Title: NYC's Racial Equity Plan Delayed

[MUSIC]

Brian: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Happy Friday, everybody. We'll talk today about how Attorney General Pam Bondi is apparently investigating doctors who have given gender affirming care to minors in states where that is legal. They're also getting a lot of private information about the patients. This is a Washington Post story, and we'll have their reporter. What kinds of criminal charges might the Trump administration be looking to bring against doctors over any of that, and what may they be learning about any individual seeking and receiving that care?

We'll talk about the Democratic versus Republican approaches to affordability today for working-class, largely non-college-educated Americans. We'll have a call in at the end of the show on August Friday, call in to share easy day trips or last-minute weekend getaways to help other listeners have a little bit more fun before summer runs away until next year. We begin with this fundamental piece of local news. An independent city agency called the Commission on Racial Equity is suing Mayor Eric Adams' administration over delays in releasing a plan to address racial disparities in New York City.

Back in 2022, voters, including many of you, overwhelmingly backed a charter revision proposal that mandated the city release reports on racial disparities every two years. The first such equity plan scheduled to come during the Adams administration was never released, and as the lawsuit notes, is now 500 days overdue. Reaction from the mayor's office? Liz Garcia, a spokesperson for Adams, told Gothamist in a statement that the lawsuit is "incredibly misguided, short-sighted, and jeopardizes the well-being of the vulnerable communities it claims to protect.

Joining us now with their take are two people who served on the commission that helped establish the process. They are Jennifer Jones Austin, CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies and co-chair of the National True Cost of Living Coalition, and Darrick Hamilton, professor of economics and urban policy and founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School. Again, they both served on the commission that created this idea in the first place during the de Blasio administration, that voters then put into the City Charter, like the city's constitution. Jennifer, Darrick, welcome back to WNYC. Thank you for coming on.

Jennifer: Good morning-

Darrick: Thank you, Brian.

Jennifer: -and thank you.

Brian: Jennifer, let me start with you. Although this plan was approved by voters right at the beginning of the Adams administration, the Racial Justice Commission was convened, as I said, by former Mayor Bill de Blasio. Can you take us back to the beginning of this story? How and why was the Racial Justice Commission formed?

Jennifer: Thank you. It was March of 2021 when Mayor de Blasio reached out and shared with me that he wanted to create the first in the nation Racial Justice Commission. Your listeners will remember that in 2021, the nation was grappling with persisting racial inequity and injustice in everything from employment to education. It wasn't just policing in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, but it was they were looking at inequity as we were seeing it laid bare by the impact of COVID on Black and brown communities.

They were looking at inequity in education and employment, in wages and in wealth. Here in New York City, we had a mayor at the time who said New York needs to do something about it. We had a mayor who said, "You know what? This is not just what companies are doing all by themselves or what individuals are doing as lone actors. We have to look at how government has stood up and enabled persisting racial inequity and injustice." He created the commission, and he appointed 11 commissioners. Dr. Hamilton and I are two of them.

He said, "I want you all to look at the New York City charter, the constitution of New York City, of the City of New York. Go in there and help us figure out how we can change the charter to embed racial justice and equity as fundamental values in the governing of New York City." That's what we did. We looked at the charter, and what we determined was that first and foremost, the charter needed to have a preamble to set a vision, cast a vision of equity and opportunity for everybody. Then we realized that because there has been racism in government, not just in the city of New York, but across the nation, that we needed to hold the city accountable.

We established a ballot measure that would provide for racial equity plans that would be put forward by the government, by every city agency, every two years, with a commission on racial equity that would exist in perpetuity to ensure that the checks and balances, the government would be accountable for implementing and abiding by the plan. The plans, I should say, were to essentially center on ensuring that the provision of services and supports were done in a way that looked at how communities had long been marginalized, how services and programs had been denied to people in communities of color, and had negatively impacted them.

Then thirdly, there was a mandate, a measure to establish a true cost of living based in dignity and economic security, helping the city to have a measure that moved beyond poverty, but looks at what it costs for people to not only survive, but to thrive, how to meet their daily expenses and plan and save for their futures so that we could then use that measure to inform and shape policy, providing critical services where necessary so people could actually get ahead.

