State and Local Government Taxes, Spending, Debt, Employment and Average Pay in New York City, Other Parts of New York State, and Other States: Comprehensive, Comparative Data From the Census of Governments

by Larry Littlefield

Back in 1990, in my former job as a regional economist with the New York City Department of City Planning, I was assigned to write the economics chapter of a new charter-mandated report, the Annual Report on Social Indicators. I set about building a database that compared New York City’s taxes and spending with that of local governments elsewhere in the U.S. I found that the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau publishes data on spending in each functional category, and taxes and other revenues, as a share of personal income. The results were so surprising that I checked and rechecked the figures, and went over the methodology and categories with Census Bureau officials, to ensure compatibility. It turns out that New York City spends far more than the national average in some functional categories, but far less in others – despite relatively high taxes. While surprising in its specificity, the data did and does match a vague impression about the quality of public services in the city.

Since compiling that database, I have become increasingly disappointed by state and local politics as written about in the local media. After all, local government collects taxes and provides public services. The important issue is how much is collected from whom, how much of what is provided to whom, and how efficiently the least possible revenue is used to provide the best possible public services. The budget, and the quality of public management, are THE issues. But state and local politics seems to revolve around symbolic social issues left over from the 1960s (when I was a child), personal spats and alliances, and tribal conflict -- anything which might distract people from the relative quality of services and level of taxation. Abortion and the death penalty. Panhandling, parole and assault weapons. Bilingualism, affirmative action, gay rights and publicly financed art. The status of Puerto Rico and Israel. None of these "issues" have much effect on my life, or the lives of those around me. Just as federal politicians seem to avoid talking about national and international issues, preferring to talk about local education and land use planning instead, New York’s state and local politicians seem anxious to avoid talking about the decisions they actually make.

Even when the budget is in the news, what you read makes little sense to someone who is aware of how New York City and State compare with other areas. The data show that the City and State spend far more than average in some categories, and significantly less in others. Yet the political division breaks down into those who advocate increased spending -- on everything -- and those who advocate cutting spending -- on everything -- for reasons which would have them advocating the very same positions in Mississippi or Vermont. And even when budget comparisons are made, this year's spending is always compared with last year's spending, not with the relative spending in other places. Year to year comparisons imply that the amount spent last year is the most important guide to the amount that should be spent this year. This locks in both the winners and the losers.

Over time, both in my work at the Department of City Planning and on my own, I have greatly increased my knowledge of state and local taxation and budget issues, and my familiarity with the data that can be used to understand and explain those issues. Today, thanks to improvements in information technology, I have been able to access and compile state and local tax, spending, employment and payroll data on my home computer in greater detail than ever before. And, thanks to those same improvements in information technology, and to the assistance of the Taub Urban Research Center at New York University, I’ve been able to make this information available to you in (what I hope will be) an understandable format, in time for the 2001 New York City elections and, (as you will see) more importantly, the 2002 New York State elections.

The data are relevant to, and shed light upon, many current state and local public policy issues, from labor contracts for New York City teachers and police officers, to the state education aid, to state and local tax policy. The facts have changed my mind about many such issues, and shaped my opinions on many more. Much of the debate in state and local politics is conducted by a small group of players with specific financial interests. Objective information shows that most of them are telling part of the truth, but none are telling the entire truth. And, after the city and state budgets are passed, no one takes the time to inform those who end up paying more than average, or receiving less than average, that they are on the losing end. My goal is to distribute bias neutral facts collected from a neutral source in a neutral way, for the use of others that have open minds. I want the losers to know who they are.

The rest of this section includes a description of the data sources and tabulation methods used to prepare the spreadsheets used as the basis of this report, followed by a table of contents. I ask that you read this first, so that you will understand what you are looking at in the rest of the report.

Primary Data Source

The principle source of the data cited in this report is the Census of Governments, collected and published by the Governments Division of the United States Census Bureau, and its associated annual data series. This data is collected and tabulated in a consistent way throughout the country, and has been for many decades. The Census of Governments is taken every five years (most recently data for 1997, with data released in late 2000), and includes data for all units of government in the United States. In addition to reporting information on individual governments, the census bureau compiles compendiums of public employment and government finance, which add up the employment, revenues, expenditures and debts of all local governments within each county. Summary data is published in book form, but as a result of advances in information technology, detailed data for every state and county in the country is now available in spreadsheets at ftp.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs. The meaning, composition, and tabulation issues of each category of employment, revenues, expenditures, and debt are described in a document at www.census.gov/govs/www/index.html.

