to justify this tradeoff.

New Yorkers near or below the poverty line are strong, resilient, and strategic in navigating poverty.

People in the study described a range of coping mechanisms, strategies, support networks, and resources

by which they took control of their lives to navigate poverty, demonstrating resilience in addressing these

hardships and challenges for themselves and others in their lives. These include coping mechanisms such

as religious faith, hope, strategies to navigate the practical aspects of getting by, reciprocal personal

networks for emotional and practical support, and public resources to fill gaps in their household’s needs.

3.2 Research Participant Recommendations

In the spirit of community-based participatory research, it was important to learn what priorities research

participants had for the outcomes of this study. We asked 27 interviewees, “What do you think would be

an important outcome of this research?” and found strong levels of agreement for the following

recommendations.

Do Something

By far, this was interviewees’ most clearly repeated directive (n=14), who were eager to see change for

themselves, their families, and their communities. Three participants expressed fatigue with the lack of

progress made thus far, citing broken promises made by public entities in the past or a fear that this report

would be shelved and forgotten amongst others. We also heard from more than one participant the

sentiment that public officials know what the problems are but that the political will for change is what is

really lacking. One participant simply said, “They just don’t care.” Three others also commented:

The good of all this is that someone is listening to me. Perhaps this will help others have

an idea of our experience. Because sometimes a person looks fine on the outside but are

suffering on the inside. This research can motivate people, and it helps me personally to

have hope in the City of New York.

Besides doing these interviews, [the City should] come out to those who they provide

resources to. Actually have live people and the upperclassmen [sic] come out to visit the

locations, people in the neighborhoods, have more forums or whatever you call those,

forums or meetings and so forth. And not only listen to what people have to say, but

actually implement. Take a step at a time, but implement things so that people have more

faith in providing resources and stuff. Have taxes, and have people making high tax

brackets contribute.

I hope that you’ll go some way further. I hope so. It’s for good, not to take the paper and

put it in the drawer.

DISCUSSION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 56

Understand the Problem and Talk about It

More than half of respondents to this question stated a desire for the experience of poverty and the needs

of the poor to be better understood and more publicly discussed. The latter request is twofold, meaning a

desire both to share experiences that may be negative with peers and to discuss the needs of the poor in a

wider audience of New Yorkers and policymakers in order to craft more effective solutions. Many

research participants reported experiencing a sense of relief just from talking through their experiences of

poverty with an interviewer. We believe that these experiences in part influenced this recommendation.

The more of these [focus] groups that y’all do, the more people that come, the more

people understand and the more they’re like, “Oh, good changes will come,” so more

will participate and more can change. So I think...more of these groups, more people,

more knowledge, and more changes will come.

I just think that it just needs to be brought up. It just needs to be talked about more.… I

think it can be brought to a broad public. People need to know these things. People need

to hear these things.

Provide More Resources

Three participants recommended increasing awareness of existing resources, but eight participants said it

was necessary to offer more resources for those in need, particularly affordable studio apartments for

single people and youth in need of higher levels of education. Though lack of knowledge about existing

resources may be problematic, research participants were more adamant that existing resources are simply

not abundant enough to meet the needs of low-income New Yorkers.

When one researches the needs, the problems and the situations in which people live in,

one knows what they need to do, what works, and what assistance can be offered to those

groups of people in need. You can supplement the needs in a more personal way. Because

when a person is missing something, not only does it have a financial effect on them, but

an emotional effect, a physical effect, an effect on the family. When a marriage is having

economic problems, love takes a toll. As much as you love someone, the problem with

there being no water, no food, no light, who are you going to complain to? Your husband.

So that affects the love you have for one another. And when you are depressed it affects

your children because they do not have joy. The children ask for things and you get

frustrated. You won’t treat them with the joy they need because you are frustrated. It

affects everything. It affects you at work, in your environment. And this study will help

with an understanding of the scope.

3.3 Next Steps

Our research expands on the understanding of the lived experiences of poverty and the multiple ways in

which its challenges intersect with and compound one another. As described throughout this report,

inadequate work opportunities, the inability to pursue education and training to improve work

opportunities, and the high cost of housing collide to keep many poor New Yorkers from advancing along

a permanent path out of poverty. Given the size and diversity of New York City, however, this report only

begins to illuminate the experience for a certain subset of residents living in and near-poverty.

DISCUSSION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 57

Future research could further explore lived experiences of poverty in New York City, as well as the

specific policy mechanisms influencing the experience of poverty. For example, an annual complement to

NYCgov Poverty Measure Report that is qualitative or mixed methods could capture the lived experience

of poverty from a greater share of the population, or focus on subpopulations of particular interest in a

given year. Research could also explore the drivers leading households to face the benefits cliff, how

households navigate the effects of the benefits cliff and make tradeoffs to compensate, or how policy

interventions at the local, state, or federal level might help to mitigate these effects. We also suggest

further research to better understand the two trajectories into poverty we identified – a series of financial

shocks versus major health changes – and the implications of each trajectory both for individuals living

them and for potential policy responses. We recommend these reports continue to have strong community

engagement in conceptualizing, executing, and developing recommendations so this body of research will

be responsive to the preferences and needs of affected communities.

Disseminating research findings is equally important. This report is based on community-based

participatory research, which has core values to equitably share knowledge among stakeholders and use

research results to address community concerns.

For this project, sharing knowledge and sparking

broader conversations about responses were key community concerns. Key stakeholders to include in

dissemination include low-income households, especially study participants; service provider

organizations, particularly study partner BronxWorks; City agencies; and policymakers. Building

relationships about poverty between and across low-income New Yorkers and City institutions could

catalyze not only the broader understanding the study participants called for but may spark avenues for

developing solutions to some of the challenges posed by living in poverty or efforts to ameliorate it

through policies and programs.

Detroit URC Board. 2011. “Community-Based Participatory Research Principles.” http://www.detroiturc.org/cbpr-

principles.html

APPENDIX A: RESOURCE GUIDE

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 58

Appendix A: Resource Guide

The following websites can help you learn about programs and services available throughout the City.

ACCESS NYC (https://access.nyc.gov/

): Helps benefits-seeking NYC residents screen for benefit and

program eligibility, learn how to apply, gather required documents, and look for nearby service centers.

ACCESS NYC provides information on over 40 city, state, and federal benefits and services in English,

Arabic, Bengali, Chinese (Traditional), French, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, Spanish, and

Urdu. Types of services on the ACCESS NYC Website include cash assistance and tax credits, childcare

services, SNAP benefits, health insurance assistance, housing support, training and job opportunities.

ACCESS HRA (AHRA) (www.nyc.gov/accesshra): Allows NYC residents to apply for SNAP

(Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/food stamps) benefits online from a computer or mobile

device. Applicants can submit all documents remotely, including through an AHRA mobile app from

their phones and they can call for an eligibility interview at a time of their choosing. Recertification can

also be done without having to visit a physical center. In 2019, the Department of Social Services will

begin to provide the same online access for those applying for cash assistance benefits.

FoodHelp.nyc (foodhelp.nyc/emergency-assistance-en/): Provides information about location of

community kitchens and food pantries in all five boroughs through online map and address listings.

