The Cost of Poverty in
Sandtown-Winchester
and Baltimore City in 1990

Summary Report
January 1995


The Cost of Poverty in
Sandtown-Winchester and in
Baltimore City in 1990

Summary Report - January 1995

Part I: Background and Methodology 1

Background and Purposes of this Study 1

Methodology Used 1

Part II: Baltimore City and Sandtown-Winchester 3

Income, Unemployment, Housing   the Status of Women   Children 3

Public Expenditures for Households in Baltimore City 6

Public Expenditures for Households in Sandtown-Winchester 7

Household Earned Income and the "Cost to Sustain Life" 6

The "Cost of Poverty" 7

Part III: Results from Analysis of
All Census Tracts in Baltimore City 8

Public Expenditures in Baltimore Census Tracts with Low Poverty 8

Public Expenditures in Baltimore Census Tracts with High Poverty 8

Net Public Expenditures per Household 8

Part IV: Estimating Potential Savings in the Cost of Poverty 10

Identifying Healthy and Unhealthy Neighborhoods 10

Comparison of Economically Healthy and
Unhealthy Low Income Census Tracts 11

Social Investment 13

Part V: Spending by "Program Design Clusters" 14

Part I: Background and Methodology

Background and Purposes of this Study

The residents of the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood in Baltimore, with assistance from the Mayor's office and Enterprise Foundation, "are working to transform their neighbor' hood from being one with persistent urban problems related to poverty, crime and health. Their effort is a long term process whereby all public and private life support systems, including housing, education, human services, health care, economic development and employment, public safety, sanitation, and recreation are redirected to empower neighborhood residents to realize their highest capabilities." (quote from Enterprise Foundation)

After this study was started, Baltimore City developed a proposal to HUD for an Empowerment Zone. The area of the Empowerment Zone consisted of 25 census tracts with 72,362 people in residence in 1990. 10% of the people who live in the Empowerment Zone area live in Sandtown-Winchester, and 72% of the people who live in Sandtown live in the Empowerment Zone area. For this reason, and because the leadership for Sandtown transformation will be part of the leadership for the Empowerment Zone, the study has been expanded to include data for the Empowerment Zone area. For the sake of simplicity, this report does not include the Empowerment Zone, but the Empowerment Zone data is included in the technical support documents from this study.

The purpose of this study is to establish the "baseline" position of public cost and quality of life so that as the empowerment and transformation process continues, measurements can be taken on progress in reducing public costs while improving the quality of life for residents of Sandtown and the Empowerment Zone area.

Methodology Used

The method used in this analysis is to identify all population-serving state, local and federal expenditures in Baltimore City and to develop a method for determining what portion of those costs have been expended in Sandtown. As the study proceeded, it became evident that analysis of household income was needed to assess the balance between private and public expenditures in the life support systems in place in Baltimore and in Sandtown.

Expenditures in Sandtown are determined by assuming that the costs for providing services to Sandtown residents are the same as the average costs for providing services to all Baltimore residents. Thus the share of Baltimore City costs that have served Sandtown residents is estimated on the basis of the best estimate of services required. Estimates of services required are developed from two sources: 1) "community profile data" from the Baltimore City Department of Planning, and 2) data from the 1990 census. All costs, revenues, and services are expressed in 1990 terms.

The entire operating budget for the City of Baltimore has been included in this study. The capital budget is reflected only in that the operating budget includes debt service (the cost of capital employed). State and Federal expenditures have been reflected only for selected important programs. These include:

Estimated contributions to local charitable organizations are included. Revenues in the following categories are also included:

The general approach is to first examine public expenditures in Baltimore City and in Sandtown-Winchester.

Next, estimated public expenditures are examined in all census tracts of Baltimore City comparing public expenditures in areas of low poverty with estimated expenditures in areas of high poverty.

Thirdly, low income areas requiring fewer public services are compared with low income areas requiring more public services to better understand neighborhoods that are economically "healthy" and "unhealthy."

