The "Carrot and Stick Approach" to Welfare Programs

Pages

http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/...

NASHVILLE — Legislation to cut welfare benefits of parents with children performing poorly in school has cleared committees of both the House and Senate after being revised to give the parents several ways to avoid the reductions.

The state Department of Human Services, which worked with Republican sponsors to draft the changes, withdrew its previous opposition to SB132. But the measure was still criticized by Democrats, including Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, and Rep. Vance Dennis, R-Savannah. It calls for a 30 percent reduction in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits to parents whose children are not making satisfactory progress in school.

As amended, it would not apply when a child has a handicap or learning disability or when the parent takes steps to try improving the youngster’s school performance — such as signing up for a “parenting class,” arranging a tutoring program or attending a parent-teacher conference.

Dennis told the House Health Subcommittee the measure now only applies to “parents who do nothing.” He described the measure as “a carrot and stick approach.”

As someone who personally believes that programs that encourage parent participation in student's lives is best for everyone, my feelings on this idea are... mixed.

Parents who are already in over their head will fail this, and their situation will just get worse.

I just stop getting shocked by f*ck the poor attitudes, or blaming the poor. It is nothing new in my lifetime, it is nothing new in the last century and a half. I do my small part to help who I can, it is not nearly enough. And substantive reform seems off the table for my lifetime. America's class system is stronger now than ever.

The single greatest predictor of school success is the parent's (singular) socioeconomic status. Poor kids do badly in schools. If the odds to win a hand of blackjack were as good as a poor kid not graduating high school, Vegas would stop offering black jack.

Tennessee lawmakers should be forced to live several months below the poverty line and see just how difficult it is to perform their job well.

Seriously, though. How does it remotely make sense to slash the meager benefits of an economically vulnerable portion of the population when part of the reason the child isn't performing well in school is likely because they're poor?

I have a lot of friends who are teachers. I've heard quite a few stories of how the more disadvantaged children in their classes have come to school hungry. Or how some children fall asleep during class because it turns out their family has been sleeping in a car because they lost their home or apartment. Or how some children have behavior problems because they're not idiots and can tell that their parents are massively stressed. All of these things have been shown to negatively impact academic performance.

Bloo Driver wrote:

As someone who personally believes that programs that encourage parent participation in student's lives is best for everyone, my feelings on this idea are... mixed.

This. But mainly this:

Robear wrote:

Parents who are already in over their head will fail this, and their situation will just get worse.

I can't see this law ending well. (For the parents and kids.)

Perform as well as a middle-class family while living on the daily nutritional value of one carrot, or you'll get the stick!

Sounds like (among other things) a recipe for an increase in kids being diagnosed with learning difficulties. Not to mention the other unintended consequences that will occur such as kids taking easier classes to ensure that a tough class won't cause their grades to suffer.

It also makes me wonder what the point of the legislation is supposed to be, shouldn't changes in public assistance be aimed at making the families self sufficient?

'This American Life' podcast had a good podcast on this matter. It partially covers it. But the main problem is, that families depend on this income...
Which is not good. Don't have a solution either.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Sounds like (among other things) a recipe for an increase in kids being diagnosed with learning difficulties. Not to mention the other unintended consequences that will occur such as kids taking easier classes to ensure that a tough class won't cause their grades to suffer.

It also makes me wonder what the point of the legislation is supposed to be, shouldn't changes in public assistance be aimed at making the families self sufficient?

Part of it is just another step in demonizing people on welfare. The bill itself is not a means to its own end, it's just there for people to point at and say "oh god those lazy welfare bums, they don't even care about their kids" rather than have to face the truth mentioned already: poverty is directly linked to school performance.

The good news is this is in Tennessee. So by virtue of being a Confederate state, there will be higher federal scrutiny on this scheme. If you want to disenfranchise black or hispanics, keep it north of the Mason Dixon Line like Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

There's a program in place in the aboriginal communities here that ties parent's welfare to their children's attendance at school, and from what little I've read it seems to be working quite well so far. Performance is quite a different kettle of fish, though.

I agree with cannibal crowley's prediction about this causing a swath or newly diagnosed developmental issues among the poor. I also wouldn't be entirely surprised to see teachers helping kids cheat so they can maintain whatever low standard of living they currently have.

Seth wrote:

I agree with cannibal crowley's prediction about this causing a swath or newly diagnosed developmental issues among the poor. I also wouldn't be entirely surprised to see teachers helping kids cheat so they can maintain whatever low standard of living they currently have.

