Posted on April 29th, 2021
In its letter, the Greater Rochester Community Reinvestment Coalition urges the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to make the approval of M&T Bank’s application to acquire People’s United Bank contingent upon M&T’s commitment to negotiate and sign a community benefits agreement (CBA) with the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) and its member organizations located within the bank’s post-merger footprint.
Read the letter here.
Posted on April 8th, 2021
Comments on behalf of the Greater Rochester Community Reinvestment Coalition (GRCRC) to oppose the proposed changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations. The proposal by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) lessens the public accountability of banks to their communities by broadening the performance measures on CRA exams so that they do not accurately measure a bank’s responsiveness to local needs. Contrary to the agencies’ assertions that their changes would increase clarity and CRA activity, the result will be significantly fewer loans, investments and services to low-moderate income (LMI) communities.
Read full comments here: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
Posted on October 8th, 2020
In its letter, the Greater Rochester Community Reinvestment Coalition provides its comments regarding M&T Bank’s CRA Exam conducted by the Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) for 2014 through 2019.
Read the letter here.
Posted on February 18th, 2020
RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals Council, 84 Fed. Reg. 70080 (December 20, 2019), Docket No. SSA-2017-0073
As Co-coordinators of New York State’s Disability Advocacy Program (DAP), Legal Services NYC and Empire Justice Center work with advocates throughout New York State who provide similar services, in particular advocates who are funded by the State of New York under the DAP grant to represent low-income claimants who have been denied disability benefits. We submit these comments on behalf of the New York DAP providers.
Overall, we do not recommend that SSA proceed to adopt the proposed rules. The NPRM raises significant issues with respect to the Administrative Procedures Act and other due process concerns, and it fails to offer sufficient – or sometimes no—justification for the proposed changes. We agree with the comment submitted by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR), which also recommends that SSA rescind this NPRM and consider other options.
Read full comment letter here: Joint Comment Letter – Opposition to Proposed SSA Rulemaking on Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges
Posted on January 31st, 2020
RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews, 84 Fed. Reg. 36588 (November 18, 2019), Docket No. SSA-2018-0026
As Co-coordinators of the Disability Advocacy Program (DAP), Empire Justice Center and Legal Services NYC work with advocates throughout New York State who provide similar services, in particular advocates who are funded by the State of New York under the DAP grant to represent low-income claimants who have been denied disability benefits. We submit these comments on behalf of the New York DAP providers.
We endorse the extensive and thorough comments submitted by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and other organizations cited below who oppose these proposed regulations.
The proposed rules are published with practically no information to justify the changes, or to explain how they are to be applied. We agree with the comments submitted today from Community Legal Services (CLS) that object to the NPRM’s reliance on “SSA’s Mysterious ‘Predictive Model’” as the basis for the proposed changes to the CDR diary categories. As noted by CLS, “[t]he omission of details regarding this predictive model is glaring.” The NPRM offers no information whatsoever about it.
Read the full comment letter here: Joint Comment – Opposition to Proposed SSA Rulemaking Regarding Continuing Disability Reviews.
Posted on January 28th, 2020
Empire Justice Center opposes the proposed changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations. This proposal by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) lessens the public accountability of banks to their communities by broadening the performance measures on CRA exams so that they do not accurately measure a bank’s responsiveness to local needs. Contrary to the agencies’ assertions that their changes would increase clarity and CRA activity, the result will be significantly fewer loans, investments and services to low-moderate income (LMI) communities. Empire Justice reserves the right to submit additional comments before the end of the comment period.
Read full comments here: Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
Posted on December 3rd, 2019
December 2, 2019
Program Design Branch
Program Development Division
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 812
Alexandria, VA 22302
RE: Docket No: FNS-2019-0009
Docket RIN: RIN 0584-AE69
Docket Name: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Standardization of State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances
We recommend you view the comments here.
Dear SNAP Program Design Branch:
I write on behalf of Empire Justice Center, a statewide, multi-issue, multi-strategy public interest law firm focused on changing the systems in which poor and low income New Yorkers live.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment in response to the proposed regulatory changes seeking to set more homogeneous heating and cooling standard utility allowances (“SUA”) in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2019.