And, lastly, public resources are identified by "program design clusters" to aid in planning the process by which Sandtown will be transformed into a neighborhood that is good for people.

All population serving state, local, and federal expenditures are identified and the portion expended in Sandtown is estimated.

Part II: Baltimore City and
Sandtown-Winchester

Income, Unemployment, Housing, & the Status of Women & Children

Sandtown is marked by very high unemployment (22%), low labor force participation (51%), low income ($11,429), high dependence on public assistance (39%), very high housing vacancy (22%), low rents ($235), very high level of poverty (49%), and high percentage of single parent, female headed households (74%). 57% of Sandtown children under age 18 live below the poverty level and in single parent, female headed households.

Low labor force participation in this data is a result of discouragement and it causes unemployment to be understated. If more people were seeking employment, then labor force participation would be reported at a higher level and unemployment would also be higher until those people found jobs

Baseline Data on Population and Quality of Life
(from the 1990 Census of Population & Housing)

 

Baltimore City

Sandtown Winchester

Population

736,014

10,305

Population which is racial minority

60.9%

99.5%

Population which is Hispanic

1.0%

0.4%

Population which is Hispanic & minority

0.6%

0.4%

Unemployment rate

9.2%

22.1%

Labor force participation

60.7%

50.5%

Mothers who are in the labor force:

 

 

         with children under 6.

59.1%

51.2%

         with children age 6-17 only

75.4%

61.8%

Median household income

24,045

11,429

Households with public assistance income

16.5%

39.0%

Residence 5 years ago in same house

58.0%

51.7%

Housing vacancy rate

7.5%

22.1%

Housing vacant 6 or more months

4.4%

19.6%

% of housing which is owner-occupied

48.6%

19.9%

Median value of owner-occupied homes

54,700

20,800

Median contract rent (exc. utilities)

321

235

Median gross rent (inc. utilities)

413

357

Persons per household

2.6

3.0

Civilians 16-19 not in school, not working

20.2%

37.2%

Disabled persons as a % of the population

12.1%

15.6%

Persons living in poverty

21.9%

49.4%

Of family households, the % which are

 

 

      living below the poverty level

17.8%

43.9%

      female headed (with no husband)

49.4%

73.7%

Of children under 18, the % who live in:

 

 

      poverty

32.6%

68.4%

female headed households (no husband)

36.8%

54.2%

poverty and female headed households

26.7%

56.6%

Of children under 18 living in poverty, the

 

 

      % who live in female headed households

83.0%

82.6%

The number of persons living in poverty is very high at 49%, but poverty is even more severe among children. 68% of children under age five and 71% of children age 5-11 live in poverty.

Poverty is most severe among children

While rents are low ($235 in Sandtown), rent as a percentage of income is high. Median gross rent is 38% of median household income in Sandtown.

Housing values are also low at $20,800 in Sandtown, but the cost to own and live in these houses would be 42% of median household income (assuming 10% debt service, real estate taxes at local rates, $600 annually for maintenance, and $122 monthly for utilities). 35% of the households in Sandtown have sufficient income to afford the median value home in Sandtown assuming qualification at 25% of income.

Public Expenditures for Households in Baltimore City

Public expenditures are defined to mean expenditures at any level of government that directly serves people. Total public expenditures in Baltimore City by this definition were more than $4 billion in 1990. City residents paid $1.8 billion in fees and taxes to partially pay for these public expenditures. Therefore, net public costs for services to residents were $2.4 billion. This net cost was covered by taxes and fees paid by businesses and institutions, by social insurance taxes, by the federal deficit, and by State and local borrowing.

The $2.4 billion in net public costs for services to households amounted to an average of $8644 per household in Baltimore City.

Baltimore City ($ millions in 1990)

Public Spending

Public Revenue

Net Public Position

$ per Household

Baltimore City

1,745.1

-701.6

1,043.6

3,775

Housing Authority of Bait.

