I was intrigued by a
recent report I heard on NPR about a program in Mexico called Opportunidades. In an effort to fight poverty in the country, the Mexican government, backed by loans from the World Bank, spends $5 billion a year on a program that pays mothers cash for meeting certain guidelines in the care of their children. They are paid for taking their kids to regular medical check-ups and keeping them in school. Amounts range from $29/month for an elementary student all the way up to $185/month for keeping a high school student from dropping out. Payments are higher for girls, since it is not uncommon for families to pull their daughters out of school to help support mothers around the house. Nearly one-third of Mexico's population participates in the program.
Where the programs have been implemented in rural areas, the results are quite impressive. In Monterrey, for example, the case of malnutrition among children has been cut in half. Comparable programs in Brazil have yielded similar results. Not only do these programs improve the health of children, but they also seem to help break the cycle of poverty. Uneducated parents are now seeing their kids graduate college and work in professional fields; dramatically increasing their earning potential.
The results are more mixed in urban settings. While there appear to have been some gains in a pilot program in New York City and larger urban areas in Mexico, they have not been as dramatic as those seen in the rural programs. The reasons are unclear and, in my opinion, warrant further study, given the rising population of the poor in the world's urban communities.
These programs are certainly not without their critics who say parents are just being bribed to do what they already should be doing. Others say the only way to break the cycle of poverty and ensure children in very poor communities are properly educated is to provide additional resources to mothers, thereby reducing obstacles that may interfere with their children's success.
This program got me thinking about what we could do for our poor, inner-city youth that face many of the same obstacles; hunger, lack of preventative health care, and uneducated parents. Does paying parents to properly care for their children and keep them in school amount to bribery; or is it simply "doing whatever it takes," as Geoffrey Canada of the
Harlem Children's Zone says?
Canada has faced similar criticism for his programs that pay parents to attend parenting classes and stay involved in their children's education. The
results his programs have yielded are equally as impressive as those of Opportunidades. With the numbers of his students passing standardized tests or performing at grade level in the 90% or higher range, and with 100% of his high school seniors graduating, it is hard not to recognize the value of his "cradle to college" approach. And it is not just the youth that are benefiting from his programs. The communities where his kids live have been rejuvenated with block associations becoming active once again and families remaining intact.
I believe what these programs show is that the success of our most vulnerable children is a complicated challenge that cannot be boiled down to education alone. Anyone who has worked with the poor know that many times it is the other complications in life that get in the way. How can we expect children to focus on reading when they are hungry? How can we expect them to envision a future when they are battling illness or dodging bullets in the streets? Of course, the problem of taking a much more comprehensive approach to fighting poverty is that it is expensive. But given the successes seen in the 30+ countries that are experimenting with programs like Opportunidades, I think it is worth it to see how we can make it work in the poorest communities here in America.