The census bureau also publishes annual data based on surveys and administrative records. Since the data is merely estimated based on a sample, it is only reported at the state level, and for some large governments, not for local governments throughout the country. Where applicable, statewide annual data, and data from other sources, is used to give an indication of trends since 1997, and trends over time.

Levels of Government

Local governments include counties, cities and other municipalities, school districts, townships, and special districts. Since the allocation of responsibility varies from place to place, the only way to compare taxes and spending accurately is to add all local governments together at the county level, then make some allowance for the distribution of responsibility between state and local government in different places. The Census of Governments, which separates “direct” expenditures from “inter-governmental” expenditures, and provides local government totals at the county level, makes this possible.

Taxes and Spending as a Percent of Personal Income

In this report, state and local revenues and expenditures are tabulated as a percent of the total personal income of all residents in an area. This is done for two reasons. First, areas with higher average incomes can afford to pay more in taxes, without being more heavily burdened as a share of that income. Second, areas with higher average incomes also tend to have higher costs of living and higher prices overall, so additional money must be spent to hire public employees -- and provide public services -- of equal quality.

Measuring government revenues and expenditures, for each area, as a share of the personal income of all the residents of that area, adjusts for both these factors. It should be noted, however, that while spending as a share of personal income is a fair measure of how much different places are paying for services, it is not a measure of the services they receive. Differences in the skill and productivity of public employees and contractors, the accumulated amount of public infrastructure and its condition, and the amount of money lost to private profit and public administration, also affect the quality of public services received.

When calculating revenues and expenditures as a share of personal income, the Census Bureau uses income data compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, for calendar years. When a fiscal year includes parts of two calendar years, income data for the prior calendar year is used. The tabulations in this report divide tax and spending data for FY 1997 by income data for 1996. BEA income data is recompiled each year as new data becomes available, but the census of governments is not updated with new income figures. This report uses BEA data released in May, 2000.

Direct vs. Intergovernmental Expenditures

In general, this report tabulates expenditures two ways, as “direct” expenditures, and as tax-funded expenditures. Direct expenditures are those spent by a government to actually provide services, rather than to provide aid to another level of government. For example, New York State requires New York City to pay part of the cost of the Medicaid spending within its borders. This money is tabulated as inter-governmental spending on welfare by the City, and intergovernmental revenue received by the state. The City’s own Health and Hospital Corporation receives state Medicaid payments when it provides services to eligible recipients. This money is tabulated as intergovernmental spending on welfare by the state, and intergovernmental revenue received by the City via the Health and Hospitals Corporation. Finally, the Health and Hospital Corporation spends the money as a “direct” expenditure on doctors, nurses, supplies and buildings. As measured by total expenditures, the same dollar may thus be spent twice by the City and once by the State. As measured by direct expenditures, that dollar is spent only once. Only direct expenditures lead to actual public services.

Tabulations of “tax-funded expenditure” are attempts to measure the financial burden that the provision of a particular type of government spending places on residents of a particular place. Tax funded expenditures are total expenditures (including inter-governmental expenditures) minus inter-governmental revenues, charges and fees, and in some cases dedicated taxes, for that category of public service. In the example above, both the City’s Medicaid aid to the state and its direct expenditure in the hospital would be added, then the state’s intergovernmental aid to the City would be subtracted, before dividing by personal income. Tax-funded expenditures are tabulated and presented in categories of expenditure where inter-governmental aid accounts for a large share spending. In other cases, charges are presented a share of direct spending, to gauge the extent to which public services pay for themselves.

Employment and Wages

For the number of local government employees, a different comparison is used. The number of full time equivalent public employees in each government service category is simply expressed as a rate per 100,000 in area population. Data from the 2000 census of population is used, because prior to 2000 the population of New York City and many other areas was severely under-estimated.

