Do Generous Social Programs Entice the "Wrong Element" to Move to a City?

[amykhar]

Around Berks County, PA, the talk is about a county commissioner who is running for judge. He believes that many of our city's problems are caused by poor people. And, he says, generous social programs entice these kinds of people to move to Reading.

Get rid of the social programs, he argues, and many of the problem citizens will move away.

Social workers and other experts have rebutted him and said that
a) we don't have any better social programs than other places.
b) Getting rid of social programs wouldn't help matters. It would just make things worse for the poor who do live here.

What do you think? Do areas with better social programs lure in the poor, who in turn commit more crimes and drain more community resources from working people?

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

In my experience, people don't move far unless they know someone where they're going and/or believe there are better employment or other opportunities for them in the place to which they're going. They're not usually looking up how much a monthly welfare check will be in State X, but they'll be looking for jobs, educational opportunities, and the like - so if one of the benefits to which the judge is referring is job training, that just might have some influence, but not much.

Meanwhile, checking with local social service providers and asking where their new applicants lived a year ago can provide some harder evidence one way or the other.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

There's been debate here in S.F. about whether a recent decline in the homeless population is due to homeless people just picking up and moving to other counties because their welfare benefits were slashed under the "Care Not Cash" program, or whether the decline was due to some other reason (the success of Care Not Cash in getting people housed; or maybe there wasn't a decline at all, but instead innacurate counting in the study). This isn't totally analogous to what the guy you're talking about is advocating -- it's not a matter of having NO services, it's a matter of substituting good services for cash handouts -- but, assuming that cash will be more popular with many people than services, the principle, in part, is the same, and the (disputed) question is whether the cash reduction encouraged people to move out of town. (Although even framing the question that way seems provincial to me -- so, say the homeless do move to the county next door -- that hasn't solved anything, unless you're a local official who cares only about the things that are your immediate responsiblity.)

[frazzledspice]

If that's true, how come there is so little poverty and crime in Western Europe?

A woman I know who taught in Austria for several years said it was like heaven on earth compared to the U.S.--no poverty, clean streets, very little crime, well-educated, healthy citizens.

[phoenixx]

I must admit to knowing very little about the differences in social services structure from city to city. That said, I can't imagine social service availability or lack thereof would entice someone with little or no cash into a move of any magnitude. The most I can see the availability affecting a city's population of poor is perhaps causing people already in the area to move closer to the city to be closer to the serice(s) they need. Even that much I see being based much more on the availability of public transportation and housing than on services. It would be interesting to take two cities who had made sweeping changes to their social service structure over the last two years and track how their particular changes affected their population of poor and the population of cities within a short distance away that have different policies and services.

[realtraveller]

Money and material things have no influence on human behavior.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

No one is saying money and material things do not influence behavior. For most people they do not constitute the ONLY things that influence behavior, and they do not influence ALL behavior. For example, I know people who sat down at a computer and looked up internet information on school districts before buying a house. I don't hear of clients who research how much they'll get if they go "on the dole" in another city. I do hear of clients moving after talking to a cousin who lives in XYZ town who says "there's jobs available, come live here." IIRC many states have residency requirements - you can't move there and apply for financial assistance, you have to have lived there for a year or so first.

[taurusmoon]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Or not.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I don't hear of clients who research how much they'll get if they go "on the dole" in another city.

Info gets passed by word of mouth. I think that if there is a big difference in "dole" payments between one county and another, and if there is no residency requirement, then yeah, some people will pick up and move a few miles in order to get more money. Same thing with the availability of public housing and/or Section 8 vouchers, especially when the housing market is tight and/or expensive. Or residential treatment programs for the mentally ill or addicted, again especially if those kinds of services are scarce. If you build it, generally speaking, they will come. And seems like there's always a vocal "not in my backyard" contingent protesting any increase in services, especially residential services, for that reason. But that doesn't solve anything.

[frazzledspice]

Frequently the poorest people are the people who can't afford to move somewhere else.

If you can remember back to your student days, or your youth, think about the expenses of moving into a new apartment.

There might be a utilities deposit, a phone company deposit, a month's security on a lease.

Sure, these things might only amount to $500, but $500 is an awful lot of money to a very poor person.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

AuntieEmma said

some people will pick up and move a few miles

"a few miles" I can see. From Florida to New York State is rare. Distance definitely plays a part. If you're only looking for a bigger welfare check, you're probably not going cross-country.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

"a few miles" I can see. From Florida to New York State is rare. Distance definitely plays a part. If you're only looking for a bigger welfare check, you're probably not going cross-country.

Yeah, I agree. The reason I'm thinking of "a few miles" is because of my local situation, where before Care Not Cash, San Francisco used to have significantly higher welfare payments for the homeless than the surrounding counties. So there is a difference of literally just a few miles (and in some cases a bridge, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle). Anyway, the studies that have become so controversial show that as the homeless population declined in S.F., it did go up in the neighboring counties. Again, there are all sorts of questions about whether that really demonstrates cause and effect, and questions about the accuracy of the studies, but it's at least plausible that some people left S.F. because their payments got slashed.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

It also depends on what type of "poor" you're talking about. The hard-core, homeless-begging-for-cash are usually a very small percentage of the numbers of people collecting Food Stamps, TANF, WIC and other financial/in kind services in a given month. Most people stay on the rolls temporarily - those are probably people already living in the city/county who have a temporary need. Slashing their benefits won't solve the problem of "problem citizens," as this candidate put it. And "poor" does not automatically equal "criminal."

