This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children

The main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world. 

[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

[2] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

But the program in Brazil is biased towards rural communities versus cities. In the two largest cities in only 10% of families are enrolled versus 41% in the rural areas of Brazil[1]. To consider the program effective it needs to work equally with all members of the poor, which it does not.

[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect¹.
While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood². In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance.
¹ Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
² http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011].

If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed¹.
¹ United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare¹. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society.

¹ Heckman, James (2000), "Invest in the Very Young", Ounce of Prevention and the University of Chicago, [Accessed July 25, 2011].and Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]

The purpose of welfare is not to better society per se; it is to support those who have fallen into bad times and need extra help. Expecting people to render a service in exchange for help is demeaning and it undermines the purpose of welfare which is to help people get back on their feet versus tell them what they have to do to be considered beneficial to society.

In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare¹. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers². They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves.
Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth³.
School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education.
¹ Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 
²Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
³http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel¹. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school?
¹ Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].

The main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world. 

[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

[2] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

But the program in Brazil is biased towards rural communities versus cities. In the two largest cities in only 10% of families are enrolled versus 41% in the rural areas of Brazil[1]. To consider the program effective it needs to work equally with all members of the poor, which it does not.

[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887

Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect¹.
While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood². In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance.
¹ Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
² http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011].

If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed¹.
¹ United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare¹. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society.

¹ Heckman, James (2000), "Invest in the Very Young", Ounce of Prevention and the University of Chicago, [Accessed July 25, 2011].and Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]

The purpose of welfare is not to better society per se; it is to support those who have fallen into bad times and need extra help. Expecting people to render a service in exchange for help is demeaning and it undermines the purpose of welfare which is to help people get back on their feet versus tell them what they have to do to be considered beneficial to society.

In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare¹. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers². They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves.
Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth³.
School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education.
¹ Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 
²Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
³http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel¹. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school?
¹ Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].

This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day¹. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day². Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused.
¹ United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 
² Feeding America (2010), "Hunger in America: Key Facts", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger", [Accessed July 21, 2011].

There is nothing that says the two are mutually exclusive. Linking welfare to school attendance could be instituted next to other reforms that overall would create greater incentives for children to do well in school.

This policy requires that parents be held accountable and punished for the actions of their children. It suggests that their failure in instilling good values is because they care less than middle-class, educated parents. That is a broad and stereotypical assumption. Such parents, many of whom are single mothers, find it harder to instill good values in their children because they live in corrupt environments, surrounded by negative influences[1]. They should be aided and supported, not punished for an alleged failure. Just encouraging putting children in schools does not recognize the larger problems. Some families cannot control their children, who would rather make money than go to school. And caps on the number of children these programs can apply to, as is the case in Brazil, creates problems as well for the families[2]. People are doing their best, but the environment is difficult. Providing safer and more low income housing could be a solution versus punishing people for what is sometimes out of their control.
¹ Cawthorne, Alexandra (2008), "The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty", Center for American Progress, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 
²

If families have incentives to send their children to school, and raise their children with a value of education, stressing the need for them to go to school they are more likely to finish high school and lift themselves out of these environments. The reason why some children would rather work then go to school is because they have been raised in an atmosphere that does not stress education and the necessity to finish high school. This type of program would push parents to change their children's values as they grow up. Additionally, a child's sense of duty to their family because of welfare payments being connected to their school attendance would give them further reason not to drop out, even if they do not like or value school.

School attendance is not a positive outcome in and of itself. It should be encouraged only if it is conducive to learning and acquiring the meaningful education needed to break out of the poverty trap. Blaming the poverty cycle on kids failing to attend school ignores the fact that schools are failing children. Public schools are often overcrowded, with poor facilities and lacking the resources necessary to teach children with challenging backgrounds. In 2011, 80% of America's schools could be considered failing according to Arne Duncan who is the secretary of education¹. Schools in developing countries often lack qualified teachers, and can suffer from very high staff absenteeism rates².
A more effective school system would result in fewer kids dropping out, not the other way around. Additionally, involved parents are integral to effective education³. Simply blackmailing them with money to do the right thing will not work. In fact, you might actually experience backlash from parents and kids, who'll see school as a burdensome requirement that is met just so you can keep the electricity on. Throwing kids into school where they do not have confidence, support, and the necessary facilities is not productive.
¹Dillon, Sam (2011), "Most Public Schools May Miss Targets, Education Secretary Says", New York Times, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 
² World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 
³Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].

Yet if kids aren't going to school anyway it doesn't matter if the schools are inadequate. Getting kids in schools is the first step to improving the education situation and the dropout rate. As long as we look at the education system in the US and around the world as dismal and overwhelming, nothing will change.

Welfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless.

It is perfectly just to ask people to adjust behavior in exchange for funds. In fact, if the tax payers' dollars were being poured into an unchanging situation that would be unfair and unproductive. For a long time the US, and countries around the world, have struggled with making welfare a program that can lift people up. Connecting it to schools can help children.