The average wages paid to local government employees, as tabulated by the employment phase of the census of governments, is compared with BEA average earnings data for the private sector. For each category of public service, the average monthly payroll per full time equivalent employee in each area is divided by the national average. For example, in March 1997 the average New York City public school “instructional” employee earned $3,346, while the average U.S. instructional employee earned $3,016. The average New York City instructional public school employee, therefore, earned 11 percent more. For comparison, the average annual earnings of private-sector employees (obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis) relative to the national average is presented in the same way. This allows a rough but fair comparison between the earnings of public employees and the earnings of the private-sector workers who pay their bills.

Other Data

Census of Governments data has its limitations, and is subject to sampling and non-sampling errors. As a further check, other sources of data are referenced here.

Most notably, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area Personal Income series is a second measure of the number and earnings of state and local government employees -- relative to private sector employees -- in different places. While the BEA does not provide separate data for local government employees in different categories (ie. police vs. education), it does provide county-level data for each year from 1980 to 1998 (with 1999 coming in May, 2001). BEA data can be obtained at www.bea.doc.gov.

The Annual Report of the NYC Comptroller, the same source used by the Census Bureau to compile data for the census of governments, is used to provide annual for the City of New York, and thus to project revenues and expenditures two years beyond Fiscal 1997. Administrative data from the federal Health Care Financing Administration (www.hcfa.gov) and other agencies are used to provide a more detailed understanding of, and a confirming source of data for, Medicaid expenditures.

Areas for Comparison

While the Census of Governments includes data for every state government for every year, and local government in every county in the nation, the comparisons in this report are limited to a small number of areas. The primary concern is how New York’s state government compares with other states, and how New York City’s local government compares with other parts of the state and region, and additional areas that compete with the City for businesses and residents.

Statewide data on state and local government is almost always presented for New Jersey in addition to New York, since New Jersey is in many respects similar to Downstate New York --highly urbanized, with high wages and costs -- and competes with it directly for businesses and residents. On occasion, data is presented for all 50 states, and/or for New York’s state and local governments as a whole vs. the U.S. average for all the years in the Census Bureau’s online database (1972, and 1977-97). For local government data outside of New York City, the New York State is divided into three categories:

Downstate Suburbs, which is comprised of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. These are highly urbanized, affluent counties with significant commuting links to New York City.

Upstate Metros, which is comprised of Albany, Broome, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Niagara, Onondaga, Orange, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties. These are counties whose estimated 1998 population density exceeded 229 persons per square mile, the statewide average when New York City is excluded.

Rest of New York State, which is the balance when New York City, the Downstate Suburbs, and Upstate Metros are subtracted from the state total. Some of its constituent counties contain small cities and mill towns (ie. Utica, Jamestown, Elmira), but these are not sufficient to change their essentially rural or exurban character with regard to the structure of and services provided by local governments.

Outside New State, counties were chosen for comparison for one of two reasons. Some are among the U.S. counties with the greatest employment, or the fastest employment growth: Maricopa (Phoenix), Los Angeles, Orange (California), San Diego, Santa Clara (Silicon Valley), Miami-Dade, Cobb and Fulton (Atlanta), Cook (Chicago), Dallas, and Harris (Houston). Other counties are con-terminus (San Francisco, Baltimore Philadelphia,) or nearly so (Suffolk: Boston) with older central cities such as New York.

Pensions and Fringe Benefits

The tabulation of pension contributions and employee fringe benefits are a potential source of error in census of governments data. For New York City Mayoral agencies (which account for about half of all local government employment in the city), these are primarily tabulated as lump sum payments, and not included in data for functional categories such as sanitation or police. Fringe benefits and pensions are included in direct expenditures for non-Mayoral agencies such as the Board of Education, and independent public authorities, such as the Transit Authority. Elsewhere in the country, the reporting of pension contributions and fringe benefits varies. Pension contributions are discussed in detail in Section 2; fringe benefits are discussed in detail in Section 9.

 

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mitchell Moss, Anthony Townsend, John Bender, and the staff of the Taub Urban Research Center, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University for publishing his work on the internet. Thanks also Kathy Albetski of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Jim Brown, Jeff Weisenstein and Jay Mooney of the New York State Department of Labor, and Donna Hirsch and Gerry Keffer of the Census Bureau’s governments division for providing access to data over the years. Thanks as well to Howard O. Trott of the Census Bureau’s governments division, Steve Fountain and Theresa Hunt of the Office of the New York State Comptroller, and Michael Spitzer of the Office of the New York City Comptroller, for helping me to understand the current census of governments, identify errors in the data, and correct them. Additional thanks to Janet Gerow of the New York State Department of Health, Dale Yamamota of Hewitt and Associates, and Matt Kane of the Northeast-Midwest Institute for additional information used in the analysis of Medicaid. Finally, thanks to Dr. Joseph Salvo and Drew Minert of the New York City Department of City Planning for increasing my knowledge of data sources and issues, and to Sandy Hornick, Eric Kober, Barry Dinerstein, Bill Sears, and Frank Vardi, also of City Planning, for the many conversations on state and local budget and policy issues during my years there.

