Debit cards to replace welfare cheques

[oneh2obabe]

Daniel Dale Urban Affairs Reporter

Toronto will soon become the first major Canadian city to permanently replace the iconic welfare cheque with a debit card, a move that will produce savings for both Ontario Works recipients and a government that is itself scrounging for cash.

About 65,000 of Toronto’s recipients receive their payments via direct bank deposit. Many of the 35,000 who receive cheques do not have bank accounts, and many cash the cheques at payday lending outlets that charge high fees they can scarcely afford.

Money Mart, for example, charges $2.99 per cheque plus 3 per cent of the cheque total. That amounts to $249 per year for a recipient who is single, $403 for a childless couple.

“Last year, we did the tax returns for about a thousand people. Their average income was $11,000,” said Diane Dyson, manager of planning and research at Woodgreen Community Services. “Even saving a couple of dollars on the transaction fees — those small differences make a big difference.”

The cards, to be distributed in the fall or winter, will be reloaded monthly. Recipients will be able to use them to withdraw cash at ATMs and to make electronic payments at point-of-sale terminals.

The switch from paper to plastic will save the city $1 million to $2.5 million per year, said Toronto Employment and Social Services general manager Heather MacVicar.

“It’s better all the way around,” MacVicar said. “It’s easier for the residents than trying to deal with the cheque, and it’s a much more streamlined process administratively for the city.”

The city may not force “certain” recipients to convert to cards, MacVicar said, but its goal is to have all or almost all recipients make the switch.

Welfare cards have been adopted successfully by several U.S. states, including New York, California and Michigan. Recipients of U.S. federal payments are required to switch to direct deposit or cards by 2013.

But cards have occasionally been the subject of controversy. State and federal politicians have sought to prevent recipients from using them at casinos, liquor stores and tattoo parlours, among other places. Advocates for the poor, in turn, have argued that governments should not use the cards to try to engineer social behaviour.

There is no indication to date that Toronto politicians are interested in imposing restrictions.

“I’ve been hearing people gripe for years — ‘People get a welfare cheque, and the first thing they do is go to the liquor store, the beer store.’ Well, usually when I get my paycheque, one of the first things I do is go to the liquor store or beer store,” said government management committee chair Councillor Paul Ainslie, a right-leaning ally of Mayor Rob Ford.

“You should have some enjoyment in life. I think it’s a little draconian to start saying, ‘You’re on welfare, and this is exactly how you’re going to spend the money we give you.’”

The cards will be designed so that its users cannot be easily identified as welfare recipients. Other details, such as whether withdrawals will be subject to ATM fees, are still to be determined.

The cards will eliminate cheque fraud. They will also reduce the stigma associated with cashing a government cheque, Dyson said, and make recipients safer: they will no longer have to carry large amounts of cash, and the PIN-protected cards can be quickly cancelled if they are lost or stolen.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/103 ... re-cheques

[steven lloyd]

Definitely an idea with potential that's worth exploration.

[Al Czervic]

Welfare cards have been adopted successfully by several U.S. states, including New York, California and Michigan. Recipients of U.S. federal payments are required to switch to direct deposit or cards by 2013.

But cards have occasionally been the subject of controversy. State and federal politicians have sought to prevent recipients from using them at casinos, liquor stores and tattoo parlours, among other places. Advocates for the poor, in turn, have argued that governments should not use the cards to try to engineer social behaviour.

This is the crap that drives me insane….one of the things I like about the debit card idea is that it can and SHOULD be used to eliminate used in liquor stores and casino’s. The reason why so called “poverty activists” really oppose these restrictions is because ultimately if people managed to get off the welfare system these povetarians who are almost always funded by tax dollars would have no jobs. The poverty industry in itself needs to be taken down. I would like too see cash withdrawls either eliminated all together or maxed out at a token amount a week.

[steven lloyd]

The reason why so called “poverty activists” really oppose these restrictions is because ultimately if people managed to get off the welfare system these povetarians who are almost always funded by tax dollars would have no jobs.

Really Al ? Do you really think these people are worried that if these restrictions were put in place there would be no more poverty and they would be out of work ? You might be deluded into thinking that (gambling, alcohol) is some underlying causal effect (as opposed to correlative condition) of poverty but do you really think people working in the field are as easily misguided by such erroneous rhetoric ? Not that I'm disagreeing some form of spending control might be useful, even productive, but to be the impetus to get people off welfare ? You think these workers are worried about running out of clients ?

You're not warmed up yet, right ?

[Al Czervic]

The reason why so called “poverty activists” really oppose these restrictions is because ultimately if people managed to get off the welfare system these povetarians who are almost always funded by tax dollars would have no jobs.

