I just came across this video, from PBS, which ran in November. It is work passing along here:
By Hank Kalet
New Jersey seniors are facing a shortage of affordable rental units, which is contributing to their growing inability to cover basic costs, according to a report issued last week by the New Jersey Foundation for Aging.
The “New Jersey Elder Economic Security Index: Addressing Basic Needs” was prepared by the New Jersey Foundation for Aging, the Legal Services of N.J. Poverty Research Institute and Wider Opportunities for Women in Washington. It found that housing costs account for nearly half of the average New Jersey senior’s monthly costs, highlighting “the need for more affordable housing.” Other basic costs, like food and medication, can be addressed by expanding and simplifying access to existing state and federal programs.
“They are losing ground and they don’t have a chance to make up the difference” between rising costs and stagnant incomes, said Grace Egan, executive director for the New Jersey Foundation on Aging. “And over time they have less of a chance – they have less assets and more dwindling assets with less of a chance to regroup.”
The index, according to the report’s introduction, is meant to identify the amount of annual income seniors need “to age in place with dignity” and can be viewed as a sustainability or economic security index for seniors. Based on U.S. Census data, it was originally issued last fall but was reissued on Friday to re-emphasize the findings, Egan said.
According to the report, monthly costs for seniors range from $2,110 for a single senior who owns his or her own home, but has no mortgage, to $4,017 for a couple who owns and has a mortgage. The monthly cost of living for a single senior in a one-bedroom rental is $2,330, while costs for a senior couple rise to $3,237 per month.
Costs include “only those goods and services essential to health and welfare,” according to the report, such as rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance and property taxes; food; premiums for Medicare and other, out-of-pocket heath costs; transportation; and other miscellaneous expenses.
Overall, housing accounts for 47 percent of the costs, health care for 19 percent, food for 10 percent, transportation for 9 percent, with miscellaneous costs like clothing and cleaning products making up the remaining 15 percent.
Egan and other advocates for seniors say the statistics show a need for a more aggressive effort to build affordable housing, both for seniors and for working families, and expand the federal Section 8 housing program, which provides vouchers to low-income renters offset their costs.
The state’s affordable housing program has been in limbo for the last three years as the state Supreme Court attempts to sort out arguments over the future of the program. Three separate lawsuits are in play – one concerning an executive order abolishing the Council on Affordable Housing, one concerning the seizure by the state of local affordable housing trust-fund money and a third concerning disputed rules for the latest round of housing.
In the meantime, advocates for seniors say more can be done to address other needs. They are calling for an expansion of senior-targeted property-tax rebates, the continuance of tenant rebates for low-income renters, an increase in the state Social Security Insurance supplement and other financial assistance programs, especially those meant to offset medical co-payments, expansion of community-based long-term care and aging-in-place opportunities, simpler access to nutrition and health programs, and expanded outreach initiatives to enroll more seniors in existing programs designed to provide financial assistance.
The state offers “a variety of programs and services available to seniors who may be experiencing financial insecurity,” Nicole Brossoie, spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services, said via email. The programs include prescription and co-pay assistance, nutritional programs and utilities assistance. The programs serve between about 18,000 and 330,000 seniors.
Brossoie said outreach is generally left to the county agencies, that deal with “seniors daily through their work to ensure that the eligible apply for these programs.”
“The county Boards of Social Services also advise seniors in need of assistance of available services,” she said. “In addition, the department works closely with senior stakeholder groups such as AARP, the Foundation for Aging and various community-based organizations to spread the word.”
Jane Maloney, director of the Ocean County Office of Senior Services, said her agency is in constant contact with the county’s seniors. Ocean County has the state’s largest senior population and among the oldest, she said.
She said it is important that the various county agencies and the state maximize the number of people served by assistance programs.
“The more people we get connected to the benefit programs, then they will have more money in their pockets,” she said. “We push them to contact us to see if they are eligible for something.”
According to the report, 54.7 percent of seniors who live alone in Ocean County and 27.1 percent of senior couples live below the sustainability figure set by the index. That is a little below the state average.
Hudson, Essex and Passaic counties had the highest percentage of seniors living below the security threshold, according to the report. In Hudson, 73.7 percent of seniors living alone and 44.6 percent of couples fell below the threshold. In Essex, the numbers were 66.5 percent and 39.6 percent and, in Passaic, they were 61.1 percent and 33.9 percent.
A total of 252,470 seniors – or 42 percent — live below the Elder Index threshold, more than five times the 42,594 seniors who live below the federal poverty line.
Seniors who live alone were more likely to fall below the elder-index threshold, according to the report; 58 percent of seniors who lived alone — nearly 160,000 – fell below the threshold, compared with 29 percent of couples (92,756 seniors). The numbers also were higher for renters, according to the report; 77 percent of single, senior renters and 64.4 percent of renting couples had incomes below the threshold.
The report does not take into account catastrophic or long-term care costs, Egan says. If those are factored in, annual expenses could increase by as much as $40,000, she said.
“You can see how difficult things are by just looking at the basic expenses that presume good health,” She said. “But if you need additional personal care your costs skyrocket.”
Women were disproportionately more likely to fall below the index. Nearly 125,000 of the 160,000 single-senior households were made up of women, with 60.8 percent of those falling below the threshold. Nearly 50 percent of men in similar households were below the threshold.
