I’m not aware of many wide-spanning programs that successfully tap the capacity of a given neighborhood. Some of the Hope VI projects seem to be doing a good job, using a promising model of combining housing initiatives with education. This speaks to developing the social networks you mention. Perhaps a parenting program would gain more traction and generate more lasting results if paired with these sorts of projects?

I’m woefully unaware of who specifically or even which party is primarily championing which reform at any given moment. But I’m not quite sure that’s the most important issue. Part of a democratic system is to provide a forum for discourse. Not the pedantic, mind-numbing discourse of the talking-heads: their rants are a distasteful side-effect. I’m worried you may have portrayed one group as being against the idea when they may only be against the policy. It seems a bit unfair to require anyone body to have a better solution before offering a critique. While a solution may arise from an objection to proposed policy solutions, a solution need not be ready to object to a given line of action.

It may be that the objections are strictly partisan or that the reasoning is simple bigotry. I hope not. It may help to discern which is which by taking a look at what the objections were to the specific policy, what the objections were to the larger concept, and what the political context is beyond this particular program. Have changes been proposed? What is the discourse around the modifications and changes? What other changes might conservatives suggest? Shouldn’t we look at the objection by a rival political group as a source of information? What are they seeing that we’re not? How can their points be incorporated to make a stronger, more enduring policy?

Your last point on the 1000 college grads is really interesting. My balloon-popping sentiment is probably just my having a different perspective. I’d think that an influx of college degree’d folks would be railed against as gentrification. And even escaping the gentrification label, such an event seems unlikely. History, both recent and beyond, shows a fairly strong record of people acquiring resources and then using them to purchase a safer, more desirable (however that is interpreted) environment. How do we get these people to move back to (and stay) in these environments? If they’ll come how much latitude do you give them in changing their environment – starbucks, higher rents, etc. must be expected to come hand-in-hand with new social networks and families and such.

I also agree that this could be a means v. ends argument. However, I don’t see conservatives putting out specific proposals that attempt to meet those ends by other means. If a set of competing proposals did exist, I would consider them gladly. And if you know of any, please pass along that information; I certainly do not believe that urban issues belong solely to liberals or Democrats.

Finally, one thing that could make the home visit program better is to concentrate it in certain neighborhoods/communities within urban areas. To use Chicago as an example, it might be good to target resources into Lawndale, thus building capacity within that communities. If many parents in a small area received the same training and shared the same language when it came to child-rearing, those parents might end up setting new norms within that community. At a certain point, then, it might be possible to pull the program’s resources out of that community and put them to use in another one. And once these new norms are set, this could have ripple effects by spreading to the community’s schools, thus enhancing students’ academic performance. Geoffrey Canada talks about this same idea in the book Whatever It Takes (by Paul Tough). He believes that bringing 100 college graduates per year back into Harlem for a decade (a total of 1,000 college grads) could significantly change the norms within the community as they interact with friends and co-workers, start families, etc. This idea of new behaviors or expectations spreading like this is pushed by the authors of the new book, Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives, Nicholas Christakis & James Fowler.

Two thoughts – conservatives (or tax-payers in general) may oppose these measures because they seldom show results. Behavior change is fantastically difficult to influence, especially something as personal and cultural as parenting.

I think you’re at risk of confusing an objection to the means with an objection to the ends. Conservatives after all, do have a bit of a soft-spot for promoting “family values.” I would object too if I thought this was (as it seems to be) a band-aid solution. Is this program the best way to illicit deep sustained change? Such a tactic only seems appropriate within the context of much larger, well coordinated systemic efforts.

To your second point, the home visit programs are voluntary. People are offered the chance to sign up, just as people are offered the chance to apply for unemployment insurance or for free or reduced lunch at school. It’s a choice that is offered, not forced.

Your question (who would be dumb enough to invite them in?) is the type of thing that leads me to believe that many people don’t understand how badly some people, especially in low-income, urban areas, are struggling and need assistance. I don’t even know how to explain it here. If you’re looking to understand a bit more, though, I recommend volunteering at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter for a few weeks, and striking up conversations with some of the people there. Learn their stories and find out what they think they need to get back on their feet (or what could have helped them from falling into their current situation). Ask what has been helpful to them, and get their opinion about government versus non-government assistance (e.g., have they found one to be better than they other?). My point is, when people are struggling they likely will take advantage of the help that is available, whether it’s from the government or from somewhere else. I don’t think it’s fair to call someone “dumb” for taking advantage of an opportunity that can help them–and their children–live a better life. In fact, if a parent chooses to join a program that will help them be a better parent, I would say that is a great example of personal responsibility.

And to your point that average people should support this on their own, without the government’s involvement…it would be extremely costly and time consuming to attempt to create a private marketing and fundraising arm that *might* be able to bring in enough funds to start something on a small scale. If this were a small problem that we didn’t know how to fix, that would be a good strategy. But it is a big problem and we have some best practices that can help us fix it, and the most efficient way to pay for it is through government. And on principle I don’t have a problem with this, because the problem affects all of us–if only through the billions of tax dollars we pay to deal with the consequences (corrections, welfare, police, etc.) of not addressing the problem early on.

It actually sounds like a program with potential, I just don’t see why the government has to do it. If it makes sense people will support it.

More generally, why do we need to spend other people’s money on our favorite programs? Why not spend our own money on programs we care about? I think it is ok to trust people to do the right thing. I really do trust people on average to do the right thing. Certainly more than I trust the government.

Your wrote: “Here’s my theory: Most people opposed to this type of program probably have not spent time working in low-income communities with the parents and families who would be affected. These conservative commentators just don’t understand why a program like this would be necessary, or how it could make a tangible difference in people’s lives.”

I believe that you are quite mistaken. Conservatives oppose programs like this because liberals support them. I a conservative church had proposed the idea, they would have supported it. It is just that simple.