Washington State Senate Democrats announcement.
State Sen. T’wina Nobles has sponsored legislation to provide financial education and support to youth experiencing foster care.
Senate Bill 5824, the Fostering Finances Act, will address a gap in financial preparedness for youth who are aging out of foster care by providing an opportunity for all youth experiencing foster care to open a bank account.
“When I experienced foster care, I participated in transitional and independent living programs which taught me how to budget and encouraged my growth in financial independence,” said Nobles. “The similar learning environment provided in this bill was how I truly learned responsibility, and that prepared me for adulthood. I want that same opportunity for independence for our dependent youth.”
The bill instructs the state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) to ensure that every youth experiencing foster care at age 14 or older can open a bank account prior to the end of the youth’s dependency. DCYF will also be responsible for depositing a minimum of $25 per month into this account.
The legislation also charges DCYF to convene a stakeholder group which will develop an implementation plan and ensure statewide access to developmentally and culturally appropriate financial education for dependent youth ages 12 and older. DCYF will report on the status of the program and the work of the stakeholder group by Dec. 1, 2022. The program is to be operational by Jan. 1, 2023.
“If we want kids to succeed, we need to make sure they have the right tools for their respective needs,” said Sen. Mark Mullet (D-Issaquah), cosponsor of the bill. “I can’t think of a better investment than something that introduces and reinforces the value of financial security. The benefits of this bill could change lives forever and far exceed the state’s investment.”
The text of the bill is available here. The 2022 legislation will end in 60 days.
What is “culturally appropriate financial education”?
Google it
Ok, I just Googled it.
The definitions seem to pretty much run around in a circle and avoid the simple math of spending less than you have.
As a private in the army, we had to attend financial literacy counseling.
For me it was a waste of time as I had been trained to manage my finances from a young age.
I was shocked however, to learn how clueless a large number of young soldiers were about simply managing a checking account.
They were frivolous with their spending and always overdrawn, racking up fees and always broke.
The counselor focused only on managing our meager paychecks, and made no effort to explain savings, investment, or delayed gratification.
Perhaps she felt her presentation was “culturally appropriate” for a bunch of high-strung Army Rangers, but I saw it as woefully lacking any longterm substance.
I believe financial counseling is of the utmost importance and should be taught to everyone, but the math needs to be real and it needs to be consistent, because 2 minus 3 is not a good place to be financially.
I had an old veteran once tell me,”No matter what path you’ve walked; no matter who you are; at the end of the day you look down and the two feet you stand on are your own.”
He’s gone, but that wisdom is still with me.
Ms Nobles, I hope your program is a success, because if it is, we all win.
I agree with you. Spent 20 years in the Army and spent much time counselling new enlistees on staying out of debt and how to manage their pay.
The Bill seems to be light on training and heavy on handouts. You don’t learn financial literacy by becoming dependent upon someone, government in this case, giving you “free money” from age 14 upwards. You learn it by working and thus putting a value upon the money you earn. That’s the first step in financial literacy. You have to wonder whether “culturally appropriate financial education” (I smell critical race theory in this) is really all about learning where one can obtain even more “free money” via welfare, COVID handouts, ADC, or other local, state or federal programs once they become “independent” while still dependent. Kind of ironic, no? There is nothing “cultural” about financial success: anyone of any culture can do it. Go to school, work hard and get married before you have children. To many have thus succeeded financially. It’s part of the American dream.
Let’s do some quick numbers John
So, if we give a minimum of $25 to foster youth over the age of 14. There are currently 10,067 youth in foster care in Washington. I was able to find a breakdown by age for Washington foster youth, with 87% being between the age of 1-15. That means 1308 foster youth are currently eligible, although many of those will age out soon after the program is implemented. That means that in its first year we can expect this program to cost the state $392,000. If everyone who is eligible applies for the program and receives the minimum of $25. If we include the entire 10,067 people in foster care, that number moves to $3,020,400 annually, which under this legislation is a scenario that will never happen. That $3 million represents 0.0000511% of the 2021-2023 operating budget.