Because SNAP is often the first line of defense against hunger in New York, Empire Justice Center strongly opposes any regulatory changes that will reduce or deny benefits to qualifying households or limit food benefits available to those who need this critical assistance. Consistent with the stated statutory intention in the creation and operation of SNAP,1 Empire
Justice Center supports food policy that provides robust and meaningful access to low-income individuals and families needing this assistance to avert food insecurity and promote well-being.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 substantially maintained existing statutory provisions of the SNAP eligibility determination process that permitted states to set their own SUA. Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2014(e)(6)(c), a state may choose to use a default value for purposes of estimating the monthly utility costs payed by SNAP households in the process of determining eligibility for and budgeting the amount of SNAP benefits the household may receive. Using a default value rather than requiring individual documentation of each household’s actual ongoing utility costs helps to streamline the application and recertification processes, in addition to reducing administrative burden on both the eligibility worker and the beneficiaries.2
Within the broad framework of the authorizing statute, existing regulations of the Food and Nutrition Service (“FNS”) of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) allow for states to: set either a single or tiered SUA; limit which utility expenses would be included in those SUA’s at different levels; and provide for variability in the utility allowance based on season, geography and household size.3 By regulation, states submit the methodology for calculating their SUA to FNS for approval, conduct an annual review of the SUA, and seek approval from FNS if there are changes to the SUA methodology at any point in time.4 At state option, the SUA maybe mandated for SNAP households, or allowed as an option in lieu of documenting actual utility costs.5
The existing statute and regulations expressly do not specify a single methodology for determining the SUA level or levels. Rather, the regulations identify what costs may be factored into setting the SUA levels and require the state to submit the methodology with the proposed SUA levels themselves for FNS oversight and approval. By using localized or state level utility cost data in setting SUA levels, the current regulations provide a simple and elegantly flexible manner of approaching wide variability in weather conditions, housing stock, fuel sources and costs, taxation, and utility infrastructure that all play out in the localized variability of utility costs across an entire nation.
A. The Proposed Regulatory Revision Is Fundamentally Flawed and Should Be
In this proposed rule-making action, FNS has put forth an incomplete and flawed document that should be withdrawn. The proposed language put forth as the revised regulation states only that “FNS will calculate the standards and caps described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A) of this section annually, with the exception of the standards described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(4) of this section.”6 The commentary states that the agency is planning to standardized the SUA’s but fails to detail the actual calculation methodology the agency is theoretically putting forth to supplant the various state methodologies currently in use.7 There is no actual standardized SUA calculation put forth in the draft regulation and, thus, the current draft of the proposed regulation is fatally flawed and entirely incomplete.
The process of federal rulemaking requires that the proposed rule be publicly put forth for review and followed by a period for public comment.8 A rule is the “whole or part of an agency
statement…designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy…and includes the approval or prescription for the future of…valuations, costs or accounting, or practices bearing
on any of the foregoing.”9 For the current rule making process to be proper and valid, the reasoning and proposed methodology for determining a standardized SUA should have been
included in the regulatory provisions to permit meaningful review and input on the that methodology.
USDA has not provided details about how the agency proposes to determine the new federal SUA, nor how identified variables will be weighed in that methodology. The lack of concrete information or data deprives both the state agencies who administer SNAP and the public from presenting alternatives, analyzing the data or providing meaningful input. Further, the proposed rule and accompanying regulatory impact analysis (“RIA”) provide minimal details on the specific steps and data that the agency proposes to use in setting its new SUA calculation
methodology. USDA does not discuss the data sources or calculations methods in the 2017 SUA study it references; nor does USDA compare the proposed, undisclosed new methodology to
those currently used by the states, which FNS has previously reviewed and approved.