Growing Up NYC (nyc.gov/growingupnyc): Helps NYC families and caregivers of children and young

adults age 0-24 learn about and access City programs, age guides (development milestones, parenting

tips, etc.), and neighborhood events and activities.

Generation NYC (nyc.gov/generationnyc): Helps NYC teens and young adults navigate City resources

on issues such as high school and college admissions, financial literacy, health insurance, mental health

resources, finding an apartment, and employment.

NYC Well (nyc.gov/nycwell, 1-888-NYC-WELL (1-888-692-9355)): Provides a one-click, one-call

connection to counseling, crisis intervention, peer support, and referrals to ongoing treatment services 24

hours a day. Mental health professionals are available to help New Yorkers who are struggling with

suicidal thoughts, mental health problems like depression and anxiety, and substance misuse. NYC Well

is accessible in more than 200 languages and is a free and confidential service.

NYC Housing Portal (nyc.gov/housingportal): Provides NYC housing resources to find affordable

housing, fight eviction or tenant harassment, find shelter, get help paying for housing, report a housing

complaint, and more.

NYC 311 (nyc.gov/311): Provides the public with quick, easy access to all New York City government

services and information and handles requests for government and non-emergency services. Services can

be accessed by phone (311 or 212-NEW-YORK (212-639-9675), text (311-692) or online

nyc.gov/311.

NY State of Health (https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/

): Provides a one stop shop for New Yorkers to find

affordable low-cost health insurance options through the Individual Marketplace.

APPENDIX B: CITY INITIATIVES & RESOURCES

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 59

Appendix B: City Initiatives & Resources

As part of Mayor de Blasio’s vision to make New York City “the fairest big city in America,” the City

has launched, expanded, or maintained key initiatives* that have a major impact on poverty among New

Yorkers. These initiatives provide supports in many ways, including: 1) increasing income (via minimum

wage increase, job creation and job training); 2) accessing benefits; 3) providing affordable housing

supports (public housing, tenant protection, rent regulation); 4) providing access to opportunity

(infrastructure, education, immigration assistance, small business programs); 5) offering health care

assistance; and 6) building anti-poverty infrastructure for systemic change.

* This Guide lists programs and initiatives highlighted in the City’s 2018 NYCgov Poverty Measure,

well as recent initiatives with potential to have major impact on reducing poverty in NYC.

B.1 Income

The most direct way of reducing poverty in New York City is to increase the income of residents, and the

City has a wide array of initiatives aimed at doing so. One such initiative is the steady increase in the

minimum wage, from $7.25 per hour in 2013 to $15 per hour effective January 2019. The City also views

increased job creation and job training as key to lifting New Yorkers out of poverty. Initiatives such as

Career Pathways, a framework for workforce development that recognizes the need to make a range of

supports available, from basic job readiness preparation to career advancement; HireNYC, which

launched in 2015 to fill jobs created by the City’s purchases and investments; NYC: ATWORK, the

City’s first public-private partnership to increase employment for New Yorkers with disabilities; New

York Works, a $1.5 billion initiative to create 100,000 jobs with good wages over 10 years in the areas of

cyber security, life sciences and health care, industrial and manufacturing, and cultural sectors, aim to

advance the City’s commitment to lift 800,000 New Yorkers out of poverty.

B.2 Benefits

Public benefits play an important role in reducing poverty among New Yorkers, and the City is working

to increase awareness of these benefits and provides help in filing for them.

ACCESS NYC

is an online public screening tool that allows New Yorkers to determine their eligibility

for City, state, and federal health and human service benefits from cash assistance, childcare, and food

assistance to health care, housing, and employment.

ACCESSHRA (AHRA) is an online and mobile-enabled system that simplifies and speeds up the process

for New Yorkers to apply for and recertify for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance benefits online, submit

documents remotely, and make changes to their cases without coming into an office. In 2019, the

Department of Social Services will enhance AHRA by including Cash Assistance applications in its

online service model (Cash Assistance recertifications are already available).

FoodHelp.nyc provides information about location of community kitchens and food pantries in all five

boroughs through online map and address listings.

New York City Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity (2020). New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-2018.

An Annual Report From the Office of the Mayor, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/20_poverty_measure_report

APPENDIX B: CITY INITIATIVES & RESOURCES

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 60

B.3 Affordable Housing

The City’s housing supports range from NYCHA public housing, programs that offer relief from rent

increases to some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers, legal services for tenants, displacement

protection, and homeless shelter services. The City’s new Housing Portal (nyc.gov/housingportal

)

provides resources to help New Yorkers find a safe and affordable place to live.

Building and Preserving Affordable Housing Units: When Mayor de Blasio took office, he announced a

plan to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing by 2024 – the largest municipal affordable

housing program in the country. The City exceeded its initial goals and raised its target. In

Housing New

York 2.0, it set out a roadmap for building or preserving 300,000 units by 2026. In January 2020, the City

launched a new phase of its affordable housing program, YOUR Home NYC. This new initiative

prioritizes building new homes for the lowest income New Yorkers. Under the program, half of all City-

financed newly built homes will be for families making under $50,000 a year, and at least half of those

will be for families earning less than $30,000 per year.

Rental Assistance: In 2014, the Administration began new rental assistance voucher programs to prevent

homelessness and to provide a path out of shelter for homeless families and childless adults. In October of

2018, these programs were consolidated into a single, streamlined program, City FHEPS. City FHEPS

provides subsidies for five years (with exceptions for good cause and for certain populations), with tenant

contributions capped at 30% of income and, along with existing federal programs like Section 8, has

helped over 109,000 people move out of shelter or avoid homelessness as of December 2018.

Protecting Tenants & Tenant Legal Assistance: In his 2019 State of the City address, Mayor de Blasio

signed an executive order creating the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, which will lead up anti-

harassment and outreach efforts, working with multiple agencies.

In August 2017, Mayor de Blasio signed first-in-the-country Universal Access to Counsel legislation to

provide all New Yorkers facing eviction in Housing Court and NYCHA administrative proceedings

access to with free legal services to prevent unfair evictions. The initiative, which is phasing in over five

years, is expected to serve 400,000 tenants when it reaches full strength in 2022. As of June 2018, as a

result of increased access to legal help for tenants through the Administration’s legal services programs,

30% of tenants in eviction cases in Housing Court had legal representation, up from 1% in 2013.

B.4 Access to Opportunity & Education

The City is working to improve access to infrastructure, increase educational opportunities for all

students, support immigrants, regardless of their status, empower women and minority-owned enterprises,

and provide support for families and youth.

Educational opportunities: Programs to increase educational opportunity begin at 3-K and continue

through college completion. Building on the success of free universal pre-K, the City introduced 3-K for

All, which is now being offered in all five boroughs. Programs such as CUNY ASAP, CUNY ACE,

LaGuardia College Part-Time Completion Initiative, and the Bronx Community College Advancing Part-

Time Excellence aim to increase college persistence and graduation rates.

Infrastructure: The City has prioritized expanding affordable, reliable access to key infrastructure for all

New Yorkers. Newly expanded eligibility guidelines for Fair Fares will now allow eligible NYCHA

APPENDIX B: CITY INITIATIVES & RESOURCES

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 61

residents, CUNY students, and military veterans below 100 percent of the poverty line to receive

discounted MetroCards with plans to launch an open enrollment process for all New Yorkers at or below

the poverty line. Affordable access to high-speed internet is critical to economic well-being. In January

2020, the City announced a New York City Internet Master Plan

– a vision for affordable, high-speed,

reliable broadband service.