Those measures were put on the ballot, New Yorkers voted for them in 2022, and they voted overwhelmingly, as you said. 70% of New Yorkers voted for racial equity plans, 81% voted for a true cost of living. Those measures became mandates, legal mandates, and they were to be implemented beginning in January 2024, not 2025, not 2026, but in January 2024. Here we are now, better than 500 days since those mandates were to be implemented.

When the mayor and his team say that this lawsuit is misguided and they're trying to protect the people who these mandates are intended to support, that's just gaslighting, because if he's trying to protect them from what the federal government under Donald Trump is doing, Donald Trump has only been in office for seven and a half months. These mandates would have been implemented far long before he came in office. That's gaslighting.

Brian: Let me invite listeners into this conversation to help us report this story or just ask questions or give your opinions. As the Adams administration withholds this mandated report, what do you think, as we get specific here, are the biggest racial disparities in New York City that the voter-mandated City government report should identify? 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. How should any of those be addressed by city policy, in your view? 212-433-WNYC.

Ask a question of our guests, two people who served on the commission that helped establish the process. They are Jennifer Jones Austin, CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies and co-chair of the National True Cost of Living Coalition, who we were just hearing from, and Darrick Hamilton, who we'll turn to now, professor of economics and urban policy and founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School. 212-433-WNYC, call or text, 212-433-9692.

Darrick, as we start to get specific, I'll recall that this proposal, approved by the voters, came out of dozens of meetings held by the commission that the two of you were a part of back in 2021. What did you hear in some of those conversations to start to get specific about what some of the biggest racial disparities of concern were, and which ones you would like to see city policy most urgently address?

Darrick: I'm first off proud of New York City for coming together and affirming the work of the commission. That should not go underreported. We should be clear that this was overwhelmingly passed. If we were to expand out and understand that this isn't just feel-good stuff, that our economy, our purpose, that, Brian, was one of the key things that came about from the conversations we had with New York City residents during the commission was purpose, that it's not enough to say that you value inclusion, that you need the infrastructure to complement it. Then what we're seeing right now, and what is inadequate, is the execution.

We added that legislation. Basically, three things came about, as Jennifer mentioned: the true cost of living index, the values, the preamble to say that this is what New York City values. Then the infrastructure had essentially three components: the independent commission, the city agency with a commissioner to oversee how the city is doing with regards to racial inclusion. Then finally, the plan. We're lacking the plan. Again, why does this all matter? We see it happening right now, even as Donald Trump and his administration gets reference.

It is through the politics of division that we're not able to address our existential crises. The only way that we can't deal with the gross inequities that not only plague Black people in New York City, but all New York City residents, is by this division, this fear, this mechanism of the state engaging in ways to structure our society, this detrimental for our well-being. Again, I want to emphasize that what this commission has done is try to promote solidarity and the value of inclusion so as to better our political engagement, to come up with policies and structures that truly enable people to be their best selves, which is the point and purpose of an economy.

Brian: Those are all really major foundational kind of principles for going forward. Let me ask you to get even more specific. Given the work that each of you have long done, you might not need a commission or a big new study to say where the most important racial disparities are in the city that good policy might help to address. Where would each of you start to just say it based on what you already know? Darrick Hamilton, I'll stay with you on this first.

Darrick: There's obvious inequities when we think about wealth, particularly when housing is so important in New York City. That's an obvious one to start. What's sad, Brian, is that we can look at pretty much any dimension of socioeconomic status and see gross disparities along racial line. If we were to include data and people say Black people need to simply study harder and work harder, the empirical reality is that when they acquire more education, the disparities don't diminish for similarly educated individuals. They actually widen.

Education is critical and important, but it's not the panacea. What is true is the nature of intergenerational transfers. What is true is the nature of the ways in which we sort individuals into preferred outcomes based on something as cursory as identity. Then here's where I'm trying to get, and it's not an easy concept to explain. From a macroeconomic perspective, when there is gross inequities and despair and vulnerability in society, sadly, people turn to their relative status.