Nor does the notice of proposed rule-making (“NPRM”) specifically identify a problem with the existing state methodologies; the NPRM states that there are concerns with how “flexible” the existing options are. There is no description of how this unknown new methodology would fix the existing, nonspecific problem with the various states’ SUA calculation methodologies. There is no actual explanation or description of why states’ current SUA methodologies, which FNS has approved for years, are inappropriate or why these methodologies need to be changed. The existing regulatory process already permits FNS to review and oversee the SUA calculations that states use, yet there is no indication the existing control mechanisms already permitted by regulation were undertaken by FNS or proved inadequate.
In summary, FNS has failed to justify the need for or even provide a standardized SUA calculation methodology at this time. The proposed rule should be withdrawn and re-issued when the agency is prepared to layout its methodology and data in full for public scrutiny; in the alternative, a final rule based on this wholly insufficient shell proposal must include an annualized process for receiving input and weighing current data sources as a routine part of setting a standardized SUA and adjusting it for state variation and cost fluctuations.
B. The Proposed Regulatory Change Will Operate Contrary to Statutory Language.
The proposed regulatory changes are overbroad and in excess of the authorizing statutory language because the impact of the regulation is inconsistent with the goals of the SNAP program set forth in statute. “It is declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households….to alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition assistance program is herein authorized which will permit low-income
households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation.”10
The proposed rule would result in deep cuts to SNAP in New York State. Projections from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (“CBPP”) indicate that, on average, SNAP households in NY would face a benefit reduction of $55 per month, for those who were even able to remain on benefits.11 Analysis of 2017 SNAP Quality Control data conducted by CBPP indicates that nearly 40% of SNAP households in New York would lose SNAP altogether if the SUA methodology were drastically changed.12 Current SUA levels are consistent with the statutory goals articulated in the Food and Nutrition Act. In the NPRM, FNS fails to discuss the implications of the deep and disturbing cuts to SNAP on food insecurity and well-being that would result from implementation of this rule. Existing benefit levels are barely adequate, even though SNAP recipients use a variety of savvy shopping practices to stretch their limited food dollars. The harm from benefit inadequacy is evident in studies that examine end-of-the-month effects, such as the adverse impacts on dietary quality, health, behavior, and learning when SNAP benefits, which are inadequate to last the whole month, are running low for households.13 No mention is made in the NPRM of increasing food insecurity and hunger as a result of this illadvised rule.
Additionally, the NPRM states that the agency aims to make SUAs more equitable14 without defining the alleged inequitability being remedied. The required Civil Rights Impact Analysis of the proposed rule identifies disproportionate impact on elderly and disabled households receiving SNAP because of their uncapped shelter deductions.15 CBPP analysis further indicates that nearly 38% of SNAP households containing elderly household members and 31% of SNAP households containing disabled household members would lose their SNAP eligibility as a result of the proposed rule.16 The SNAP case closures in New York would disproportionately impact these households; almost 50% of the SNAP case closures in New York following a SUA change would fall on households with elderly members.17 This disproportionate impact on a protected category of recipients goes unaddressed by the agency in its rulemaking.
Finally, the proposed rule might create new concerns of equity that are unaddressed in the NPRM. Specifically, the proposed rule eliminates the options for states to vary their SUAs by
household size, geographic area of the state, or season because these options are not currently used by a large number of states.18 Adjusting a benefit level based on household size provides
protection to larger families. To the extent that the agency now proposes to withdraw a state option that may benefit households with children, it should similarly describe and explain the
civil rights impact on this population of younger people who would face reduction and termination of benefits under the new proposed rule. Geographic variation within a state may
also be a critical metric in a state with significant geographic features, such as intensely mountainous or desert regions, or facing critical intra state variations in heating fuel source
(e.g.—deliverable fuels being used more extensively in rural areas away from municipal gas and electric supply19), weather conditions, variability of housing stock, state taxation (e.g.—
surcharges20), as well as the age and capacity of local utility infrastructure (infrastructure upkeep and replacement are a significant source of rate increases for gas and electric service
providers21). As these options are used by relatively few states, they would not be the root cause of the theoretical “inequitable distribution” of SUA’s the agency claims to be addressing, and
these state options should simply be retained in any final rule as a means of helping to address problems and cost insensitivity in a new homogeneous SUA calculation that fails to account for real variations at the state level.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input and comments regarding proposed changes to the regulations pertaining to determination of SUA levels in SNAP. Empire Justice
Center strongly opposes these proposed rule changes that will reduce or end benefits for tens of thousands of food insecure New Yorkers, and hinder the ability of states to address local hunger needs in a thoughtful and meaningful manner.