Immigration assistance: Poverty rates for noncitizens are consistently higher than rates for native-born

and naturalized citizens. To mitigate this, the City has invested in supporting all immigrants, and also in

providing assistance to immigrants to transition to legal residency. Initiatives include

IDNYC, the City’s

official municipal identification card, free citizenship application assistance and community-based

immigration legal services (

ActionNYC), and free legal services programs for immigrant New Yorkers

facing complex legal challenges such as asylum and removal (Legal Services at HRA’s Office of Civil

Justice).

Women and minority-owned businesses: As part of the Mayor’s OneNYC goal, the City has awarded

more than $10 billion to women and minority-owned business enterprises since 2015 to promote a more

inclusive economic participation and empowerment. The City aims to expand the goal and award $20

billion by 2025. Information on MWBEs can be found at

nyc.gov/MWBE.

Families and Youth: In 2016, the City launched Growing Up NYC, an initiative that that brings together

the City’s child and family related resources in a mobile-responsive, accessible platform. Growing Up

NYC offers information on more than 70 City, state, and federally funded benefits and programs; easy-to-

read age guides with developmental milestones and parenting tips; and details about local events and

activities. In 2018, the City launched

Generation NYC as part of Growing Up NYC, a new digital

platform targeted to New Yorkers ages 13-24, providing information on high school and college

admissions, finding employment, and mental health resources, etc.

B.5 Health Care

One in five New Yorkers face mental health issues each year, which often go untreated, particularly in

low-income communities. In 2015, the Mayor and First Lady launched ThriveNYC, a set of 54 initiatives

to support the mental well-being of New Yorkers. Initiatives include Mental Health First Aid Training,

which fund and facilitate the training of New Yorkers to better recognize the signs, symptoms and risk

factors of mental illness and addiction and more effectively provide support, Mental Health in Schools,

which expands mental health services in Community Schools, and Connections to Care (C2C) that funds

community-based organizations (CBOs) to train staff in skills to address mental health needs.

NYCWell

provides free connection to counseling, crisis intervention, peer support, and referrals to ongoing

treatment services 24 hours a day by phone, text, or online chat.

In January 2019, Mayor de Blasio announced plans to guarantee health care for all New Yorkers. The

City will serve the 600,000 New Yorkers without insurance by strengthening NYC’s public health

insurance option, MetroPlus, and ensure anyone ineligible for insurance – including undocumented New

Yorkers – has direct access to NYC Health + Hospitals’ services through a new program called NYC

Care. GetCoveredNYC

, a multilingual outreach tool helps New Yorkers enroll in affordable, quality

health insurance, and receive primary and preventive care at NYC Health + Hospitals.

APPENDIX C: POVERTY THRESHOLDS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 62

Appendix C: Poverty Thresholds

NYCgov’s poverty measure quantitatively captures many nuances including high local housing costs, utilities, childcare and transportation

expenses, food, and clothing. The NYCgov poverty measure also includes the effects of public programs on moving people out of poverty.

Exhibit C.1 and C.2 show thresholds for poverty (100%) and near-poverty (150%) by household composition. Exhibit C.3 presents a comparison

of the NYCgov and federal poverty rates and thresholds.

Exhibit C.1: NYCgov Poverty Thresholds, by Size of Family and Number of Related Children under 18 Years (2016)

Number of Children

Size of Family Unit

None

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

One person

$ 15,017

Two persons

$ 21,174

$ 22,661

Three persons

$ 32,402

$ 28,520

$ 26,903

Four persons

$ 39,630

$ 36,094

$ 32,402

$ 30,874

Five persons

$ 46,330

$ 43,036

$ 39,630

$ 36,094

$ 34,638

Six persons

$ 52,637

$ 49,527

$ 46,330

$ 43,036

$ 39,630

$ 38,233

Seven persons

$ 58,635

$ 55,671

$ 52,637

$ 49,527

$ 46,330

$ 43,036

$ 41,688

Eight persons

$ 64,380

$ 61,536

$ 58,635

$ 55,671

$ 52,637

$ 49,527

$ 46,330

$ 45,025

Source: New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-2016, Appendix B.

Exhibit C.2: NYCgov near-Poverty Thresholds, by Size of Family and Number of Related Children under 18 Years (2016)

Number of Children

Size of Family Unit

None

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

One person

$ 22,526

Two persons

$ 31,761

$ 33,991

Three persons

$ 48,603

$ 42,780

$ 40,354

Four persons

$ 59,446

$ 54,141

$ 48,603

$ 46,312

Five persons

$ 69,496

$ 64,555

$ 59,446

$ 54,141

$ 51,956

Six persons

$ 78,956

$ 74,290

$ 69,496

$ 64,555

$ 59,446

$ 57,349

Seven persons

$ 87,952

$ 83,506

$ 78,956

$ 74,290

$ 69,496

$ 64,555

$ 62,533

Eight persons

$ 96,570

$ 92,304

$ 87,952

$ 83,506

$ 78,956

$ 74,290

$ 69,496

$ 67,538

Source: New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005-2016, Appendix B.

APPENDIX C: POVERTY THRESHOLDS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 63

Exhibit C.3: NYCgov and Federal Poverty Rates and Thresholds, 2014-2016

2014

2015

2016

Poverty Rates (%)

NYCgov Poverty

20.6

19.9

19.5*

NYCgov Near-Poverty (Below 150%)

45.1

44.2

43.5*

Federal Poverty

19.1

18.4

17.6*

Thresholds ($)

for household of 2 adults and 2 children

NYCgov Poverty

31,581

31,756

32,402

Federal Poverty

24,008

24,036

24,339

Source: Data provided by NYC Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity using 2016 1-Year American Community

Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by NYC Opportunity

Notes: Numbers in bold indicate a statistically significant change from the prior year.

* indicates a statistically significant change from 2014.

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 64

Appendix D: Methodology

This appendix presents additional information on the analytic details of the study, including research

questions, research design and methodological approach, and data collection and analysis.

D.1 Research Questions

The Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity (aka NYC Opportunity), the study’s Community Advisory

Board (CAB, discussed below), and Abt Associates jointly developed the study’s research questions:

Primary Research Questions

1. What are New Yorkers’ lived experiences living in poverty or near-poverty?

2. What are the ways that poverty affects New Yorkers’ lives, including in terms of work, education,

financial well-being, health, neighborhood and housing quality, and family dynamics?

Secondary Research Questions

3. How do New Yorkers living in poverty navigate the effects of poverty on their lives?

4. What strategies do New Yorkers use to successfully navigate the challenges of living in (or near)

poverty in the city?

5. What challenges associated with living in poverty are hardest to meet or are unmet?

6. How do public benefits contribute to New Yorkers’ experiences living in poverty? For those who

seek public benefits, what are their experiences like and how could they be improved? For those who

don’t seek benefits, why not, and could the City help address those issues?

