A quarter of New York City residents are struggling to afford basic necessities like housing and food, and many are unable to access essential healthcare services, according to a recent report. The study underscores the severity of an affordability crisis that elected officials are grappling with, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive solutions.

The report, a collaborative effort between a research group at Columbia University and Robin Hood, an anti-poverty organization, revealed that the share of New Yorkers living in poverty is nearly double the national average and has increased by seven percentage points in just two years. This alarming spike is partly attributed to the expiration of government aid programs that were expanded during the pandemic.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams have recognized the political implications of the high cost of living and have made addressing affordability a central part of their agendas. Richard Buery Jr., the chief executive of Robin Hood, described the task as formidable, noting, “The city ‘has so much wealth but also so much need.’ He added, ‘These are entirely human-made problems.'”

The report is part of a 13-year study that surveys a representative sample of about 3,000 households in New York City. Researchers use a different metric than the federal government to measure poverty, taking into account income, noncash support like tax credits, and the local cost of living. Under this metric, the poverty threshold for a couple with two children in a rental household in New York City is now $47,190. The study found that 58 percent of New Yorkers, or more than 4.8 million people, were in families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line—about $94,000 for a couple with two children or $44,000 for a single adult. Poverty rates among Black, Latino, and Asian residents were about twice as high as the rate for white residents, according to the report.

Buery praised several policy proposals in Hochul’s executive budget as a good start to addressing this crisis. The governor has proposed slashing the state’s income tax for most residents and wants to give expectant mothers on public assistance a $100 monthly benefit during pregnancy, plus $1,200 for those mothers when their child is born.

The report found that 26 percent of children in New York City, or 420,000 children, live in poverty. The most sweeping proposal would give eligible families a tax break of up to $1,000 per child under the age of 4 or up to $500 for each child aged 4 to 16. Researchers at the Urban Institute estimated that the tax cut and several other earlier proposals Hochul supported could reduce child poverty in New York by about 18 percent.

“It pains me as a mom to think of little kids’ stomachs growling while they’re in school while they’re supposed to be learning,” Hochul said in her State of the State address last month.

Avi Small, a spokesman for Hochul, pointed to cuts to programs like Medicaid that Republicans in Washington want to enact as another threat to poor New Yorkers. “The governor is tackling the high cost of living with tax cuts, credits and refunds while expanding social services for those who need it most,” he said.

Late last year, Adams proposed eliminating New York City income taxes for more than 400,000 of the lowest-wage earners. The City Council also passed a major housing plan he championed known as “City of Yes.” The plan includes billions for the construction of affordable housing and zoning incentives that allow developers to construct larger buildings so long as they include cheaper units.

“Mayor Adams has been using every tool in our administration’s toolbox to put money back in the pockets of New Yorkers and make New York City more affordable so that families can thrive,” Amaris Cockfield, a spokeswoman for Adams, said in a statement.

The Robin Hood report highlighted a scarcity of housing and its rising cost as main drivers in the growing number of people living in poverty. Most people surveyed were either working or looking for a job. And yet many reported falling behind on rent or struggling to pay for food.

“There is a lack of political will to actually invest in services for the lowest-income people,” said Chris Mann, an assistant vice president for Women In Need, which runs shelters in New York City.

Peter Nabozny, director of policy for the Children’s Agenda, and Buery served on a state task force that offered policy recommendations for cutting child poverty in half by 2032. Hochul spurned their suggestions of a larger child tax credit and a new housing voucher.

Nabozny said some recent government anti-poverty efforts have been positive but “are not large enough to achieve what we could achieve if we really set our mind to it as a state.”

One affordability proposal from Hochul that some legislators have opposed is giving millions of New Yorkers tax rebates of up to $500 depending on their income. This is slated to cost $3 billion, the same amount as last fiscal year’s budgetary surplus. State Senator James Skoufis, a Democrat, said that a large portion of this funding could, for example, instead be used to expand a program that reduces the property tax burden on older people.

In response to the report, community activists and policy experts have called for more aggressive measures to address the affordability crisis. They argue that while tax cuts and housing initiatives are steps in the right direction, they are not enough to tackle the root causes of poverty. For instance, advocates for affordable housing suggest that the city should prioritize building more public housing units and implementing rent control measures.

“The current proposals are a good start, but they do not go far enough,” said Sarah Johnson, a housing advocate. “We need comprehensive policies that address the systemic issues contributing to poverty, such as inadequate wages and lack of affordable healthcare.”

Johnson’s sentiments are echoed by many who believe that the government must do more to support low-income families. They point to successful programs in other cities, such as Seattle’s “JumpStart Seattle” initiative, which provides direct cash payments to low-income families, as models that could be adapted for New York City.

Critics of the current approach argue that the focus on tax cuts and small-scale housing initiatives overlooks the broader economic disparities that perpetuate poverty. They contend that without substantial investments in education, job training, and social services, any gains made through tax cuts and housing will be short-lived.

“We need a holistic approach that addresses the multifaceted nature of poverty,” said Dr. Michael Lee, an economist at New York University. “This includes not just immediate relief but also long-term solutions that empower individuals and families to break the cycle of poverty.”

In conclusion, the affordability crisis in New York City is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. While current proposals offer some relief, they fall short of addressing the root causes of poverty. To truly make a difference, policymakers must prioritize comprehensive solutions that tackle the systemic issues contributing to the high cost of living and lack of economic opportunities. Only then can New York City hope to alleviate the suffering of its most vulnerable residents and create a more equitable future for all.