What I don't really understand is Brooks' preference for the Obama model

I obviously don't study this issue-- or most policies-- as closely as you do, but Brooks' preference seems pretty logical to me. Conservatives generally seem to want the poor to be forced to behave as much like upper classes as possible, and seeding middle-class services in poor neighborhoods (while it's an expense they tend not to like), can create a reasonable impression of middle-class life and be privatized or defunded in the future, while moving the poor to better neighborhoods is much more distressing to cons even without the statistical evidence that it doesn't work that well. IOW, given a choice, Brooks would rather spend money on services than relocation, because it's much easier to cut off the money flow to poor neighborhoods than it is to remove undesireable from middle-class areas once they've been moved.

Or maybe Brooks hasn't thought about it that much, but generally likes Obama better than Edwards-- lots of conservatives seem to.

Brooks may have 2 reasons to prefer Obama's plan to Edwards' plan. First, Edwards' approach has been tried (somewhat) and failed. The second and more believable reason would be that Brooks does not want the government subsidizing poor inner-city blacks and latinos moving into his red-America suburbs and exurbs. Don't know for sure but that's my best guess.

All these plans sound great, but I wish someone - preferably Obama - would raise the issue of out-of-wedlock births in our minority communities. These have powerful effects on the long-term economic prospects of people in poverty-stricken communities, and I wonder if programs that specifically attempted to address that issue wouldn't have much more of an immediate impact (and probably gain conservative support as well) than Obama's OR Edwards' proposals.

From my limited experience working with poor children, I'd say the program that most relies on individual mentoring and counseling is going to have the most success.

There are two basic components to moving people out of poverty at any level--opportunity and the ability to take advantage of opportunity. You can put children in a new middle-class classroom with no help and watch them fail (especially boys), or you can give them intensive help to build skills and work habits, and then they can take advantage of opportunities.

Better yet, do both sequentially, building on successes. It is much easier to get kids interested in achieving if they thnk there will be jobs and a better life for them. You see this a great deal in Latino and especially Asian immigrant families.

By contrast, many African American families start out more splintered, and believe (because of experience) that the deck is stacked against them. Much more than Asian, and more than Latino immigrants (especially girls), African Americans have to make a conscious decision to adopt the norms of the dominant (white) culture to get ahead, and (again, especially boys) often face taunting and worse for choosing to do so. Unless they can really believe that something like college (or even a decent job after HS graduation) is really feasible for them, it is much easier to just go with the flow, hang out and get into drugs and crime.

None of this is going to be easy, and it is rarely a matter of either/or.

Winston, I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe Obama's plan actually has specific services aimed at single-parent households, and I've heard him invoke the idea that African-American men specifically need to take more responsibility in their children's lives.

Personally, I would love to see a million new housing vouchers. But housing vouchers don't do much when landlords can turn them away when they want to, creating a stigma to the areas of rental units that do accept vouchers. Any legislation in an Edwards administration to put money into more vouchers has to include a change to the Fair Housing Act prohibiting "Source of Income Discrimination" so that vouchers start getting treated like cash like the aught to.

It's a big country. Here's an idea: let's try both and see which one works better.

There is an example of a good, tested model of comprehensive social programming like Obama proposes working to reduce several metrics associated with poverty. I seem to remember from my public health school days that a public health researcher named David Olds developed large scale nursing progams in the 70s and 80s in several high poverty locations around the country targeted at low-income, unmarried first-time moms. What was remarkable and instructive about the program was that it combined a fairly standard public health program aimed at providing pre-natal care through home visits with a more comprehensive approach in which the nurses acted as all purpose aides, helping single moms set plans, access education, funding, get out of debt etc. It showed remarkable long term success at not only improving the general health and well being of the mothers as measured by health status, educational attainment and income, but also in improving the overall health of their children as compared to others in their demographics. It has solid long term data behind it with 5, 10 and 15 year follow ups, and I believe its the model for programs like the children's zone in harlem. Sorry to comment at such length, but I don't think its accurate to say that comprehensive anti-poverty programs focused on community development have no proven track record.

i don't know for sure about either plan mentioned in the article.i like obama's views. i don't want to see people on the poverty level ,however,moving into middle class neighborhoods.i've been a victim of that nonsense for a long time.i live in a predominantly white middle class apartment complex.every time this complex goes into the 'voucher' mode,it disrupts the lives of most of the residents here. i guess i don't understand the culture of the less to do,but hanging outside on the complex property all hours of the night,among other actions that they seem to display has definitely turned me against wanting them as close neighbors.not their income status ,but their lifestyle is what i (and my neighbors) are so against.if people of low income(poverty level in this case)could move into middle clas areas and blend,this would be different.but they become a display case of hanging on to the culture and lifestyle learned in the poor communities where they've lived and i've found that they do not adapt easily at all to a middle class lifestyle,which they MUST do to live in that environment!otherwise conflict arises between the two cultures in the community.i believe that ghettos should be enriched with programs that work. moving people from the ghetto to the middle class neighborhoods just won't work in the long run...period.

合金管

دردشة

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.