Based on consultations with NYC Opportunity and its Poverty Research Unit, advice from the CAB, and

existing literature on poverty, we established eight primary topics to help inform responses to our research

questions and organize interview protocol questions:

• Income, Work & Gigs.

• Public Benefits & City Services.

• Support Networks.

• Trigger Events & Episodes of Poverty.

• Assets & Financial Well-Being.

• Neighborhood Factors.

• Health & Well-Being.

• Housing.

D.2 Research Design and Methodological Approach

This study draws on methods of community-based participatory research (CBPR). This paradigm

involves community members as research partners throughout the project. The benefits of a CBPR

approach all derive from establishing collaborative, non-hierarchical research relationships among

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 65

researchers, research sponsors, and study participants. When executed well, CBPR produces research that

reflects affected communities’ priorities; develops actionable insights that reflect on-the-ground realities;

and builds research capacity within participating communities. Specific components of a CBPR approach

vary by project, but they can include the community participating in decision-making, developing

research questions, recruiting participants, collecting data, and interpreting and analyzing data.

In this project, we engaged the community in many of these ways, including the partnership with

BronxWorks, convening of the CAB, and role of the CRs. Abt staff conducted a focus group prior to the

interviews beginning; this “exploratory” focus group was an opportunity for additional community

members to shape the research by weighing in on the interview topics we were developing. Then, at the

end of interview data collection, we convened a “member check” focus group where community members

checked the validity of our findings. Exhibit D.1 summarizes the ways in which our CAB/CRs were

involved in this study.

Exhibit D.1: Components of Community-based Participatory Research, by Component

Source: Adapted from Dodson and Schmalzbauer, 2005

CBPR can enhance the tangible benefits of research for all partners by building capacity and developing a

more nuanced understanding of complex environments. The benefits of a CBPR approach for this study

are multiple. First, it is important to give voice to community members who experience poverty and its

impacts and to have this community drive the direction of the research through co-development of

research questions and topics of inquiry. Second, community researchers were crucial in continually

refining the research approach, such as where and how to recruit New Yorkers in specific circumstances.

Third, the nature of our research topic is potentially sensitive, and the involvement of community

researchers serves both to facilitate access to this population and to enhance the comfort of research

participants during an interview. Finally, CRs helped interpret the results through local context and

reviewed the report for accuracy.

L. Dodson and L. Schmalzbauer, (2005), “Poor Mothers and Habits of Hiding: Participatory Methods in Poverty Research.”

Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 949–959. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00186.x

Research Design

•Collaborative

development of research

plan, including:

•Research objectives

•Target sample

•Recruitment approach

and locations

•Interview topics

Data Collection

•CRs recruit study

participants and collect

screening data

•CRs conduct interviews

•CRs observe research

settings

•Abt conducts exploratory

and member check focus

group

Interpretation and Co-

Production of Knowledge

•CRs provide interpretive

comments and feedback

on analysis by Abt

•CRs comment on the

draft report

Taking It Back to the

Community

•Member check focus

group

•Distribute final report to

research participants and

partners

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 66

D.3 Data Collection and Analysis

This section describes the data collected and our approach to analysis.

Data Collection

The study team collected data from several sources, including a screening questionnaire, interviews with

residents in English and Spanish, and exploratory and member check focus groups. Exhibit D.2

summarizes data collection activities.

Exhibit D.2: Data Collection Activities, in Chronological Order

Activity

# of Participants

All Applicants (N=101)

Screening questionnaire

101

Subset of Study Participants (N=41)

Exploratory focus group

In-depth interviews

Member check focus group

CRs collected the majority of the data: collecting screening questionnaires and conducting interviews. Abt

staff supervised and assisted with these activities and led the two focus groups. Study participants were

not repeated across the exploratory focus group, in-depth interviews, and member check focus group.

Screening Questionnaires

Screening questionnaires were completed by 101 individuals interested in completing a study interview.

In addition to its primary purpose as a screening tool for selecting interviewees, the screening

questionnaire provided data on a larger number of individuals who were approached for the study and

were interested in participating. For more information on our research sample, see Section F.2/Research

Sample.

The screening questionnaire (see Appendix F) included items on demographic characteristics such as

age, race/ethnicity, language, household structure, educational attainment, income, and sources of income.

The questionnaire also included subjective items about material hardship and economic situation and

open-ended items asking about sources of support and what would help the respondents to live a better

life in New York City.

Focus Groups

We conducted an exploratory focus group prior to beginning interview data collection in order to raise

additional topics and themes to explore in interviews, to identify particular areas of focus, and to refine

the wording of specific interview questions (see Appendix F for the discussion guide). Its group members

consisted of five individuals recruited through BronxWorks. The focus group was effective in confirming

our interview protocol questions and raising early themes, such as the challenges of paying for rent and

food, the prevalence of health care issues, and issues of mistrust in the public realm.

After a preliminary analysis was complete, we conducted a member check focus group with five

applicants who had filled out the screening questionnaire but not been interviewed (see Appendix F for

the discussion guide). In CBPR research, member check focus groups serve to ensure that the findings

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 67

from the study are valid.

This discussion allowed us to check our initial interview findings and gather

additional information or gain clarity on particular sub-topics, such as access to emergency funds and

housing quality.

Analysis

During data collection, we debriefed regularly with CRs regarding interim data collection findings and

emerging themes. This enabled our team to adjust our approach to certain questions and topics and to

probe more specifically on emerging areas of interest. This adjusting occurred on several occasions, in

one instance prompting the Abt study team to add new questions to the interview guide on criminal

justice issues.

All transcripts from the interviews and focus groups were organized and analyzed using NVivo 11.0, a

software package designed for the management and analysis of qualitative data. Each transcript was

classified according to data source (e.g., interview, focus group, etc.), demographic (e.g., gender,

race/ethnicity, etc.), and other characteristics (e.g., poverty depth, employment status, etc.).

We developed a coding structure based on our research questions, interview topics, and list of themes

emerging from the data. For example, based on interviewees’ responses, we added the role of religion as a

support mechanism and trust in the public realm. Once we finalized the codebook, we applied it to all

interview and focus group data.

Abt staff then queried and analyzed all transcripts thematically to identify patterns in the data. Querying

and analyzing data are steps in the qualitative research process by which analysts use analytic tools such

as NVivo to search the data—in this case, interview and focus group transcripts—for specific results. For

example, an analyst may search all transcripts for the term “SNAP” or “food stamps” to collect in one

place all of the information about people receiving food benefits. Analysts can also search data based on

the coding structure described above to identify patterns. This may begin with reviewing all data coded to

a specific code, such as “SNAP,” to understand the range of responses and whether there are typical

responses or experiences. Analysts may perform more complex queries, such as searching for where

codes overlap, such as “SNAP” and “beliefs about eligibility” for public services and programs. When

our analysis of the data indicated a potential relationship or pattern across interview classifications, such

as age, gender, family type, or employment status, we also examined the data by this group classification.

Once the Abt team developed a first draft of this report, we shared it with the CRs and the CAB to gain

their feedback and made adjustments to the report accordingly.

Y.S. Lincoln and E. Guba, (1985), Naturalistic Enquiry (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage); and C. Seale, (2007), The Quality of

Qualitative Research (London: SAGE).