100.1

 

100.1

362

Charitable Organizations

12

 

12

43

Maryland Social Services

301

 

301

1,089

Maryland Health & Mental Hygiene

458.8

 

458.8

1,659

Maryland income tax

 

-217.8

-217.8

-788

Social Security Administration

1,019.2

 

1,019.2

3,686

Medicare (Health Care Fin. Adm.)

517.8

 

517.8

1,873

Federal income taxes

 

-844.8

-844.8

-3,056

Total Public Entities

4,154.1

-1,764.2

2,389.9

8,644

Total public expenditures for residents of Baltimore City were more than $4 billion in 1990. Net public costs after residential taxes and fees were $2.4 billion.

Public Expenditures for Households in Sandtown-Winchester

Sandtown is an area with especially high poverty and high net public costs. 50% of the 10,305 residents of Sandtown live in poverty according to the census. Total public expenditures in Sandtown are estimated at $75.3 million in 1990, with $11.5 being recovered in public revenue from residents or residential property owners in Sandtown. Thus, net public costs in Sandtown are estimated at $63.8 million, or $18,475 per household.

Sandtown-Winchester ($ millions in 1990)

Public Spending

Public Revenue

Net Public Position

$ per Household

Baltimore City

32.1

-6.4

25.7

7,431

Housing Authority of Bait.

3.8

 

3.8

1,104

Charitable Organizations

0.4

 

0.4

114

Maryland Social Services

8.7

 

8.7

2,531

Maryland Health & Mental Hygiene

10.5

 

10.5

3,037

Maryland income tax

 

-1.2

-1.2

-347

Social Security Administration

13.1

 

13.1

3,798

Medicare (Health Care Fin. Adm.)

6.7

 

6.7

1,930

Federal income taxes

 

-3.9

-3.9

-1,124

Total Public Entities

75.3

-11.5

63.8

18,475

Public expenditures in Sandtown are estimated at $75 million in 1990. Net public costs were $18,475 per household.

Household Earned Income and the "Cost to Sustain Life"

Baltimore City households generate $7.9 billion in income compared with $48 million for Sandtown. Household income for this purpose does not include social security or public assistance income. Adding net public cost to household income results in an estimated $10.3 billion in "cost to sustain life" city-wide compared with $112 million for Sandtown.

The "cost to sustain life" in Baltimore City is $37,312 per household compared with an estimate of $32,310 for Sandtown. In other words, financial sustenance in Sandtown households appears to be 87% of the level of sustenance of the average Baltimore City household. This definition of the "cost to sustain life" assumes that all dollars have equal usefulness.

Household earned income is the primary source of "the cost to sustain life" for the average Baltimore City household, providing 77% of "sustenance" as compared with 23% provided by the public sector. The opposite is true in Sandtown where 57% of financial "sustenance" is provided by the public sector while 43% is provided by household income based on this analysis.

The "Cost of Poverty"

If neighborhood transformation were so successful that Sandtown residents achieved a quality of life and net public cost comparable to the average for Baltimore City in 1990, then an annual savings to the public sector of $34 million would result. This is called "the cost of poverty" in this study.

This $34 million savings does not assume that Sandtown would become a trouble free community. Rather, it assumes that Sandtown would become a community with the ordinary urban problems of unemployment, housing stress, and poverty at the level that these problems exist in the average Baltimore City neighborhood. For this reason, the "cost of poverty" should be considered as the cost of excessive poverty.

The "Cost of Poverty"

   

Baltimore City

Sandtown Winchester

Net public expenditu

$

2,389,860,488

63,774,338

Number of households

 

276,484

3,452

Net public expenditures per household

$

8,644

18,475

 

 

 

 

Assume city-wide expenditure rate

$

8,644

8,644

Resulting net public expenditures

$

2,389,860,488

29,838,249

Difference in net public expenditures

$

 

33,936,089

Rounded - The Cost of Poverty

$

 

34,000,000

The Cost of Poverty per Household

$

 

9,831

Part III: Results from Analysis of All
Census Tracts in Baltimore City

The same methodology used to estimate public expenditures in Sandtown has also been used throughout Baltimore City producing an estimate of costs and revenues in each census tract of the city. By comparing public costs and revenues with household income, a measure of the economic health of each neighborhood (or census tract) can be assessed. It is expected that where income is high, assessed values will be higher and costs of many services will be lower.