You didn’t mention the budget so the above might seem like a red herring, but I wanted to give some perspective. Onto your contention that this is “light on training and heavy on handouts.” I find it hard to refute simply because I find it absurd that $25 a month ($300 a year) is a “heavy” handout. I hope that’s the case for every one reading this and you’re an isolated voice. You seriously need to explain to me how that is a massive handout comparable to the covid-stimulus checks (which until the last round were not available to anyone claimed as a dependent), because that is a patently absurd claim to me.
In terms of “light on training,” its been made clear in the document that the program will have input from financial institutions to help prepare its implementation. Meaning not only will caseworkers be given resources and directives on helping improve financial literacy, but financial institutions will also be able to provide their expertise and prepare resources for those seeking to use the program. This legislation will give those stakeholders the flexibility necessary to make the training accessible and effective.
Onto your favorite buzzword, “critical race theory” and the use of the term “culturally appropriate.” I found a study on the topic by just searching “culturally appropriate financial education.” Here’s a link you can copy into your browser: https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3227&context=aerc
As the article helpfully points out on page 4 of the pdf, sub-section one, culturally appropriate covers all sorts of aspects of difference like age and socioeconomic status. Do you think it would make sense for you to take the same financial literacy class as a 14 year old foster youth living below the poverty line? If you don’t, and think lessons should be adjusted accordingly to circumstance, congratulations! You believe in culturally appropriate financial literacy lessons. The phrasing may seem a bit odd. Of course, if you didn’t always engage with this sort of thing in bad faith, maybe you’d better understand what’s being proposed.
Speaking of you acting in bad faith, I think your rants about critical race theory are absurd in all circumstances. I’m not going to engage with it because I know its just the red meat you throw for your ideological cohort on here. In this case its especially transparent since the only connection to CRT you have is the word cultural. If that’s got you riled up I can’t imagine how angry it must make you that there’s a Steilacoom Tribe Cultural Center. Must be CRT of course, its got the word culture in it!
So there. It’s a program with very little cost to the taxpayer, the implementation plan will be made by a group of stakeholders with expertise in the field, and culturally appropriate financial education is a better sounding short-hand for situationally relevant education. If you believe that more could be done to flesh out that part of the legislation, maybe you could email the Senator’s office with some suggestions on how to make an effective financial literacy training program. If you have a relevant background in the matter of course.
“You didn’t mention the budget so the above might seem like a red herring”…..indeed it is a red herring when the basis upon which demands of the budget are made are flawed as is this proposal.
I also think the massive COVID hand outs across the board without qualification was a terrible mistake which we now are reaping in the form of inflation. Print “free” money and you devalue the currency: a basic financial concept. Don’t ascribe to me things you don’t know about me…….a strawman argument.
In terms of light on training, where’s the curriculum and why is it limited to foster children. Indeed financial training should be part of every high schools curriculum for all students as a condition of graduation! Suggestion #1. Don’t ask for commitment to a payout when there’s no definition of the conditions (training) under which he payout is handled. Set up a training program and thn discuss the need for a monthly “allowance” if any. Suggestion #2.
Dumping people into convenient groups based upon culture, race, ethnicity, economic status, familial status robs them of their individuality. It’s called “stereotyping” and when related to race “racism”. Financial literacy is not a culturally defined phenomenon: it is one defined by ideals that are common to all cultures, races, ethnicities, economic status and familial status and are achieved individually not by group identity. There are too many successful people of all cultures, races, ethnicities, etc. who did so without a monthly government allowance. You need to read up on CRT to recognize it when you see it. Please stop ascribing emotions to me when you know nothing about me. It’s a weak argument that smacks of transference and projection on your part.
This proposed program is going in reverse not forward. Would you agree to paying a contractor working on your home without a contract, without a scope of work or a time line for completion? Yet that’s what your supporting here: pay the money up front and we’ll figure it out later. Maybe you need some financial literacy training.