They hone in on the value of what whiteness can bring them when there is a risk of a recession. No one wants to be the first fired or the last hired. This is the purpose of why we need an inclusive economy to essentially mitigate the vulnerability. I'm going to use a word that's going to be a shock word, fascism. Fascism thrives off of inequities, despair, and inequality.

Brian: Jennifer, I'll get back to you in a minute. That makes it sound like this city-mandated report on city inequities should focus, in your opinion, to some degree on what's happening at the federal government level right now. Is that what you're saying?

Darrick: There's certainly link, but we don't have to wait to address things at the federal level. There's plenty of things to address in New York City. Again, one of the things that I love about what we did as a commission is that we didn't just end with values, we created infrastructure. We know that a municipal budget, the public budget, how New York City makes decisions on how to tax and spend their budget, has grave implications as well as beneficial implications on the well-being of its citizens.

It's not enough for us to say that we value inclusion. Show me. Show me the ways in which the City spends its money and ways to promote inclusion and the flourishing of all of us. Brian, again, the point I'm also trying to make is that the inequities across race not only impact Black people, they impact our collective solidarity to address the existential crises that we all face as New York City, including affordability.

Brian: Jennifer, same question. You've been coming on this show, listeners may know, since long before you were on that commission as CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies. You don't need a commission, I would suspect, or a big new study to say where the most important racial disparities are in the City that good policy might help address. Where would you start to say where they are and what's needed based on what you already know, even as the Adams administration fails to release this mandated report?

Jennifer: I've had the privilege of working with Dr. Hamilton, both on the commission and now on the National True Cost of Living Coalition. Together with several others, we have commissioned and now have the first ever in the nation true cost of economic security measure, which helps us appreciate what people need, not just again to meet their daily needs, but what they need to be able to save, to pay down debt, to plan for their futures, their children's college educations, retirement and more.

One of the things that that measure helps us appreciate across the nation, and particularly here in New York City, is that for people of color, the gap between what they have in terms of resources and what they need to actually thrive is far greater than for white Americans in New York City. We know that that gap is far more significant when we look at particular communities of color. When we look at the Bronx, as an example, we know that better than 86% of families with children in the Bronx are economically insecure.

The purpose of the racial equity plans is not just to gather data, it's not just to have a commission that's going to hold the city accountable for looking at the data, but for saying to the city, here's the data. Here are your policies and your practices. Here's your fiscal policy. How does this align? Let's look at, let's say, wages, and if you look at it from a government perspective. We appreciate that in New York City, we have wage deprivation. We have wage inequity for Black women working in New York City government.

We've seen from other reports that Black women in New York City government have had to sue to get promotions to which they're entitled, have had to sue in order to receive equity in overtime. We know that when it comes to the payment of nonprofit human service workers, nonprofits under contract with the City of New York, where we have the workers who are largely great majority Black and brown women, that the city does not pay fair wages. They don't pay out contracts in a timely manner.

These racial equity plans are set up in such a way to look at every government agency and to essentially discern, to weed out, to essentially get at what are the inequitable practices and what are we going to do about them? Let's look at education. Let's look at these highly segregated schools, and let's look at the dollars that are coming into these schools, be they per pupil education allocations that are then added to and supplemented by inequitable PTA practices where you can have a PTA association in the more fluent communities, dropping as much as $1 million into a school and paying paraprofessionals and paying for Mandarin, paying for robotics.

Then you got a PTA in one of our most impoverished communities, maybe being able to raise $300. What is that going to do by way of advancing equitable education outcomes? These plans are not just commission studying, but going in and looking at how do our policies allow for the persistence of inequity and disparity, and what are we as a city going to do something about about them? How are we going to tackle it?

Brian: Let me follow up on that with a text from a listener, and listeners, you're invited in on this. If you're just joining us, the failure of the Adams administration, which is now being challenged in a lawsuit to release a mandated periodic report on racial disparities in New York City. Again, this is something that was put before the voters and was approved in a citywide referendum, and got about 70% of the vote. Many of you listening right now probably voted for it yourselves, and it's 500 days late from the Adams administration.

