Incomes Up 14% through Opportunity NYC

categories: Activism, Children, Cities, Culture of Poverty, Education, Health & Healthcare, Housing, Hunger, Inequality, Jobs & Unemployment, Nonprofits, Policy, Race Ethnicity Class & Gender, Research, Social Programs, The Economy, Women

Published September 22, 2009 @ 10:03AM PT

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hosting the Organization of American States today to discuss anti-poverty initiatives in the Americas. Featured at the meeting with be the City of New York's Opportunity NYC, a program of conditional cash transfers to low-income families to reward them for specific behaviors: attending school, attending doctor's appointments, working full-time, etc. The Bloomberg Administration, which launched the initiative as one of many anti-poverty programs managed collectively through its Center for Economic Opportunity, has renewed the program for a third year.

The program is both promising and controversial for providing what many deem paternalistic incentives that isolate behavior as the reason households are poor. I agree. But let's face it: Opportunity NYC is increasing annual household incomes by as much as 14% per year. Do we really want to condemn such a result?

Dana Goldstein does a great job weighing the pros and cons and summarizing the very legitimate criticism of Opportunity NYC: it focuses on behavior rather than the structures that keep people from finding work or affordable housing; it is expensive and possibly not providing the right bang for the buck that the feds and philanthropies will want to see, making it not easily scalable; it conditions people to only respond to incentives rather than making permanent changes in their behavior. These are liberal and conservative criticisms, by the way.

It's all true. We could do a lot more long-term work if we plowed that money into affordable housing or subsidizing more deeply higher education. The program reinforces ugly "culture of poverty" beliefs that I'm building a career trying to refute. But, until we get our priorities in order, this program is providing families with an additional $3k per year on annual incomes of about $22,000. That's almost 14% more in take-home income for what are primarily single moms and their kids. Do you realize how far that additional $3,000 can go?

Goldstein focuses on Groundwork, an East NY non-profit that I wrote about in one of my first Poverty in America posts, and its social services for low-income families that have been bolstered via Opportunity NYC. In my post, I wrote:

Its family and child programs, beyond just “modeling” proper behavior, provide books; music, arts and sports programs; field and camping trips; literacy training; tutoring; test prep; paid internships; financial incentives; parent support groups; mental health services and preventative healthcare; and income supplements. These kids and their parents now have access to the stuff that most middle-class families get through high performing suburban and private schools or their checkbooks.

$3,000 per year for low-income families also puts some of these resources within reach: a new freezer for storing food purchased in bulk; nursing classes; a car to get to school or work. Some of the children in these families stand a real chance of working their way out of poverty with this kind of tangible assistance.

My theory of change is that we all play different roles in reforming the system to make it safer and more just. Some of us are grassroots, frontline activists; some of us are professionals working inside the system; some of us are beneficiaries of and spokespersons for the change we need. Opportunity NYC has A LOT of flaws, and I'm pleased to see organizations like the Drum Major Institute push back on this model. OTOH, I'm happy to see low-income families in NYC receive substantial cash flow over which they have some control to spend as they need and wish.

What do you think? How would you respond to Opportunity NYC?

(Photo titled "Phat Wad, Break Me Off Some" by Refracted Moments)

Share this Post

Comments (3)

The program is both promising and controversial for providing what many deem paternalistic incentives that isolate behavior as the reason households are poor. However besides behavioral issues, what other assumption could be taken in in regards to this posting?

One could be just what is expressed, that the program gives monetary incentives to those that have full-time jobs, go to school, keep appointments, etc.. Is this not the actions that we as a socially committed society should be taking, promptness, obligated, responsible, hard working?

I wouldn't mind an effort as such in the Opportunity NYC in my area to help stimulate our weakened economy and provide that social compassion that only money could provide.

Posted by Aaron Shaw on 09/22/2009 @ 11:01AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Aaron
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I would love to have that wad. I would spend most of it educating the public. And pay off my bills. And take a small trip-to a spa in Maine.

To be current on bills is a great feeling.In fact the cable TV, Internet provider, and phone company is one source. and We cannot get high definition on our TV until the entire bill is CURRENT. Just one more way to stick it to the poor.

Common sense tells you if people have even $3,000 a year extra, they will do better in paying their bills.

If I were to design a program showing that more money improves mental and physical health I would semi randomly take families that experienced a financial crisis with in a year Been homeless or hungry and supplement their income to $19.40 on hour, for a year or 2 or 3. Then see how they do the next year.

See if being on equal footing, with 30% of American has changed them so they can support themselves. This is the kind of experiment I would do if Bill Gates, gave me money, to hire staff. Or if Oprah let me appear on her show. I am NOT asking for donations. I am just day dreaming aloud.

Every program not designed by the poor has flaws. This NYC program is great for those they reach. And does nothing for a lot of poor. I am interested to learn the results of the program you have covered.

Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 09/23/2009 @ 08:39AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by jan
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
AARON SHAW, I agree with you. I was born and raised in Sin City and most people don't see the poverty their blinded by the bright lights and big buildings. A program to stimulate is exactly what many towns in America need.

Posted by Aaron Norcia on 10/06/2009 @ 06:07AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Aaron
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.