If you quilify for welfare do you get actual money?

[Granny square]

I work in auditing and several years ago went to a conference hosted by a (now retired) world expert in auditing and fraud. At that time, our state was paying out a lot of money in post-Katrina programs. The expert said something that, once said, seems fairly self-evident, but isn't until you hear it. One of the unintended functions of any system is fraud. You can decrease the fraud over time by adjusting the system, but you will never get rid of it entirely. In other words, in any program that you put into place, someone out there is going to be looking at it to see how he/she can defraud that program. Once you plug those holes, someone else will be looking to find other ways to defraud the program. If you have really good regulators and auditors and buy-in from people who are aware of the program or system you can eventually reduce the fraud to the point that very few fraudsters get any money from the income stream. So new programs will have lots of fraud. Older, well-funded programs will have very little fraud. In any case, your ultimate choices are to either accept that there will be some amount of fraud and have the program (system) in place or not to have that program (system). The only way to have a system without fraud is to not have that system. So you can have a military with fraud, or you can have no military. You can have social programs to help feed those who are hungry with some amount of fraud, or you can have no program. It really put things into a new perspective for me.

Really good information and post

 

[eliza61]

I work in auditing and several years ago went to a conference hosted by a (now retired) world expert in auditing and fraud. At that time, our state was paying out a lot of money in post-Katrina programs. The expert said something that, once said, seems fairly self-evident, but isn't until you hear it.

One of the unintended functions of any system is fraud. You can decrease the fraud over time by adjusting the system, but you will never get rid of it entirely.

In other words, in any program that you put into place, someone out there is going to be looking at it to see how he/she can defraud that program. Once you plug those holes, someone else will be looking to find other ways to defraud the program. If you have really good regulators and auditors and buy-in from people who are aware of the program or system you can eventually reduce the fraud to the point that very few fraudsters get any money from the income stream. So new programs will have lots of fraud. Older, well-funded programs will have very little fraud.

In any case, your ultimate choices are to either accept that there will be some amount of fraud and have the program (system) in place or not to have that program (system). The only way to have a system without fraud is to not have that system.

So you can have a military with fraud, or you can have no military. You can have social programs to help feed those who are hungry with some amount of fraud, or you can have no program.

It really put things into a new perspective for me.

LOL. Hey SC, my daddy had a very similar saying. He was a nyc cop for over 30 years.
I remember when I brought my first car the sales man tried to get me to purchase some fancy dancy alarm system. Pop said don't bother.

He said that for every car alarm purchaser there is a car thief buying the same exact system and figuring out a way around it.

 

[eliza61]

How about we stop allowing snap cards to buy everything edible in the store?

How about we stop allowing snap cards to be accepted at 7-11 type stores?

No matter how much we try to help some people will "work the system"

What the heck is wrong with making people more responsible with welfare?

Control and limitation have to start some where.

The fix is flat tax on everything you buy from house to underwear, just not food.

NOthing, except right from that statement you are assuming that folks on welfare are irresponsible.

So first let me say the people who come to my church for services do so willingly, so they are already working hard to try and better themselves.

Camden NJ had NO, ZERO, zip nada food supermarkets as we know them.

I think the last one just moved out some time this past summer. Here's an article about the last pathmark leaving town.

Every thing else is primarily Bodegas and 7/11. In order to get to the nearest grocery store you have to have a car. Even if you could get to one on public transportation, that means roundtrip fare for most likely two people because you cannot carry those bags yourself.

During the summer things were a bit easier because Jersey has lots of farmers markets that operate giving them a chance to at least get a few fresh fruits and vegetables but I'm not sure if they accept snap cards.

When I first started volunteering at our food bank we were two days a week, we are now up to 5. During the last week of the month we literally have folks waiting outside our doors at the crack of dawn because their benefits have run out.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-08/news/41856913_1_pathmark-camden-super-fresh

Now as far as allowing them to buy or not buy some thing. ONce again your statement shows you know very little about what a true person living in poverty will buy.

For someone in poverty steaks are unheard of. Period end of conversation.
Cookies, cakes and treats are brought very very sparingly.
I remember a few weeks ago a women who came in and saw that some one had donated boxes of Matzo. She asked if she could have some, she was clearly not Jewish so I told her what I knew of Matzo. She still wanted them, was going to use them as a "treat" for her kids. Sorry Laudris, that's not irresponsibility that's desperation. When you are willing to take a box of matzo in the hopes of being able to serve it as a dessert, you are desperate.


this is long so I'll answer your question in another post.