Senior Staff Attorney
Empire Justice Center
119 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12210
(518) 462-6831 x 2851
1 7 U.S.C. § 2011.
2 Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 192, FNS-2019-0009, 52809 (October 3, 2019).
3 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(A).
4 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(B).
5 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(D).
6 Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 192 at 52814 for proposed regulatory language revising 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(B).
7 Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 192 at 52810.
8 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c).
9 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).
10 7 U.S.C. § 2011.
11 Unpublished analysis by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, received by email on November 26, 2019 (data
on file with the author).
13 See https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/snap-initiatives-to-make-snap-benefits-more-adequate.pdf.
14 Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 192 at 52810.
15 Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 192 at 52813.
16 Unpublished analysis by CBPP.
18 Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 192 at 52811.
19 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Beyond Natural Gas and Electricity; more than 10% of U.S. Homes Use
Heating Oil or Propane, Nov. 28, 2011, available at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4070.
20 Talia Buford, The Obscure Charges That Utility Companies Add to Your Bills, October 21, 2019, available at
21 See generally, Joshua D. Rhodes, The Old, Dirty, Creaky US Electric Grid Would Cost $5 Trillion to Replace,
March 16, 2017, available online at http://theconversation.com/the-old-dirty-creaky-us-electric-grid-would-cost-5-
Posted on September 23rd, 2019
Posted on August 21st, 2019
August 21, 2019
Angela Fernandez, Commissioner
New York State Division of Human Rights
One Fordham Plaza, Fourth Floor
Bronx, NY 10458
Dear Commissioner Fernandez:
Empire Justice Center writes to strongly support the proposed amendment to section 466.13 of Title 9 NYCRR regarding gender identity and expression, which appeared in the July 3, 2019 edition of the New York State Register.
Empire Justice Center is a statewide legal services organization with offices in Albany, Rochester, Westchester and Long Island. Empire Justice Center advocates for low-income New Yorkers using litigation, policy advocacy, and community education as tools to improve the lives of our clients and communities. Our mission is to protect and strengthen the legal rights of people in New York State who are poor, disabled or disenfranchised through systems change advocacy, training and support to other advocates and organizations, and high quality direct civil legal representation. Since its founding, Empire Justice Center has worked to oppose discrimination and challenge barriers to equality, including barriers based upon sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.
The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) was intended to expand the protections already afforded to transgender and gender non-conforming residents of New York. The regulatory impact statement makes it clear that the regulations will be expanding the protections of transgender and gender non-conforming New Yorkers under the New York Human Rights Law, and therefore that the protections already in place will remain.
The regulatory impact statement notes that, because discrimination based on gender identity or expression is sex discrimination, the additional protections based upon sex discrimination will still apply to discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Harassment based on gender identity or expression is sexual harassment, and is therefore entitled to the additional protections from sexual harassment, including protection in all work places and not just those with four or more employees. Discrimination based on gender dysphoria is discrimination based on disability, and therefore entitled to disability protections including reasonable accommodations.
To conform the regulations to GENDA, the amended regulations additionally add gender identity and expression as a protected category in itself, as well as to mirror the definition of “gender identity” to the definition in GENDA.
Transgender and gender non-conforming persons experience disturbingly high levels of discrimination and violence. Trans and GNC people are still routinely denied basic needs like health care and shelter. According to the New York State Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey , 26% of transgender New Yorkers reported being fired, denied promotion, or not hired because of their gender identity or expression; 21% had experienced housing discrimination such as eviction or being denied housing in the past year; and 74% of K-12 students who were out or perceived as transgender experienced harassment or discrimination at school, with 14% being forced to leave their school altogether. With such barriers, it is no surprise that a stunning 37% of transgender New Yorkers are living in poverty.
