Paying People to Parent?

[chanel]

Stacey Wright had more than a dozen choices when it came to enrolling three of her children in an elementary school, from charters to magnets to traditional public schools in every corner of the city.

She chose Jefferson Elementary School, the brick St. Louis public school across the street. And for that, she may get $900.

For the first time, a local organization is offering parents a cash incentive to enroll their children at Jefferson. The money is limited to students who didn't attend the school last year. To get it, the kids must finish this semester with near-perfect attendance and receive no out-of-school suspensions; the parent must attend three PTO meetings. The program is being offered to families in three mixed-income housing complexes surrounding the school, where most of the students live.

Wright, an in-home caregiver, recently moved with her children to north St. Louis from Oxford, Miss. She's eager to get involved at Jefferson, located at Hogan and O'Fallon streets."It's an awesome deal," Wright said. "A lot of us can use that money. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it makes a big difference."

If the cash makes a difference at Jefferson this semester, Urban Strategies hopes to offer it to more parents at the school, Casas said. The organization also would like to expand the incentive to nearby Dunbar Elementary School, and to other cities where it has partnerships.

"We're hoping it's just a start," Casas said.

Big incentive for school attendance: Cash

Good idea?

 

[Luissa]

That $900 can cover their school supplies and clothes for the year.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Paying People to Parent? I bet there was a cash exchange when Dante was created...

 

[Skull Pilot]

No fucking way.

 

[chanel]

That $900 can cover their school supplies and clothes for the year.

Who says they have to do that? Maybe they're out of weed.

Spoiled rotten entitlement junkies. Kids from other countries are so grateful for a free education, and many Americans not only take it for granted, they want to be rewarded. Makes me nuts.

 

[Luissa]

Maybe they are out of weed?

Do you agree with school vouchers?

 

[chanel]

I believe in school vouchers for kids who have to dodge bullets on their way to school. Who wouldn't?

That has nothing to do with this OP. It's a bribe.

 

[Samson]

No fucking way.

Way:
Urban Strategies, Inc. | strengthening families & building healthy communities

The individuals and families in our communities could not develop their visions for success without the generous contributions of foundations and other philanthropic, public and corporate entities.

Urban Strategies is grateful to the following cities and organizations that have supported us and our partner communities:

Annie E. Casey Foundation
Bank of America
City of Atlanta, GA
City of Chicago, IL
City of Cleveland, OH
City of Washington, D.C.
City of Memphis, TN
City of Minneapolis, MN
City of Pittsburgh, PA
City of St. Louis, MO
Cleveland (OH) Community Foundation
Coca-Cola Foundation
Commerce Bank / William T. Kemper Foundation
Danforth Foundation
Ford Foundation
Gateway Foundation
Gund Foundation
Iron Mom Foundation
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
McKnight Foundation
Women’s Foundation for a Greater Memphis
Minneapolis Empowerment Zone
St. Louis Cardinals Care Foundation
St. Louis Children’s Hospital
St. Louis Community Foundation
St. Louis Empowerment Zone
State of Missouri
Surdna Foundation
US Bank
US Department of Housing and Urban Development

If I were you, I'd stay the fuck out of St. Louis, MO, from which it appears most of the funding for Stacy Wright's $900.00 bribe originates.

 

[lizzie]

Bad idea. Anytime any government entity wants to pay people to make decisions which should require good sense and decency, it's a mistake. Rewarding stupidity and negligence reaps more of the same.

 

[Greenbeard]

Conditional cash transfers aren't a new idea. This sounds vaguely like Mexico's Opportunidades program, which has been extremely effective, or Brazil's Bolsa Família program, which is also showing some positive effects. Michael Bloomberg imported the concept and launched the first American version of this program, Opportunity NYC, a few years ago. The preliminary results for New York's program are also promising.

If Urban Strategies wants to try this and in the end it results in better attendance, better behavior, and more parent engagement, good for them.

 

[Samson]

Conditional cash transfers aren't a new idea. This sounds vaguely like Mexico's Opportunidades program, which has been extremely effective, or Brazil's Bolsa Família program, which is also showing some positive effects. Michael Bloomberg imported the concept and launched the first American version of this program, Opportunity NYC, a few years ago. The preliminary results for New York's program are also promising.