 

Use of This Information, Citation, Copyright

The author has applied for a copyright, but only to prevent someone else from presenting this work, in its entirety, as his or her own. The use of any part of it is welcome, preferably with but allowably without attribution. The author is Lawrence D. Littlefield, Brooklyn NY. The “publisher” is the Taub Urban Research Center, New York University.

The source data, presented in spreadsheets, is public information, obtained from public agencies. Anyone is free to use it, and is encouraged to do so. In particular, in many cases the spreadsheets include data for every state in the country, and/or every county in New York State, but I was unable to discuss them all. People are encouraged to use this information to prepare and publish reports on state and local government in their own communities. Please cite the original data source(s) when preparing your own work, even if the data is downloaded from this site.

 

CONTENTS

To make the data understandable, I have organized it into nine sections, and presented it as a series of charts with text box explanations. Click on the section title to go to that section. These charts link to spreadsheets with more extensive data; in many cases several charts are based on a single spreadsheet. In most cases, I have left the source data, as downloaded from the original source, in the spreadsheets, to the right and or below a presentation table(s). It should be noted that this source data is generally in thousands of dollars. Each section ends with a summary page, which includes a link to the next section.

Section 1: Taxes and Other Revenues

Chart 1.1: State and Local Taxes By State: as a percent of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 1.2: State and Local Taxes By Year: as a percent of personal income1972 and 1977-97, New York State vs. the United States.

Chart 1.3: 1997 State and Local Taxes By Area of New York State: as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 1.4: 1997 Local Taxes by Type And Area: as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States

Chart 1.5: 1997 State Taxes by Type and State: as a share of personal income, New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 1.6: 1997 State To Local And Local To State Aid By Selected Category and Area: as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 1.7: 1997 Federal to Local and Federal to State Aid by Selected Category: share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 1.8: Scatter Chart, Poverty Vs. Federal Medicaid Share: 1997 by state.

Chart 1.9: 1997 Medicaid Spending By Source of Funds and Local Medicaid Funding Percent of Total: New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State.

Chart 1.10: 1997 Charges, Fees and Other Revenues: as a share of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 1.11: 1983 to 1999 Local Taxes and 1983 to 1999 State Taxes: as a share of personal income, NYC vs. the United States local government average, and New York State vs. the U.S. state average.

Section 1 Summary

 

Section 2: Public Employment, Wages and Pensions

Chart 2.1: 1997 Local Government Full Time Equivalent Employment Per 100,000 Residents, total and by selected category, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.2: 1997 Local Government Full Time Equivalent Employment Per 100,000 Residents: total and by selected category, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.3: 1997 State Government Employment Per 100,000 Residents: by selected category, New York, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.4: March 1997 Local Government Payroll Per FTE Employee: with 1997 average annual private-sector earnings per worker, percent above or below the U.S. average, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 2.5: March 1997 Local Government Payroll Per FTE Employee: with 1997 average annual private-sector earnings per worker, percent above or below the U.S. average the U.S., New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 2.6: 1997 Government Wages and Salaries: as a share of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.7: Total State and Local Wages and Salaries by State: as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 2.8: 1997 Government Pension Contributions, as a share of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.9: State and Local Pension Contributions By State, as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York City, New York State outside New York City, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 2.10: State and Local Pension Contributions By Year: 1972 & 1977-97, New York State vs. the United States.

Chart 2.11: Local Government Annual Earnings Per Employee, percent above or below the private-sector average in the area, 1980-98, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.12: Earnings of Local Government Workers, as a percent of total earnings at work 1980-97, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.13 Earnings of State Government Workers and Earnings of Federal Government Workers, as a percent of total earnings at work 1980-97, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 2.14 Annual Average New York City Employment: local government education, local government other, private health care services, and private social services.

