New York City to Reward Poor for Doing Right

[Terra8]

New York City to Reward Poor for

Doing Right Thing

Seeking new solutions to New York’s vexingly high poverty rates, the city is moving ahead with an

ambitious experiment that will pay poor families up to $5,000 a year to meet goals like attending

parent-teacher conferences, going for a medical checkup or holding down a full-time job, Mayor

Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday.

Under the program, which is based on a similar effort in Mexico, parents would receive payments

every two months for family members meeting any of a series of criteria. The payments could

range from $25 for exemplary attendance in elementary school to $300 for a high score on an

important exam, city officials said.

The officials said the program was the first of its kind in the country.

The project, first announced in the fall. was scheduled to begin as a pilot program in September

with 2,500 randomly selected families whose progress will be tracked against another 2,500

randomly selected families who will not get the rewards. Officials planned to draw the families

from six of the poorest communities in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx.

To be eligible, families must have at least one child entering fourth, seventh or ninth grade and a

household income of 130 percent or less of the federal poverty level, which equals roughly

$20,000 for a single parent with two children.

The city has already raised $42 million of the $50 million needed to cover the initial program’s

cost from private sources, including Mr. Bloomberg. If it proves successful, the mayor said, the

city will attempt to create a permanent program financed by the government.

Likening the payments, known as conditional cash transfers, to tax incentives that steer people of

greater means toward property ownership, Mr. Bloomberg said that the approach was intended to

help struggling families who often focus on basic daily survival make better long-term decisions

and break generational cycles of poverty and dependence.

“In the private sector, financial incentives encourage actions that are good for the company:

working harder, hitting sales targets or landing more clients,” the mayor said in an announcement

at a health services center in Brownsville, Brooklyn.

“In the public sector, we believe that financial incentives will encourage actions that are good for

the city and its families: higher attendance in schools, more parental involvement in education

and better career skills.”

Some antipoverty advocates have bristled at what they see as the condescending notion that poor

people need to be told how to raise their families. Others have focused on the broader economic

issues at play.

Full Article

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Rewarding people financially ( with tax dollars) for going to school, attending parent-teacher conferences, going for a

medical checkup or holding down a full-time job ... ???

“In the private sector, financial incentives encourage actions that are good for the company:

working harder, hitting sales targets or landing more clients,”

So Bloomberg wants a larger chunk of those private sector financial incentives to redistribute to underachievers

[Startraveler]

Rewarding people financially ( with tax dollars) for going to school, attending parent-teacher conferences, going for a

medical checkup or holding down a full-time job ... ???

First off, it seems very probable that the social benefits of encouraging kids to stay in school, focusing on preventative health care (instead of relying on Medicaid to deal later with things that would've been much cheaper to treat if caught early), and rewarding work will outweigh the financial cost of this program. You might not be aware of this but the government (federal as well as a number of states) already pays poor people to work in the form of a refundable tax credit known as the EITC. It's about making work pay and providing disincentives from remaining entangled in social safety nets. And it's a good idea.

So Bloomberg wants a larger chunk of those private sector financial incentives to redistribute to underachievers

As long as you believe that being poverty-stricken = being an underachiever, you're simply not going to get it.

[Michelle]

Any incentive to get people more involved in their kids education and to learn responsibility is a good thing, in my opinion.

More children are having children every day.

It's better than paying them to sit on their butts.

[Bob26003]

Any incentive to get people more involved in their kids education and to learn responsibility is a good thing, in my opinion.

More children are having children every day.

It's better than paying them to sit on their butts.

I agree with Michelle................ This is a good thing.

Slaving and toiling for minimum wage in some sh** job and still not having enough to pay the rent................ Well, there is just no incentive in that.

But you must remember, Conservatives ......... Unlike Jesus................. Despise the poor and hate helping them...

This article probably had smoke coming out of Terra's ears

Edited May 15, 2007 by Bob26003

[ships-cat]

There have been a number of initiatives to tackle the same problem over here in the UK. There is something called "working tax credits" to help people moving OFF state benefits and INTO low-paid jobs.

The other end of the scale is that benefits start to get removed if the DHSS (UK state benefit administration) think that you're not really trying to GET a job. (ultimately, they will PLACE you in a job and - if you continously fail or goof around - they will cut off your benefits).

