“Free Market” Social Services Fail to Deliver
Where do you turn when your aging mother can’t be by herself anymore or you notice your baby seems a little delayed? Imagine that your teenager start skipping school and staying out all night or imagine you are suddenly diagnosed with a serious illness or disabled in an accident. Where do you go for help?
Sooner or later we all knock on the door of our community’s social service network. What greets us may be far less than we expect. And sadly, the help available to us will depend a lot on where we live and how much money we make. The confusing patchwork of private, public and non-profit social service agencies through which we must navigate is the natural, unintended consequence of the free market model we’ve created to deliver social services.
We are all only temporarily able bodied. We don’t give much thought social services. We are content knowing that free market competition is efficiently keeping down the cost of publicly financed services for the needy.
It isn’t until we seek help ourselves that we encounter a labyrinth of agencies with confusing components and cutesy sounding acronyms for their names. Agencies often list the types of services they offer (counseling, for example) without listing the types of problems they serve (such as adolescent issues). Consumers are expected to know which services work best for their problems. Some agencies over promise results in their marketing or take on people with problems that would be bettered resolved elsewhere. Access to services are often restricted by bewildering eligibility requirements based on age, gender, geography, diagnosis, income, insurance provider, religion, ethnicity, funding source or hours of operation.
If your family has one or two very common problems, chances are you will find the help you need. But if your problems are uncommon or complex, your search will not go smoothly. And if you also happen to be poor, live in an under served community or don’t have transportation, the prospects for getting effective help are slim.
This is the character of our social service networks today. They are not based on matching service availability and capacity to the needs of local communities. They are loosely coordinated networks created by free market forces and competition between private or non-profit agencies scrambling for dollars.
For over thirty years we have been privatizing public social services in the belief that free markets are more efficient than government in providing the best services at the lowest cost. Little attention is given to the inescapable fact that market driven systems create uneven results by their very nature. This is true in commerce but especially true in public social welfare. Larger agencies are more politically connected and better positioned to compete for public dollars. Wealthier communities have a higher profit potential so they attract more and better competitors. Smaller agencies and program models that incorporate innovative ideas are less able to compete for government money.
Innovative approaches to helping people are usually funded in small trials by private foundations. Even when these trials prove successful, bringing them up to scale is almost impossible. Agency competition actually works against it because social service providers are competing on an artificial playing field.
Governments create the playing field on which agencies compete, but the government departments responsible for developing and funding social service contracts are often under staffed and ill equipped to monitor service outcomes. They also lack the personnel and special expertise it takes to design better programs. The time and effort involved in researching literature, writing contract proposals, putting contracts out for bid and guiding the implementation of new programs is enormous . Politicians don’t want to spend what it would cost to create real free market competition for high quality services.
To overcome the uneven distribution of services problem, governments develop specially targeted service contracts with extra financial incentives to serve specific areas. But these initiatives are expensive and tax revenues are declining. Targeted service contracts are usually limited in size and scope because of their higher costs.
We have come to the point where the availability and quality of essential services, to treat an abused child for example, becomes an accident of birth. How often have I seen children getting excellent services in one county while children with identical needs have no such services in another.
Commercial markets are efficient in distributing products according to demand when profits are distributed according to merit. This method breaks down when applied to funding social services. Competition discourages inter-agency coordination and inadequate funding increases agency competition in more profitable locations while discouraging them from entering less profitable communities. This causes unacceptable inequalities in meeting the basic human needs of our people.
There are many pressing issues that demand attention. How we fund social services is rarely among them, yet the wisdom of distributing social services through artificially created free markets cries out for public debate.
Media Silent on Fukushima Radiation Impact in US
Sometimes the big news stories can only be seen by the shadows they cast. You would think that it would be easy to find detailed updates on the Fukushima disaster’s impact on the fishing industry, milk production, global radiation distribution patterns, etc. You would be mistaken. The massive media coverage the initial disaster has fallen nearly silent. Some frustrated environmental advocates have suggested that there may be a media blackout. Maybe not, but media follow-up stories are few and far between these days.
In July of last year there were major stories about Fukushima and the plum of radiation reaching across the Pacific Ocean towards North America. On July 16, 2012, Deborah Dupre of the Examiner reported the following:
“As hair falls out of a Fukushima victim’s head, a new German study reports that North America’s West Coast will be the area most contaminated by Fukushima cesium of all regions in Pacific in 10 years, an “order-of-magnitude higher” than waters off Japan, according to a new German study followed by a former New York Times journalist going inside the no-entry zone and reporting radiation levels over 10 times higher than Tepco’s data.”
The article was accompanied by this scary graphic:
The article went on to say: “”After 10 years, the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 × 10−4) off Baja California,” a new research report states.”
Then, on August 22, 2012, NHK News reported that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says it has detected radiation 380 times the government safety limit in a fish caught off Fukushima Prefecture.