If Urban Strategies wants to try this and in the end it results in better attendance, better behavior, and more parent engagement, good for them.

I agree.

The alternative is throwing $900 at other, pin-headed schemes that don't work, or not investing in this at all. My only issue is the funding from US Department of Housing and Urban Development: I see no reason the Federal Government should be involved in a local school system when civil rights are not an issue.

 

[Middleman]

Similar to some programs implemented paying the non-compliant patient to take their meds.

An absurd sign of the times...

Financial incentives to encourage patient compliance | Patient Compliance | Healthcare Packaging

 

[Ravi]

It's a private organization doing the paying...who the fuck cares? I'm sure if it were a Christian group y'all would be slavering all over yourselves in agreement.

 

[chanel]

Um did you look at Samson's list? Public funds are being used.

Gee - I always thought parents who PAID for their kids education encourage them to do well. Who woulda thunk the opposite would be true as well?

Hey greenbeard - if Mexicos program is so hot, why do so many bus their kids here?

 

[strollingbones]

I believe in school vouchers for kids who have to dodge bullets on their way to school. Who wouldn't?

That has nothing to do with this OP. It's a bribe.

why not police the hoods and make them safe....and have no for school vouchers

 

[Samson]

Um did you look at Samson's list? Public funds are being used.

Gee - I always thought parents who PAID for their kids education encourage them to do well. Who woulda thunk the opposite would be true as well?

Hey greenbeard - if Mexicos program is so hot, why do so many bus their kids here?

Yes, public funds are used, but they are used in every public school system. Mostly these come from the local community, and the state (except Hawaii, which makes no distinction).

The feds contribute little, mostly through the free and reduced lunch program.

If a city or state wants to bribe parents to get their act together, I say fantastic, go for it: if the local voters can be convinced to pay for this, then great.

But, WTF am I paying federal taxes to run the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's incentive program in a St. Louis School? Hell, if Missouri thinks its a great idea, then Missouri should freakin' pay for it.

 

[Ravi]

I'd be interested in seeing you idiots rail against faith base initiatives.

Oh, wait...that will NEVER happen.

 

[Greenbeard]

Hey greenbeard - if Mexicos program is so hot, why do so many bus their kids here?

That's kind of a proof by induction that nothing in Mexico can possibly be good or successful, isn't it? Because you can always use that retort. If the margaritas are so delicious in Mexico, then why do so many people leave?

Anyway, a successful anti-poverty does not a utopia make, nor does it correct for all of a nation's social or economic deficiencies. But it can have effects like these:

The results of the IFPRI evaluation can only be characterized as extremely positive. In the words of the Coordinator of the Oportunidades-IFPRI evaluation, Emmanuel Skoufias:

The results of the evaluation of IFPRI show that after only three years, poor Mexican children living in the rural areas where Oportunidades operates have increased their school enrollment, have more balanced diets, are receiving more medical attention, and are learning that the future can be very different from the past.​

Important positive impacts were reported in school enrollment, health clinic attendance, and nutrition. In the case of education, the largest impacts were reported on children who enter secondary school, where impacts represent a percentage increase of enrollment over 20 percent for girls and 10 percent for boys. Significant health and nutrition effects were also reported. Oportunidades children 1-5 years have a 12 percent lower incidence of illness than non-Oportunidades children (Gertler 2000). Additionally, data suggest that Oportunidades has had large impact on increasing child growth and in reducing child stunting. Behrman and Hoddinott (2000) report an impact of Oportunidades equivalent to an increase of 16 percent in mean growth rate per year (corresponding to 1 cm) for children who received treatment between 12 and 36 months of age.

Good for the kids.

 

[Samson]

Hey greenbeard - if Mexicos program is so hot, why do so many bus their kids here?

That's kind of a proof by induction that nothing in Mexico can possibly be good or successful, isn't it? Because you can always use that retort. If the margaritas are so delicious in Mexico, then why do so many people leave?

