A colleague on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Finance Committee and I undertook a comparative analysis of the funds Brattleboro’s Human Services Committee had to allocate and similar spending by our adjoining towns and Putney and also such spending by eight towns, four just larger and four just smaller than Brattleboro in population. Data were collected in all cases for the current fiscal year.
Because all Brattleboro voters will have the unusual opportunity to express their preferences so as to advise RTM which will set a sum for social services spending in the next fiscal year, I wish to share what we found.
Brattleboro provides human service organizations with more money ($367,810) than is allocated in the 13 comparison towns. Rutland is close, at $342,243, and this is more than double what any of the other towns spend for the purpose. Brattleboro also has the highest percentage of general fund dollars set aside for social service organizations—2%. Our nearest rivals are Dummerston and Rutland (1.2% and 1.3%, respectively). Restricting attention to our neighbors, Brattleboro’s social service spending per capita is over $34; on a per capita basis, Putney comes in at $16.27 and Guilford at $11.27; the other three are below $10 per capita.
In this context, note that median household income in Brattleboro is only 66% of the average for the five southeastern Vermont towns. Also, a higher percentage of persons in Brattleboro, 13.1%, are living in poverty; the rates in Putney and Guilford are about 8%, and the rates in the other three towns are below 4%. One might conclude from these data the Brattleboro residents have more need for social services or, and this might lead to a different conclusion, that people in Brattleboro can ill-afford the current allocation of their Town budget to support social service organizations.
Citizens of Brattleboro will differ on the right figure for human services spending, and that is rightly so because people have different values and perspectives. I do believe that this information may be useful to voters and that RTM members, who have the final say, should reflect on the data we have presented.
