WAMU article about helping the city's poorest - could it help with DCPS?

[Anonymous]

I was driving to work today and heard an article on NPR about DC possibly proposing giving a living wage to the poorest residents. It reminded me of how a lot of people post that DCPS cannot get fixed until the underlying problems of poverty and crime are fixed. Do you think this is a good step? It's not a bill yet; it is just a proposal. What does DCUM think? I want to believe it will help but worry that the District gets these good ideas, but does not make a strategic plan for the ideas. Someone pointed out in a previous post that the city-wide shelter system was not properly implemented.

Here is the link:

https://wamu.org/story/18/03/05/universal-basic-income-help-d-c-s-poorest-get-city-afford/

[Anonymous]

It's interesting, but the city does not have billions of years to run this experiment. It's ironic, because it's truly a conservative idea. Don't tell people how to live, just give them money and let them make choices.

Article:

"Giving low-income D.C. residents direct cash payments could help them make ends meet in a city that is growing more and more expensive, but it would also cost the government anywhere from $380 million to $9 billion a year, depending on how much cash is handed out and how many people get it. It could also prompt some of those residents to stop working, and put at risk billions of dollars in federal funding for safety net programs.

Those are among the conclusions of a new study from the D.C. Council’s budget office, which was asked to consider if what’s known as universal basic income — cash payments to individuals and families, with no strings attached — could be implemented in the city, and at what cost.

“A minimum income program could provide the District with a new, comprehensive tool to alleviate poverty in the city. Such a program would put the District at the vanguard of social safety net policy innovation,” says the study. “However, it would not be without risks.”

Universal basic income has slowly gained currency in some academic and policy circles in recent years as an alternative to traditional social safety net programs used to help low-income families. Proponents say it offers low-income people important and needed flexibility in budgeting for their basic needs, and that those involved in pilot programs have seen improvements on many basic indicators."

[Anonymous]

^^ meant billions per year

[Anonymous]

Yes. The commentariat will flood this with negative responses, but low-income students should get into any DCPS. To me that means you get a surpassing advantage to get any lottery-accessible seat if you have [X] to indicate your low income, e.g., housing vouchers, SNAP, WIC, tax returns - whatever DC uses to do this, preferably without having to have people check a box on the lottery sign up saying "YES I AM POOR HAVE PITY."

If Janney is full of Ward 8 students, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Does the city even have that much money in reserves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The commentariat will flood this with negative responses, but low-income students should get into any DCPS. To me that means you get a surpassing advantage to get any lottery-accessible seat if you have [X] to indicate your low income, e.g., housing vouchers, SNAP, WIC, tax returns - whatever DC uses to do this, preferably without having to have people check a box on the lottery sign up saying "YES I AM POOR HAVE PITY."

If Janney is full of Ward 8 students, so be it.

I like it - this is how they do it in San Francisco, where there are no by-right schools and the whole thing is a lottery -- kids who live in the poorest areas get preference. (I know this bc one of our (wealthy) friends gamed the system by moving into a poor area for the lottery year. It worked -- they got into their top choice.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the city even have that much money in reserves?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

I think it's a good idea. My hometown just got a private grant to try out a universal basic income. No one really knows how it'll play out but clearly things aren't getting better so why not try it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The commentariat will flood this with negative responses, but low-income students should get into any DCPS. To me that means you get a surpassing advantage to get any lottery-accessible seat if you have [X] to indicate your low income, e.g., housing vouchers, SNAP, WIC, tax returns - whatever DC uses to do this, preferably without having to have people check a box on the lottery sign up saying "YES I AM POOR HAVE PITY."

If Janney is full of Ward 8 students, so be it.

Janney has very few lottery-accessible seats. Deal has none and Wilson has none.

This would hurt working-class families who are most dependent on the lottery to help the poorest. Those who can afford to buy their way into good schools would be unaffected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The commentariat will flood this with negative responses, but low-income students should get into any DCPS. To me that means you get a surpassing advantage to get any lottery-accessible seat if you have [X] to indicate your low income, e.g., housing vouchers, SNAP, WIC, tax returns - whatever DC uses to do this, preferably without having to have people check a box on the lottery sign up saying "YES I AM POOR HAVE PITY."

If Janney is full of Ward 8 students, so be it.