They say it's not in the interest of the vulnerable communities who the report on racial disparities is supposed to help to even release it. We have two members of the commission who helped draw up the idea in the first place. Jennifer Jones Austin, CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies and co-chair of the National True Cost of Living Coalition, and Darrick Hamilton, founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School. You're invited in with what you think should be addressed, how you think it should be addressed, or if you think it doesn't need to be addressed, or any questions for our guests. 212-433-WNYC, call or text, 212-433-9692.

Here's a text, Jennifer, that's a follow-up to what you were just saying, for example, about how parents and wealthier communities in the city can spend so much on enrichment through the PTAs, that adds to inequity because the schools in the lower-income areas can't keep up with it. Listener writes, "The zeitgeist today is how to focus on equity and inclusion for those left out of opportunity without blaming anyone and without slowing the progress of the overprivileged."

They ask, "How do you combat that mindset while still gaining support for those on whose behalf you advocate?" I think the PTA disparity question kind of plays right into what that listener is thinking about. Can you address that piece of inequity without, as the listener calls it, slowing the progress of the overprivileged? Do people have to get hurt for people to get helped?

Jennifer: People do not have to get hurt for others to be helped. I think that in New York City, what we can do, something that was first established under Mayor Bloomberg when he received mayoral control and began looking at how city funds could be allocated to schools, and they could have greater control over their own budgets. One of the things that racial equity planning, coupled with fiscal policy, would do is look at where are the schools that are struggling and what are the additional resources that are needed?

How can we support and supplement that, especially when you have schools where PTAs are putting in $1 million plus? How do you find that equitable balance? How do you ensure that maybe we can use city funding in a way that reduces class size in some places and spaces where children maybe need more support? Those are the things that we can be looking at.

Let me back up and say I came up through the system. Let me begin there. I came up through the public education system in New York City. I went to schools. I was bused into school systems outside of my community. I lived in Crown Heights, and I was bused into the Midwood section of Brooklyn, where the schools were better and the resources were better. Why do we have to have a system where Black children have to be integrated into white communities to find better education? Why can we not in New York City figure out how do we support the schools that are within their own communities to make them what they should be? This is what racial equity is all about.

Brian: Darrick, do you want to add to that at all and address that listener?

Darrick: Frankly, New York City has $100 billion budget on an annual basis. That is not a trivial amount of money. There are ways to enhance that budget, but a lot of the ways in which we promote the well-being of our society is grounded in policy choices. That is a big point of what we did. We want to have transparency. We want to see the ways in which that budget is allocated in ways to promote racial inclusion, which, again, Brian, I keep harping on this point. It is part of the purpose of an economy anyway.

We may, as a society, decide we want all people to flourish and have an opportunity to reap the rewards of their ingenuity. Not only will it affect Black people directly who have not had access to the infrastructure in a historical manner, but it promotes the well-being of all of us because we get a politics of solidarity where collectively we get to come together and address our problems throughout the city rather than this zero sum game where we pit one group against the other under the context of scarcity.

Brian: When we come back after a break, Anya in Brooklyn, you're going to be the next call. We have an interesting text from a listener about the status of this report: "Is the Adams administration covering up something that's been written already?" We'll get more on why the Adams administration is not releasing it, according to them.

Also, just talking about this topic at all and the fact that there is this city law, whether this puts the city in the sights of the Trump administration in ways that could come back to haunt, because as we know, the Trump administration is cracking down on anything that has to do with explicit acknowledgement of racial disparities. Stay with us, folks, as we finish up with Jennifer Jones Austin, Darrick Hamilton, and you. Stay tuned.

[MUSIC]

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we talk with our two guests who are on the New York City Commission that drew up a charter reform question that voters approved a few years ago, mandating a periodic racial disparities report come out of the City Hall, come out of whoever the mayor is and their office. The Adams administration has not fulfilled this mandate, and now there's a lawsuit that's been filed with this report, an estimated 500 days late.

