How Techies Rescued Food Stamps (wired.com)

New submitter rgh02 writes: There is an endless variety of apps designed to manage life for the upper middle class, but most low-income Americans don't benefit from the same time-saving hacks. Thanks to new trends in civic technology, that's beginning to change. The 43 million Americans depending on food stamps are seeing the introduction of apps like Propel's Fresh EBT, which allows users to check balances, track deals, and organize budgets accordingly. And Propel is only one of several companies looking to disrupt outdated social programs, Tonya Riley reports at Backchannel. But the Trump administration, with its hiring freezes and budget cuts, poses threats to these advancements. Riley dives deep into the progress that's been made and how companies are navigating these obstacles.

Comments

The key with businessmen like Trump

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Is to show how this not just reduces time for the EBT customers, but can reduce headcount in government call centers by reducing the need for customer service. I don't understand why techies have never figured out that government and business have similar goals.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[cayenne8]

A couple of things I see.

1. If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps....? Food stamps are for the poor, and the TRULY poor people can't afford luxuries like smart phones....if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.

2. One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[XxtraLarGe]

I don't understand why techies have never figured out that government and business have similar goals.

They have never figured it out because your premise is wrong. Government and business do not have similar goals. Just because Trump wants to cut some sectors of the government doesn't mean that most bureaucrats do. There are many in the government whose goal is to expand the number of people using their services, so they can justify increases in their budgets & staff. As Oscar Wilde put it, "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[PopeRatzo]

2. One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.

This is the "moral hazard" argument, and it's bullshit. Would you ever say that not giving tax credits to big corporations would encourage those companies to be more innovative and productive? Maybe raising taxes on rich people would make them work harder for a change?

Be careful, we are entering an age where it requires a smaller percentage of people working to provide all the goods and services of a consumer society. At that point, we're going to have to become more comfortable with a growing social welfare system or be prepared for some very bad days. And don't assume that when the time comes, you will be among the "makers" and not the "takers".

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[drinkypoo]

Food stamps are for the poor, and the TRULY poor people can't afford luxuries like smart phones....if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.

Smart phones are not a luxury any more; you're a second-class citizen if you don't have one. You can walk into a Wal-Mart or K-Mart and get a prepaid Motorola smartphone for forty bucks any day of the week; you can get a shittier one for twenty, or sometimes on sale for ten. So really, anyone who can afford to take the bus can afford a smartphone.

One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.

These people need help to get to that point, which is what food stamps represent. And if that's not enough help, you still don't want them starving, because that increases crime and disease, which will affect you.

You want to kick people when they are down, which is shit behavior.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[HornWumpus]

Tax credits are given out to get companies to do specific things the government wants more of. But the government is clueless, so it works out as usual. I agree they are mostly terrible ideas, but because the government should be minding it's business, not picking winners.

They aren't the same thing as deductions, which are just expenses.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[mpercy]

When foodstamps can be used at McDonalds (http://firstquarterfinance.com/what-fast-food-places-take-ebt-food-stamps-snap/) and to support tarragon rabbit habits of hipster foodies who won't stoop to eating Ramen noodles to get by, there's something seriously wrong with the system. Not to mention the fact that there appears to be a correlation between foodstamps and obesity, it hardly seems that a "supplemental nutrition program" is needed for people for whom foodstamps may just be adding to their already-overly large calorie intake.

I've no desire to see people starving in the streets, but would not cry a tear for hipster foodies if their foodstamps were good for only bags of rice and and bags of beans. Maybe some small amount of lean protein and some multivitamins. Rice and/or beans may be monotonous, but you won't starve. You want something different, that's up to you. Not a lot of arbitrage value in rice and beans, so that type of fraud would likely be reduced, too.

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/1...

Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding — and her usual gigs — to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she’s used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away.

“I’m eating better than I ever have before,” she told me. “Even with food stamps, it’s not like I’m living large, but it helps.”

Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”

Think of it as the effect of a grinding recession crossed with the epicurean tastes of young people as obsessed with food as previous generations were with music and sex. Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30-somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[BlytheBowman]

2. One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.>>>>> Ah yes, the old "beat them into submission", that the Christians love to use against the "other people", because their book of fairy tales and the sky daddy it is about says to do that. Just hope you don't have some shit happen to you, such as a sudden illness that causes you disability, which will knock you down a couple rungs on the social ladder, forcing you to "live off the gov't teat". I love how these same people that crow about the poor getting welfare don't say a thing about corporate welfare where much of that 'teat money' goes directly into the pockets of the ultra-rich.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[SlaveToTheGrind]

If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps...if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.

Those expenses aren't even close to the same scale. There are plenty of low-end smartphones in the sub-$100 range, and data plans to be had for less than $30 a month (some of which is subsidized by the Lifeline program). Food stamp benefits can run several hundred dollars a month depending on family size.

One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.

Making the use and administration of a welfare program less efficient for all involved seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't know anyone that would disagree that food stamp programs are necessary for at least some people for at least some period of time, and that being the case there's no reason the program shouldn't be as efficient as possible in delivering service to those people.

