Cash and Condescension

[Dreadnaught]

I had no idea this program was going on.

It sorta touches on an argument often kicked around in introductory economics classes that the government would be theoretically better-off just giving bits of cash to the poor, instead of setting up elaborate welfare programs because then the poor could spend it more efficiently on their needs/wants.

Poor families (at least in NY) have abysmally low rates of parental participation in education and doctor's visits. This seemed like a smart idea worth trying, and I know from people who work in public schools that lots of their kids had parents getting these disbursements. The parents were still lousy, but there was some uptick. I guess it wasn't enough.

But anyone have any ideas why this didn't work? Or why it's a bad idea in ways I'm not able to spot?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/nyregion/31cash.html

March 30, 2010
City to End Program Giving Cash to the Poor
By JULIE BOSMAN

An unusual and much-heralded program that gave poor families cash for good behaviors has so far had only modest effects on their lives and economic situation, according to an analysis the Bloomberg administration released on Tuesday.

The three-year-old pilot project, the first of its kind in the country, gave parents payments for things like going to the dentist ($100) or holding down a full-time job ($150 per month). Children were rewarded for attending school regularly ($25 to $50 per month) or passing a high school Regents exam ($600).

When the mayor announced the program, he said it would begin with private money and, if it worked, could be transformed into an ambitious permanent government program.

But city officials said Tuesday that there were no specific plans at this time to go forward with a publicly financed version of the program. In an announcement at BronxWorks, a nonprofit social services agency, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pointed to a few examples of success, however modest: High school students who met basic proficiency standards before high school tended to increase their attendance, receive more class credits and perform better on standardized tests; more families went to the dentist for regular checkups.

But the elementary and middle school students who participated made no educational or attendance gains. Neither did high school students who performed below basic proficiency standards before high school.

“If you never fail, I can tell you, you’ve never tried new, innovative things,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “And I don’t know that this is a failure. I think it is, some things worked, and some things didn’t, and some things the jury’s still out on. And anything new you’re going to have that diversity of results.”

While payments to the families will end in August, researchers will continue to monitor them for three more years, to see if any behaviors encouraged by the initial payments will continue. A final report will be issued in 2013.

The mayor has been applauded for his openness to innovative approaches to fighting poverty; one in five New York residents are poor.

But from the beginning, the program set off controversy. Conservative critics asked whether it was wise to pay people for simple behaviors like attending parent-teacher conferences or doctor’s appointments; some liberals considered the approach condescending.

About $40 million in private donations was collected to finance the effort, called Opportunity NYC Family Rewards. After two years, more than $14 million has been paid out to 2,400 families. An additional $10.2 million went to operating costs, and $9.6 million has been spent on research and evaluation.

While most behavioral changes were not large, the cash provided to the families had a short-term effect: Those who participated earned, on average, more than $6,000 a year in the first two years.

The families used the money to pay for basic living expenses, school supplies, electronic equipment and going to the movies, among other things.

More than 80 percent of the families were led by a single parent; 43 percent had three or more children; and just over half of the parents held jobs. All lived in low-income areas in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx.

The program had a bumpy start, city officials and donors said. It was hard to recruit families from the beginning, said Margot Brandenburg, an associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation, the primary source of financing.

Linda I. Gibbs, the deputy mayor for health and human services, said many families had been perplexed by the guidelines that were laid out for them.

“Too many things, too many details, more to manage in the lives of burdened, busy households,” Ms. Gibbs said, standing next to the mayor on Tuesday. “Big lesson for the future? Got to make it a lot more simple.”

The city has been somewhat sensitive about the results of the program. Ms. Gibbs and other city officials cautioned that the report released on Tuesday reflects only initial results, and said that they were in line with other early results from similar conditional cash transfer programs in Latin America.

One Brooklyn family who participated in the program said they collected more than $7,610 in two years. Janice Dudley and her 16-year-old daughter, Qua-neshia Darden, of East New York, said they received rewards for school attendance, good test scores and receiving regular medical checkups.

“It gives children the motivation to want to go to school because they know they’re going to get something back,” Ms. Dudley said.

Mr. Bloomberg sounded philosophical on Tuesday as he spoke about the challenges it presents.