Public Expenditures in Baltimore Census Tracts with Low Poverty

145 census tracts had relatively low poverty with an average of 13.6% of residents living in poverty according to the 1990 census. These census tracts included 542,926 people, or 74% of the population of the City. Net public costs in these census tracts is estimated at $1.4 billion, or 58% of total net public costs in the City, and $6577 per household.

Public Expenditures in Baltimore Census Tracts with High Poverty

58 census tracts had an average number of people living in poverty of 30% or more, with an average of 42.6% living in poverty according to the 1990 census. These census tracts included 193,088 people, or 26% of the population of Baltimore City. Net public costs in these high poverty census tracts is estimated at $989 million, or 41% of total net public costs in the City, and $14,894 per household.

Net Public Expenditures per Household

The table below reports estimated net public expenditures per household for all government agencies or sectors, comparing areas of high and low poverty.

Net Public Cost per Household (estimated $ per household)

All Bait. City

Areas of Lo Poverty

Areas of Hi Poverty

Sandtown Winchester

Baltimore City

3,775

2,921

6,372

7,431

Housing Authority of Bait.

362

295

576

1,104

Charitable Organizations

43

27

95

114

Maryland Social Services

1,089

661

2,443

2,531

Maryland Health & Mental Hygiene

1,659

1,286

2,841

3,037

Maryland income tax

-788

-950

-478

-347

Social Security Administration

3,686

3,884

3,061

3,798

Medicare (Health Care Fin. Adm.)

1,873

1,973

1,555

1,930

Federal income taxes

-3,056

-3,520

-1,572

-1,124

Total Public Entities

8,644

6,577

14,894

18,475

Net public costs in areas of high poverty are greater than in areas of low poverty by $8317 per household per year.

Three categories of expenditures account for most of the greater net costs in areas of high poverty. Local government expenditures are high because of higher crime and services to residents combined with lower ad valorem tax base. Public school costs are higher because areas of high poverty tend to have more school age children. Costs for Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and Maryland Department of Social Services are substantially higher because of higher need for medical and social services. The remaining big difference in net public cost results from the fact that lower incomes mean lower Federal, State, and City income taxes.

The biggest single item of greater cost is public schools. Public school costs in areas of high poverty are $1297 per household higher than in areas of low poverty simply because there are more children per household in areas of high poverty.

Costs for Social Security and Medicare are lower in most Baltimore areas with high poverty because there are fewer older people. Sandtown, however, has slightly more older people than the average for the City.

State health and social services are the segment of cost which is proportionately the highest in areas of high poverty; costs per household in Baltimore census tracts with high poverty are 192% of the average for the City while costs in Sandtown are estimated at 203% of the average for the City. Net costs for local government are estimated in Sandtown at 197% of the rate for Baltimore City as a whole due to higher crime, more services, and lower tax base.

Part IV: Estimating Potential Savings
in the Cost of Poverty

Identifying Healthy and Unhealthy Neighborhoods

Neighborhoods requiring a high level of services while providing a low tax base might be called economically unhealthy neighborhoods. Conversely, neighborhoods requiring a lower level of services while providing a strong tax base could be called healthy neighborhoods. A measurement of economic health is provided in this study by means of regression analysis.

Regression techniques have been used to determine the relationship between net public costs and household income. A formula developed by regression is used to predict expected net public costs from median household income. Where net public costs are lower than expected, an economically healthy neighborhood is identified. Conversely, where net public costs are higher than expected, an economically unhealthy neighborhood is identified.