States like Wisconsin have set up their food stamp programs with fairly stringent eligibility and work requirements to accomplish your (worthy) goal of reducing long-term dependence and promoting work ethic -- imo that sort of up-front approach is far better than the more passive-aggressive strategy of trying to make the user experience miserable.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[alvinrod]

I think there's something to be said for limiting food stamps to the purchase of whole foods. Even if you're utterly destitute and need the food stamps to not starve, you'll at least learn how to cook or prepare food which is a marketable skill. Sure it may not seem like much, but it's more than you learn from throwing another plate of pizza rolls into the microwave.

Personally though, I don't think we should try to restrict what food stamps can be used on. It creates too much of a bureaucratic mess, and you can't possibly account for all of the different and unique circumstance people find themselves in. Sure it might be great if people learned to cook and make healthier food choices, but there's probably some single parent of 3 working 2 jobs already that doesn't always have time to cook family meals and kids too young to help with that themselves.

In general, individuals are going to be capable of making better choices for their own set of circumstances on average than some congress critter or other bureaucrat, so let people make their own decisions. Some will choose wisely, and others not. The only real problem is that government charity seems to be boundless. I'd even be fine with more government spending on programs like this if there was a cutoff point where we tell the people making bad choices that they can fuck off now because society doesn't owe them an endless supply of opportunity to waste.

Re:The key with businessmen like Trump

[Gussington]

But the government is clueless, so it works out as usual. I agree they are mostly terrible ideas, but because the government should be minding it's business, not picking winners.

This explains why countries with no government have much higher standards of living than those with....

EBT... a good idea, but...

[Q-Hack!]

When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.

Re:EBT... a good idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.

As opposed to the massive business tax cuts and banking bailouts that cost you and I far more. But by all means let's focus on a minuscule percentage of people that may abuse the food stamp system.

Re:EBT... a good idea, but...

[drinkypoo]

WTF is the government allowing cash back on EBT cards in the first place????

They are not. People are paying for the EBT-qualifying items with their EBT card, then paying for the remainder with their debit card, and then getting cash back from that.

Stopping that would seem a quick way to make sure those funds are ONLY being used on food.

The biggest benefit to the EBT card is not having to mail people pieces of paper, and then collect the pieces back. But a significant secondary benefit is that it does eliminate change.

Re:Can we do that with just cash?

[schwit1]

You're still not even close to the funds needed. And when you cut off the money going to defense contractors what is the military supposed to use to defend the country, spears? What happens to all of the former workers from the defense contractors? They can't all become community organizers.

Overrated and irrealistic

[aepervius]

1. I pay with a good plan about 20 euro per month for my smart phone, and 30 euro for my land line... So explain us carefully why smart phone are money thrown out ? Keep in mind that to get a job almost certainly you will need to have some sort of phone connection, so that you get called back.

2. the puritain moral argument... The worst things ever. Program like food stamp make sure people and children get food and do not have to make choice like "phone/rent/food or medicine pick 1". Making it a PITA to get benefits never showed that people get a job quicker (there are some cheater, but they are a crushing minority). It only make people more desperate and more outcast.

Let me guess, you are a republican, and you get your news from fox news or breitbart.

And in case you bring the choomer argument that they are using EBT to get money in cash : http://www.snopes.com/politics... it is false.

Welfare - European countries haven't collasped yet

[DrYak]

When you incentivize something you get more of it. {...} The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork.

The thing that you dare to call "welfare" on your side of the Atlantic pond would be considered as backward and medieval by European standards.
(Common you just recently started to try to provide universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world. And the guy who you elected president is even trying to repel it).

If "more welfare" leads to "less workers" as you suggest, Europe would have completly collapsed following 100% unemployment half a century ago.
That didn't happen.
In fact, some of the best faring countries in Europe (e.g.: Scandinavian countries, Germany, etc.) are also country with the most advanced social welfare systems. And those still aren't collapsing under unemployment today.

Not everybody who gets welfare is lazy - some are actually very hard workers.

There are large-scale studies which have been done in Germany and in France (yes, France, the country where "going on strike every other week to insist on social welfare and benefits" is a national sport).
Verdict : there are actually very few abuses of the welfare system.
Far less than what far-right parties would like you to think.

There are a few lazy people, but nearly the vast majority are very hard workers.

But the programs need to be structured in a way that encourages people to work by making sure that work always pays more than not working.

If you do that by making access to welfare more tedious and difficult, you won't be helping.
- The few lazy person, who have the intent of abusing the system will find more creative ways around your hurdles and still manage to get the money.
- Most of the remaining people, those who have real difficulties and need help suddenly are even more likely to get their help if it is so difficult. They are already in deep shit, if you make their life even shittier, you're not helping.

You need to help measures that can help finding new jobs :
- cover basic needs (food / shelter) without any question. If the people can't even get those, they'll never work.
- helping people move to where the jobs are, as you suggested in your comment.
- helping people retrain to other jobs that are available here. Cover the costs to make sure that education is available to anyone who wants a new job. (I know that seems hard in a country that relies on "college loans" and where the cost of a diploma is close to the budget of some small countries).
etc.