 

[eliza61]

How about we stop allowing snap cards to buy everything edible in the store?

How about we stop allowing snap cards to be accepted at 7-11 type stores?

No matter how much we try to help some people will "work the system"

What the heck is wrong with making people more responsible with welfare?

Control and limitation have to start some where.

The fix is flat tax on everything you buy from house to underwear, just not food.

1. I'm not into creating more governmental agencies but here are a few things that might help.
2. I'm coming from what I see in my neck of the woods. I am not an expert. These suggestions probably might not work in your neck of the woods.
3. Once again the majority of folks I see are not irresponsible. punishing them and treating them like criminals is cruel. They are adults trying to survive, most have children who no fault of their own are caught in poverty. Telling them or making them feel bad for buying a gallon of ice cream is just as bad as trying to shame a fat person into losing weight. rarely works.


So here it goes.

1) give small businesses tax incentives to do business in hood. Philly just gave some hotel conglomerate a 300 million dollar tax break to build 2 new hotels. If we can give a hotel chain some tax breaks to build luxury hotels, we can give some small mom and pop grocery store a tax break also.

2). Tie the snap cards to reward benefits like credit card companies. maybe some thing like if you have a snap card and 75% of your purchases for the month are fruits and vegetables you get a 7 dollar bonus. I got this idea from my hair dresser. when fees went up on her for accepting credit cards, she didn't want toeat the fees and didn't want to give the perception that she was penalizing those who used their atm cards. so what she did was starting giving a % off for anyone who paid in cash. the majority of her clients including myself now pay in cash.

3) bring back home ec in school. people don't wake up one day and automatically know how to shop smart or cook smart. Believe it or not I learned a lot from the budget board. some one here taught me how to make 2 great dishes with beans and when I complained about my family not eating leftovers and how much money I felt I wasted by throwing food out, I got a ton of great ideas from you guys. Knowledge is power. Knowledge leads to responsible choices.

4) Have some type of scale up intervention. You are absolutely right in that if some one is one snap for years on end there maybe a deeper problems. Maybe institute some sort of checks and balances. say if a person is on snap for a year they cannot automatically renew.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm all for fixing all the problems. I'm just bothered that we initially blame the poor first. I just think that the problem begins with the head and goes down from there. The poor just end up being the whipping dogs.

Exactly. By the numbers there isn't that much fraud - numbers thrown around in Congress lately suggest around $220 million out of nearly $70 billion in SNAP spending. SNAP is, by nearly every possible measure, a highly successful program - it is used for what it is intended to provide by the vast majority of recipients, with a low rate of fraud overall.

 

[Colleen27]

1
2). Tie the snap cards to reward benefits like credit card companies. maybe some thing like if you have a snap card and 75% of your purchases for the month are fruits and vegetables you get a 7 dollar bonus. I got this idea from my hair dresser. when fees went up on her for accepting credit cards, she didn't want toeat the fees and didn't want to give the perception that she was penalizing those who used their atm cards. so what she did was starting giving a % off for anyone who paid in cash. the majority of her clients including myself now pay in cash.

3) bring back home ec in school. people don't wake up one day and automatically know how to shop smart or cook smart. Believe it or not I learned a lot from the budget board. some one here taught me how to make 2 great dishes with beans and when I complained about my family not eating leftovers and how much money I felt I wasted by throwing food out, I got a ton of great ideas from you guys. Knowledge is power. Knowledge leads to responsible choices.

4) Have some type of scale up intervention. You are absolutely right in that if some one is one snap for years on end there maybe a deeper problems. Maybe institute some sort of checks and balances. say if a person is on snap for a year they cannot automatically renew.

In Michigan, there is a program that matches the first $20 SNAP recipients spend at farmer's markets with $20 in tokens that can only be used for produce. I think that's brilliant since it directly addresses one of the primary issues recipients cite as a reason for not buying more fresh food, and unlike grocery stores there are quite a few participating farmer's markets operating in poor areas. By all accounts the program has been immensely successful and popular.