“You always hope that you’ll come across a magic silver bullet and you never do,” he said. “If there were simple solutions, somebody would have found them a long time ago.”

[littlelolligagged]

My own personal problem with it is that paying people to be involved doesn't lead to anything more than feigned involvement.

Also, the singling out of poor kids to make them different from their peers. But I'd guess in NYC the schools are already fairly well divided between rich and poor, anyway, just because the sheer numbers making schools fairly neighborhood-centric.

[Dreadnaught]

True. But the flip side is that many of these schools (which do tend to have concentrated socioeconomic populations, at least in many areas) can have parents who are really abysmal. Like the kind of parents who just "fire and forget" kids with different lovers, real broken families with no parental involvement besides buying some clothes and food. Just getting them off their asses when it comes to their kids can't hurt. And I think there is some value to distributing cash with no strings attached besides explicitly good actions-- sometimes cash goes a long way towards making ends meet in ways that regular welfare benefits may not.

To be fair, my friends in the school system would talk about how the kids complained that their parents were hoarding "their" money from these kinds of things; the kids felt it was theirs and they should get to spend it on junk (instead of their parents).

[littlelolligagged]

But wealthy parents are also completely capable of ignoring their kids. I mean, the world I grew up in had kids with parents who were never home because of working all the time - and kids doing anything possible to get their attention.

Meh, I don't know...

My school system won't allow students to enroll without the doctor and dental visit. But then they don't check it on a regular basis, so if you don't move around a lot it is a nonissue past kindergarten. I guess there is still a lot of unwillingness to force any sort of parenting at all. I'd imagine that the NYC program met some resistance about being "checked up on" even with the benefit of receiving cash.

[Dreadnaught]

People here are more comfortable with nanny state practices. There was more concern that this was somehow condescending to the people getting the money...who probably weren't taking their kids to the doctor in the first place.

[littlelolligagged]

I kind of think it would be condescending, but at the same time I think that providing children with what they need is beneficial.

[Lewkowski]

Actually I have to applaud the effort made by New York.

The idea has merit and what I loved was the fact that they used private money first and *tested* the concept before throwing public tax dollars. Ideas like this are what can make a difference even if this particular one isn't bearing too much fruit.

[Dreadnaught]

That I agree with -- I gotta hand it to Bloomberg for organizing a private money test like this before committing to it just based on what some sociologist said.

[GGT]

I had no idea this program was going on.

It sorta touches on an argument often kicked around in introductory economics classes that the government would be theoretically better-off just giving bits of cash to the poor, instead of setting up elaborate welfare programs because then the poor could spend it more efficiently on their needs/wants.

Poor families (at least in NY) have abysmally low rates of parental participation in education and doctor's visits. This seemed like a smart idea worth trying, and I know from people who work in public schools that lots of their kids had parents getting these disbursements. The parents were still lousy, but there was some uptick. I guess it wasn't enough.

But anyone have any ideas why this didn't work? Or why it's a bad idea in ways I'm not able to spot?

Why it failed to motivate? IMO it was a flawed premise from the beginning....Bloomberg and co. assume money motivates everyone.

That's where the stereotype comes from that "people sit around collecting welfare instead of working 2 part-time minimum wage jobs"---that free money is easier than earned money, and it's all about the money. In reality, it's about cultural definitions of self-esteem, self-worth, and pride. Maybe even hope for a brighter future.

Entrenched and generational poverty is a hard egg to crack; if it's all you've ever known, everyone you know is stuck there, never seen anyone get out of the ghetto even when they finish HS, it's hard to convince people they can break the cycle. May as well tell them to climb Mt. Everest in flip-flops.

I think that's why gangs and drug dealing can appeal to children of poverty. Not for the money, but for the belonging to a group, maybe being 'respected' as they gain 'status' and reputation. They go about it the wrong way, but no one can say they're sitting on their asses. They don't look ahead long-term because it's not in their reality. Single female households, where are the men, are they dead or in prison? Better to go down fighting? Wannabe's that don't really know what they wannabe, but slim pickings.