You know, I hadn't thought about this. There are few people as keenly aware of the relationship between socioeconomic status and education as teachers. This places in them in a position where they might feel like their intervention can either sustain a family or cut its welfare off. While a rational person will understand that the teacher's responsibility in this issue only goes so far, it's hard to be the teacher in that situation when you feel like fudging a few grades might keep someone in a position to eat next month. And, on the flip side, screwing with some kid's grades to "teach his welfare queen mom a lesson" or somesuch doesn't seem impossible either.

And on the gripping hand, you'll have parents blaming the teacher in either case. We already have a rise of parents deciding the educator is directly to blame for their children's performance. Now this puts more for them to pin on the teacher.

And, on the flip side, screwing with some kid's grades to "teach his welfare queen mom a lesson" or somesuch doesn't seem impossible either.

Wow, and I had not thought of that, but having had my fair share of reaaaaaally conservative teachers who were actually ok with the idea of the school losing money on funding to avoid a tax increase for a school levy... I can't believe I hadn't thought of it.

Another reason for conservatives to oppose, suddenly, teachers are in charged of civil assistance programs.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

I agree with cannibal crowley's prediction about this causing a swath or newly diagnosed developmental issues among the poor. I also wouldn't be entirely surprised to see teachers helping kids cheat so they can maintain whatever low standard of living they currently have.

You know, I hadn't thought about this. There are few people as keenly aware of the relationship between socioeconomic status and education as teachers. This places in them in a position where they might feel like their intervention can either sustain a family or cut its welfare off. While a rational person will understand that the teacher's responsibility in this issue only goes so far, it's hard to be the teacher in that situation when you feel like fudging a few grades might keep someone in a position to eat next month. And, on the flip side, screwing with some kid's grades to "teach his welfare queen mom a lesson" or somesuch doesn't seem impossible either.

And on the gripping hand, you'll have parents blaming the teacher in either case. We already have a rise of parents deciding the educator is directly to blame for their children's performance. Now this puts more for them to pin on the teacher.

I've seen this already with No Child Left Behind and the mandatory testing where the teachers help or flat out cheat for the kids.

Demosthenes wrote:

having had my fair share of reaaaaaally conservative teachers who were actually ok with the idea of the school losing money on funding to avoid a tax increase for a school levy

"HA! How do you like being without a nose, huh? f*ck you, face!"

I have a scenario. What are the originators of this law going to do when a kid from an abusive home is beaten nearly to death or to death for not keeping his grades up and jeopardizing the parent's welfare?

Agent 86 wrote:

I have a scenario. What are the originators of this law going to do when a kid from an abusive home is beaten nearly to death or to death for not keeping his grades up and jeopardizing the parent's welfare?

Blame the Democrats, and use it as further proof that those people are an unfit use of our tax dollars.

You know, maybe the better solution would be to institute a sort of academic bowl for poor kids. Each county allows poor kids to qualify based on grades, then they compete in the academic bowl for welfare and food stamp vouchers. It could be televised like the national spelling bee, use the advertising dollars to help provide tutoring for the students.

They could call it something catchy. Maybe "The Hunger Games."

Farscry wrote:

You know, maybe the better solution would be to institute a sort of academic bowl for poor kids. Each county allows poor kids to qualify based on grades, then they compete in the academic bowl for welfare and food stamp vouchers. It could be televised like the national spelling bee, use the advertising dollars to help provide tutoring for the students.

They could call it something catchy. Maybe "The Hunger Games."

To some extent, we already do that, but we incent for a different outcome. It's the high school football and basketball championships.

Farscry wrote:

You know, maybe the better solution would be to institute a sort of academic bowl for poor kids. Each county allows poor kids to qualify based on grades, then they compete in the academic bowl for welfare and food stamp vouchers. It could be televised like the national spelling bee, use the advertising dollars to help provide tutoring for the students.

They could call it something catchy. Maybe "The Hunger Games."

If you laughed at this, you'll go to hell... and I will see you there.

Edwin wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

I agree with cannibal crowley's prediction about this causing a swath or newly diagnosed developmental issues among the poor. I also wouldn't be entirely surprised to see teachers helping kids cheat so they can maintain whatever low standard of living they currently have.