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 68

Appendix E: Research Setting and Population

The following section reviews important elements in the history and the demographic and socio-economic

characteristics of our research area in the Bronx. Section F.2/Research Sample then discusses how this

study’s research sample compares to the larger population of New Yorkers living in poverty or near-

poverty.

E.1 Research Area

New York City is the single largest city in the United States and the most diverse by many measures. The

sheer scope of this City required us to focus our research efforts geographically. For this study, we

concentrated our work in the Bronx, the borough with the highest poverty rate, at 58% of residents being

poor or near-poor. While the Bronx bears a reputation in the cultural zeitgeist largely formed by the

economic collapse and urban decay of the 1970’s and long memorialized by the phrase “the Bronx is

burning,”

it’s also been a place of strong community and opportunity, with recent population and

business growth driven by an increase in the number of immigrants to the borough.

82,83

Exhibit E.1: Map of the Bronx with Research Area Shaded

Source: Google Maps

J. Mahler, (2006), Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning: 1977, Baseball, Politics, and the Battle for the Soul of a

City (New York: Picador).

T. P. DiNapoli, (2018, July 20), An Economic Snapshot of the Bronx (Rep. No. Report 4-2019). Retrieved from

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt4-2019.pdf

Office of the New York State Comptroller, (2018, July 20), “DiNapoli: Economic Snapshot Shows the Bronx Making

Impressive Gains in Addressing Challenges” [Press release]. Retrieved from

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/july18/072018a.htm

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 69

The Bronx is home to BronxWorks, a nonprofit organization with more than 38 locations dedicated to

serving community members of all ages. BronxWorks community centers offer after-school programs,

early childhood education, immigration services, housing assistance services, Single Stop offices, food

pantries, special events, and more. The breadth of BronxWorks services and locations afforded the study

the opportunity to reach a range of individuals in our research, from well-connected “help-seekers” to

neighborhood passers-by.

Data collection took place primarily in the South and Southwest Bronx, in neighborhoods that are

generally higher poverty, even within the Bronx, and have a BronxWorks presence.

Compared to New York City as a whole, the area of study in the Bronx is almost entirely non-White and

is poorer and worse off on a number of measures of socio-economic well-being, from employment rates

(−4.2 points) to educational attainment by the percentage of residents holding a bachelor’s degree or

higher (−23.5 points) to health insurance coverage rates (−3.5 points) and households with retirement

income (almost half as few).

See Exhibit E.2 for a detailed comparison of demographic and socio-

economic characteristics in the study area compared to New York City.

Exhibit E.2: Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics in Study Area Compared to NYC, 2012-2016

NYC

(N=8,461,961)

Study Geography

(NTAs within CD 1, 2, 4, 5)

(N=431,853)

Characteristic

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White

32.3

1.4

Non-Hispanic Black

22.2

28.2

Non-Hispanic Asian

13.6

1.3

Hispanic, any Race

29.0

67.7

Other

2.9

1.2

Educational Attainment (age 25 and over)

Less than high school

19.2

36.8

High school

24.0

27.1

Some college

14.2

16.9

Associate’s degree

6.4

Bachelor’s degree

21.3

9.3

Master’s degree or higher

14.9

3.4

Employment Status

In labor force

63.7

57.1

Employed

91.4

87.2

Unemployed

8.6

12.8

Not in labor force

36.3

42.9

The research area is roughly analogous to Bronx Community Districts 1, 2, 4, and 5 and to the following Neighborhood

Tabulation Areas: Highbridge (BX26), Hunts Point (BX27), Longwood (BX33), Fordham South (BX40), Mount Hope

(BX41), Melrose South-Mott Haven North (BX34), University Heights-Morris Heights (BX36), Mott Haven-Port Morris

(BX39), East Concourse-Concourse Village (BX14), and West Concourse (BX63).

Source: Compiled from the NYC Planning Population FactFinder (2012-2016 American Community Survey).

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 70

NYC

(N=8,461,961)

Study Geography

(NTAs within CD 1, 2, 4, 5)

(N=431,853)

Characteristic

Income and Public Benefits to At Least One Household Member

Social Security

24.7

20.9

Retirement income

12.1

6.4

Supplemental Security Income

7.8

16.8

Cash public assistance income

4.2

9.3

SNAP benefits (past 12 months)

20.4

49.7

Health Insurance Coverage

With health insurance coverage

89.0

85.5

Private

55.8

28.9

Public

41.1

61.8

No health insurance coverage

11.0

14.5

NTA is Neighborhood Tabulation Areas. CD is Bronx Community District.

Source: Compiled from the NYC Planning Population FactFinder (2012-2016 American Community Survey)

In the following section, we describe our research sample in comparison to all NYC residents living in

poverty.

E.2 Research Sample

The study team interviewed as diverse a sample of residents in poverty as possible in our research area.

During recruitment events, the study team set up a recruitment table for individuals to approach,

approached individuals to invite them to learn more about the study, and asked BronxWorks staff to help

spread the word to their clients. Interested individuals completed a one-page screening questionnaire

which provided the study team with key demographic information; data about their personal outlook on

past and future experiences; and input on opportunities for the City to address the most pressing

challenges facing New Yorkers in poverty.

Study eligibility was based on three factors: age, residency, and

income. Screening questionnaire respondents were eligible for the

study if their responses indicated that:

• They were 18 or older, and

• They live in New York City, and

− Their household income placed them below 150% of the

NYCgov poverty threshold, or

− Their household income placed them at or above 150% of the NYCgov poverty threshold and

they answered yes to one of the material hardship items, related to challenges paying for food,

rent, or utilities.

Exhibit E.3 summarizes poverty depth amongst NYC residents and the study sample. (See Exhibits C.1

and C.2 for the NYCgov 100% and 150% poverty thresholds by household composition.)

Research Sample

(Number of Participants)

• Screening questionnaire sample: 101

• Study sample: 41, including:

− Interview sample: 31

− Focus group sample: 10

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 71

Exhibit E.3: Poverty Depth amongst NYC Residents and Study Sample, 2012-2016

NYC

(N=8,461,961)

Screened Study

Applicants

(N=101)

Study

Participants

(N=41)

Characteristic

Poverty Depth

Poor (below 100% of the NYCgov poverty threshold)

19.5

55.4

53.7

Near-poor (100% to less than 150% of NYCgov poverty

threshold)

24.0 13.9 29.3

Above poverty (150% or higher than NYCgov poverty

threshold)

56.5 9.9 4.9

Income not provided

n/a

20.8

12.2

Source: Data provided by NYC Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity using 2016 1-Year American Community

Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by NYC Opportunity and this study.

After confirming an applicant’s basic eligibility, the study team selected interviewees to maximize our

sample’s diversity by age, race/ethnicity, preferred language, foreign-born status, gender, family

composition, and depth of poverty. Exhibit E.4 summarizes the characteristics of the 31 New Yorkers we

selected to be interviewed. Exhibit E.5 provides compares study applicants and participants to all NYC

residents living in poverty.

