With homicide rates and gun violence on the rise, some cities are trying controversial programs in an attempt to address the root causes of crime. This spring, Washington, D.C. voted to approve a program that would provide stipends to at-risk people to help ensure that they don’t commit violent crimes. Critics characterize the program as rewarding criminals for refraining from doing what they shouldn’t be doing in the first place. They say the program is antithetical to our values as a country of laws and lawbreakers should be penalized when they do commit crimes, not rewarded when they don’t. But these programs are actually much more involved than a simple payment to stay on the straight and narrow.

Blessed Are The Peacemakers 

The D.C. program that was approved this spring, which will likely never come to pass because it won’t be funded, is based on a similar program in Richmond, California. The program would have cost $4.9 million over four years, $460,000 of which would have been in stipend payments. The entire program was taxpayer funded, unlike in Richmond where the stipends were funded by private foundations. In the video below, advocates for the proposal in D.C. give a brief explanation of how they would characterize the program.

Proponents argue that it isn’t a welfare program or a bribe. Rather it is a way to reward people who are at-risk to continue criminal activity (particularly violent criminal activity) for choosing to engage in socially positive activities instead. For example, one woman in the video gets a stipend for pursuing training for a design career. That activity might not be available to her without the stipend and by opening her up to that opportunity the stipend helps ensure her success. That, in turn, makes the community safer.

It’s unclear how much the program in Richmond, called the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship, is actually responsible for the city’s decrease in crime. But there has been a sharp reduction in violent crime since its implementation and officials note that four out of five participants in the program are no longer engaged in gun crimes. The Richmond program is more involved than merely identifying people who are likely to commit a crime and giving them an economic incentive not to. It involves continuing mentorship and requires that fellows meet goals they have set for themselves as a pre-condition for receiving the stipend. One could characterize these as payments for getting a GED or some other accomplishment as easily as they are labeled payments to not commit crimes.

This video by PBS, which is long but worth viewing to understand the program, goes into detail about what exactly Richmond did and how the stipends actually work.

As the video explains, the stipends are for a limited 9-month period, paid once a month, and are directly tied to the accomplishment of certain goals in that person’s “life plan.” While the program requires participants to stay away from gun violence, payments are conditional on a range of factors beyond simply avoiding crime. The introduction of positive activities and new positive behaviors is required.

Arguments Against

Financial incentives can be powerful tools for changing habits. The trick to using a financial incentive is to make sure that you are incentivizing what you want, and not something that could be counterproductive. For example, perversely incentivizing the breeding of rats (there’s more on that in an earlier post). With this program, there are two potentially negative incentives that we might worry about.

The first one is a classic perverse incentive when offering aid to people in particularly bad circumstances. We do not want such a program to encourage people to commit crimes, or a series of crimes, in order to be eligible to participate. If the amount of money being offered is high enough previously law-abiding citizens (or at least citizens who weren’t committing gun violence) might decide to become eligible for the program.

This fear is probably farfetched. To be eligible for the program you need to be a likely offender, so either someone likely to commit a crime or be the victim of one. Often that means having a criminal record or living in an area where there is heavy violence, or both. The highest potential payment is $9,000, which requires 6 months in the program before you’re eligible and then the payments are broken up over nine months. So assuming you get the full $9,000, it would take you 15 months and a lot of work to earn it. There are easier ways to earn money.

The second argument against the program is that by providing a financial incentive we are diminishing the “intrinsic motivation” of the fellows in the program to not commit crime. Instead of wanting to not break the law for its own sake, the motivation is now financial, which will stop when the payments stop.

This argument is a misunderstanding of how the program actually works. If the program were actually just a check made out to the would-be criminal in exchange for showing they hadn’t committed a crime, then yes, the payments would be the primary motivation and when they stopped so would the motivation. But that isn’t how the program is designed to work. The program is designed to make payments for new starting new behaviors, not for stopping old behaviors. For example, a goal in someone’s life plan might be getting a GED. That month’s payment would be made only if the GED was acquired. Not engaging in gun violence keeps you in the program but that isn’t enough to get the stipend. If that happens in the last month of your eligibility, you aren’t going to give back the GED or undo some other milestone. It is already accomplished.