You know, I hadn't thought about this. There are few people as keenly aware of the relationship between socioeconomic status and education as teachers. This places in them in a position where they might feel like their intervention can either sustain a family or cut its welfare off. While a rational person will understand that the teacher's responsibility in this issue only goes so far, it's hard to be the teacher in that situation when you feel like fudging a few grades might keep someone in a position to eat next month. And, on the flip side, screwing with some kid's grades to "teach his welfare queen mom a lesson" or somesuch doesn't seem impossible either.

And on the gripping hand, you'll have parents blaming the teacher in either case. We already have a rise of parents deciding the educator is directly to blame for their children's performance. Now this puts more for them to pin on the teacher.

I've seen this already with No Child Left Behind and the mandatory testing where the teachers help or flat out cheat for the kids.

Well, that was Teacher's cheating the system for their school, the school's funding, and themselves. They were cheating for their own kids meals/well-being... I imagine they'll be cheating more for dozens of their students' lunches/well-being.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

having had my fair share of reaaaaaally conservative teachers who were actually ok with the idea of the school losing money on funding to avoid a tax increase for a school levy

"HA! How do you like being without a nose, huh? f*ck you, face!"

Yup, I actually made that point with a little less profanity... the teacher told me I didn't understand, I countered that I wasn't sure he did either and spent a pleasant period in the hall reading D&D books.

I just think the updated bill should include that any promotion of creationism counts as failing science.

So, here are my thoughts as a conservative:

Overall it seems a bad law because there are way too many loopholes, it doesn't address homeschooling, and it seems to target the minority of parents who aren't going to do the right thing no matter what you do (short maybe of throwing them in prison). I may not be a big fan of people being on welfare benefits for years, I don't want to begrudge benefits to get people on their feet.

I'd like to play devils advocate in two ways. First, if you're a parent who is receiving both welfare and food stamps, why are your kids coming to school starving each day? That's the whole point of getting assistance. Secondly, as long as poor families weren't singled out, I'm actually not against holding all families somewhat accountable for how their kids perform in school. My friends who teach English in Japan, China and Korea all talk about how everyone in a given neighborhood or town knows which kids are excelling and which kids are failing. To fail at school brings great dishonor to a family.

jdzappa wrote:

I may not be a big fan of people being on welfare benefits for years, I don't want to begrudge benefits to get people on their feet.

What, exactly, do you consider welfare? Technically, welfare is only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Since welfare reform happened back in the 90s those benefits have been capped at 60 months for someone's entire life and there's a requirement that individuals have to participate in "work activities" within 24 months of getting the benefit otherwise it gets cut or goes away.

jdzappa wrote:

I'd like to play devils advocate in two ways. First, if you're a parent who is receiving both welfare and food stamps, why are your kids coming to school starving each day? That's the whole point of getting assistance.

How much money do you think people are getting?

The average TANF in Tennessee is $164.44 a month. The average food stamp benefit in Tennessee per household is about $268 per month and the average benefit per person is about $132 per month. While it's technically possible, it's a bit hard to feed a growing child or ravenous teenager on less than five bucks per day.

And before you say that the parents (technically just parent--singular--in most cases) can just spend their own money to buy more food, you have to realize that they're already living well below the poverty line. The average income for a Tennessee family receiving TANF is just $926 per month.

jdzappa wrote:

Secondly, as long as poor families weren't singled out, I'm actually not against holding all families somewhat accountable for how their kids perform in school. My friends who teach English in Japan, China and Korea all talk about how everyone in a given neighborhood or town knows which kids are excelling and which kids are failing. To fail at school brings great dishonor to a family.

So how are you going to punish poor performers? Raise their taxes? Fine them? What happens if your child has a learning disability or is simply dumb as a rock?

If you're going to be that intrusive, you might as well opt for mandatory government-issued birth control for everyone and couples who wish to have children would have to apply for a permit and then pass a series of tests to ensure they would make good parents and have adequate resources to raise a child.

I feel I might be able to shed a different light on the subject. A few years ago in France (voted in September 2010, enforced in January 2011 to be precise), the government decided to cut certain welfare benefits to families when children stopped showing up in school. This caused quite an uproar at the time, and there was a fierce debate. Are we truly helping families who rely on these benefits (les allocations familiales) and who might be having a hard time keeping their children in line? The typical example that was given was families of North African descent living in the poorer neighborhoods; the young people often turn to drug trafficking. At least, that's the stereotype that we are led to believe in (there are no true studies on the subject matter, so it's all hearsay and popular beliefs; there does seem to be a general trend, but any study with any sort of racial profiling is illegal).