Section 2 Summary

 

Section 3: Welfare, Social Services, Public Hospitals, Medicaid, and Public Health

Chart 3.1: Total State and Local Direct Expenditures on Welfare, Social Services, Hospitals, Public Health and Medicaid, as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 3.2: Total State and Local Tax Funded Spending on Welfare, Social Services, Hospitals, Public Health and Medicaid, as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 3.3: State and Local Welfare, Social Services, Hospitals, Public Health, and Medicaid Direct Expenditures, 1972 and 1977-97 by type and year as a share of personal income, New York State and the U.S.

Chart 3.4: 1997 Public Hospitals, Public Health, and Medical Vendor Payment Expenditures, by type as a percent of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 3.5: 1997 Cash Welfare and Social Services Expenditures, by type, as a percent of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 3.6: 1997 Tax Funded Spending on Welfare, Social Services, Hospitals, Public Health and Medicaid, as a share of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, and the United States.

Chart 3.7: Medicaid and Associated Factors, New York State as a Percent of the United States in 1997: Population, Persons in Poverty, Persons Age 85+, Total Medicaid Recipients, Nursing Home Medicaid Recipients, Home Health Care Medicaid Recipients, Total Medicaid Spending, Home Health Care Spending, Personal Care Spending.

Chart 3.8: 1997 Medicaid Expenditures Per Recipient: New York State percent above the U.S. average, Medicaid total, nursing homes, hospitals.

Chart 3.9: 1997 Local Government FTE Employment in Health and Social Services and State Government FTE Employment in Health and Social Services, per 100,000 area residents, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and New York, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 3.10: March 1997 Government Payroll Per FTE Employee, social services, and hospitals and public health, vs. the private sector, percent above or below the U.S. average, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey; and State Government Pay Per FTE Employee, percent above or below the U.S., New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 3.11: State Spending on Unemployment Insurance Benefit Payments, as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Section 3 Summary

 

Section 4: Education

Chart 4.1: Elementary and Secondary School Direct Expenditures by State: as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 4.2: 1997 Local Government Elementary and Secondary School Direct Expenditures, percent of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.3: 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Spending By Source of Funds: federal and state aid vs. local revenues, percent of residents personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.4: 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Spending By Source of Funds, Alternative Data Source: state aid and other revenues, percent of residents personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.5: 1997 Higher Education Direct Expenditures: as a percent of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.6: Higher Education Charges as a Percent of Direct Expenditures, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and 1997 state government in New York, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.7: State and Local Education Expenditures by Type and Year, as a share of personal income, New York State and the U.S.

Chart 4.8: 1983-FY1999 Local Government Education Expenditures, percent of personal income, NYC vs. the United States average.

Chart 4.9: 1997 Local Government FTE Employment in Public Schools Per 100,000 Area Residents, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.10: March 1997 Local Government Public School Payroll Per FTE Employee, public schools instructional vs. non-instructional, percent above or below the U.S. average New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 4.11: 1997 FTE Employment in Higher Education Per 100,000 Area Residents: local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.12: March 1997 Payroll Per FTE Employee in Higher Education, instructional vs. non-instructional, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 4.13: Local Government Education Employment, percent of total employment, 1993, 1997 and 2000 New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate New York, United States.

Section 4 Summary

 

Section 5: Housing and Community Development

Chart 5.1: State and Local Government Direct Housing and Community Development Expenditures By State, FY 1972 and 1997 as a percent of personal income, New York City, New Jersey, United States, selected other states.

Chart 5.2: 1997 Local Government Direct Housing and Community Development Expenditures By Area: as a percent of personal income, operating vs. capital, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 5.3: 1997 Housing Charges, Percent of Expenditures, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 5.4: State and Local Housing Expenditures By Year, construction vs. other spending, as a percent of personal income; New York State and the U.S.

Chart 5.5: March 1997 Local Government FTE Employment in Housing and Community Development Per 100,000 Residents, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 5.6: March 1997 Local Government Payroll per FTE Employee in Housing and community Development, percent above or below the U.S. average New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 5.7: New York State’s Share of Federal Aid, 1972 and 1977 to 1997, housing, transportation, and water/sewer/natural resources.