Since then not much else has been reported on the spread of radiation to North America. It has been reported that tons of debris from the tsunami continues to wash up on the Pacific coast, but very little, especially in the main stream press, about how we are being effected. http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/12/fukushima-debris-to-keep-hitting-the-pacific-coast-this-winter/
Perhaps my internet search skill are not the best, but the fact that I have to search for follow-up information is a warning sign. Journalists and the media should paying more attention to to this topic. The one recent article related to radiation fallout from Fukushima I found was a scientific study published in November, 2012. It focuses primarily on how tracing the travel of radionuclides gives insight into atmospheric air circulation in the Northern Hemisphere.
I think we all deserve to know more about what the US, Canadian and Mexican governments are doing to monitor radiation levels, track distribution rates and study how it may be impacting our food supply.
Below is a reference to the recently published study.
Science of The Total Environment Volume 438,
1 November 2012, Pages 80–85
Tracking the complete revolution of surface westerlies over Northern Hemisphere using radionuclides emitted from Fukushima
M.A. Hernández-Ceballosa, G.H. Hongb, R.L. Lozanoa, Y.I. Kimc, H.M. Leeb, S.H. Kimb,S.-W. Yehd, J.P. Bolívara, ,M. Baskarane
ABSTRACT:
Massive amounts of anthropogenic radionuclides were released from the nuclear reactors located in Fukushima (northeastern Japan) between 12 and 16 March 2011 following the earthquake and tsunami. Ground level air radioactivity was monitored around the globe immediately after the Fukushima accident. This global effort provided a unique opportunity to trace the surface air mass movement at different sites in the Northern Hemisphere. Based on surface air radioactivity measurements around the globe and the air mass backward trajectory analysis of the Fukushima radioactive plume at various places in the Northern Hemisphere by employing the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model, we show for the first time, that the uninterrupted complete revolution of the mid-latitude Surface Westerlies took place in less than 21 days, with an average zonal velocity of > 60 km/h. The position and circulation time scale of Surface Westerlies are of wide interest to a large number of global researchers including meteorologists, atmospheric researchers and global climate modellers.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969712010959
High School Graduation Rates A National Shame
Educational achievement is a long range predictor of a nations economic health and well being. In advanced economies, a great deal depends on scientific and technical achievements which begin with educational excellence.
Summary of Finding
Children with limited English proficiency also graduate at lower rates in most states, but especially in Nevada (29%) and Arizona (25%). Students with limited English proficiency actually have a better graduation rate in West Virginia (79%) than do White children for whom English is their primary language (77%). In states as diverse as Arkansas and Maine limited English proficiency is hardly a barrier at all. Nineteen states have high school graduation rates of less than 50% for children for whom English is not their primary language.
OUR VOTING RIGHTS – A State by State Analysis
In an off handed comment made after the 2012 election, President Barack Obama said we need to fix our election process. This is a welcome suggestion. Our election process is badly broken and we need to take a good look at it. We should start by asking:
What voting rights do I have in my state?
This is not a commonly asked question, but it should be. Most of us believe voting rights are guaranteed under the federal constitution. This isn’t exactly true. The Constitution contains several amendments to prevented states from disenfranchising certain categories of voters. For example, states cannot use race, religion, gender or the age of anyone 18 or older as a means to disqualify a “citizen” from voting. The actual right of suffrage, however, isn’t a federal guarantee. This is up to the states. Fixing our voting system will be a state by state effort.
In all our public discussions about elections there is rarely mention of how voting rights differ in various states. When you look at state constitutional language on voting rights, however, you quickly learn that many of the rights we take as granted, such as a right to secret ballots, are nowhere to be found in most state constitutions. In fact, state constitutional voting rights differ widely from one state to the next.
The wide variation in voting rights are not immediately evident because state laws, administrative regulation and voting practices over time have created consensual frameworks for elections that appear similar from state to state. For example, the vote counting process is open for public view in most states, but only the constitutions of Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia guarantee public vote counting. California is the only state guaranteeing that votes will even be counted. After candidates concede defeat based on vote projections, the states are not constitutionally obligated to finish counting every ballot.
When elections run smoothly and no questions are raised, everyone consents to the will of the majority. This is true because in a representative democracy, elected officials are expected to represent everyone’s interests and not just the interests of those who voted for them. But when elections are very close and the process seems flawed, explicit constitutional language is essential to protect the democratic process and win over the consent of the minority. Elections have consequences. Flawed elections or overtly partisan representation can have dire consequences. Faith in our democracy begins with faith in our voting systems.
I am not a lawyer or constitution expert, but curiosity about state voting rights caused me to survey all fifty state constitutions and document the articulated rights in each. Some results of this exercise are presented in the tables below. Keep in mind that some constitutions have very archaic language or formats that make them difficult to interpret. The information below represents my best effort to classify and document basic voting rights as articulated in state constitutions. It is followed by a brief discussion for each of the categories presented below.