Bringing back home ec is a nice thought but not a viable one in the current educational climate. Kids barely have any opportunity to choose elective classes as it is with high school graduation requirements increasingly mimicking college admissions recommendations. We're losing voc-ed programs and other electives left and right because not enough kids are able to make room for them; if optional, there wouldn't be enough interest to sustain home ec and if mandatory it just adds to the load that is supplanting the arts, academic electives, and vocational programming in our high schools.

I agree with some sort of scaling intervention for long-term recipients. That's one of the big weaknesses in the system as it exists now, IMO. There are work requirements, which is an admirable idea on its face, but since higher education and vocational training do not count towards those requirements often all that is accomplished is moving someone from unemployed and getting food stamps to making minimum wage and getting food stamps. Most of the long-term food stamp cases in my area are working families but because low-wage jobs tend to be part time and/or unstable and fewer & fewer businesses are promoting from within or giving wage increases based on longevity or inflation, without further training or some sort of skill they could remain on food stamps almost forever.

 

[Granny square]

Our home ec was a jr high option. There were few electives so it was pretty standard.

Frankly a daily living skills class is needed. Most kids can't cook, sew on a button, change a tire, or check their oil, balance a checkbook or do their laundry. It is scary what we see in the college arena when it comes to those skills

 

[kymom99]

The school where I teach ahs easily a half dozen high school students who are released from class for 1/2 day to come over and intern at our school. These are supposed to be kids who want to be teachers, so in theory they are kids who are in a college prep track of classes. If they can manage to get all their credits and be able to do this, I don't think a semester of home ec is out of the question.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

The school where I teach ahs easily a half dozen high school students who are released from class for 1/2 day to come over and intern at our school. These are supposed to be kids who want to be teachers, so in theory they are kids who are in a college prep track of classes. If they can manage to get all their credits and be able to do this, I don't think a semester of home ec is out of the question.

In my state, students are required to have 24 credits to graduate. If the students take 7 classes a year, they can have 28 total by graduation without summer school or additional online classes. So 4 credits extra - but only if no classes are failed. Of those 24, 21 credits are mandatory courses. If a student participates in band or atheletics, their "extra" credit pool is further restricted. (Each requires one extra class and credit for each year the student participates.)

The credit requirements mean most college bound students will not take home ec, and non-college bound students would rather take a vocational class with those precious extra credits.

Personally, I think home ec would be more beneficial in the real world to kids than Chemistry, but our state education board apparently does not agree.

 

[Colleen27]

In my state, students are required to have 24 credits to graduate. If the students take 7 classes a year, they can have 28 total by graduation without summer school or additional online classes. So 4 credits extra - but only if no classes are failed. Of those 24, 21 credits are mandatory courses. If a student participates in band or atheletics, their "extra" credit pool is further restricted. (Each requires one extra class and credit for each year the student participates.)

The credit requirements mean most college bound students will not take home ec, and non-college bound students would rather take a vocational class with those precious extra credits.

Personally, I think home ec would be more beneficial in the real world to kids than Chemistry, but our state education board apparently does not agree.

That's how it is here - 22 credits required to graduate, 19 of them specific requirements. Most schools around me run 6 classes per day, so kids who don't fail any courses have 24 credits to work with - usually one elective per year with a second in their senior year. Kids who are in band or choir only get that one senior year elective, and the only vo-tech programs that can co-exist these days are those with courses that can count towards science and math requirements because there's no room for half-day programs that don't advance the required curriculum.

I'm with you - I think home ec, vocational training, and other "non academic" offerings would be of more use in the real world than the advanced math and science that is required under the "merit" curriculum (which was actually based in part on the course sequence the top college in our state recommends applicants take), but with the current educational mindset focused on sending every kid off to college those who are going straight into the "real world" don't get much consideration.

 

[disneylover1980]

I have not read through the 11 pages of comments, but I can say to the OP that I have had similar experiences with my old neighbors. These guys were ridiculous! They lived in a Habitat for Humanity house ($200 mortgage a month) on medicaid so they paid NOTHING to "have" their kids at the hosital....she even bragged once when I was telling her how much we were going to have to pay to have out daughter there ($5,000+ with our insurance) They both work, and still qualify for food stamps, monthly cash assistance, housing credits, etc. They have 2 motorcycles, a new ford explorer, a ford F250 power diesel track to haul their covered trailer with their 2 2-wheelers, and they recently just bought a PRIUS. Seriously? We bust our tails, and we do have nice things, but it's like.....really? I couldn't WAIT to move away from them, I would get SO angry listening to her BRAG about how they CAN and DO work the system here. Right before we moved they were having poo companies come in to give them quotes on how much it would cost to put in an in ground pool.

