Elfenworks Foundation Initiative
Studying and Mitigating Unintended Consequences
We are interested in partnering with an academic institution to delve into the issue of how to best mitigate unintended consequences, the unforeseen negative results of actions and laws. Until we find such a partner, we will use this page to gather examples:
Anti-Hunger Effort Results in More Malaria
The starkest example we have ever found of unforseen consequences of well-meaning but poorly thought out acts was discussed in a cover story on malaria in On Earth magazine1. Well-meaning donors gave funds to bring barrels stocked with fish to Africa. It seemed like a great idea - literally allowing people to fish rather than giving them fish. However, the fish were not re-stocked and what remains is a breeding ground for malaria-bearing mosquitoes. Although it's not exactly on-point to our domestic poverty focus, it illustrates our point so clearly we had to start with it.
Impoverishing Repercussions of Laws
Deadbeat Dad Laws: In their attempts to make "deadbeat dads" more accountable, California enacted several laws to monitor and collect outstanding child support payments by parents who fail to pay their child support obligations. The State will also accrue interest on any outstanding obligation, as well as confiscate any monies that are deposited in any bank. Moreover, the State suspends any trade related license, for example, a contractor's license, that a "dead beat" parent may possess. Without a license, their access to better income (which would benefit children) is severely limited. In the following example submitted to us by a former Deputy District Attorney, we see how laws enacted to make fathers more responsible and to assist children have caused unforseen repercussions:
"I have a client who was clinically depressed, leading to his separation and divorce from his wife and two children. His life spiraled into a drug induced depression that lasted for about a year. He came to me after being arrested on a minor drug charge. We got him into rehab and counseling, which helped him deal with his demons. He has now been sober for two years, and sends me clean tests monthly. He attends every function his children are involved in, with the permission of his ex-wife. However, he is afraid to try to get any sort of joint custody because he owes his ex-wife tens of thousands of dollars (she uses this as leverage to limit his time with his children). Sadly, he cannot maintain any construction work because he no longer has his contractor's license. At one point, he had a thriving construction company with over one hundred employees. He also had a number of licenses with the state, all of which are suspended. If he were to do any sort of side job, he could not deposit the check for fear it will be automatically seized by the State. Every time he gives his ex wife money, it is not accounted by the State, and every time he deposits money into the State monitored account, it doesn't even offset the accruing interest. The intent of the laws are good, but the consequences in this case are to dig a huge hole for one father, who is hopeless. He cannot envision how he could ever find his way out of this deep hole and says he has no chance of ever being the provider he once was2."
DUI laws: Similarly, in their hopes of deterring DUI related deaths, the legislature continues to impose stiffer and harsher penalties — fines, jail sentences, school, license suspension — on drivers who drink. A first time DUI offender will suffer two distinct license suspensions, and if a person has a commercial driver's license, they could lose that license indefinitely. No license, no job. This is so, even though it has not been proven that these penalties are a deterrent. Our criminal justice system is designed to deter future wrongdoing, rehabilitate those who need help, and finally, it is meant to punish an offender. Another area which cries out for review would be our byzantine building codes3 which can hinder the poor from having access to affordable housing. How might the law be examined and improved so that it still provides protection, but is less likely lead to such unintended consequences as increased poverty and hopelessness?
Environmental Regulation Hinders Conservation Efforts
Cost and Complexity of Permitting Discourage Resource Protection: Private landowners - including foresters, farmers, and ranchers across California - are increasingly interested in restoring and enhancing the natural conditions of their properties. This often involves erosion control, bank stabilization, and re-vegetation work in and around waterways to improve water quality and boost wildlife habitat and populations - including a number of imperiled species. To implement most of these environmental enhancements, however, landowners are required to obtain permits from seven or more local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Getting those permits can take more than a year, cost well over a thousand dollars in fees alone, and require significant amounts of individuals' time to shepherd permits through the process. Frustrated landowners often give up and, instead of implementing resource protection measures, go about their operations as usual. Conservation-minded landowners also frequently express the concern that they will be penalized if they try to fix a natural resource problem. Ultimately, the time, cost, and complexity of the regulatory review intended to protect the environment prevents conservation activities designed to enhance the environment.
Endangered Species Act Disincentivizes Positive Actions: While the Endangered Species Act has effectively prevented the extinction of many animals and plants since its enactment in 1973, there are some unintended consequences that inhibit recovery efforts. If landowners enhance wildlife habitat on their properties and an endangered species takes up residence - or is harmed during a conservation project - they may face new land-use restrictions and even fines. This risk can make even the most conservation-minded landowner wary of establishing, restoring or protecting healthy habitat. Yet, wildlife habitat is crucial to the nation's imperiled species. About half of all endangered species in the U.S. live on private land and about half of all U.S. land is in private hands. California has the largest number of rare animals and plants in the continental U.S. Without the active, voluntary participation of private landowners, there can never be enough healthy habitat to restore declining species.
These examples come to us from our friend Ashley Boren at Sustainable Conservation. Sustainable Conservation partners with business, agriculture and government leaders to find practical ways that the private sector can protect clean air, clean water and healthy ecosystems. Learn more about this innovative group at www.suscon.org.
New York Times Article on Unintended Consequences Examines The ADA
Writers Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, in their New York Times article 'Unintended Consequences' speculate "does the Americans with Disabilities Act in some cases hurt the very patients it is intended to help?" and "how did the A.D.A. affect employment among the disabled?" For a discussion of this and other examples, read it.
See also our initiative on fostering effectiveness and best practices.
----------
1On Earth, Winter 2008, p35. "1500 concrete fish ponds for fish-farming were
installed years ago in the western highlands, but due to lack of money and training in their use they are now defunct, serving
as de-facto mosquito breeding sites..."
2Our thanks to Joseph A. Motta, Esq. of Rueb, Motta & Manoukian for providing this client example to us.
3S.F. Examiner, February 2-3 2008, Real Estate, p.2
