Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Wed May 7, 2014, 06:43 AM May 2014

Welfare Photos Shame Holders as States Target Abuses

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-07/welfare-photos-shame-holders-as-states-target-abuses.html



Diane Sullivan says that when she pulls out her food-stamp card to buy groceries, she keeps the side with her photo cupped in her hand so people can’t see.

While Massachusetts requires her to have the identification to prevent fraud, the 40-year-old mother of five from Medford calls it “a card of shame.”

Maine and Georgia joined Massachusetts and New York last month in putting photos on welfare cards to stop misuse of taxpayer money, and similar proposals have been offered in a dozen other U.S. states. Opponents question whether it saves more than it costs. They also say it dissuades residents from getting benefits, much as critics of requiring identification to vote argue it keeps some from casting ballots.

“People sometimes make these snap judgments,” said Sullivan, who works part-time as policy director at the nonprofit Homes for Families in Boston. “As soon as they see that I’ve got this photo card, they’re like, ‘Oh, there’s a poor woman who’s lazy. To see it gain steam in other states is extremely concerning to me.”
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Welfare Photos Shame Holders as States Target Abuses (Original Post) xchrom May 2014 OP
This link has some interesting data concerning SNAP benefits. Arkansas Granny May 2014 #1
+1 xchrom May 2014 #2
+2 Orrex May 2014 #4
Thanks for sharing that link. brer cat May 2014 #11
i like to post that on facebook every couple of months frylock May 2014 #13
I symapthize, but the SNAP card is immediately recognizable anyway Orrex May 2014 #3
My thought as well. n/t Ms. Toad May 2014 #7
just a mercuryblues May 2014 #5
I don't see the problem here. linuxman May 2014 #6
Would you see a problem if the photos ... surrealAmerican May 2014 #8
Perhaps. linuxman May 2014 #10
Hence, the already established benefit fraud investigators to better reduce rate which has already LanternWaste May 2014 #14
I'm really not gettign why the photo is an issue Ms. Toad May 2014 #9
No problem if everyone has to have their photo JimDandy May 2014 #12
I'm not arguing about whether it is a good idea or not - Ms. Toad May 2014 #15
The photo takes up the left 1/3 of the card JimDandy May 2014 #16
The ones in my state are readily identifiable - Ms. Toad May 2014 #17

Orrex

(63,083 posts)
3. I symapthize, but the SNAP card is immediately recognizable anyway
Wed May 7, 2014, 07:32 AM
May 2014

In PA at least, the card is an obnoxious, sickly green color with yellow font and can be unmistakably spotted at 20 yards.

Not sure that a picture on the card would make it much worse, but I'm also not convinced that it makes the program any better.

mercuryblues

(14,489 posts)
5. just a
Wed May 7, 2014, 07:42 AM
May 2014

question. I realize this law is as stupid as it sounds and is done only to humiliate people. Would this photo ID be accepted at the voting booth?

Republicans never think thoroughly about the consequences of their actions. The unintended consequences might be worth it, this time.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
6. I don't see the problem here.
Wed May 7, 2014, 07:51 AM
May 2014

The state issues the funds, the state wants the people issued those funds to be the recipients. If anything, the photo on the card creates a form of ID (something I'm told disenfranchised (and poor) people have less often. Two birds, one stone.).

Last I checked at the checkout, EBT is already a separate option from credit and debit on the card reader, so is selecting this form of payment also embarrassing? Additionally, the photo on the card is not going to give away the fact that you're on EBT so much as the fact that the cards are recognizable by anyone who has seen one once or twice.


surrealAmerican

(11,339 posts)
8. Would you see a problem if the photos ...
Wed May 7, 2014, 08:00 AM
May 2014

... cost the state more to include than the amount they "save" from "misuse" without a photo?