Anyway, a successful anti-poverty does not a utopia make, nor does it correct for all of a nation's social or economic deficiencies. But it can have effects like these:

The results of the IFPRI evaluation can only be characterized as extremely positive. In the words of the Coordinator of the Oportunidades-IFPRI evaluation, Emmanuel Skoufias:

The results of the evaluation of IFPRI show that after only three years, poor Mexican children living in the rural areas where Oportunidades operates have increased their school enrollment, have more balanced diets, are receiving more medical attention, and are learning that the future can be very different from the past.​

Important positive impacts were reported in school enrollment, health clinic attendance, and nutrition. In the case of education, the largest impacts were reported on children who enter secondary school, where impacts represent a percentage increase of enrollment over 20 percent for girls and 10 percent for boys. Significant health and nutrition effects were also reported. Oportunidades children 1-5 years have a 12 percent lower incidence of illness than non-Oportunidades children (Gertler 2000). Additionally, data suggest that Oportunidades has had large impact on increasing child growth and in reducing child stunting. Behrman and Hoddinott (2000) report an impact of Oportunidades equivalent to an increase of 16 percent in mean growth rate per year (corresponding to 1 cm) for children who received treatment between 12 and 36 months of age.

Good for the kids.

Yes, if you believe Oportunidades-IFPRI evaluation of their own program, a rather suspiciously glowing, "can only be characterized as extremely positive."

Frankly, whenever the only impact data given is "percentage increase"......RED FLAG.

From MEXICO???

Greenbeard, you strike me as an intelligent fellow: Surely you don't accept this without more scrutiny?

 

[Greenbeard]

Statistics on education, nutrition, and poverty for large populations almost have government support for their obtainment, particularly when they're on the scale of the dataset used by the International Food Policy Research Institute in its evaluation of the program:

The experimental design used for the evaluation of PROGRESA takes advantage of the sequential expansion of the program in order to come up with a set of localities that serve the role of controls. Specifically, the sample consists of repeated observations (panel data) collected for 24,000 households from 506 localities in the seven states of Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Puebla, Queretaro, San Luis Potosi and Veracruz. Of the 506 localities, 320 localities were assigned to the treatment group and 186 localities were assigned as controls. The 320 treatment localities were randomly selected using probabilities proportional to size from a universe of 4,546 localities that were covered by phase II of the program in the 7 states mentioned above. Using the same method, the 186 control localities were selected from a universe of 1,850 localities in these 7 states that were to be covered by PROGRESA in later phases.

In November 1997 PROGRESA conducted a survey of the socio-economic conditions of rural Mexican households (Encuesta de Caracteristicas Socioeconomicas de los Hogares or ENCASEH) in the evaluation communities to determine which households would be eligible for benefits. Then based on PROGRESA’s beneficiary selection methods, households were classified as eligible and non-eligible for participation in the program in both treatment and control communities. The first evaluation survey (Encuesta Evaluation de los Hogares or ENCEL) took place in March 1998 before the initiation of benefits distribution in May 1998. In combination these two surveys provide the baseline observations available for all households before the initiation of the distribution of cash benefits in the treatment villages.

The rest of the evaluation surveys were conducted after beneficiary households started receiving benefits from PROGRESA. One round of surveys took place in October/November 1998 (ENCEL98O), which was well after most households received some benefits as part of their participation in the program. The next two waves took place in June 1999 (ENCEL98M) and November 1999 (ENCEL99N). A number of core questions about the demographic composition of households and their socio-economic status were applied in each round of the survey. These core questions were accompanied by specific questionnaires, focused on collecting information critical to a thorough evaluation of the impact of the program. The topics of these modules included collecting information about family background, assets brought to marriage, schooling indicators, health status and utilization, parental attitudes and aspirations towards children’s schooling, consumption of food and non-food items, the allocation of time of household members in various activities, and self-employment activities.

The preceding surveys were supplemented by school and clinic surveys, community questionnaires, data on student achievement test scores, and other school and clinic administrative data. The evaluation surveys (ENCEL) collected by PROGRESA did not allow for an evaluation of the nutritional component of the program. For the purposes of evaluating the nutritional component of PROGRESA separate surveys of the same families were carried out by the National Institute of Public Health (INSP) in Cuernavaca. These surveys included collection of data on anthropometric measures (weight and height) data of children, collection of blood samples for tests for anemia and other deficiencies.

So if you're asking if I think they manipulated all of that data (to produce results that just happen to agree with evaluations of similar programs implemented in other countries, including the United States), my answer would be no, not unless there is a compelling reason to believe that.