Section 5 Summary

 

Section 6: Debt, Interest Payments, Capital Spending, and Transportation

Chart 6.1: State and Local Debt By State, as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 6.2: 1997 State and Local Debt By New York State Area, as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 6.3: 1997 State and Local Interest Payments By New York State Area, as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 6.4: State and Local Capital Spending By Year, as a percent of personal income,1972 & 1977-97, New York State vs. the United States, construction and other.

Chart 6.5: State and Local Capital Spending By Category, as a share of personal income, total for all years 1972 & 1977097, New York State and the U.S.

Chart 6.6: 1997 Direct Transportation Expenditures By Type, share of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 6.7: 1997 Transportation Expenditures, Net of Charges, Aid Revenues and Dedicated Taxes: percent of residents personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 6.8: Transit Fares and Other Revenues As a Percent of Operating Expenses, 1972 & 1977-97, New York City, Rest of State vs. the United States.

Chart 6.9: March 1997 FTE Employment in Transportation Per 100,000 Residents, by type, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government New York, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 6.10: March 1997 Payroll Per FTE Employee in Transportation, by type, percent above or below the U.S. average, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 6.11: Debt By Year, percent of personal income, local government and state government, New York State vs. the United States, 1972 & 1977-97.

Section 6 Summary

 

Section 7: Police, Correction & Judicial

Chart 7.1: State and Local Direct Police and Correction Expenditures By State, as a share of personal income, 1972 & 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 7.2: 1997 State and Local Police, Corrections and Judicial Direct Expenditures By Type, as a share of personal income, 1997, New York State, New Jersey, U.S., and selected other states.

Chart 7.3: 1997 Local Police, Correction and Judicial Expenditures by Type, percent of residents personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 7.4: 1997 FTE Police and Correction Employment Per 100,000 Residents, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 7.5: March 1997 Payroll Per FTE Police and Correction Employee, percent above or below the U.S. average, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Section 7 Summary

Section 8: Public Amenities

Chart 8.1: 1997 Total Public Amenities Expenditures, percent of residents’ personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.2: 1972, 1987, and 1997 Total Public Amenities Expenditures, percent of residents personal income, state and local government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.3: 1997 Local Government Water, Sewer, and Sanitation Expenditures, as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.4: 1997 Local Government Fire Protection and Library Expenditures, as a share of personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.5: 1997 Parks, Recreation, Culture, and Natural Resources Expenditures, percent of residents’ personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.6: 1997 Local Government Charges For Public Amenities, Percent of Expenditures by Category, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.7: 1997 Local Government FTE Employment in Public Amenities, by category per 100,000 area residents, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 8.8: March 1997 Local Government Payroll Per FTE Employee in Public Amenities, percent above or below the U.S. average, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 8.9 Local Government Parks, Recreation, Culture, and Natural Resources Spending, NYC vs. the United States, by year 1983 to 1999.

Section 8 Summary

 

Section 9: Administration & Miscellaneous

Chart 9.1: 1997 Administration and Related Expenditures by Type, as a share of personal income, local government in New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States, and state government in New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 9.2: 1972, 1987, and 1997 State and Local Administrative and Related Expenditures, share of personal income, New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 9.3: 1997 Local Government General Expenditures Not Elsewhere Classified, percent of residents personal income, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 9.4: 1997 New York City General Expenditures Not Elsewhere Classified by Type, percent of residents’ personal income.

Chart 9.5: 1997 State Government General Expenditures Not Elsewhere Classified, percent of residents’ personal income, New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 9.6: 1997 Local Government FTE Employment in Administration and Related, per 100,000 area residents, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 9.7: March 1997 Local Government Payroll Per FTE Employee in Administration and Related, percent above or below the U.S. average New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, and New Jersey.

Chart 9.8: 1997 Local Government FTE Other/Unallocated Employment, per 100,000 area residents, and March 1997 Local Government Pay Per FTE Other/Unallocated Employee, percent above or below the U.S. average, New York City, Downstate Suburbs, Upstate Metros, Rest of New York State, New Jersey, United States.

Chart 9.9: 1997 State Government FTE Employment in Administration and Related and Other/Unallocated, per 100,000 area residents, and March 1997 State Government Payroll Per FTE Administration and Related and Other/Unallocated Employee, New York State, New Jersey, and the United States.

Section 9 Summary

 

Section 10: Graphic Summary