... because that is a distinct possibility here.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
10. Perhaps.
Wed May 7, 2014, 08:31 AM
May 2014

The issue of people not getting their intended benefits due to the misappropriation of a card by others remains.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
14. Hence, the already established benefit fraud investigators to better reduce rate which has already
Wed May 7, 2014, 12:58 PM
May 2014

"The issue of... misappropriation of a card by others remains."

Hence, the already established and rather effective benefit fraud investigators to better reduce rate which has already fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent in 2006-08.

Regardless, the preexisting audit trails systems are less expensive and more efficient in further reducing the low amount of fraud than a photograph on a card could achieve-- as over 1,500 stores have been party to to the trafficking, and the photo would have done nothing to prevent these stores from continuing on as they had been.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
9. I'm really not gettign why the photo is an issue
Wed May 7, 2014, 08:06 AM
May 2014

My gut reaction was, "Huh?"

So I read the article, hoping to gain some insight - and just more of the same generic comments about it being a card of shame. Seems to me it is the identifiability of the card that is the issue, not the photo.

Anyone have an explanation as to why the photo makes it worse>

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
12. No problem if everyone has to have their photo
Wed May 7, 2014, 12:30 PM
May 2014

on all credit and debit cards to prevent fraud. The lines at the cashier can slow down for everyone, then, when each person must let the cashier see the photo on the card instead of simply sliding it through the card machine. That way you too (and not just EBT shoppers) can't have your teens do the grocery shopping after school while you are still at work or have your parents shop for you while you are recovering from cancer or surgery. And for self check out, lets have cameras on all the machines have to verify that the person at the machine is the same as the photo on the card.

The cost of food to EBT card holders goes up when cards of everyone else are used fraudulently, so everyone should be required to produce photo ID, if they must.

ETA: having the photo on an EBT card does not reduce fraud unless the photo is checked by a cashier. And if they check the photo for EBT card holders then the store is required to check it for ALL credit and debit card customers.




Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
15. I'm not arguing about whether it is a good idea or not -
Wed May 7, 2014, 02:36 PM
May 2014

Just the idea that photo = shame, which is what the article focused on. It talked about one person cupping the photo side in their hand. That's what I don't get - if the card is recognizable anyway (and it is), why does the presence of a photo on the card = card of shame. The article did not connect the photo on the card with other issues (such as being required to show the photo to the cashier in order to use it) - merely with the

Certainly there can be problems with implementation - and I suspect the implementation varies. And I don't know that it will prevent fraud or be worth the cost (except in that it may provide an ID for voting to some people who otherwise might not have an ID). An article exploring the practices in each of the states where it is implemented might be worthwhile, since the devil in this case really is in the details. That isn't what this article was about. It was about photo = shame, and I still don't get that.

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
16. The photo takes up the left 1/3 of the card
Wed May 7, 2014, 05:28 PM
May 2014

and the card holders name is now larger and to the right of the photo---smack in the middle of the card. Very prominent and more easily read by the customer behind you in line. No other credit/debit cards have the cardholders photo on them, so these people are now easily identified as SNAP recipients when they pull out their card. Credit/debit cards have literally thousands of scenic designs. Most SNAP cards in the various states used to blend in to these other cards' scenic cacophony (at least one state seems to have an outrageous color scheme though).

The article did speak to how retailers have to treat other card holders the same, if they ask SNAP card holders to present the photo on the card for ID purposes. (Credit card holders can refuse to show any ID though, without any repercussions.)

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
17. The ones in my state are readily identifiable -
Wed May 7, 2014, 05:56 PM
May 2014

which seems to be the norm, rather than the exception.

It is hard to tell what the picture cards look like without an image - or even a description in the article. And the card they used to accompany the article doesn't show either the name or the picture. My impression from the article was that it was on the back side (the side cupped in the hand in the accompanying image). All in all, a pretty bad story if they intended to raise concern about legitimate issues.

As to the comment about showing photo IDs in the article - that was a comment about ensuring equal treatment, not identifying troubling unequal treatment.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Welfare Photos Shame Hold...