Nearly 84 percent of Latino seniors who lived alone and 72 percent of African-American seniors lived below the elder index. The rate was 55 percent for whites and 56 percent for Asians. The rates for couples were 59.2 percent for Latinos, 45 percent for African-Americans, 32 percent for whites and 38 percent for Asians.
Maloney said the economy is making the situation worse for many.
“Look at the individual husband and wife that moved here back in the ‘70s,” she said. “The husband dies, the wife loses their pension and the people who thought they had their CDs, thought they were going to make some money and live off that.
“That is why we think it is important that individuals look and find out what they are eligible for,” she added. “These benefit programs really do make a difference in the lives of people.”
Egan agrees, though she thinks much more needs to be done.
“We’ve encouraged seniors to apply for nutrition and food programs, because it gives them a better quality of life and allows them to use their current assets,” Egan said. “But that doesn’t necessarily cover the widening gap between their income and their expenses.”
The best way to do that, she said, is with housing – and not just new affordable housing for seniors. There is a shortage of affordable units at every level, which creates conditions that allow people to “age into poverty,” Egan said. When a couple has to spend too great a portion of its income on housing, it is not likely to have the resources it needs to survive as it ages, she said.
“You don’t have a stepping stone into a better life,” she said.
And then, when it is time to “downsize” their housing – to move from a larger house to a smaller, more affordable one – many seniors are finding that there are few options, she said.
“What we find is that when you have lived in a community for a longtime, you don’t have an option when you want to downsize to stay in the community,” she said.
NJ Spotlight reports on a report issued by the Advocates for Children of New Jersey showing that the most recent recession has hit the state’s children hardest.
An annual survey of the wellbeing of children in New Jersey found rising poverty and an increasing inability of families to make ends meet.
The 2013 edition of New Jersey Kids Count, released on Wednesday by Advocates for Children of New Jersey, shows the devastating effects of the most recent recession on the state’s youth and their families. Most of the data covers 2011 and 2012 and measures change during the recession and post-recession period in areas of economics, health, education, and safety.
“While the rankings shift every year, we see certain trends across many counties, including increasing child poverty, unemployment, and high housing costs,” said Cecilia Zalkind, ACNJ’s executive director.
One million New Jerseyans do not earn enough to meet basic needs, according to a study issued today by the Poverty Research Institute.
The report, called The Real Cost of Living in New Jersey, measures what it says are the actual costs incurred to live in the state. It puts the figure for a typical four-person family living at between $64,000 and $74,000 annually.
“The percentage of families with incomes below the RCL in 2010 ranges from a low of 20 percent for a two adult–two school-age children family to a high of 74 percent for a one adult–two school-age children family,” according to the report.
Housing is the largest component of the cost for most demographics looked at in the report.
According to the report:
New Jersey’s regrettable position as one of the highest cost (usually first, second, or third) of the contiguous 48 states obviously affects all residents, but disproportionately has a negative impact on those in the middle and lower income groups. They are the ones most likely to have fewer or no reserves, to have fewer or no other places to turn, and to spend all or nearly all of their income on the most basic necessities, especially housing. See LSNJ’s 2011 study, “Food, Clothing, Health or a Home? The Terrible Choices and Deprivations—and Great Courage—of New Jerseyans Who Live in Poverty,” for a detailed analysis of the spending patterns and hardships of those with lower and middle incomes.
In addition, much evidence points to an upward-pushing price spiral phenomenon in higher cost states. Comparatively higher costs tend to push (or pull) prices generally higher, especially in fixed-supply areas such as real estate. When such an effect occurs, it may (depending upon the status of wages) tend to increase the wage gap—the distance between average wages and average costs.
The New York Times is reporting that a new report will be issued tomorrow that finds community colleges, which serve the bulk of the nation’s poor and minority students, are getting less and less help from governments of all levels.
Community colleges have received a declining share of government spending on higher education over the last decade even as their student bodies have become poorer and more heavily African-American and Latino, according to a report to be released Thursday.
“Many community colleges end up receiving minimal federal support,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, which is publishing the report. “The kids with the greatest needs receive the fewest resources.”
The report argues that colleges have become increasingly separate and unequal, evoking the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which barred racial segregation in elementary and secondary schools. Higher education today, the report says, is stratified between four-year colleges with high graduation rates that serve largely affluent students and community colleges with often dismal graduation rates that serve mostly low-income students.
This is probably not a surprise to people affiliated with the schools, which like their four-year brethren are using fewer full-time staffers and relying to a greater degree on adjuncts and part-time faculty to cut costs. The cutting means that those of us who teach at community colleges have less time for students, which leaves them even more vulnerable than in the past.
From a story in today’s Star-Ledger:
a new report released today says the sharp economic downturn continued to drive an unprecedented number of New Jersey families into poverty, forcing them to rely on such safety net programs as food stamps, reduced-cost school meals programs and Medicaid.
Almost one-third of New Jersey’s children 5 and younger were living in low-income homes in 2011 — defined as earning at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, or about $37,000 for a family of three — according to the report, called “Kids Count,” which was prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a national nonprofit and nonpartisan family research organization, in cooperation with Advocates for Children of New Jersey.
The full report can be found here.