Similarly, the new behaviors that are being incentivized are also behaviors that, in and of themselves, make someone less likely to commit crimes. Take the GED example once again. Increased education will lead to increased earning potential over the long term, and therefore, is likely to reduce crime. So even when stipend payments stop, the effects of achieving the required goals are ongoing.

A third argument against this program is that it is contrary to our values to reward people for not committing crimes. Again this is based on a mischaracterization of what the financial rewards are actually for. The stipend is not necessarily paid to everyone in the program who is nonviolent. Rather that is the baseline requirement for entry into the program. The financial rewards come when milestones are met or goals reached, which is a concept that is consistent with our value of rewarding hard work. It’s much more like giving an allowance to your child for cleaning their room than it is a bribe for not throwing a tantrum.

The main distinction between the D.C. program, which will probably never be implemented, and the Richmond program is that the administrative costs were taxpayer-funded in Richmond, but not the stipends. The D.C. program planned to use taxpayer money for both. Obviously, it is very easy to support a program that gives away other people’s money, but when that money is coming from your taxes, support might be more grudging. I’ve never committed any crimes and no one is, as far as I know, offering me a stipend for that behavior.

But I’m not at-risk either. Offering me a stipend would not be a good investment because I am unlikely to commit a crime in the first place. However for individuals who are likely to cause harm to society (which we can more-or-less measure in economic terms) and cost taxpayers to then incarcerate, a program like this might well be cheaper. And that isn’t even factoring in the human value of reducing death and imprisonment while increasing opportunities.

Conclusion

The headline “Paying Criminals to Not Commit Crimes” is fairly catchy but it is not an accurate description of the program proposed in D.C. or the original program in Richmond. When you introduce a financial incentive to a problem you always run the risk that you’ll encourage something you did not intend to. But just because the incentive is financial does not automatically make it bad. Greed can, in fact, be good.

Resources

Brookings Institute: Should We Pay People Not to Commit Crimes? 

Law Street Media: Perverse Incentives: Are Needle Exchanges Good Policy

Washington Post: Paying Criminals To Stay Out of Trouble: D.C. Could Be The Next City to Try Experiment

NBC Washington: Crime Still Won’t Pay As D.C. Crime Stipend Falls Dead

Time.com: Should Cities Pay Criminals To Not Commit Crimes? 

NPR: To Reduce Gun Violence, Potential Offenders Offered Support and Cash

NYTimes: D.C. Crime Bill Would Pay People To Avoid Committing Crimes

Associated Press: DC Bill Would Pay People Stipends Not To Commit Crime

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should we Provide Stipends for People to Not Commit Crimes? appeared first on Law Street.

Art education can benefit students in different ways, including improving student performance across the whole curriculum. But art programs in schools are often the first to be cut, if budget cuts are necessary. As a result, many students are missing out on the benefits of art classes. So, is it important to provide art education in schools? Read on to learn about art programs’ benefits and the issues with funding them for public school students.

What is the current state of art education in American schools?

Art education in public schools usually includes any combination of dance, music, drama/theatre, and visual arts classes. It’s usually funded by the federal, state, and local governments, but not all schools provide their students with art education.

Budget Cuts

Following the recent recession, budgets cuts were consistent in schools across the U.S., with more than 95 percent of students attending schools with significantly reduced budgets. It’s estimated that since 2008, more than 80 percent of schools nationwide experienced cuts to their budgets. As a remedy in some instances, art programs were partially or completely eliminated from affected school districts. Dance and theatre classes in particular were cut drastically. During the 1999-2000 school year, 20 percent of schools offered dance and theatre classes, but in the 2009-10 school year, only 3 percent of schools allocated funds for dance classes, and only 4 percent taught theatre. The number of schools that offered music classes didn’t change significantly over the last decade, indicating no budget cuts in that subject area, with 94 percent of schools still offering music classes. But the number of schools offering visual arts programs dropped from 87 percent in 1999-2000 to 83 percent in 2009-10. In 2013, public schools in major cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are still struggling with budget cuts, resulting in the continued elimination of art programs across affected school districts. Due to budget constraints, fewer schools offer art classes today than a decade ago.