Why didn't they interview these "subjects" first, and ask them what would motivate? Maybe it would be a day with their idol, a sports or entertainment star, backstage passes or court-side seats, time in a recording studio. Or riding an airplane, a new wardrobe, or some decent bedroom furniture. All those things could be donated.


But speaking of MONEY. What kind of charity endeavor spends that much on "operating costs"?

About $40 million in private donations was collected to finance the effort, called Opportunity NYC Family Rewards. After two years, more than $14 million has been paid out to 2,400 families. An additional $10.2 million went to operating costs, and $9.6 million has been spent on research and evaluation.

Perhaps they should check their motivations and abilities to spend money wisely before judging others.

[CitizenCain]

But anyone have any ideas why this didn't work?

The same reason that pissing in the ocean doesn't turn the Pacific into a urine-saturated toilet, would be my guess.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reward" for having a full time job - $150.

NY minimum wage: $7.25/Hour
Minimum number of hours worked to qualify as "full time" employee: 40/week
Number of weeks in a month: 4.5

Minimum wages earned in a month of full time employment: $1305

Amount of "reward" earned per hour (at maximum): $0.83 (Assuming that there aren't many hours of bureaucratic bullshit hoops to jump through to actually earn that "reward," of course).

Wow, 83 cents per hour? I can't possibly imagine any reason why people weren't beating down the door to get in on that. I mean, personally, I think my basic fucking dignity is worth more than 83 cents an hour, but poor people don't have any dignity anyway, so I'm not sure what the problem is with this one. Probably drugs. If they weren't all strung out on crack (or making money as crack dealers), they'd be able to hold down a "real" job and cash in on the big bucks offered by this program.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reward" for attending school regularly: up to $50/month

Approximate number of "school days"/month: 22 (floor[5/week*4.5weeks/month])
Hours per "school day": 8
Hourly rate of "reward": ~ $0.28

Again... another shocking result. I can think of no reason why children would not be beating down the door for over one quarter per hour spent in an inner city school. Of course, I wouldn't have been a regular school attendee for one hundred times that rate, but my affluent suburban school was a boring hell hole with at least one fight per week, so that's why *I* wouldn't have benefited from this program, but I'm sure that poor people are all stupid (and thus can't be bored) and don't face any issues regarding violence in their schools. Poor kids must just be really lazy. Maybe it's hereditary or something.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need I go on? Even if you could encourage lasting, positive behavioral changes by bribing people into participating in our failed [public] education system or a dead-end minimum wage job... you'd need to bribe them with enough money to actually matter.

[Young Mage]

I'm totally for allowing high school students (11th and 12th) to enter some kind of trade school or begin dealing drugs (whichever stimulates the economy the most) because i'm sick of those idiotic shitheads dragging down the system with them. Thanks to them the standard will be lowered, hindering my education. So either pay students to do well or amend mandatory attendance.

[CitizenCain]

That is certainly one school of thought.

Personally, I prefer the observation that the current educational model in the Western world is actually the one developed by the Soviets. And fuck, the USSR is stronger than ever, so the failings of our current educational system must be a result of lazy students or bad teachers, or something like that.

[littlelolligagged]

That is certainly one school of thought.

Personally, I prefer the observation that the current educational model in the Western world is actually the one developed by the Soviets. And fuck, the USSR is stronger than ever, so the failings of our current educational system must be a result of lazy students or bad teachers, or something like that.

Even Icky will admit that the Soviet's primary education put ours to shame. So no blaming the commies because ours is a shithole.

It's funny, though, how the people screaming about "socialism" never object to free public education - and the ones who do want government vouchers to attend private schools.

[CitizenCain]

Even Icky will admit that the Soviet's primary education put ours to shame.

But on the other hand... what doesn't?

So no blaming the commies because ours is a shithole.

I wasn't blaming the commies, no... more pointing out that we might have been wise to consider if the idea for "one size fits all" education was an idea worth stealing... before we stole it and imposed it the country.

It's funny, though, how the people screaming about "socialism" never object to free public education - and the ones who do want government vouchers to attend private schools.

Well, regarding the latter type - the school voucher movement is actually a drive to end public education as we know it, by introducing more people to competition in primary education. The idea being that if there's more of a competitive market for primary schooling, the shitty government option will fail (as it always does when exposed to anything resembling a free-market system) and the successful market options will prevail. The government voucher is just a transitional state to get us from a virtual government monopoly on primary education... to a virtual absence of a government option in primary education.