 

[North of Mouse]

If you know them, report them. Theft is theft. I believe it is very rare, as I believe most criminal activity is very rare, but rare doesn't mean non-existent and so if somebody is committing welfare fraud, they should be stopped, which should also resolve your concerns about their fraudulent activity.

Rare, eh? welfare fraud, criminal activity?? You MUST be living in 'la-la land'!!!

 

[Granny square]

I have not read through the 11 pages of comments, but I can say to the OP that I have had similar experiences with my old neighbors. These guys were ridiculous! They lived in a Habitat for Humanity house ($200 mortgage a month) on medicaid so they paid NOTHING to "have" their kids at the hosital....she even bragged once when I was telling her how much we were going to have to pay to have out daughter there ($5,000+ with our insurance) They both work, and still qualify for food stamps, monthly cash assistance, housing credits, etc. They have 2 motorcycles, a new ford explorer, a ford F250 power diesel track to haul their covered trailer with their 2 2-wheelers, and they recently just bought a PRIUS. Seriously? We bust our tails, and we do have nice things, but it's like.....really? I couldn't WAIT to move away from them, I would get SO angry listening to her BRAG about how they CAN and DO work the system here. Right before we moved they were having poo companies come in to give them quotes on how much it would cost to put in an in ground pool.

Did you actually read the op? Think not

 

[angierae]

That's how it is here - 22 credits required to graduate, 19 of them specific requirements. Most schools around me run 6 classes per day, so kids who don't fail any courses have 24 credits to work with - usually one per year with a second in their senior year. Kids who are in band or choir only get that one senior year elective, and the only vo-tech programs that can co-exist these days are those with courses that can count towards science and math requirements because there's no room for half-day programs that don't advance the required curriculum.

I'm with you - I think home ec, vocational training, and other "non academic" offerings would be of more use in the real world than the advanced math and science that is required under the "merit" curriculum (which was actually based in part on the course sequence the top college in our state recommends applicants take), but with the current educational mindset focused on sending every kid off to college those who are going straight into the "real world" don't get much consideration.

My daughter graduated in 2013. Her freshman year she had no electives because she took band, and the health/gym was mandatory. Since she did band all four years, that only left her one other elective her junior and sophmore years, and I think she had two other electives her senior year because she didn't have to take four years of science.

But it really didn't leave much room for her to explore electives, which I think is SO important for kids to get an idea of what they enjoy before they head off to college.

Our county has a voc-ed program kids can transfer into which gives them a bit more job training than the general high school program, but there's a stigma that comes with it, so a lot of kids are reluctant to choose it.

 

[Colleen27]

Our county has a voc-ed program kids can transfer into which gives them a bit more job training than the general high school program, but there's a stigma that comes with it, so a lot of kids are reluctant to choose it.

Our county has an excellent voc-ed program too, but it gets in the way of everything else because it has to be in addition to all the other requirements. So it tends to be popular only among kids who aren't very involved at their home high schools.

My son thought for sure that was the way he'd go... until he actually got to high school and started talking to students who are in the program. He'd have to give up band, and if his tech program is scheduled for afternoon - which he wouldn't know until getting his junior year class schedule - it would get in the way of football and drama (and any other after-school activities) as well because he'd chronically be an hour late for practices/meetings. So even though he's still planning on a career for which the vo-tech school offers specific training, he's now thinking he'll take the same program at the community college rather than give up so much of his high school experience in order to get a head start on career training.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Rare, eh? welfare fraud, criminal activity?? You MUST be living in 'la-la land'!!!

Why are you being snarky and rude? If you have empirical evidence that it is more common than I believe, please cite it. I have read the usual anecdotes in this thread, but not read any actual empirical data to show that it's common. I find it surprising that something that is declared by so many to be such a pervasive issue cannot be proven to be prevalent with some sort of empirical data.