By comparing healthy and unhealthy neighborhoods that are similar in other ways, it will be possible to estimate the potential savings to the public sector that might be achieved if the economic health of a neighborhood is improved.

The regression model for predicting net public costs from household income in Baltimore City in 1990 is as follows. Net public expenditures average $24,219 per household, adjusted so that for every $1 of household income public expenditures are reduced by 61.5 cents. (R squared = 69.8%).

The table below identifies some census tracts that appear to be healthy or unhealthy based on this study. All have relatively low household income and a relatively high percentage of persons living in poverty. The numbers given for each census tract are the difference between estimated net public cost per household and the net cost per household figure predicted from regression analysis.

Bait. City Census Tracts That May Be Economically Healthy

CT# 1301 6,783
CT# 260402 3,859
CT# 260303 5,692
CT# 302 4,724
CT# 1601 (S/W) 4,765
CT# 1302 3,048
CT# 1002 4,723
CT# 1702 4,567
CT# 260498 3,886
CT# 301 3,125
CT# 1304 2,514
CT# 605 3,109
CT# 604 1,939
CT# 260604 2,443

Bait. City Census Tracts That May Be Economically Unhealthy

CT# 1001 -5,818
CT# 2506 -6,915
CT# 1205 -7,797
CT# 1802 -7,469
CT# 1502 (S/W) -5,347
CT# 80301 -4,565
CT# 1204 -4,046
CT# 2001 -4,481
CT# 1603 (S/W) -4,387
CT# 703 -3,424
CT# 806 -3,221
CT# 802 -3,200
CT# 1604 (S/W) -2,968

Remaining Sandtown tracts

CY# 1602 (S/W) 1,882
CT# 1501 (S/W) 6

Comparison of Economically Healthy & Unhealthy Low Income Census Tracts

The low income census tracts selected in this study as "healthy" have, on average, lower median household income and a higher level of poverty than the low income census tracts selected as "unhealthy", and they have approximately the same number of people. Yet the cost of poverty in healthy census tracts is $50 million less than the cost of poverty in unhealthy census tracts. On a per household basis, net public expenditures per household in the healthy census tracts are $5,321 less than (or 55% less than) in the economically unhealthy census tracts.

Public Costs in Economically Healthy and Unhealthy
Low Income Census Tracts

(14 healthy census tracts compared with 13 unhealthy census tracts)

   

Economically Healthy

Economically Unhealthy

Population

 

42,828

41,320

Median household income

$

11,178

16,558

Per capita income

$

7,723

6,925

Persons living in poverty

 

45.1%

38.5%

       

Estimated net public expenditures

$

220,729,461

234,674,624

Number of households

 

16,940

12,788

Net public expenditures per household

$

13,030

18,351

       

Assume county-wide expenditure rate

$

8,644

8,644

Resulting net public expenditures

$

146,425,294

110,536,403

Difference in net public expenditures $ 74,304,167 124,138,221
       
Rounded - The Cost of Poverty $ 74,000,000 124,000,000
The Cost of Poverty per Household $ 4,386 9,707

42,000 people living in economically healthy low-income neighborhoods of Baltimore City are costing taxpayers $14 million per year less than 42,000 people living in economically unhealthy low-income neighborhoods.

There are several ways in which the potential savings in the cost of poverty might be estimated.

Method #l:This analysis shows that approximately 42,000 people living in economically healthy low-income census tracts of Baltimore are costing taxpayers $14 million per year less than approximately 42,000 people living in economically unhealthy low-income census tracts, or about 6% less. This method understates the difference in public costs because it is netted against the extra costs of serving 4152 more households (32% more) in the "healthy" census tracts.

Method # 2:lf the county-wide public spending rate is used to estimate "normal" public costs and this "normal" cost is subtracted from estimated actual costs, then the "cost of poverty" is estimated in healthy and unhealthy census tracts. This suggests a possible savings of $50 million as shown in the table above.