I like it - this is how they do it in San Francisco, where there are no by-right schools and the whole thing is a lottery -- kids who live in the poorest areas get preference. (I know this bc one of our (wealthy) friends gamed the system by moving into a poor area for the lottery year. It worked -- they got into their top choice.)

Yes, and San Francisco public schools are now more segregated than ever before.
http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2015-02/as-parents-get-more-choice-sf-schools-resegregate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The commentariat will flood this with negative responses, but low-income students should get into any DCPS. To me that means you get a surpassing advantage to get any lottery-accessible seat if you have [X] to indicate your low income, e.g., housing vouchers, SNAP, WIC, tax returns - whatever DC uses to do this, preferably without having to have people check a box on the lottery sign up saying "YES I AM POOR HAVE PITY."

If Janney is full of Ward 8 students, so be it.

I like it - this is how they do it in San Francisco, where there are no by-right schools and the whole thing is a lottery -- kids who live in the poorest areas get preference. (I know this bc one of our (wealthy) friends gamed the system by moving into a poor area for the lottery year. It worked -- they got into their top choice.)

Yeah, and all SF schools are notoriously bad and people with $ go private. Way to go SF!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea. My hometown just got a private grant to try out a universal basic income. No one really knows how it'll play out but clearly things aren't getting better so why not try it?

I have worked with "the city's poorest" and I'm OK with conditional direct payments: they should be tied to a work/study or counseling requirement and financial literacy classes. All handouts in DC including 8 new homeless shelters, subsidized housing etc. should be. They're paid for by the $ of people who work after all. And if the city really has tax surplus, better yet-- invest in HIGH QUALITY daycare, then offer it subsidized and require parents who use it to work, study or get counseling. If your children are taken care of, you CAN work. And if there is no work, the city should create jobs like cleaning and snow shoveling (to be clear, my grandma was a janitor. It's honest work). To get out of the cycle of poverty, these parents need to set an example of responsibility. Period. If the city simply doles out cash without that expectation, not only will things not change--they'll probably worsen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea. My hometown just got a private grant to try out a universal basic income. No one really knows how it'll play out but clearly things aren't getting better so why not try it?

I have worked with "the city's poorest" and I'm OK with conditional direct payments: they should be tied to a work/study or counseling requirement and financial literacy classes. All handouts in DC including 8 new homeless shelters, subsidized housing etc. should be. They're paid for by the $ of people who work after all. And if the city really has tax surplus, better yet-- invest in HIGH QUALITY daycare, then offer it subsidized and require parents who use it to work, study or get counseling. If your children are taken care of, you CAN work. And if there is no work, the city should create jobs like cleaning and snow shoveling (to be clear, my grandma was a janitor. It's honest work). To get out of the cycle of poverty, these parents need to set an example of responsibility. Period. If the city simply doles out cash without that expectation, not only will things not change--they'll probably worsen.

+1
With the caveat that some people really aren't able to work due to age or disability, and work/study requirements shouldn't be disqualifiying for them. But payments conditional on your kids attending school, or you taking classes, or working? Fine with me. And I totally agree that the city should use the money to create jobs. Even part-time jobs would help. Most people want to have a job--it's a source not just of income but of self-respect. But there have to be jobs they can do and safe and reliable child care for those who need it.

And lots of people have proposed UBI; seems like it's worth a few places trying it to see how it actually works in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea. My hometown just got a private grant to try out a universal basic income. No one really knows how it'll play out but clearly things aren't getting better so why not try it?

They can try it, but several pilots done in the 1970s showed a decrease in the number of people working. What a shock...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The commentariat will flood this with negative responses, but low-income students should get into any DCPS. To me that means you get a surpassing advantage to get any lottery-accessible seat if you have [X] to indicate your low income, e.g., housing vouchers, SNAP, WIC, tax returns - whatever DC uses to do this, preferably without having to have people check a box on the lottery sign up saying "YES I AM POOR HAVE PITY."

If Janney is full of Ward 8 students, so be it.

I like it - this is how they do it in San Francisco, where there are no by-right schools and the whole thing is a lottery -- kids who live in the poorest areas get preference. (I know this bc one of our (wealthy) friends gamed the system by moving into a poor area for the lottery year. It worked -- they got into their top choice.)

You are clueleess I have plenty of friends who fled SF due to the citywide lottery process. That will destroy what little progress DCPS has actually made. And if you fill Janney with a significant of poor kids, guess what? the scores will go down. the building itself is not the magic its just the kids who attend.