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 And Propel is only one of several companies looking to disrupt outdated social programs, Tonya Riley reports at Backchannel.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

[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

[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: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.

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.