Or so the thinking goes, at least.

[Young Mage]

Public education in america is a joke. Only reason America is believed to have a "good education" is because of selectively elitist Ivy League colleges. Even the magnet schools here are jokes apart from maybe TJHSS (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology). The standard is so low. No mandatory second language, scantron texts, lazy teachers, biased teachers, list goes on.

and wut? socialism? we've always been a socialist nation. This is ridiculous, morons always say "America ain't socialist YEEEEEHAAAAAW" because socialism isn't:

A] Postal Service, you enjoy having mail delivered to you, you're a god damn commy.
B] Police
C] Medicare
D] Use of taxes in order to build roads, libraries, etc...
E] Billion dollar bail-out plan in a "laisse-faire" Adam Smith economy because certain behemoth companies are deemed "too big to fail"
G] Fucking STANDING ARMY <----???? how is that not socialism?????


EDIT: This was a reply to Loli, Citizen happened to post before me.

[littlelolligagged]

It wasn't actually a reply to me, kid. It also wasn't entirely coherent.

Cainy, I'll play with yours later.

[Young Mage]

I tried to best to explain why America was socialist.

[CitizenCain]

Cainy, I'll play with yours later.

Promises, promises. Last time you said that, I was left playing with myself for hours... and ended up getting a lecture from the priest about the evils of masturbation.

[Dreadnaught]

The same reason that pissing in the ocean doesn't turn the Pacific into a urine-saturated toilet, would be my guess.

I see your point (thanks for the math), but these are things that take minimal time and already benefit people. Like sending your 12 year old kid to school. WTF else is s/he doing that's earning you more money?

[Catgrrl]

You really don't want Cain to answer that question, do you? I'm sure he can think of a lot of things he'd have a 12yr old do for money, and quite frankly I'd rather not see him post it.

[Young Mage]

benefit people. Like sending your 12 year old kid to school.

I'm not going to lie, i did not learn anything about the real world until Sophomore year and that was ONLY because i took an AP Class. At 12, most of us are way too stupid to actually benefit from any type of education being offered.

[Dreadnaught]

You really don't want Cain to answer that question, do you? I'm sure he can think of a lot of things he'd have a 12yr old do for money, and quite frankly I'd rather not see him post it.

Fair point.

[CitizenCain]

I see your point (thanks for the math), but these are things that take minimal time and already benefit people.

You're sure about that? I wouldn't consider a full time job doing grunt work "minimal effort," nor would I say that regular school attendance involves "minimal effort" either - it's got the same hours as a full time job. And as for benefiting people, I've yet to hear of a person who's actually benefited from an inner city school education.

Sure, if they were doing these things anyway, it's probably a minimal enough effort to go through some paperwork to collect $150 or $50... but that $150 or $50 is not going to be enough to to entice someone into those activities (and I gather that this was the intent of the program). If they can't be bothered to hold down a job for $1305 a month (or can't get hired for whatever reason), I somehow doubt that making it a cool $1455 a month is going to change many (if any) minds, especially when you can make that much per day through illegal activities, and have much shorter hours. Likewise, even 50 bucks a month for attending school... well, like I said, *I* "went" to an affluent suburban high school when I moved to this country, and you couldn't have coaxed me into full time attendance for 100 times that, so the incentivizing effect of $50 is vastly outweighed by the general shittiness of American education, under the best of conditions, let alone "inner city school" conditions.

Like sending your 12 year old kid to school. WTF else is s/he doing that's earning you more money?

I'm not sure about the 12 year old, except to say that I'm not sure we should be teaching our 12 year olds to prostitute themselves for $50... lest that lead to... well, our 12 year olds prostituting themselves for $50. In deference to Catgrrl's wishes, I'll just leave it at that for the 12 year olds.

However, as a 14 year old, I had a thriving business in the procurement of... "ethanol solutions" and the creation of "alternate identity documentation." And frankly, 50 bucks wasn't enough to motivate me to go to school if something better was going on, and I even had customers and a business to think about! And, of course, compared to some of my classmates who specialized in non-ethanol intoxicants, I wasn't even making enough money to be worth stealing from.