In 2011, 32 000 families were summoned because their child skipped school. In the vast majority of cases, the issue was deemed resolved, but 160 families saw their benefits cut. Of those 160 families, 142 had their benefits restored when the kid went back to school.

Anyway, all this to say that the law was recently repealed. Of course, this isn't a complete surprise as there was a government change in between the two, and undoing what the previous government did seems to be a national sport. President Hollande had, after all, promised to get rid of the offending law.

But still, the question remains: is this really helping? Now I'm aware that there's a huge difference between attending school and doing well in school, but for the sake of argument, I thought it would be interesting to speak of what happened in France.

I'm not convinced that threats are the solution. It's interesting to note that the vast majority of case were resolved by speaking to the parents, letting them know something was going on. Communication is key.

Now on the specific issue that was mentioned in the OP, I definitely think that punishing a child (and his family!) for doing poorly in school is ludicrous. What if the child has a learning disability or is simply dumb as a rock, as OG_slinger puts it so well? It seems to mean that we'd be better off actually figuring why the child is doing poorly, and actually helping him do well.

What i find amusing is the large upswing of people organizing to make sure that Campfield isn't getting reelected next cycle. Not sure if it will work, but there's a lot of vocal angry people around here because of this.

I actually see a school related detriment to forcing kids to show up for their parent's benefits. You have a lot of kids who weren't showing up who don't want to be there... which having done student teaching in a high poverty area, makes the day preeeetty unenjoyable and frequently unproductive for those that do want to be there and show up of their own volition due to an increase in disciplinary measures needed.

Eleima wrote:

But still, the question remains: is this really helping? Now I'm aware that there's a huge difference between attending school and doing well in school, but for the sake of argument, I thought it would be interesting to speak of what happened in France.

I'm not convinced that threats are the solution. It's interesting to note that the vast majority of case were resolved by speaking to the parents, letting them know something was going on. Communication is key.

Now on the specific issue that was mentioned in the OP, I definitely think that punishing a child (and his family!) for doing poorly in school is ludicrous. What if the child has a learning disability or is simply dumb as a rock, as OG_slinger puts it so well? It seems to mean that we'd be better off actually figuring why the child is doing poorly, and actually helping him do well.

I think that acts and laws of this nature don't really get to the point where someone wants to ask if it's helping, though. As I mentioned earlier, the point is more in line with what you said - this is about opinion and public perception. Unlike France, though, we have studies we can fall back on in certain categories. The more I pick over this, the more I am convinced it's less about fixing a problem and more about cementing a perception of guilt and association. If you try to pass a law where kids who do poorly in school get their benefits cut, what you're really saying is, "Look at all these welfare families not even bothering to try and learn or do better for themselves!" It's not about helping, it's about implying there's a huge problem without having to say it. It's about letting people who already have these negative perceptions pass this proposal around and say "See! Welfare families, such problems!"

How does this jive with stuff like Washington State's laws, which already treat truancy as a crime? The school files a petition and takes the family to juvenile court.

According to this report, even that stern a level of intervention didn't really do much.

Bloo Driver wrote:

The more I pick over this, the more I am convinced it's less about fixing a problem and more about cementing a perception of guilt and association. If you try to pass a law where kids who do poorly in school get their benefits cut, what you're really saying is, "Look at all these welfare families not even bothering to try and learn or do better for themselves!" It's not about helping, it's about implying there's a huge problem without having to say it. It's about letting people who already have these negative perceptions pass this proposal around and say "See! Welfare families, such problems!"

Yup. It's exactly the same as the law Florida passed which mandated drug testing for anyone receiving welfare. The (conservative) assumption was that lots of welfare recipients were obviously just using tax payer money to buy drugs. The reality, though, was in the few months the law was in effect before it was blocked by the courts only about 2% of the benefit recipients tested positive for drugs (mostly weed). Most importantly, the screenings cost the state a lot more than it saved from terminating benefits.

I see this as having a similar effect that economic sanctions have on despotic countries.

This will turn more kids, and families against the school system and more kids to crime. What do they think is going to happen when kids have nothing to do and are hungry/starving? Go to school?

And if this happens to enough families you will see them organize and probably not in the most constructive ways. This can range from home schooling collusion to what we already have seen with gangs. And we all know how much more trouble we need with gangs.

Pages