I’ve already given two suggestions so here’s #3. How about proposing a youth work program not just for foster children but for children in low income families. The rational is that when they leave high school they may not have the familial economic assets necessary to ease them into self sufficiency as young adults. Here’s #4: Government coordinating with private industry to provide training during their school years for a job and then #5 transition these youth workers directly into the work force upon graduation to include #6 the post graduation education necessary to gain skills for that job.
That’s how you handle financial literacy: not trying to make an individual “independent” by making them dependent upon a government hand out.
“‘You didn’t mention the budget so the above might seem like a red herring’…..indeed it is a red herring when the basis upon which demands of the budget are made are flawed as is this proposal.”
It’s a pretty blatant omission to leave out the ending of that sentence clarifying why I mentioned the budget. Also, it isn’t a red herring on my part if the budget process is flawed. It’s a red herring because you never mentioned the budget so me bringing it up could be seen as distracting from the main point, which I then went on to address. A red herring is a rhetorical device to distract from an important point or question. Funny enough, mentioning that the budget process is flawed (in your view) is a red herring in response to my red herring! Looks like we’re both using some fallacies today.
“Don’t ascribe to me things you don’t know about me…….a strawman argument.”
“Please stop ascribing emotions to me when you know nothing about me. It’s a weak argument that smacks of transference and projection on your part.”
I ascribe to you what I have observed in your commentary on this website in the last year. You are singularly focused on accusing programs of being about critical race theory, on accusing teachers of being peddlers of CRT, which I disagree with. It is not a strawman to point out that you talk about CRT in many of your comments, it’s a statement of fact.
“In terms of light on training, where’s the curriculum and why is it limited to foster children. Indeed financial training should be part of every high school curriculum for all students as a condition of graduation! Suggestion #1. Don’t ask for commitment to a payout when there’s no definition of the conditions (training) under which the payout is handled. Set up a training program and then discuss the need for a monthly “allowance” if any.”
I have no disagreements with the idea of financial literacy as a part of high school education. This bill isn’t arguing against that idea. Instead, it is addressing a well-documented issue: youth raised out of foster care do not often have foster parents who can role-model good financial management. Having programs to specifically address foster youth seeks to alleviate that gap in access. It’s the same reason foster youth have social workers assigned to them. They do in fact require more outside intervention.
Here’s a good example of how foster youth are at a serious (and not at all their fault) disadvantage. “In one survey of parents of youth in college, only 10 to 15 percent of parents reported not contributing to their child’s tuition, books, housing, and daily expenses (Padilla-Walker, Nelson, and Carroll 2011).” Regardless of if you think parents should contribute to helping their children in this way, that’s exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases. The majority of youth from middle- to upper-middle class backgrounds can expect to receive financial aid from their parents, foster youth cannot. And compared to that aid, $300 a year is nothing. But it can be the basis of savings in the future, which less than half of foster youth leave the system with savings.
“Suggestion #2. Dumping people into convenient groups based upon culture, race, ethnicity, economic status, familial status robs them of their individuality. It’s called “stereotyping” and when related to race “racism”. Financial literacy is not a culturally defined phenomenon: it is one defined by ideals that are common to all cultures, races, ethnicities, economic status and familial status and are achieved individually not by group identity. There are too many successful people of all cultures, races, ethnicities, etc. who did so without a monthly government allowance. You need to read up on CRT to recognize it when you see it.”
You are absolutely correct that all cultures have ideals related to success. However, that does not mean that all people in all circumstances are able to follow the same path. Again, you receiving the same financial training as a youth in foster care does not make sense.