To say nothing of the fact that, well... 50 bucks probably isn't worth enough to attend school full time even if you're flat broke (unless you were planning on going to school in the first place).

[Dreadnaught]

You realize that the school grants were for your kid attending school, right?

[Nessus]

Fair point.

Please tell me this was sarcasm and you just forgot a smilie face

[Dreadnaught]

I didn't refresh before replying, I was referring to Catgirl. Edited now.

[Lewkowski]

Public education in america is a joke. Only reason America is believed to have a "good education" is because of selectively elitist Ivy League colleges. Even the magnet schools here are jokes apart from maybe TJHSS (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology). The standard is so low. No mandatory second language, scantron texts, lazy teachers, biased teachers, list goes on.

Yeah our public education system is bad. But why the hell is a mandatory second language an issue? This is America the world's only superpower. It makes sense for someone in Germany or France to learn English or someone in Japan to learn English but why would it be *necessary* for all kids in American to learn a second language? Sure have it for an elective if you wish to travel to those places or need to know the language for specialized careers but what a complete waste for 95+% of the population.

and wut? socialism? we've always been a socialist nation. This is ridiculous, morons always say "America ain't socialist YEEEEEHAAAAAW" because socialism isn't:

Define socialism. Having laws, courts, police and a military does not make one socialist.

[littlelolligagged]

I wasn't blaming the commies, no... more pointing out that we might have been wise to consider if the idea for "one size fits all" education was an idea worth stealing... before we stole it and imposed it the country.

Well, I'd say there is something to be said for an attempt at everyone learning to read, write, and do some basic arithmetic - even if it is Marxist. The idea didn't come from the Soviets at all. And it works in many places. So either Americans are inherently stupid, or the problem is actually the way we bastardized the idea.

Well, regarding the latter type - the school voucher movement is actually a drive to end public education as we know it, by introducing more people to competition in primary education. The idea being that if there's more of a competitive market for primary schooling, the shitty government option will fail (as it always does when exposed to anything resembling a free-market system) and the successful market options will prevail. The government voucher is just a transitional state to get us from a virtual government monopoly on primary education... to a virtual absence of a government option in primary education.
Or so the thinking goes, at least.

But in their perfect world, there should be no government involvement at all. If you're still wanting the government to be involved in education (even by just partially footing the bill), you're still looking at the socialist option. Improve the schools we have instead of taking away the fucking funding they need.

Promises, promises. Last time you said that, I was left playing with myself for hours... and ended up getting a lecture from the priest about the evils of masturbation.

Next time you play with yourself, don't tell the priest, silly.

[Young Mage]

Yeah our public education system is bad. But why the hell is a mandatory second language an issue? This is America the world's only superpower. It makes sense for someone in Germany or France to learn English or someone in Japan to learn English but why would it be *necessary* for all kids in American to learn a second language? Sure have it for an elective if you wish to travel to those places or need to know the language for specialized careers but what a complete waste for 95+% of the population.

And certain States/Counties might eliminate the music courses. Kind of sad since it's proven that bilingualism and playing an instrument cause most students to do better in school, standardized test, keeps them out of trouble, and impedes brain diseases.

Define socialism. Having laws, courts, police and a military does not make one socialist.

Well, Americans define "socialism" and what's happening in Europe/Canada. I frankly don't really care about how socialist a country is as long as I can masturbate whenever I want. I don't want them dictating when I can or can't play "jingle bells". But i'm just saying that America is socialist to a certain degree and anarchism would suck ass.

[CitizenCain]

You realize that the school grants were for your kid attending school, right?

No, but makes it even worse. The kid has no incentive, and in order to make 50 bucks a month, you'd have to hire a full time baby-sitter to make sure your child doesn't just ditch out out of school after the first class (like I did)?

Well shit, full time child monitoring couldn't possibly cost far more than $50 a month.

it's proven that bilingualism and playing an instrument ... impedes brain diseases.

I know I'm going to regret this, but...

[Citation Required]

anarchism would suck ass.

Do the class a favor and define "anarchism," please.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. -- Oscar Wilde