Method #3:The biggest difference between "healthy" and "unhealthy" census tracts is the number of children per family. If the comparison is made on the basis of the number of households rather than on the basis of population, then the difference is $68 million per year. This is meaningful if the assumption is made that a given number of adult householders would have fewer children if neighborhood transformation provided greater opportunity for personal satisfaction by other means, thus reducing the number of children to be provided for and educated.

The average number of children (under age 18) per family is 14 in Baltimore City and 1.2 in economically healthy low income census tracts. In economically unhealthy low income census tracts, it is an average of 1.9 children per family. If neighborhood transformation leads to fewer children, the possible savings is $68 million per year for 12,788 households.

   

Economically

Economically

   
    Healthy Unhealthy Savings  
Number of households   12,788 12,788    
Cost per household $ 13,030 18,351 5,321 (29%)
Total public cost $ 166,628,000 234,674,624 68,046,624 (29%)
Population   32,331 41,320 8,989 (22%)
Public cost per capita $ 5,154 5,679 525 ( 9%)

It should be remembered that the definition of "healthy" and "unhealthy" neighborhoods in this analysis deals only with public costs. It does not deal with quality of life.

Public Costs in Economically Healthy and Unhealthy
Low Income Census Tracts

(14 healthy census tracts compared with 13 unhealthy census tracts)

 

Healthy

Unhealthy

Baltiiwore

Population

42,828

41,320

736,014

Population which is racial minority

85.5%

97.1%

60.9%

Population which is Hispanic

1.1%

0.5%

1.0%

Population which is Hispanic & minority

0.7%

0.4%

0.6

       

Unemployment rate

14.6%

1 7.8%

9.2%

Labor force participation

51.8%

55.2%

60.7

Mothers who are in the labor force:

 

 

 

      with children under 6 42.8% 50.4% 59.1%

      with children age 6-17 only

62.7%

66.3%

75.4%

Median household income

$11,178

$16,558

$24,045

Households with public assistance income 33.4% 33.6% 1 6.5%
Residence 5 years ago in same house 52.3% 57.0% 58.0%
Housing vacancy rate 12.7% 16.0% 7.5%
Housing vacant 6 or more months 8.7% 11.5% 4.4%
% of housing which is owner-occupied 17.3% 32.3% 48.6%
Median value of owner-occupied homes $47,600 $27,100 $54,700
Median contract rent (exc. utilities) $ 214 $ 266 $ 321
Median gross rent (inc. utilities) $ 255 $ 401 $ 413
Persons per household 2.5 3.2 2.6
Civilians 16-19 not in school, not working 27.2% 27.9% 20.2%
Disabled persons as a % of the population 15.1% 14.5% 12.1%
Persons living in poverty 45.1% 38.5% 21.9%
       
Of family households, the % which are      
      living below the poverty level 42.5% 33.9% 17.8%
      female headed (with no husband) 73.7% 69.3% 49.4%
Of children under 18, the % who      
       live in: poverty 59.7% 54.5% 32.6%
      female headed households (no husband) 59.7% 48.9% 36.8%
       53.6% 45.7% 26.7%
Of children under 18 living in poverty,      
      the % who live in female headed households 89.9% 84.3% 83.0%

Social Investment

The net cost to all levels of government and public agencies for sustaining life in Sandtown is approximately $63.8 million per year, or $18,475 per household. An analysts of all neighborhoods in Baltimore City indicates that low income neighborhoods, if they are "economically healthy", can be sustained at substantially less public cost ($13,030 per household, or 30% less).

If net public costs in Sandtown could (with certainty) be reduced by 30% for an annual savings of $18.8 million, dien that annual savings capitalized at 7% (the public cost of capital) would justify an investment of $269 million to achieve neighborhood transformation.

It is not likely that the return on social investment can ever be predicted with the same level of confidence that return on capital investment can be predicted. For this reason, it is important to discount the "investment" for the uncertainties of the social transformation process. Nevertheless, this is a basic logic that has a place in program planning so long as appropriate evaluation and caution are employed.