Exhibit E.4: Characteristics of Study’s Interview Sample (N=31)

Characteristic

# of

Interviewees

Age

18-64

18-25

25-35

35-50

50-64

65 and over

Missing/Blank

Race/Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic, Any race

Asian

Language Preference

Spanish-language interview

English-language interview

Nativity

Foreign-born

Gender

Men

Women

Other

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 72

Characteristic

# of

Interviewees

Family Type

Households w/ children

Households w/o children

Poverty Depth

Below 100% of the NYCgov poverty threshold (poor)

100% to less than 150% of NYCgov poverty threshold (near-poor)

150% or higher than NYCgov poverty threshold (above poverty)

with hardship criteria selected

Missing/Blank

Source: Screening questionnaire responses

Data for Race/Ethnicity is presented for groups that were identified as being part of our target sample and does not sum to 31.

Exhibit E.5: Demographic Characteristics of NYC Residents in Poverty vs. Study Applicants and Participants,

2016

NYC Residents in

Poverty

(N=1,626,361)

Screened Study

Applicants

(N=101)

Study

Participants

(N=41)

Characteristic

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White

21.8

1.0

2.4

Non-Hispanic Black

21.6

32.7

41.5

Non-Hispanic Asian

17.6

4.0

7.3

Hispanic, Any race

36.0

48.5

43.9

Other

n/a

13.9

4.9

Age

<18

24.4

0.0

18 through 64

61.4

79.2

82.9

65+

14.2

15.8

12.2

Age not provided

n/a

4.9

Gender

Male

47.7

22.8

31.7

Female

52.3

70.3

65.9

Other

n/a

1.0

2.4

Missing/Blank/Not provided

n/a

5.9

0.0

Family Type

Household with children

49.3

60.4

65.9

Household without children

50.7

34.7

34.1

Missing/Blank/Not provided

n/a

5.0

0.0

Source: Data provided by NYC Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity using 2016 1-Year American Community

Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by NYC Opportunity and from this study.

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 73

CAB members drew our attention to the potential limitations of a recruitment strategy limited to

BronxWorks service centers; namely, that our research sample would be limited to community members

who were already well connected to services and would leave out those who were unaware of these

services or reluctant to seek them out for a variety of reasons. We called the former group “help-seekers,”

those individuals who are well informed about government benefits and nonprofit services and tend to

seek them out. We were interested in the perspective of help-seekers as they may have extensive

knowledge about what benefits and services are most helpful, barriers to benefits and services, and

service gaps. Recruiting through BronxWorks made it likely we would reach many help-seekers. To reach

this group, we conducted some data collection events at BronxWorks locations offering a variety of

services: a walk-in center, a food pantry, and a community center.

To further diversify the interview sample and ensure that our sample would also include those who were

reluctant or less able to access benefits and services, we conducted data collection events at a variety of

BronxWorks and community locations. For example, we recruited on a weekend from a City community

center, as well as from services and programs that draw those who may be less engaged in services

overall (such as childcare, ESL, and job training programs). Targeted recruitment was useful in reaching

those who are less likely to seek help but are engaged to use a specific service, such as parents who enroll

their children in BronxWorks childcare or individuals recommended for participation in the Strong

Fathers, Stronger Families program.

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 74

Appendix F: Data Collection Instruments

Screening Questionnaire for NYC Opportunity Study on Poverty in NYC .............................................. 75

Exploratory Focus Group Protocol ............................................................................................................ 76

Interview Protocol ...................................................................................................................................... 77

Member Check Focus Group Protocol ....................................................................................................... 82

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 75

Screening Questionnaire for NYC Opportunity Study on Poverty in NYC

Please fill in or circle the response that best reflects you. You can skip or decline to answer any questions you choose. Declining to answer a question

may make you less likely to be screened as eligible for the full interview.

Zip Code:

__________

Age:

__________

Approximate yearly household income:

__________

Gender:

Male

Female

Other

Do you identify as Hispanic

or Latino/a?

Yes

No

Which race(s) do you identify as?

Black

White

Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

Other

____________

In which country were you born?

_______________

What language(s) do you

speak?

____________

What is the highest level of

education you have completed?

Less than High School

High School

Some College

Associate’s Degree

Bachelor’s Degree

Master’s Degree or higher

Who lives in your household with you? Select all that

apply:

I live alone

I live with the following people:

Aged 65+ How many?_____

Children under age 18 How many? ____

Other adults aged 18-64 How many? _____

Includes romantic partner or spouse

Does not include a romantic partner or

spouse

Do you live in

NYCHA or Section

8 housing?

Yes

No

What are your current source(s) of income?

(Select all that apply)

Working full-time for pay

Working part-time for pay

Working side gigs

Public benefits, such as cash assistance,

SNAP (food stamps), and housing subsidies

Support from family, friends, partners,

and/or ex-partners

Other

__________

1. How often do you visit BronxWorks location(s?)

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 When I have an urgent or emergency

need (less often than monthly)



This is my first time

 Never

 Other _____________

2. Do you often worry that food will run out before you have enough money to buy more? Yes  No 

3. In the last year, was there a time when a utility was cut off because of a lack of money? Yes  No 

4. In the last year, was there a time when you and the other members of your household ran out of money before rent was due? Yes  No 

5. In the last year, has your household’s economic situation gotten better, worse, or stayed the same? Better  Worse  Stayed the same 

6. How do you expect your economic situation to change in the next year? Better  Worse  Stay the same 

7. What would help you to live a better life in NYC?

___________________________________________

8. What would you like the City to do as a result of hearing from New Yorkers like you about making ends meet?

_______________________________________________________________

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 76

Exploratory Focus Group Protocol

Introductions (10 minutes)

1. Let’s go around the room now. Can each of you share your first name, and to break the ice, tell us

your favorite food?

Poverty in New York City (60 minutes)

We’d like to spend the first 30 minutes of our conversation talking about poverty in New York City: what

makes poverty challenging, what resources are helpful, and how New Yorker’s navigate these

challenges.

2. What are the ways that living in poverty affects a person’s life in New York? Probe for: work,

financial well-being, health, neighborhood and housing quality, and family dynamics?

3. What are some of the things New Yorkers use to navigate the challenges of living in (or near) poverty

in the city?

4. What challenges associated with living in poverty are hardest to meet or are unmet?

5. How do public benefits contribute to New Yorkers’ experiences living in poverty? (Provide examples

of what these benefits are, e.g., SNAP, WIC, TANF (cash assistance), NYCHA, other housing

subsidy (public housing, voucher, section 8, rent controlled, rent stabilized), HEAP (heating and

cooling), social security income, income tax credits (including EITC), school meals, childcare

assistance, unemployment insurance, worker’s comp, etc.) Probe for experiences with

application/access to benefits, eligibility issues, in-office experiences/mobile or online access,

resisting or avoiding benefits, what was helpful, what was challenging.

6. What would you like people at the mayor’s office and others who work for the City to know about

being poor or having a low income in New York City?

7. What do you think would help low-income New Yorkers? This can be either things that don’t exist

yet or ways to change/improve things that already exist.

The Importance of Language (15 minutes)

In the next 15 minutes, we hope that you can help us to figure out which words to use and which words to

avoid when we are interviewing people. Language is really important and we want to use words that

resonate with our interviewees, are meaningful, and are respectful.

8. How do you define “poverty” in New York City? What do you think it means to be poor?

9. What do you think of the Study title “Making Ends Meet” study? Other ideas include: New York City

Quality of Life Study, “Getting By in NYC,” “Hardships and Successes in NYC.” Do you have other

ideas for what to call this study? What do these terms mean to you?

