Clear all

4 results found

reorder grid_view

Spotlight On State of Food Hardship in New York City: Lessons learned during the pandemic and where we go from here

November 18, 2021

COVID-19 pandemic, with more than one in three New Yorkers sometimes or often running out of food or worrying that food would run out before they had money to buy more. The pandemic brought new and devastating challenges in quick succession, with half of New Yorkers losing work-related income at the peak of the pandemic, not knowing how they would make rent or keep food on the table, or when things would get back to "normal."In the face of uncertainty, actions were taken at federal, state, and local levels to stabilize income and provide a buffer against new experiences of material hardship. These included the substantial expansion of the unemployment insurance program, stimulus payments, the increase in Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) payments, and eviction moratoria. 2020 also saw community-based organizations across the city quickly adapt to meet needs and deliver services while maintaining public health guidelines. This included the substantial expansion of emergency food assistance programs, with food pantries changing their hours, protocols, and delivery mechanisms. Data from the Poverty Tracker show that these supply-side changes aligned with an increased demand for food – between 2019 and 2020, the number of families in the Poverty Tracker sample receiving food from a food pantry more than doubled. And among foreign-born New Yorkers, who were less likely to benefit from the federal policy expansions, the number of people using food pantries nearly tripled. This sharp increase suggests that the role of pantries in the lives of New Yorkers changed over the course of the pandemic, and many of these changes may continue to play a role in fighting food hardship through the pandemic recovery.

Spotlight on Direct Cash Benefits during the Pandemic

October 4, 2021

As the country looks to emerge from the pandemic during a destabilized labor market, a debate has arisen over whether direct cash payments discourage people from working. This debate echoes long-standing ideological disputes over the social safety net, including the effectiveness and appropriateness of direct cash benefits, and whether people will spend them wisely. The existing quantitative data demonstrates that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, including its direct cash benefit provisions, helped many people avert material hardship, while for those who were ineligible, its absence exacerbated hardship.Previous Poverty Tracker reports have shown that nearly half (49%) of all New York City workers lost employment income at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. And those hardest-hit were those already in precarious financial positions, with more than half (57%) of low-wage workers in New York City losing employment income. Across the city, New Yorkers were forced to figure out how to pay rent and keep food on the table with no sense of what was to come next. To make ends meet, 52% of New Yorkers who lost employment income drew down from their savings accounts, 41% started using their credit cards more frequently, and 29% delayed payments on credit cards and other loans. But the data also show that it could have been much worse absent policy interventions, such as the stimulus checks and expanded unemployment insurance benefits (UIB) that so many New Yorkers describe as a lifeline in the qualitative interviews discussed in the pages that follow.In this report, we draw on qualitative data from the Poverty Tracker to better understand how these benefits impacted peoples' lives and the choices they made. We conducted a rolling set of interviews with 38 adults in New York City from July 2020 through May 2021. With some exceptions, we interviewed people twice at roughly six-month intervals. Our research design therefore allows us to track people's experiences with successive waves of stimulus payments and UIB, their spending of these benefits, and their efforts to return to work (or not) over time. We first describe how people budgeted and apportioned these benefits. We next examine whether and how direct cash benefits affected decision-making about employment.

Early Childhood Poverty Tracker: Child Care, Affordability, Accessibility and the Costs of Disruptions

July 29, 2021

This report leverages data from the Early Childhood Poverty Tracker (see text box for a more detailed description), a Columbia University and Robin Hood study of more than 1,500 parents of young children in New York City, to provide a window into how families – especially low-income parents – managed their child care needs before the onset of the pandemic and what happens when families experience disruptions in their child care.PART I of this report focuses on accessibility and affordability of child care in New York City before the pandemic, specifically discussing what types of child care families used, including center-based, home-based, and informal care, and how they afforded that care.PART II explores both the extent and the economic cost of child care disruptions for New Yorkers, including an analysis of disruptions during the pandemic. To analyze the costs and impacts of disruptions, both to families and to the economy overall, the report replicates similar studies conducted in Maryland and Louisiana, which found that both states lost over $1 billion in a given year from parental absence and turnover due to child care disruptions. While the data we use for this analysis were collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, we can only expect that the impacts documented here were exacerbated due to the disruptions of daily life brought about by COVID-19.Together, these findings highlight the difficult trade-offs between access, quality, and affordability for families of young children, as well as the economic implications of disruptions to child care. This report can inform policymakers and practitioners as they lay the groundwork for reopening the city's centers and reimagine a better, more inclusive, and more accessible system. 

Measuring Success: How the Robin Hood Foundation Estimates the Impact of Grants

November 12, 2007

This tool calculates a benefit/cost ratio for a Robin Hood program, whose goal is to eradicate poverty in New York City. It does so by applying a common measure of success for programs of all types: how much a grant to a program boosts the future earnings (or, more generally, living standards) of poor families above that which they would have earned in the absence of Robin Hood's help. It then divides the estimated earnings boost by the size of Robin Hood's grant. The ratio for each grant measures the value it delivers to poor people per dollar of cost to Robin Hood.