Neither initiative has been terribly sucessful: the Working Tax Credit ran into problems with administration and delivery (resulting in organised criminals fleecing the system), and the DHSS "work or get cut off" system is struggling to blossom as - currently - there are far too many loopholes that allow hardened scroungers to defeat the system.

But it's a start.... and given time and determination (and, ultimately, a plank with a nail in it) then I think it will reap dividends.

Meow Purr.

[Terra8]

1977 My tenth grade Urban Studies teacher asked the whole class what we planned to do after high school.

Margaret M. said "I'm gonna have me some babies, go on welfare and get ALL that free money"

Would you call her "Underprivileged" or would you call her an "Underachiever"?

If you think this attitude is a small percentage of the people on public assistance your kidding yourself.

The poor are 1/3 underprivileged and 2/3 underachievers ... and of course we should help the underprivileged.

As long as you believe that being poverty-stricken = being an underachiever, you're simply not going to get it.

As long as you believe that throwing money at a problem will solve it instead of ohh lets say holding parents responsible for not having thier children in school, you're simply not going to get it.

We need to combat the romanticization of ghetto life, the desire in becoming educated or achieving something as some how "Selling Out" and illegitimacy and single parenthood among the underclass.

You cannot buy morality.

But you must remember, Conservatives ......... Unlike Jesus................. Despise the poor and hate helping them...

Once again another rabid comment from the peanut gallery.

Conservatives believe that if you teach a man to fish he will eat for his whole lifetime, while liberals believe that if you keep feeding a man fish he will vote for you his whole lifetime.

Voting records for School Choice Programs are proof of that.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Terra8

[truethat]

Actually this is pretty funny to me because so many people in NYC work off the books.

I worked off the books for years in NY and was surprised to see that in other states its much harder to do.

I don't think NYers are as poor as people think they are.

[Startraveler]

Margaret M. said "I'm gonna have me some babies, go on welfare and get ALL that free money"

Would you call her "Underprivileged" or would you call her an "Underachiever"?

While that's a touching story, it's irrelevant. It tells us nothing about the 37 million poor people in this country, nor does it tell us where Margaret M. ultimately ended up. All it tells us is that a 10th grader bought into the conservative myth of "welfare queens."

If you think this attitude is a small percentage of the people on public assistance your kidding yourself.

AFDC doesn't exist anymore. But now I'm confused. You obviously believe those getting government assistance are riding high on "all that free money" so why do you oppose Bloomberg's attempt to incorporate a new incentive structure? Instead of "free money" (though, again, AFDC was dismantled a decade ago), we now have an anti-poverty program designed to lift people up in exchange for socially responsible action (i.e. the opposite of Margaret M.).

As long as you believe that throwing money at a problem will solve it instead of ohh lets say holding parents responsible for not having thier children in school, you're simply not going to get it.

You posted an article that details a program that uses poverty assistance to hold parents responsible for their children's school attendance. I thought you opposed it. Now I don't know.

Conservatives believe that if you teach a man to fish he will eat for his whole lifetime, while liberals believe that if you keep feeding a man fish he will vote for you his whole lifetime.

Baseless and silly to boot. A liberal recipe.

[Clocker]

The poor are 1/3 underprivileged and 2/3 underachievers ... and of course we should help the underprivileged.

As long as you believe that throwing money at a problem will solve it instead of ohh lets say holding parents responsible for not having thier children in school, you're simply not going to get it.

We need to combat the romanticization of ghetto life, the desire in becoming educated or achieving something as some how "Selling Out" and illegitimacy and single parenthood among the underclass.

Startraveler said most of what I was gonna say, but I was just wondering where that figure comes from. I honestly don't know so I would like to see the source.

Holding parents responsible...what are you gonna do, imprison them if they don't act responsibly? I mean, to provide incentives for success in school...if the aim is to raise people out of poverty, education one way to do it. And to provide incentives for that might be an important factor in a subculture that doesn't normally understand to appreciate it as it is.

I totally agree with you on this. Ghetto romanticization needs to be combatted, and the desire to become educated and to achieve something needs to be pushed. This might just be the push if done correctly. I've brought this up countless times but growing up surrounded by poverty is very different from how most of here most likely have grown up. You can't just tell people that you need to achieve something other than dealing drugs or whatnot; it's not that easy. It's kinda like telling the French to stop smoking...it's in the culture and all around you.