10. What words should we use? Poverty, poor, low income?

11. What words should we avoid?

12. We would like to ask people to estimate their annual household income in the screening questionnaire

so that we can identify appropriate candidates for the study. Do you think people will be comfortable

or hesitant to share this information with us?

Wrap Up (15 minutes)

13. What do you think would be an important outcome of this research?

14. How can we bring this research into action?

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 77

Interview Protocol

Opening Questions

1. Will you please tell me a little bit about yourself? For instance, Where did you grow up? How long

have you lived in your current neighborhood? What is your education/employment background?

What activities do you enjoy?

2. Can you tell me a little bit about your family?

3. How are things going overall for you and your family?

4. Can you walk me through a day in your life?

5. Probe for: Household composition, if not completed or unclear on screening questionnaire

6. Probe for: Household income, if not completed or unclear on screening questionnaire

A. Income, Work & Gigs

Now, I would like to spend a little time talking about income, work, and gigs. The study is interested in

understanding how people make money and what they do to make ends meet. I will ask about your ability

to find work, your experience working in the formal and informal economies, your job quality, your rate

of pay relative to the minimum wage, and more.

1. How do you make a living in New York? Probe for:

• Employment in the formal economy

• Extra jobs, gigs, etc.

• Social Security, Social Security Disability Insurance, or cash assistance

2. Do you think that you are paid a living wage (a wage that is high enough to support a reasonable

standard of living)? How do your wages compare to New York’s minimum wage ($13/hour)? What

do you think is a living wage?

3. What is easy about earning a living through this work? What is difficult about this work?

4. Do you find your work meaningful or rewarding?

5. If you work, do you have regular work hours? If you don’t, what is it like to not have regular working

hours?

6. How did you get into this work? Were there people or organizations that helped you to secure this

source of income? (e.g., a mentor, personal connection or reference, a City or nonprofit agency). How

did they help you? What actions did you take that helped you to secure this source of income?

7. What challenges have you faced in securing the income that you need to get by in New York?

8. Have you experienced changes in your income over time?

• If yes, were these changes planned or unplanned?

9. How have changes to your income affected your life?

10. What would help you to make a living or find work (or better work)? Probe for:

• Are there opportunities for promotion in your work?

• Would opportunities for further education or training help and would you be interested in such an

opportunity?

B. Public Benefits & City Services

In this topic, I will ask you about which public benefits and city services, and other resources, have been

helpful to you and how. I would also like to hear about any challenges you have faced in seeking out,

accessing, and using these types of resources.

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 78

1. What sorts of resources help you make ends meet?

2. Do you use any public benefits (e.g., SNAP, cash assistance, childcare, Medicaid, HEAP)? Please tell

me about your experience with that/those benefit(s). What would make the experience better?

3. What is it like to apply for public benefits?

4. The last time you went to an organization for any type of assistance, what was your experience like?

Can you walk me through the things you did and the steps you took that day?

5. Are there benefits that you are aware of but have not pursued? If so, what things prevent you from

seeking out or applying for benefits and services? (probe for stigma, negative experiences with

bureaucracy, knowledge and myths, time constraints, immigration status, gaps in the system, catch

22’s).

6. Have you ever accessed other services such as job training or placement, etc.?

7. Do you have access to a computer or internet? How does this help/hinder your ability to apply for and

access resources?

8. What are the challenges of obtaining benefits or resources from the City or nonprofit organizations,

like BronxWorks?

9. Do you think that NYC government and other social service organizations are responsive to the needs

of people living in poverty? Why or why not?

10. What else, that you don’t have now, would help you improve your financial situation and live a better

life in NYC?

Our study is also interested in understanding how the size and composition of a household influences the

benefits they are eligible for and their ability to make ends meet. For example, how women with children

are eligible for WIC, but dads are not.

11. Can you tell me a little about resources that others in your household might receive (for example, SSI

for a child, child support, foster child stipend, WIC, SNAP, SSDI, childcare vouchers)? Can you give

me a rough estimate of the amount you receive from each of these benefits?

12. How do those resources affect others in your family or household?

13. How do those resources affect your ability to make ends meet (in your household or family, if

applicable)?

14. Do you share resources with others in your household, or outside your household? How?

C. Support Networks

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the support networks you might have in your life,

such as family members, friends, religious institutions, public institutions, and nonprofit and private

charitable organizations.

1. Describe to me a recent challenge you faced (related to having a lower income). What did you do to

get through it?

2. Are there networks in your life that help you to navigate having a lower income in New York? Who

or what are these supports and how are they most helpful?

3. What else, that you don’t have now, would help you improve your financial situation and live a better

life in NYC?

D. Trigger Events & Episodes of Poverty

We would like to understand more about particular events or moments in your life that you associate with

either an easier or harder time making ends meet. This might include things like job loss, reduction in

hours, loss of housing subsidy, interactions with the criminal justice system, a divorce or separation,

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 79

medical expenses, the birth of a child, and much more. Or, something positive like a promotion at work,

finishing a training program, a new job, or more. We know that many people spend a large amount of

time struggling to make ends meet, but we understand that certain life events have the potential to

increase or decrease your financial well-being.

1. Are there any life changing events or setbacks that have contributed to pushing you to poverty, or

having a harder time making ends meet? What happened?

a. What happened to cause this event?

b. What happened as a result of this event?

c. How did this event affect you? Your family?

d. What helped you to cope with the effects of this event?

e. Thinking back, what resources would have best helped you to cope with the effects of the event?

2. Can you think of any changes or events in your life that made it easier for you to make ends meet?

What were these changes?

a. What steps did you take that helped to bring about this event or change?

b. Were there other people, things, or organizations that helped to bring about this event or change?

c. What happened as a result of this change?

d. How did this change affect you? Your family?

E. Assets & Financial Well-Being

Now I would like to ask you some questions about your financial well-being and safety net. I would like

to understand more about how you think about your finances, and how you manage or get by financially

both day to day and in the longer term. I would also like to understand how a large unexpected expense,

for you or a close friend or relative, might impact your life. Last, I would like to understand more about

the emotional toll of managing finances and your expectations for the future.

1. How do you feel overall about your financial situation?

a. In the short term, day to day?

b. In the long term?

i. Probe: Do you think things will get better for you? Worse? Stay about the same?

2. How often do you have difficulty making ends meet for regular and important expenses, like rent,

utilities, or groceries?

a. What major expected costs are the hardest for you to fulfill?

b. What major expected costs are the easiest for you to fulfill?

3. What unexpected costs have you had in the past 6 months?

4. If you needed money tomorrow – say, $250 for something important, like a medical, legal, or other

unexpected expense, what would you do?

5. Do you have access to savings or emergency funds?

a. Probe for: use of payday loans, credit cards, pawn shop.

6. How has your economic situation changed over the last 2 years?

7. How do you expect your economic situation to change over the next 3 years?

8. How would you describe your attitude towards your financial situation?

9. What else, that you don’t have now, would help you improve your financial situation and live a better

life in NYC?