– Numerous opportunities for the electorate to receive objective information from a free press.
– Freedom to assemble for political rallies and campaigns.
– Rules that require party representatives to maintain a distance from polling places on election day
– An impartial or balanced system of conducting elections and verifying election results
– Accessible polling places, private voting space, secure ballot boxes, and transparent ballot counting.
– Secret ballots – voting by secret ballot ensures that an individual’s choice of party or candidate cannot be used against him or her.
– Legal prohibitions against election fraud
– Recount and contestation procedures
PERCENTAGE OF CITIZENS COVERED BY THE VOTING RIGHTSARTICULATED IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS |
||
| Num. of States
w/This Right |
Percent of Population
w/this Right |
GENERAL VOTING RIGHTS |
|
1
|
9.7%
|
Right to Have Every Vote Counted
|
|
9
|
10.5%
|
General Right of Suffrage
|
|
21
|
44.0%
|
Right to Free and Fair Election
|
|
28
|
55.3%
|
Right to voting by ballot
|
|
23
|
46.7%
|
Right to secret vote
|
|
3
|
5.6%
|
Right to Public Vote Counting
|
|
15
|
32.6%
|
Frequency of Elections Right
|
|
23
|
36.5%
|
Privilege from Arrest during voting
|
|
21
|
36.5%
|
Privilege from Arrest Exceptions
|
|
2
|
1.6%
|
Right to accessible polling place
|
|
Num. of
States
w/This Right
|
Percent of Population
w/This Right
|
QUALIFICATIONS and EXCEPTIONS
|
|
49
|
99.6%
|
Must be A US Citizen
|
|
46
|
91.2%
|
Must be Registered to vote
|
|
20
|
27.6%
|
State’s Deployed Solders Can Vote
|
|
37
|
83.9%
|
Felony Exception
|
|
12
|
15.5%
|
Treason Exception
|
|
13
|
30.9%
|
Incarceration Exception
|
|
33
|
69.5%
|
Mental Capacity Exception
|
|
2
|
0.5%
|
Moral Conduct or other Exception
|
|
23
|
34.0%
|
Restoration from Exception
|
|
10
|
17.6%
|
No quartered solders
|
|
2
|
1.8%
|
Right to Appeal Voter Ineligibility
|
Taxpayer Subsidized Downsizing in America
The business of quick and dirty layoffs has become a familiar feature in our culture. One recent example involved a journalist who worked at a large news organization. He was new to the company so he gratefully accepted the friendship of a well respected senior reporter. One Friday morning his mentor emailed him about a story idea and ended it by writing, “I’ll see you at the 10 AM meeting.” This prompted the following email exchange:
“What meeting? I didn’t get the email.”
“I’ll forward it do you.”
Then a short time later: “Forget the email. This meeting isn’t for you. Don’t come to this meeting!”
This is how the newsroom learned that day of the layoffs. Many senior journalists were let go along with a few younger reporters to avoid the appearance of age discrimination. As these “redundant” employees filed from the meeting they were handed garbage bags for their personal effects and accompanied to their desks by hired chaperones. It was all over in an hour.
Coolly calculated business decisions and pitiless firings toss employees off company books and onto government unemployment rolls somewhere in this country nearly every week. No notices, no outplacement services, no severance pay and no extended benefits are required. In many cases there is no effort to treat employees with the dignity or respect they deserve.
Apart from union contracts or employment agreements, American companies have no legal obligations to citizens being fired. They need not assume any responsibility for the impact it has on an employee, their family or their community. The only business costs of any significance are the premiums companies pay for government unemployment insurance. This easy, low cost ability to fire workers is called “workforce efficiency” and the U.S. is among the most efficient in the world. We ranks 12th out of 144 nations according to the study on global business competitiveness .
In most other advanced nations there are laws requiring companies to provide loyal employees with advanced layoff notices, severance pay and other benefits. These structural costs for downsizing may make businesses a little less competitive, but it brings significant benefits. It helps maintain a stable workforce and postpones government funded assistance to severed employees while they look for jobs. Requiring larger companies to provide mandatory severance benefits helps the nations absorb minor bumps in the economy without adding to problems by throwing people out of work at the first sigh of trouble. It also happens to be a humane way for citizens to treat one another.
Here in this country we treat our labor force as if it were a commodity to be bought and discarded at will. In the end, big business lets taxpayers foot most of the costs for unemployment benefits and supplemental welfare services for people out of work. At the same time the pro-business lobby pushes Congress for business tax breaks and budget cuts in the programs that help the workers they leave behind. Isn’t it time we stopped bowing to the pro-business lobby and stand up for the American worker?
Data Driven Viewpoints 