We're talking to the two people who are joining us from that original commission, Jennifer Jones Austin and Darrick Hamilton, about the report, its delay, actual racial disparities, actual policies that might address the biggest racial disparities in New York City. 212-433-WNYC, as we discussed this also with you. Darrick, here is a question from a listener in a text: "Is the report fully complete, and they just won't release it? Does the report have any force and effect on its own, or is it recommendations that need to then be acted upon?" Take that first question first. Is the report fully complete, and they just won't release it? Is that what the lawsuit is asking for?

Darrick: Sadly, they're out of compliance and have not issued a report at all, so no [crosstalk]--

Brian: They haven't issued it. Have they done it? Is what the listener is asking, if you know. Jennifer, it seems like you want to get in on this.

Jennifer: I've been maybe a little closer just on the [unintelligible 00:27:30], and it's my understanding that the report has been completed. All 45 city and mayoral agencies actually submitted to the mayor's office of equity last year the plans. It sits in, as the mayor actually said, if I am remembering correctly-- In April of this year, he sat on a stage at the National Action Network Convention and told the audience that the plans sit with his Black female corporation council. Those were his words.

In other words, he was saying, "Oh, the plans are done. They're just sitting with the Black woman." This is how he talked, that they're done, tnd they're just sitting with her now. When he says that he's holding them up because of concerns about what they could do with this Trump administration, they were actually completed before Trump became president. They were due long before Trump became president. They're complete mayors. They're complete.

Brian: You're saying they're complete and-

Jennifer: They're complete.

Brian: They're completely holding them.

Jennifer: They're withholding.

Brian: As I mentioned in the intro, the mayor's office says what's in the report or the mandate to produce the report actually jeopardizes the well-being of the vulnerable communities that it claims to protect. Jennifer, can you explain, even though you obviously disagree, what the mayor is even thinking in that respect?

Jennifer: Can we just tell it like it is. This administration has essentially not protected vulnerable communities since it's been in office. Let's talk about the fact that this administration has brought back its form of stop and frisk at higher levels than we saw in years prior. Can we just talk for a moment about how this administration has not provided fair and equitable wages to communities of color working under contract with the city of New York? The list goes on and on. Can we talk about how we have not?

We've actually seen fewer and fewer children of color having access to the specialized schools in this city. To sit here and to have to even begin to think about how this administration is protecting the most vulnerable by withholding these plans, it's incredulous that they [crosstalk]

Brian: That is part of the statement that they released to us in response to our request. My colleagues at Gothamist and in the WNYC newsroom, after this lawsuit was filed, the mayor's office said, "The Adams administration will always protect communities of color from the challenges they currently face on the federal level and remain focused on going through the responsible protocols for this review." It sounds like you're saying, Jennifer, that politically, this might not be a good time for Adams to release the report as he runs for re-election because it would focus on racial disparities that still exist under his administration and maybe even, obviously, many of them that he didn't create.

Jennifer: I think that is a very real possibility. I believe that what's playing out here is nothing more than politics. This is about racial equity being a loaded term and value, if you will, and where Donald Trump sits on these issues, and what our mayor has to do to walk in step with the President of the United States on one hand. Then on the other hand, it does essentially turn a spotlight on the mayor's record.

If you have 45 agencies having completed plans saying, this is where we need to do the work, where we should be doing more, this is how our fiscal policy needs to better align with equity for everybody, that is not a good look, particularly for a mayor who four years ago told everybody that he was going to be the second Black man to serve as mayor, advancing equity for everybody.

Brian: Anya in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Anya. Anya, do we have you? Anya in Brooklyn?

Anya: Oh, hi, Brian. How are you?

Brian: Hi.

Anya: I just have a quick question. I know that both Jennifer and Darrick know these numbers, but I don't think there's any number in the city that makes racial disparity more crystal clear than the homelessness numbers. If you look at the city shelter system today, you have more than 80,000 people in the municipal shelter system, 80% of whom are people of color, and two-thirds are families, and the stark number is that 36% are kids. The number that never gets mentioned is that you have 800,000 people in the city living in apartments and rental arrears, and they follow the same racial breakdown. Effectively, we have 1 in 5 of our city's kids, most of whom are children of color, on the brink of homelessness.