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 80

F. Neighborhood Factors

The neighborhood that we live in impacts our access to resources, exposure to crime and safety, natural

environment, time spent in transit, time spent with family, and more. I will ask you questions about which

neighborhood characteristics and resources are important to you, and how different characteristics might

help you or hold you back.

1. How long have you lived in your neighborhood?

2. What do you like about the neighborhood that you live in?

3. Are there things about your neighborhood that help you to get by financially, or to grow?

4. What things are hard about living in your neighborhood?

5. How did you come to live in this particular neighborhood?

6. What are some changes you would like to see in your neighborhood that would improve your quality

of life?

G. Health & Well-Being

Having a lower income often impacts the health and well-being of people in more ways than one.

Stressors can lead to deterioration in both physical and mental health, including symptoms of depression

and anxiety. I would like to ask you about how your financial situation may affect your health, and about

your access to health care and use of health care.

1. Do you think that your financial situation impacts your mental or physical health? In what ways?

2. Are there times you have ignored a physical health condition, or put off seeking care, because of

finances? Or other reasons? Can you tell me about this?

3. Are there times you have ignored a mental health condition like anxiety or depression, or put off

seeking care, because of finances? Or other reasons? Can you tell me about this?

4. Are there times you have had to use non-prescribed substances to treat a medical condition because

you were unable to see a doctor?

5. How do you manage the costs of health care and your budget?

6. Do you have access to air conditioning in the summer time? In your home or in public locations?

a. What are your barriers to accessing air conditioning in the summer?

b. Are air conditioning utility bills difficult for you to pay? How do you manage this cost?

c. Does lack of access to air conditioning in the heat affect your health?

H. Housing

Shelter and home are important concepts in our understanding of human needs, and yet many New

Yorkers do not have housing, or have stable housing. Now, I would like to ask you about housing

supports or subsidies that you might have, or how you have coped in trying to find a stable place to live.

1. Do you feel secure in your home? What makes your housing situation feel secure? What makes your

housing situation feel insecure?

2. Do you want to move to a different home or neighborhood? What limits your ability to move? What

supports your ability to move?

3. Does the housing that you have affect your ability to grow financially?

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 81

I. Criminal Justice System (If applicable and respondent opens discussion)

There is an overrepresentation of individuals in the criminal justice system who are affected by poverty.

To better understand how poverty affects those in communities, learning about what could raise

vulnerabilities in relation to crime is helpful.

1. Have you ever been arrested for engaging in illicit activities to take care of your needs?

i. If yes, what were you arrested for? Did you have to pay bail or any fines and if so, did you have any

difficulty doing so?

2. Have you ever been incarcerated?

i. If yes, what are some of the challenges that you face now as a result of that incarceration? What are

some of the challenges you may have faced trying to obtain social services while trying to get your

life back on track?

3. How can a legitimate job help to support financial challenges of everyday life? Does your job offer

enough income without the need to find illegitimate ways to take care of your needs?

Closing Questions

1. Where do you see yourself 5 years from now?

2. If you won the lottery tomorrow, how would you spend your winnings?

3. What else, that you don’t have now, would help you improve your financial situation and live a better

life in NYC?

4. What do you hope for your future?

5. What do you hope for the future of your children, or future generations of children in New York City?

6. What do you think would be an important outcome of this research?

7. How can we bring this research into action?

8. Is there anything you find very important in your experience of making ends meet which we may

have overlooked, that you would like to share?

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 82

Member Check Focus Group Protocol

Introductions (20 minutes)

Let’s go around the room now. Can each of you share your first name, and to break the ice, tell us your

favorite food?

Now we’re going to tell you a little bit about how we did our study, and our findings so far. Beginning in

July, we started recruiting interview participants much in the same way we invited you to the focus group

(some of you may have originally filled out a screener for the interview). We reached out to people at a

number of BronxWorks programs—the childcare center, senior center, job training programs, food pantry,

etc. We interviewed 30 people who had diverse demographic experiences and characteristics--men,

women, people of different ages, races, English and Spanish speakers, people who earned slightly more

than the poverty line and people who earned much less than it, people with children at home, people who

live alone, etc.

Now we’re in the process of looking what people told us in those interviews and summarizing it for our

report to the city. The purpose of this focus group is for us to check that we’re getting it right and not

missing things that might have been unsaid—for example, if I went outside and offered Mets tickets to 30

people walking by and no one wanted them, I might say “people in the Bronx don’t like baseball” and I’d

want you to point out what I’m missing!

We have a lot to cover, so we put a few key points, organized by topic on the handouts. For each page,

I’m going to ask you to do two thumbs up if we got it right, one thumb if we kind of got it but not quite, and

thumbs down if we missed it entirely. And then we’ll discuss as a group. We’ll also have some questions

for you of things we really could use more input on.

Finance (10 min)

• First, we just want to check these headlines. Did we get it right?

• We heard also a lot about paying cell phone bills, but this didn’t come up as the “hardest thing to pay”

or a missed bill. Same with utilities like A/C and cable. Can you talk to us about how these items fit

into your budgets? Are there other things you need to pay for every month?

• These are some of the things people told us they do to get by. Do these sound right to you?

• We asked people if they had savings—a lot of people said no. We also asked them if they could

come up with $250 if they needed to, and a lot of people said yes. Can you tell us more about why

this might be?

Income and Work (10 min)

• How’d we do on these bullet points?

• We want to talk about wages. A lot of people told us they work but still don’t make enough money to

get by. A few people told us how much they thought they needed to make per hour. What do you

think?

o Probe: How many hours a week at that wage?

• We want to talk a bit about job quality. These are some of the things that came up when people told

us whether they liked their job or a job they had in the past. Are these right? What do you think about

in terms of what makes a job good or bad?

APPENDIX F: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Abt Associates Qualitative Study to Enhance the NYCgov Poverty Measure / Final Report ▌pg. 83

Public Benefits (10 min)

• These are the benefits people told us they receive—a lot of people got food stamps, Medicaid or

Medicare, SSI. Not very many people got housing or cash assistance. Does that sound right to you?

What benefits do the people you know get? What benefits would they like to receive but are unable

to?

• We’re interested in why people aren’t getting certain benefits, and particularly why they don’t apply.

What are some of the reasons you think people might not apply?

Health (10 min)

• Did we get these points right?

o Probe: We didn’t hear about too many people without health insurance. A lot of people have

Medicaid/HealthFirst. Does that sound right to you?

o Probe: Here are some of the common health problems people mentioned. Are there other

common health problems among people you know?

Housing (10 min)

• How’d we do on these bullet points?

o Probe: [If agree rent is the hardest bill to pay] Why is that?

o Probe: How much do you think people pay out of their take home pay in rent?

o Probe: Has your rent gone up, down, or stayed mostly the same since you’ve lived in NY?

• (If not covered earlier) Not that many people told us that they get help with housing or rent. Does that

sound right to you? Why or why not?

• We didn’t hear a lot about housing quality in our interviews, but I’m curious to know:

o How does your housing quality compare to what you pay in rent?

o Experience of poor housing conditions?

Neighborhood factors (10 min)

• Did we get these right?

• I want to talk about this last bullet – has anyone noticed improvements in their neighborhood? What

about any increase in cost? What things cost more?

Wrap Up (15 minutes)

• What do you think would be an important outcome of this research?

• How can we bring this research into action?