Perhaps you shouldn’t make presumptions about what I do or don’t know about CRT. I imagine I’ve read more CRT than you have and have had to more seriously contemplate it than you have. I don’t agree with all aspects of it, particularly the conclusions, but if you only read critiques of something you never seriously engage with it. Imagine if our understanding of Christianity was only based upon the critiques of Greek pagans and not the bible. CRT is an extension of what’s known as “critical theory.” CT is based on the idea that societal structures are the main cause of discrimination and unfair treatment more so than individual behaviors. It also of course borrows from the work of Kimberlee Crenshaw, who is considered the originator of academic and legal theories of intersectionality in her article “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.” which is free to read and I have linked here: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf
I am more familiar with theory around intersectionality than I am with CRT directly. I have read works considered to be CRT-related. I found another free reading that I’m reviewing now that gives a good introduction to the topic. I don’t know if you’re able to access the link, but here it is regardless https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg2gf.14
First, the main reason I didn’t address CRT is because this program is not CRT. Culturally-attuned education did not start with CRT. In fact, since this program explicitly seeks to cooperate with financial institutions like banks, would that not make it inherently pro-capitalist? It seeks to familiarize foster youth with the functions of the financial system. A system frequently targeted by CRT theorists and activists as inherently racist. How can a pro-capitalist financial program possibly be CRT? Second, I do not believe that you will be persuaded to learn about CRT and that for you it’s an effective way to tar whatever ideas you don’t like. Why would I engage with you about something you clearly have no intention of seriously engaging with?
“This proposed program is going in reverse, not forward. Would you agree to paying a contractor working on your home without a contract, without a scope of work or a timeline for completion? Yet that’s what you’re supporting here: pay the money up front and we’ll figure it out later. Maybe you need some financial literacy training.”
There are essentially two tracks to this program. 1. Is the opening of a bank account, of which a minimum of $25 will be deposited costing the state around $400,000 a year given the number of foster youth who are eligible. 2. Is the financial literacy program to be implemented. The plan is to be fully operational by Jan. 1st, 2023 giving the stakeholder group the time to fully prepare a financial literacy program. That seems like a timeline to me, and I found out about it by actually reading the bill. If you would like that funding not be distributed by the state until an action plan is completed, I encourage you to email the senator asking for that to be made explicit in the bill.
“Maybe you need some financial literacy training,” oh my, how will I ever recover from that one.
“I’ve already given two suggestions so here’s #3. How about proposing a youth work program not just for foster children but for children in low income families. The rationale is that when they leave high school they may not have the familial economic assets necessary to ease them into self sufficiency as young adults. Here’s #4: Government coordinating with private industry to provide training during their school years for a job and then #5 transition these youth workers directly into the workforce upon graduation to include #6 the postgraduate education necessary to gain skills for that job.”
Again, not opposed to any of these ideas. You could email these ideas to the senator. Although you should know Washington state has a low-income youth work program already in place doing basically everything you have outlined.
: https://worksourcewa.com/Resources/YouthProgram.aspx
This legislation could be seen as supplemental to this prior program.
In fairness there isn’t enough concrete data to say if financial literacy programs are or are not an effective intervention for foster youth, as noted in this study: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/43276/2000129-Supporting-Youth-Transitioning-out-of-Foster-Care-Financial-Literacy-and-Asset-Building-Programs.pdf
However, the study does recommend making integrated approaches to the issue in conjunction with other, already existing programs. Something Senator Nobles’ bill recommends through coordination with programs already in existence in the DCYF. So yes, this bill is a pilot program. A pilot program that is remarkably cheap and that in a few years could provide a wealth of data on the effectiveness of these programs. If it isn’t effective, we can check it off of the list of possible interventions and do so with little loss in terms of financial investment by the state. If it is effective, it will improve the lives of those in foster care. It’s like investing in a start-up more so than paying a contractor.
Finally, I’m not projecting my own emotions onto you. I can admit I’m emotional about this, because I think you have objectionable beliefs and on top of that, you treat people you disagree with like mud. This is the first time I felt moved to actually respond because of what you wrote. You’ve spent the last year maligning those who disagree with you. Stop pretending to maintain the moral high ground. We’re both maligning each other so I don’t need a lecture on it.
Business is a universal language that is all-inclusive of race and culture, in every corner of the globe.
If the business is good, there is harmony.
If business is bad, then not so much.
The math of good business is simple and consistent.
It neither seeks nor requires outside assistance.
The same applies to personal finance.
What we need in this age of expectation, is more personal responsibility and living within our means.
With disciplined earning, saving, and investing, there is great opportunity in America still.
If we don’t believe that and work towards it, then we are again wasting our time on things that simply don’t add up.