Emphasis on Core Subjects

In addition to less money being spent on education because of the recession, various government policies, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core State Standards have placed greater emphasis on core subjects, such as math and reading. In doing so, they have sidelined arts education. In light of these policies, school districts began re-directing funds toward subjects that require standardized testing in order to increase the overall scores of their students.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The act was then re-authorized to ensure better access to high-quality education for all children, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or class. As the emphasis was placed on core subjects, such as math and reading, funding for art programs decreased significantly, especially for those art classes that required studio materials. As a result, art education in some schools was completely eliminated, although children still sometimes had the option to take certain art classes after school with volunteer teachers. In some school districts, art classes were still offered, but only with a limited number of seats.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a current state-wide initiative that emphasizes the development of skills needed for students to succeed in college and future careers. As of now, 46 states have CCSS and are working on implementation. Similar to No Child Left Behind, CCSS focuses on those subjects that require standardized testing, and doesn’t include art education in its core. As a result, many schools choose to allocate funds for math and English language classes, often at the expense of art education. However, the Common Core Standards references arts in the curriculum, by some estimations, 75 times. In this regard, some art educators and advocates believe that art education can be aligned with the Common Core standards. To promote integration of art classes, the new National Core Arts Standards were developed and released to the public in 2014 as a conceptual framework. In 2015, a model cornerstone assessment pilot project was launched “to demonstrate the type of standards-based evidence needed to show student achievement.” These assessments will continue in 2016.

Disparities in Accessing Art Education

Even though art programs were slashed nationwide, schools with higher concentrations of impoverished students or minority students suffered the most. According to 2008 data, African-American and Hispanic students were two times less likely to have access to art programs in their school districts in comparison to their white peers. Interestingly, the rates of African-American and Hispanic students who have received art education while in school have been declining since the beginning of 1990s. In 1992, 50.9 percent of African-American 18-24 year olds received art education in childhood, while in 2008, only 26.2 percent of the same demographic had access to art classes in schools. Similar numbers are true for Hispanic children: 47.2 percent had art education in 1992 and only 28.1 percent had the option in 2008. In comparison, there were no comparable rates of decline in art education for white 18-24 year olds.

Most of the schools that serve low-income students already have reduced budgets due to the recession and its aftermath. In addition, as many schools in poor neighborhoods are considered low-performing, they face an intense pressure to meet Common Core standards through math and English language tests. If a school fails these standards it may be placed into program improvement status. In this situation, art classes become even less of a priority, and may be significantly reduced or completely cut from the curriculum. Art programs in schools that have a large number of low-income students are also rarely restored. While more affluent school districts can rely on private funding to still provide art education for students, or parents can simply pay for after-school art classes, children in poor neighborhoods most likely don’t have those options. This scenario creates disparities in access to art education between communities.

What are the benefits of art education?

It’s evident that art classes are the first to be cut from the budget, the last to be restored, and often unavailable for low-income students. But why do we need art classes at all?

Improved Performance

First and foremost, art education improves the overall performance of students, including in the core academic subjects that are often emphasized by standardized testing requirements. Students who took four years of art classes scored 91 points higher on their SAT exams than those who took half a year or less. Multiple studies also confirmed that there is a correlation between art engagement and students’ other achievements. Students who regularly participated in art classes were four times more likely to be recognized for their achievements.

Higher Graduation Rates

Art education can help keep students in school. Schools with long-standing art programs have higher graduation rates. In many instances, art classes motivate students to stay in school, especially low-achieving students, by fostering closer ties with peers and creating community-oriented environments.

Inspiration and Creativity

Art can inspire students to create and express themselves in a variety of forms. It provides the spark that keeps children engaged and allows them to have fun while exploring the world through different art forms. Art education develops creativity and problem-solving skills, improves judgement, and shows children that there are multiple perspectives. Finally, it encourages inventiveness, helping foster innovative thinkers.

Child Development

Children in elementary schools can greatly benefit from art classes, as they are still growing physically and mentally. Visual arts classes are highly recommended for developing motor skills in young children. Every time a child holds a paintbrush or cuts with safety scissors, his motor and dexterity skills improve. The same is true for developing language skills. Young children can learn colors, shapes, and descriptive words while making simple art projects and discussing them with their peers and teacher. In fact, 33 percent of children are visual learners, meaning they absorb information from images. Art classes can help to improve visual-spatial skills and hand eye coordination.