Really Al ? Do you really think these people are worried that if these restrictions were put in place there would be no more poverty and they would be out of work ? You might be deluded into thinking that (gambling, alcohol) is some underlying causal effect (as opposed to correlative condition) of poverty but do you really think people working in the field are as easily misguided by such erroneous rhetoric ? Not that I'm disagreeing some form of spending control might be useful, even productive, but to be the impetus to get people off welfare ? You think these workers are worried about running out of clients ?

You're not warmed up yet, right ?

What bothers me Steven is that if the Povetarians spent half as much time trying to focus on money management and getting drugs/alcohol/cigarettes away from those on welfare maybe there might be more progress. But instead the argument is always the “right” of those who are poverty stricken to continue to drink/smoke or drug themselves into oblivion. I realize not everyone on welfare is in that position but even you have to admit there should be more effort made to make it even slightly more difficult to obtain booze, drugs and cigarettes when on welfare. Right now we basically say here is a cheque and taxpayer subsidized facility to blow all your welfare money getting high. In spite of nearly a million dollars in funding a day in the lower east side of Vancouver the problems remain unsolved. And of course all the Povetarians say is “ give us more money” it is not working.

[steven lloyd]

I realize not everyone on welfare is in that position but even you have to admit there should be more effort made to make it even slightly more difficult to obtain booze, drugs and cigarettes when on welfare. Right now we basically say here is a cheque and taxpayer subsidized facility to blow all your welfare money getting high.

I absolutely do agree there should be more effort made to make it at least slightly more difficult to obtain booze, drugs and cigarettes when on welfare. I simply know from the evidence from research that the actual percentage of welfare recipients where this issue becomes real problematic is minimal. I would suggest poverty advocates (or “povertarians” as you call them) speak out against this proposed focus because it misses the causal effects completely and engages in blaming which acomplishes nothing. They (poverty advocates or “povertarians”) are hardly worried about running out of work. Funding to do the work maybe, but demand for the work – not likely any time soon.

[Al Czervic]

That is kind of my point….if week in and week out you watch people blow their welfare cheque because ultimately they lack money management skills (for whatever reason) and sitting back and watching this practice continue seems counter productive.

What is interesting is that people with money often check themselves into facilities where you cannot get drugs or alcohol…while these facilities do not always work, for many people they do. Yet for the low income crowd we just sit back and do the status quo which is usually hiring more advocates/support workers/executive directors/ and lord knows what else and other then creating an industry little else is accomplished.

Imagine if those who couldn’t help themselves by blowing all of their cash were actually denied cash and could only buy legitimate groceries, clothing and pay rent ? No system is perfect but at least some effort to try would be welcome in my view.

Mind you the one interesting thing about the debit card proposal NOT being mentioned is that the Government will have the ability to track where debit cards are used….so 3am cash machine withdrawals….liquor stores…..corner store cigarette purchasers….bars…casino’s….that information could be helpful…..think of it like a another version of the long form census for those on poverty…..

[steven lloyd]

Mind you the one interesting thing about the debit card proposal NOT being mentioned is that the Government will have the ability to track where debit cards are used….so 3am cash machine withdrawals….liquor stores…..corner store cigarette purchasers….bars…casino’s….that information could be helpful…..think of it like a another version of the long form census for those on poverty…..

I actually like that idea – being the research aficionado that I am. Most research to-date suggests that the idea that welfare recipients are irresponsible managers of money (ie. gamblers, drinkers, drug addicts, etc.) is the result of the availability heuristic, and it would be good to have evidence from another source to support or dispel that idea.

No doubt anyone can use better training and/or instruction in money management skills, and I can remember when we were delivering such instruction to chronic welfare recipients with positive results before someone in the new government decided this approach was not consistent with their ideology. More evidence from research is always good. It’s just unfortunate that the evidence most often supports explanations not popular with our current policy-makers.

[Al Czervic]

The beauty is that this system would provide hard data as opposed to most “research” in this low income field that usually results in predictable outcomes that generally means demands for more money from the Povetarians……

Something tells me the results would be surprising. More so when you consider that any liquor store employee can tell you at the drop of a hat when “welfare” Wednesday is. In fact it is funny asking that question…most pizza joints can answer it as well…..

[WhatThe]

What's to stop the person from withdrawing cash at the ATM and then going to the liquor store etc.? One of the whole points of debit cards in the article was to eliminate cheques cashing fees at those high percentage cheque cashing stores.
Another thing I'd see happening is the creation of an undergreound "laundering scheme" by unscrupulous people, such as "buy your groceries etc at my store and I'll go to the liquor store for you... For a fee of course".
I guarantee something to that effect will happen, human nature dictates so.
If prohibition has taught us anything it's that if we come between people and their vices they will find a way around it.