[AuntieEmma[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

It also depends on what type of "poor" you're talking about. The hard-core, homeless-begging-for-cash are usually a very small percentage of the numbers of people collecting Food Stamps, TANF, WIC and other financial/in kind services in a given month. Most people stay on the rolls temporarily - those are probably people already living in the city/county who have a temporary need. Slashing their benefits won't solve the problem of "problem citizens," as this candidate put it. And "poor" does not automatically equal "criminal."

I agree with all that. With one other major exception -- if the "benefits" have to do with housing. Some people will actually move fairly large distances (at least within a state) in search of an elusive Section 8 housing voucher.

I don't like what the candidate is saying. Sounds like a combination of scapegoating and making excuses for being mean. But it's still true that some benefits will entice people to move around. What those benefits are does depend on the situation (a distinction the candidate doesn't appear to be making).

[anderclayton]

frazzledspice said

Frequently the poorest people are the people who can't afford to move somewhere else.

If you go with the poorest poor I'd have a problem with the statement. Transients are actually pretty mobile. They don't have a place to live so they can pick up and move whenever they feel like it. I was a little surprised when I hung out with some one morning and they were talking about all of the places that they had been (one at least had just come in from cross country). I'd grant you that they do seem to stick to the same area (I've seen homeless people I recognize off and on) but the only cost to relocating for the homeless is transportation (and food along the way) which is a pretty minimal cost if you can bum rides.

The next rung up though, I'd say there are minimal costs. We are talking destitute people here. People with not many belongings (which are the major cost of moving). This really isn't that much of a problem if you are single and have no kids. You do have the phone line switching problem for which to account (but if you have a cell phone that isn't a problem as long as you aren't leaving the coverage area and isn't that much of a problem besides). On the other hand, if you are poor poor you might not have a phone so no problem there. If you are single you should probably rent a room as opposed to getting your own apartment (lots cheaper) and if you find the right person you can get a room with no deposit (or at least minimal deposit).

The 'with kids' thing really is the sticker though and I'd imagine that more people 'with kids' actually relocate to get benefits. It is definitely a major consideration when considering relocation to a new job when you go further up the economic ladder.

Ander

[Redlass]

First, I think his philosophy is wrong because wealth does not make someone a more or less desirable neighbor.

Second, if we were to accept the judge's belief that poor people are bad for the neighborhood, it does seem a matter of "let's force our problems on another community" rather than trying to solve the problem themselves. It is narrow-minded and lacks and sort of civic mindset.

[anderclayton]

Second, if we were to accept the judge's belief that poor people are bad for the neighborhood, it does seem a matter of "let's force our problems on another community" rather than trying to solve the problem themselves. It is narrow-minded and lacks and sort of civic mindset.

There are poor people and then there are dependant poor people (people that accept the handouts and depend on them to live as they are accustomed to living). The judge seems to be talking about the dependant poor people rather than necessarily just any poor people.

If I were living in a place I'd prefer to not have many dependant poor people in my area personally.

Ander

[wivabef]

frazzledspice said

If that's true, how come there is so little poverty and crime in Western Europe?

A woman I know who taught in Austria for several years said it was like heaven on earth compared to the U.S.--no poverty, clean streets, very little crime, well-educated, healthy citizens.

This is an argument that comes up frequently. However, if you look at the demographics of Austria, and many other Western European countries, you are looking at a very homogenous society. Even after accepting the many refugees that sought asylum in Austria during the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, the country is 98% German speaking and 74% Catholic.

In response to the "native" folk feeling crowded, they enacted new immigration laws recently, one requiring that recent arrivals take integration courses where they learn to speak German.

What does this all have to do with crime? A society with stricter laws and higher expectations of its population is going to have a population that on the whole, behaves itself better. However, the curious high ranking across the board in suicide rates tells me that variety is the spice of life, and though sometimes you get burned by spice, it's what makes it bearable.

[Redlass]

anderclayton said

There are poor people and then there are dependant poor people (people that accept the handouts and depend on them to live as they are accustomed to living). The judge seems to be talking about the dependant poor people rather than necessarily just any poor people.

If I were living in a place I'd prefer to not have many dependant poor people in my area personally.

Ander

But it still seems poor civics to simply say "move those folks." If they truly are undesirable (and I'm unwilling to call another human being undesirable), then don't you think that the place you move them to is going to be just as unwilling or undesiring of them?

In other words, it's not solving the problem, it's dumping the problem on someone else.

[anderclayton]

Redlass said

But it still seems poor civics to simply say "move those folks." If they truly are undesirable (and I'm unwilling to call another human being undesirable), then don't you think that the place you move them to is going to be just as unwilling or undesiring of them?

In other words, it's not solving the problem, it's dumping the problem on someone else.

Obviously not. Otherwise why wouldn't they have ditched the same programs?

Dumping implies an involunary nature on the other person's part. There isn't lack of choice on the part of either the other areas or the people moving to them. You aren't saying "move those folks" but rather I'm not going to pay for you so what are you going to do now?

Ander