Music education at a younger age is also very beneficial as it helps to connect both hemispheres of the brain, producing long-lasting improvements in communication and listening. In fact, children who play musical instruments just thirty minutes a week have more developed brains than their peers.

Art also makes children aware of different cultures, traditions, and customs, providing a foundation for understanding racial diversity, which is an important part of American society and history. All in all, art education has tremendous benefits for elementary school students, as it helps children to develop physical skills, brain functions, and ideas.

At-Risk Youth

Art classes are beneficial for students in many ways, but especially for children who are low-income and live in impoverished neighborhoods. Art programs can keep at-risk youth off the streets, and, consequently, away from correctional institutions. Not only can art programs provide incentives for these children to stay in school, but it can also improve their academic performance, including reading and math. At-risk students with a history of art involvement have higher college enrollment rates than their at-risk peers who didn’t pursue art education. They are three times more likely to earn Bachelor’s degrees than their peers. Students who didn’t take art classes are five times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. Art can help disadvantaged children to realize their full potential as it provides a safe harbor for those students who may lack a supportive environment at home.

How can we bring art programs back to schools?

It’s clear that art education is extremely important for children of all ages. As a result, many schools have begun to rely upon private funding or combinations of private and public funds when financing their art programs. Besides private donors, non-profit organizations have begun to play a leading role in funding art classes in local schools. For example, in 2013, the Eugene Education Foundation (EEF) allocated 30 percent of its grants to art education in schools. Those grants are funded by community members. EEF has also created an Artists in Residence program. This practice of bringing art experts into a classroom for a limited amount of time has proven to be very rewarding. For example, students at Awbrey Park Elementary in Oregon were able to experience Mexican arts and crafts for one month with an expert from Eugene Arte Latino. There are also many parent-teacher organizations that are fundraising for art education.

Charter schools can be also a leading force in art education. New York City has 210 charter schools, some of which have already implemented in-depth art curriculums. Ascend Learning is a network of seven charter schools in Brooklyn, modeled after elite private schools with famous paintings in the hallways to expose children to art.

On a larger scale, state initiatives can greatly improve art education in schools. California’s Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a large-scale project to bring arts back to the classroom, bridging the gap of budget cuts.

Conclusion

Art education is an important component of childhood development. It also can pave the way for a child’s academic and future success as a professional. While the picture is not that bleak across the nation, it does in some cases fall across racial lines. In this regard, non-profits, communities, teachers, private individuals, and states are already creating a wave of change, moving from perceiving art education as expendable costs toward an overall realization of its benefits. The recent development of National Core Arts Standards is a promising step, as alining art eduction with Common Core Standards can hopefully bring arts back to the classroom.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: What is the Common Core?

National Center for Educational Statistics: Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10

Additional

Americans For The Arts: Decline of Arts Education in Undeserved Populations

Americans For The Arts: Uneven Education Opportunities Nationwide

College Board for the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: The Art and The Common Core

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: Model Cornerstone Pilot Project 2014

Huffington Post: Is Federal Money The Best Way To Fund The Arts? Join The Debate

The Washington Post: Will Less Art and Music in the Classroom Really Help Students Soar Academically?

EugeneWeekly: Budget Cuts Affect Music, Arts

Think Progress: Public Schools Slash Arts Education And Turn To Private Funding

PBS Parents: The Importance of Art in Child Development

Artsz: 20 Reasons Why Art is Important for Children

US News: Extracurriculars Are Central to Learning

Seattle PI: Budget Cuts to Art Programs in Schools

The Hechinger Report: Do the Arts Go Hand in Hand With Common Core?

EdSource: Effort to Revive Arts Programs in Schools Gains Momentum

Art & Education Exchange: Where the Arts and Common Core Intersect

The AEP Wire: No Child Left Behind: A Study of its Impact on Art Education

The Notebook: NCLB: Taking a Toll on Arts and Music Education

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Art Programs: Should They Be Saved? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour appeared first on Law Street.