[Rwede]

The reason why so called “poverty activists” really oppose these restrictions is because ultimately if people managed to get off the welfare system these povetarians who are almost always funded by tax dollars would have no jobs.

Really Al ? Do you really think these people are worried that if these restrictions were put in place there would be no more poverty and they would be out of work ? You might be deluded into thinking that (gambling, alcohol) is some underlying causal effect (as opposed to correlative condition) of poverty but do you really think people working in the field are as easily misguided by such erroneous rhetoric ? Not that I'm disagreeing some form of spending control might be useful, even productive, but to be the impetus to get people off welfare ? You think these workers are worried about running out of clients ?

You're not warmed up yet, right ?

Of course, fewer people on welfare who supplement their incomes through crime would also mean a smaller client list for Steven, and that ain't the best for his personal job security. He'll come on all noble about how he'd love to work himself out of a job, but he too is a povertarian, employed by our tax dollars.

[steven lloyd]

Of course, fewer people on welfare who supplement their incomes through crime would also mean a smaller client list for Steven, and that ain't the best for his personal job security.

Ya, I'd be out of work in no time. Poor little dickie. It never ceases to amaze how little concern you have at humiliating yourself and exposing just how little even know, let alone understand about any of these issues. Are you getting somewhat desperate ? Have you been feeling neglected by the lack of response or interests in your posts by most other posters ? I don't know if you're thinking of staying in and completing school but I think that might be a prudent course for you. You should probably spend more time in class. The bottom line is most of us are interested ( and capable) in engaging in at least reasonbly intellligent discussion on these topics, and our reason for most often ignoring yours is you demonstrated simple-mindedness and inability to engage in reasonbly intellligent discussion. Ooops. Maybe that was too blunt and harsh. Let me be more sensitive and diplomatic and just say that most of us feel you have a lot of growing up to do. I can appreciate why the kids at school are not wanting to hang out with you but you have to quit pretending to be someone you’re not, get off isolating yourself on the computer and get to classes and go learn how to make some friends.

[Gone_Fishin]

Of course, fewer people on welfare who supplement their incomes through crime would also mean a smaller client list for Steven, and that ain't the best for his personal job security.

Ya, I'd be out of work in no time. Poor little dickie. It never ceases to amaze how little concern you have at humiliating yourself and exposing just how little even know, let alone understand about any of these issues. Are you getting somewhat desperate ? Have you been feeling neglected by the lack of response or interests in your posts by most other posters ? I don't know if you're thinking of staying in and completing school but I think that might be a prudent course for you. You should probably spend more time in class. The bottom line is most of us are interested ( and capable) in engaging in at least reasonbly intellligent discussion on these topics, and our reason for most often ignoring yours is you demonstrated simple-mindedness and inability to engage in reasonbly intellligent discussion. Ooops. Maybe that was too blunt and harsh. Let me be more sensitive and diplomatic and just say that most of us feel you have a lot of growing up to do. I can appreciate why the kids at school are not wanting to hang out with you but you have to quit pretending to be someone you’re not, get off isolating yourself on the computer and get to classes and go learn how to make some friends.

What a condescending, know-it-all jackass you are Lloyd. Time for you to grow a pair and answer the guy's question instead of being a 10 year old schollyard bully on the internet. Seems unlikely, though, given your fear of giving a straight answer and resorting to attack mode. You've been called out and your response is typical of your ilk. Grow up.

[steven lloyd]

Did you see an intelligently framed question there to answer little dude? Prior to his post there was some intelligent discourse occurring but you might have missed that in your enthusiasm to jump to the defence of your challenged friend. People tend to get what they give and dickie's a bit of a joke. Maybe you should go find your little buddy on the playground so he won't be so lonely and filled with angst. Come on back any time you feel your finally capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion.

[Gone_Fishin]

Did you see an intelligently framed question there to answer little dude? Prior to his post there was some intelligent discourse occurring but you might have missed that in your enthusiasm to jump to the defence of your challenged friend. People tend to get what they give and dickie's a bit of a joke. Maybe you should go find your little buddy on the playground so he won't be so lonely and filled with angst. Come on back any time you feel your finally capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion.

Yeah yeah, aren't you the Big Boy. More of the same from you. I'll give the win to RW, who hit a nerve exposing you for whom you are. You can't respond with an intelligent answer, so you keep up with classic deflection to others.

And here I thought you were a psych guy who could recognize this...I guess there had to be someone who graduated at the bottom of his class.