This $18.8 million annual savings, capitalized at a more cautious rate of 10%, would justify an investment of $188 million to achieve neighborhood transformation to good economic health.

Even more cautious reasoning suggests that if the neighborhood transformation process could improve service delivery systems and the life results for residents so that net public costs are reduced by half of the savings that this study indicates are possible, 15%, a $9.6 million annual savings would result. Investment in the transformation process might be justified on the basis of a $9.6 million annual return on investment. This $9.6 million annual savings, capitalized at the more cautious rate of 10%, would justify an investment of $96 million to achieve transformation.

This reasoning certainly requires confidence in strong community based leadership and participation by all public agencies, plus a plan capable of achieving neighborhood transfer' mation. But as leadership and plans evolve, social investment will come to have a place in the neighborhood transformation process.

Part V: Spending by
"Program Design Clusters"

The plan for empowerment (or transformation) organizes programs into "design clusters." The following table organizes estimated public spending in Sandtown according to the program design clusters in use by the Sandtown-Winchester team.

Spending by "Program Design Clusters" in Sandtown-Winchester

(est. public spending and revenue in 1990)

 

Total $

$/Household

%

EDUCATION

16,164,600

4,683

21.5%

K-12 Public Schools 14,541,380 4,212 19.3%
Colleges and Universities (not included) 12,583 4  
Job Training and Skill Development 632,518 183 0.8%
Recreation, Culture, Library 978,119 283 1.3%

HUMAN SERVICES

46,278,178

13,407

61.5%

Public Safety 5,056,250 1,465 6.7%
Health 18,742,864 5,430 24.9%
Self-Sufficiency/Income Transfers/Social Services 9,368,544 2,714 12.4%
Social Security & SSI 13,110,520 3,798 17.4%

PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

10,178,205

2,948

13.5%

Economic Development 161,991 47 0.2%
Housing 4,359,856 1,263 5.8%
Infrastructure 4,181,845 1,211 5.6%
Debt Service 1,474,513 427 2.0%

OTHER (inc. administration)

2,665,069

772

3.5%

TOTAL SPENDING

75,286,052

21,810

100.0%

Property Taxes (residential) -1,581,271 -458 -2.0%
Other Local Public Income (from households) -4,255,640 -1,233 -5.7%
State & Local Income Taxes (from households) -1,796,145 i -520 -2.4%
Federal Income Taxes (from households) -3,878,658 -1,124 -5.2%

NET PUBLIC COST

63,774,338

18,475

84.7%

As would be expected, spending rates are higher in Sandtown when compared with Baltimore City overall. Spending is higher for education because households have more children (since education costs are allocated per school age child). Similarly, rates for human services other than social security are higher because more families receive assistance. Rates for Social Security are higher in Sandtown because there are more elderly households receiving Social Security in Sandtown than in Baltimore City. Debt service is higher because it is allocated based on all other costs to that agency (or sector) of government.

Spending per Household by "Prosram Design Clusters"

(est. public spending per household in 1990)

 

Baltimore City

Sandtown Winchester

EDUCATION

2,623

4,683

K-12 Public Schools 2,303 4,212
Colleges & Universities (not included) 4 4
Job Training & Skill Development 95 183
Recreation, Culture, Library 221 283

HUMAN SERVICES

9,862 13,407
Public Safety 1,072 1,465
Health 3,916 5,430
Self-Sufficiency/lncome Transfers/Social Services 1,188 2,714
Social Security & SSI 3,686 3,798

PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1,920 2,948
Economic Development 42 47
Housing 511 1,263
Infrastructure 1,093 1,211
Debt Service 274 427
OTHER (inc. administration) 621 772

TOTAL SPENDING

15,026

21,810

     
Property Taxes (residential) -658 -458
Other local public income (from households) -1,486 -1,233
State & Local Income Taxes (from households) -1,182 -520
Federal Income Taxes (from households) -3,056 -1,124

NET PUBLIC COST

8,644

18,475