These proposed regulatory changes will help ensure that when New Yorkers experience harassment or discrimination based upon their gender identity or expression, whether that harassment or discrimination occurs in the workplace, housing, place of public accommodation or school, they will have legal recourse including the complaint process under the Human Rights Law in New York. The amended regulations also send a strong message that discrimination based on one’s gender identity or expression is unacceptable in New York.
M. Lettie Dickerson
LGBTQ Rights Attorney
Posted on July 9th, 2019
Office of Management and Budget
RE: Directive #14 (Request for Comment on the Consumer Inflation Measures Produced by Federal Statistical Agencies
We recommend you view the PDF here.
Dear Ms. Potok:
The Empire Justice Center is a statewide legal services organization with offices in Albany, Rochester, Westchester and Central Islip (Long Island), New York. The Empire Justice Center provides support and training to legal services and other community-based organizations, undertakes policy research and analysis, and engages in legislative and administrative advocacy. We also represent low income individuals, as well as classes of New Yorkers, in a wide range of poverty law areas including foreclosure prevention, public benefits, domestic violence and civil rights.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your request for comments on “…the strengths, weaknesses and best practices for the application of consumer price indexes (i.e. inflation measures) produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)”; as well as the impact of the use of different inflation measures on the “Official Poverty Measure” (OPM) used to determine financial eligibility for innumerable governmental and non-governmental purposes and programs. Comments are sought on the proposal to update the federal poverty measure for inflation and the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds using an alternative, lower measure of inflation than the traditional Consumer Price Index (known as the “CPI-U”). The CPI-U was introduced in 1978 as a broader and more representative index of the urban, non-institutional population of the United States. 1 The proposed alternatives, the “chained” CPI and the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCEPI), would result in lower poverty thresholds, with the gap between the current and proposed methodology increasing each year.2 Like the CPI-U, PCEPI tracks changes in real2 prices paid by consumers for goods and services, but the two indexes differ in several important ways. For starters, the CPI, which typically is slightly higher than the PCEPI, captures only what urban consumers spend out-of-pocket for a common basket of goods and services. The PCEPI, on the other hand, includes all goods and services consumed in the U.S. whether they are purchased by consumers or by employers or federal programs on behalf of consumers.3
The US Census Bureau issues an annual public report on the level of poverty in the country. The report provides an estimate of the number of people who are poor; the percentage of people living below the poverty level; the poverty distribution by age, sex, ethnicity, location, etc.; and the level of income inequality.4 The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically (except for Hawaii and Alaska) but they are updated for inflation using the CPI-U. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes, and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).5
Every year, eligibility for programs including Medicaid, Affordable Care Act insurance premium subsidies, SNAP, school meals, and home heating and cooling assistance is determined with reference to the federal poverty line. That measure is adjusted annually for inflation.6 The proposed alternative methods for updating the OPM would result in increasingly lower calculations of inflation, which would reduce poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines: After 10 years, use of the chained CPI would reduce the poverty line by 2%, while use of the PCEPI would reduce the poverty line by 3.4%7 The result of such reductions would be that fewer people would be considered poor. This proposal has no relationship to any realistic measure of whether low income families can meet their basic needs.
Approximately 10 years ago, recognizing the inadequacy of the OPM, a federal interagency task force produced the very widely used Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) which generally shows a higher poverty level and rate for most types of households, as compared to the OPM.8 Along with the SPM, the majority of states also rely on the “Self Sufficiency Standard” which defines the amount of income required for working families to meet basic needs at a minimally adequate level, taking into account family composition, ages of children, and geographic differences in cost.9 It too recognizes the inadequacy of the current OPM and its adjustments for inflation. Another measure of poverty used in many states is the “Asset Limited Income Constrained Poor” (ALICE). Although these standards of poverty may differ somewhat based on the consideration of different factors and are used for a variety of purposes, they all demonstrate the inadequacy of the outdated OPM. The OPM was developed to indicate the number and proportion of people with inadequate family income for basic needs,10 in which it clearly fails by underestimating poverty: to apply the proposed inflation measures would simply compound the harm.