When we talk about the racial disparity, we should also call out that it's mostly women of color and children of color who are being left behind. What's really, really critical is that the numbers show that it is actually cheaper, it is more cost-effective to keep people in their homes, because the average rent arrears in the city is $3,500. The average cost of shelter is over $800,000 per family. The real question we should be asking is, why is our city prepared to pay more money to keep women and children of color in shelter than in their own homes?

Brian: How would you address it at the policy level, Anya, if you've given that thought?

Anya: The most immediate thing I would do is to pump more money into homelessness prevention. For example, programs like the One Shot Deal and the FHEPS program, which provides rental vouchers, they are funded by the city, but they're not funded by the city to the tune that shelter provision is. Now, we need shelter, shelter saves lives, but we would have a lot less people needing shelter if we provided more eviction prevention and more housing vouchers. As I keep saying, and I've been saying for years, it is cheaper to do that. It's not a budget issue, it's a policy issue.

Brian: Anya, thank you very much. Let's go on to another caller. Is line three ready? Can I go to line three? We have a technical glitch here. Before I can do that, I'm going to wait three more seconds. I can't do it. Oh, now I can. Sorry. Tina in Harlem, you're on WNYC. Hi, Tina.

Tina: [chuckles] Hi, Brian. Good morning. Thanks for letting me call in. I'm not a fan of Eric Adams in any way. The fact that he is portrayed as obstructing this report, which may be a fact, I think that the release of this report at this time could actually be detrimental for New York, because it could put a target on our backs, because since the Supreme Court said diversity, equity, and inclusion is not kosher anymore, now they're going to come after New York and start penalizing us for this stuff.

Brian: That was in college admissions, but I hear what you're saying. Go ahead.

Tina: He's dismantling it in every government agency in every way that he possibly can.

Brian: Beyond the Supreme Court, that's definitely happening at the policy level. Darrick Hamilton, do you want to address that?

Darrick: First off, if the report only does racial disparity, it'll be inadequate. Part of the edict should be to come up with ways in which we want to address racial disparity, so remedy needs to be in the report. Then Jennifer used the accurate word early on when she said gaslighting. It would be naive to think that not talking about race is somehow going to prevent Donald Trump from putting a bullseye on New York City. Donald Trump is a bully in plain sight and will create a controversy if he has to in order to solidify his political gains.

It is never the case that we don't pay attention or run from an issue and hope that somebody who has been clear in their use and abuse of power will somehow stop addressing the harm that's been going on. We see this in Washington, DC, where crime is going down dramatically, yet the city is pretty much occupied. To me, it would be essentially a naive strategy for New York City to think that we could somehow play in a certain way to prevent Donald Trump from having malfeasance in the ways in which he intervenes in New York City.

Jennifer: Can I just quickly add? Let's just think about this. He's already done his dirty deeds as it concerns the persistence of racial inequity and disparity. When you cut Medicaid, you know that you are affecting disproportionately Black and brown people of color in the United States, and especially in New York City. When you cut food assistance programs, when you cap Pell Grant access, when you dismantle the Department of Education and with it, the people that are there to uphold the advancement of equity in the pursuit of public school educational opportunity, he's already done the damage. To suggest that now, because you try to do something to find a balance with city fiscal policy and dollars, come on now.

Brian: By the way, one example that's very concrete of what the Trump administration has already done with respect to the city in this area. We have the city's current health commissioner, Dr. Michelle Morse, on the show recently describing how federal funding used in part to measure racial health disparities was cut. Whether that means releasing the report would put more of a target on the city's back for Washington or not, there's an example of something that they have already done that's very specific to this topic. Jennifer, since you-- Darrick, you want to say something?

Darrick: I'll be quick, Brian. That's a critical point that simply not being able to collect the data in and of itself will limit your ability to address it. That seems clear and vivid. Transparency, as it relates to government in both their actions and information, is a critical ingredient for its citizens to be able to hold it accountable and demand something different if they're not performing up to their standards.

Brian: Let me get one more specific from you, Jennifer, before we run out of time, because of your position as co-chair of the National True Cost of Living Coalition. The plan that they're not releasing, as I understand it, is supposed to actually establish a new measure of the true cost of living in the city. Can you talk for a minute about what that would mean, and from the work that you've already done at the National True Cost of Living Coalition, take any stab you want to take at saying what the true cost of living is in New York City, or for whom?

Jennifer: Oh, we could do better than take a stab at it. We actually have numbers. The reason that we wanted to have a true cost of living measure for the city of New York is because presently across the nation, at the municipal level and at the state level, the measure that is used to determine how people are faring, whether or not they have enough money to make ends meet, is the federal poverty measure. The federal poverty measure says that, still today that in America, no matter where you live, a family of four needs just $32,150 to not be poor.

Let's just think about that. Here in New York, what family of four living anywhere in New York City can live on just $32,150? Then what the measure then does is it essentially sets eligibility for critical income supports, including child care, including transportation, including health care, Medicaid, access to subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. It has a factor in some housing determinations. It uses that federal poverty measure to set eligibility for families and individuals.

What we determined is that here in New York, we needed another measure that looked at what is the actual cost of housing here in New York City? What's the actual cost of health care? What's the actual median cost of transportation? What does it look like to be able to put away 10% of your earnings for savings? What does it look like to be able to pay down debt, particularly student debt? When we did all of this, and looking at establishing the true cost of economic security, what it told us is that if you begin with families, I'm just going to start with families with adults over the age of 65 and no children, you need at least $113,000 in New York City to make ends meet.

When we start looking at families with children, you need as much as $180,000. Families with three generations, $183,000. We felt it important that we have a real measure based in economic security, not just subsistence, not just survival, but what it means to thrive because what New Yorkers are saying, not just people who are classified as poor, but people who are at 300%, 400% of poverty level income, who are making $150,000. What they're saying is, "I can't make it any longer in New York City." We needed a measure to tell us what that actually looks like, so then we could begin to look at the policies and the practices and the programs that can better serve New Yorkers, not just the poor, but low wealth, too.

Brian: Last question, I'll give this to you, Darrick. With the Adams administration not releasing the report and saying it would actually hurt the vulnerable communities it claims to protect, I've seen speculation that the reason that he thinks that's true has something to do with how the plan is tied to the city budget, how the law that mandates this plan is tied to the city budget or that the charter provision that the voters approve that mandates this plan is tied to the city budget, that maybe there would be so many spending mandates once they release the report that it would be detrimental to their ability to direct resources to where they think it's actually needed to reduce disparities. Can you comment on that at all?

Darrick: I don't think that's accurate. The point of the plan is to be able to create a benchmark by which to hold administrations accountable, both good and bad, of how they govern in New York City. Then, Brian, the big point is that it is the law. New York City has voted. This is what we have asked for. They are not in compliance with the law. That's going against their job. That is authoritarian. The only reason why I would justify an administration going against the law, if it was compelling some justice, and I know justice is a normative concept, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it would be injustice to promote the collective well-being of all of us, regardless of race, gender and other forms of identity.

Brian: All right. We will see what happens with this new lawsuit, which was the hook for this conversation, and whether it compels the release of this report, currently, 500 days late, according to the numbers in the lawsuit. We thank two members of the commission who originally produced the proposal that the voters approved in a referendum to create this process. Jennifer Jones Austin, CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies and co-chair of the National True Cost of Living Coalition, and Darrick Hamilton, professor of economics and urban policy and founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School. Thank you both so much for joining us.

Jennifer: Thank you.

Darrick: Thank you, Brian. Anytime I get to be in conversation with you, Jennifer, and the listeners of New York City, it's a good day.

Jennifer: Same. [chuckles]

Brian: It will happen again. That's a promise.

Jennifer: Thank you.

Brian: All right. Coming up in a minute, we'll talk about how Attorney General Pam Bondi is apparently investigating doctors who have given gender affirming care to minors in states where that is legal and also subpoenaing private information about those patients. Stay with us.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.