The official poverty measure was first established in the 1960s during the Johnson Administration, based upon research showing that low-income families at the time spent about one-third of their income on food.11 The OPM is both incomplete and outdated. Although it has been increased for inflation, the OPM has not been revised to reflect the needs of families in this century. When the OPM was first developed poor single parents were not expected to work, and, for example, were exempted from the public assistance work rules until their children were six years old.12 Today, most low income families spend a high percentage of their income on housing and child care. In fact, child care costs equal or exceed the cost of housing in most counties, and single parents receiving public assistance generally are only exempt from the work rules for three months.13
Similarly, not all income sources are included in the OPM. If the OBM wants to look at a revised definition of poverty, it could do so. The Bureau of the Census has undertaken this kind of research, developing the SPM, which does count income sources such as SNAP and refundable tax credits, as well as taking into account more accurately expenditures such as housing, child care, and out of pocket medical expenses.
The OMB has said it is not seeking comments on the impact of changing the HHS poverty guidelines which are based on the OPM. However, eligibility for and amount of benefits that many of our clients receive are frequently tied to measuring their income against the federal poverty level. Therefore, if a change to the poverty thresholds would affect the poverty guidelines, our clients would likely be adversely affected. Therefore, OMB should go forward cautiously and with in-depth research and analysis: It should solicit public comments regarding impacts such as the number of individuals losing assistance and a demographic profile of those individuals and families, how service providers would be affected, and how the impacts would change over time. It is incumbent on OMB to engage in due diligence in this regard before suggesting a policy change that would harm large numbers of people.
Households just above the official poverty line report higher than average rates of food insecurity and difficulty paying rent and utilities14 and they are more likely to be uninsured. These facts illustrate that shrinking the annual rate of increase in the OPM will artificially push people over the poverty line even though they struggle to meet the most basic necessities. Such a change would be unsupported by the evidence, and would have the unfortunate impact of increasing hardships for people who work for low and volatile wages and for retirees whose earnings were never high and who were unable to build adequate savings. The OMB should not ignore all the evidence of low-income worker and retiree spending and income patterns, and simply shrink the annual inflation adjustment for the poverty measure. Far from making the annual assessment more accurate, it will make the current flaws worse. People who would be most adversely affected by this unsupported change include children, single mothers, people of color, people with disabilities, and low-income retirees. They need programs such as Medicaid, Medicare Part D prescription drug subsidies, SNAP, LIHEAP, Weatherization, and Head Start. Denying or reducing benefits by making the poverty line a less accurate reflection of their circumstances is contrary to Congressional intent and the national interest.
Revising the measure of inflation, which would in turn adjust the OPM so as to further lower the level of what is considered poor is in direct opposition to the primary purpose of the OPM which is to accurately measure poverty. We respectfully request that OBM establish a more realistic measure of inflation that does not further widen the gap between those who the OPM determines to be poor, and those who have income above the OPM, but who, because of the increased costs of supporting work through child care and other increased costs not accounted for, cannot meet their basic needs.
We urge the OMB to conduct a thorough assessment of how any new measure of inflation impacts the poverty level before it acts to change that measure.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Susan Antos, Senior Attorney
Empire Justice Center
Inez Haettenschwiller, Attorney Emeritus
Empire Justice Center
10 https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/topics/income/supplemental-poverty-measure/spm-twgo https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/topics/income/supplemental-poverty-measure/sum.pdfbservations.pdf
11 The one-third proportion of income dedicated to food was then essentially multiplied by three to determine a poverty-level income. Whether that figure was ever valid as a basis for determining poverty, it is no longer true that low-income families spend one-third of their income on food. As discussed below, other costs, such as housing and child care demand increasingly larger percentages of household income. See, for example, Gordon Fisher, “The Development and History of the U.S. Poverty Thresholds – A Brief Overview, Department of Health and Human Services, 1997, https://aspe.hhs.gov/history-poverty-thresholds.
12 “A Brief History of the AFDC Program,” published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, https://aspe.hhs.gov/systemfiles/pdf/167036/1history.pdf.