Social problems

Charities can help where government assistance fails

Charities can help where government assistance fails

In another post I suggested that our goal should be to help people end dependence rather than ending poverty.  Government programs by their very nature foster dependence.  These programs are a trap from which it is difficult to escape as I outlined in a different blog.   You are eligible only because you are in poverty.  Accepting their help puts you in a situation where any efforts to earn money means you often lose more than you gain.  If you accept benefits while you’re starting to get on your feet, you eventually get caught and must pay them back when you can not really afford it.  Government programs can cut checks and they can make rules but they cannot provide the flexible kind of help that is needed to help someone get on their feet.  But charities can.

To solve homelessness for a night you need a shelter.  To solve it for good, you need a job.

The Doe Fund is an example of a charity whose main function is to help homeless people get back on their feet.  The Doe Fund website  is very clear about their goals: “Creating pathways to self-sufficiency and independence is at the heart of everything we do.”  The Doe Fund supports three programs. The first, “Ready, Willing and Able” begins with volunteer work to build self-esteem and get on their feet. The main picture for this blog is from their site. They say clearly, “To solve homelessness for a night you need a shelter.  To solve it for good, you need a job.”   The second, “Social Enterprise” runs businesses whose primary goal is providing job skills through on-the-job training.  The third provides affordable and supportive housing as a transition for their clients.  They take people from homelessness to self-sufficiency over a period of time with work, education, training, counseling, and various kinds of assistance.  All of it aimed to get people to become independent rather than dependents of a program.  As you peruse their website, you see joy, pride and a sense of reclaiming their lives.  This is an example of really helping people.  Government programs fail utterly at helping people do anything other than become dependent.

On the other side of the country is another program, the “Downtown Streets Team” in San Francisco.  They work with teams of street people who volunteer to work cleaning the streets of San Francisco, and now several other California cities.  They operate with a basic three step process, as illustrated below, from their “Impact Dashboard.”

As you read the stories on the Downtown Streets Team website (please do so)  you see the joy and pride that this charity engenders in the people it helps.  Their clients have “turned their lives around.”  Have you ever heard someone proud of themselves for getting on a government program?  This kind of work is what I want to support rather than programs that keep people poor and dependent.

We should have a 100% tax credit for money we give to such charities.

We know that there are charities out there that actually help people.  I would prefer to give money to charities that help people rather than to government programs that foster dependence and despair.  We should have a 100% tax credit for money we give to such charities. Not a write off, but a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.

If we did that, we could gradually transfer all of our help for the needy from dead-end government programs to charities that have the flexibility and the mission to help people get back on their feet.  If we can afford billions for the government programs that don’t help, imagine what would happen if those billions instead went to programs that do help.  I’m just sayin’

 

Posted by donc1950@gmail.com in Social problems, 0 comments
Let’s end dependence rather than poverty

Let’s end dependence rather than poverty

 

Recently, I heard a school administrator promoting the importance of making all of the parents at our schools aware of the existence of government programs for the homeless.   “Lots of people don’t even know that they qualify for these programs.” she enthused.  “If they are living with family members and not paying rent, they can qualify as homeless!”

What would that do for them, I wondered?

According to the website of the Oregon Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), its “re-housing program” can provide these kinds of services to the “homeless”:

Re-housing programs work with people who are already homeless to help them quickly move into rental housing.  Re-housing programs can provide housing location, financial assistance including security deposits, rent assistance and payment of arrearages and case management.  Both homeless prevention and rapid re-housing programs coordinate with other community resources to ensure that participants are linked to ongoing assistance, such as housing vouchers, intensive case management, or assertive community treatment.

So if a family (in this community often a new immigrant family) is managing their finances by living with relatives until they can get on their feet, government agencies can arrange to give them financial assistance in the form of security deposits to rent a place they otherwise couldn’t afford to rent, and participate in a program of government “rent assistance” or “housing vouchers.”   The person recommending this seems to think it would be a good thing to move someone into a situation where he was dependent on government for a place to live.  Implied, but not stated, is the assumption that it is kind of stupid to prefer to take care of yourself when you can get something for free instead.

Connected to that assumption is the proposition that any well-meaning person, such as a teacher or school administrator, has an obligation to convince stiff-necked individuals that their pride is hurting their children, and they really should accept the government’s largesse.   This assumes, however, that one’s quality of life is measured simply by the dollar amount of the things one receives, without regard to how one obtained them.

Some time back, the Cato Institute released a report entitled, “The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty—and Fail.”     http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf  Their estimate is that we spend about $15,000 per person below the poverty line on anti-poverty programs without eliminating poverty.  Michael Tanner noted that most of our efforts are designed not so much to fight poverty, but to make it more comfortable to be poor.  I’d like to suggest that we fight a war to eliminate dependence, rather than to fight poverty.

Not so many decades ago it was commonly understood that there was something demeaning about being on “the dole.”   People did not want to accept charity if they could make their own way in life.  There were the pejorative terms “kept woman” and  worse still, “kept man,” meaning a person who did not have a job but was supported by a sex partner.   Many of the social programs we have today were sold with difficulty to an American public for whom public assistance and dependency carried a stigma.

According to Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute, Social Security was presented not as a needs-based program of charity in which today’s workers pay for the benefits of today’s elderly, but as “a system of social insurance under which workers (and their employers) contribute a part of their earnings in order to provide protection for themselves and their families if certain events occur.  As a result of this ‘earned benefit’ status, collection of Social Security benefits has never carried the stigma associated with food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or other welfare programs.” http://www.american.com/archive/2009/february-2009/obama-vs-fdr

That has been the pattern with a number of “entitlement” programs.  Instead of being needs-based charities, which show one’s dependence, programs such as Medicare and Social Security are made for everyone.  Therefore there is no stigma and everyone should be happy to receive benefits from the government.  Of course, the effect is that these programs have ballooned in size and are currently unsustainable.  (Odd that sustainable houses and buildings are all the rage, but sustainable social programs, not so much.)   We have a huge financial burden looming ahead of us as these entitlement programs become ever more costly as more of us baby-boomers retire and expect to collect benefits.  Because there is no stigma associated with these programs, we all intend to capitalize on them.

Here lies the problem–and also the solution to the problem.  Instead of a War on Poverty, we should have a War on Dependence.  All our social programs should have as their goal helping people become independent of government assistance.  They would still require considerable effort and would still employ many social workers for years to come, but the war could be won!  We could get to the point where everyone had a way to support himself.

How would that look different from today’s social programs?

For one thing, we’d begin by applauding all those who already take care of themselves.  We would hold them up and give them recognition.  We would put them on talk shows and news programs to tell their story of how they manage in life without government assistance.  They would become our role models.  We would applaud and appreciate the fact that they do not need to collect on the various social programs to which they are “entitled.”

For example, people over 65 who were working at a job or who could afford their own medical insurance would be honored for their ability to be independent of Medicare.   Right now of course, you virtually have to take it, because no one will insure you at age 65 unless you collect all the Medicare benefits you can.  So right now we are forcing dependency—but the War on Dependence would change that.

We should encourage everyone to avoid having to depend on Social Security as well.  Anyone over 65 who doesn’t need to collect “benefits” from the payroll tax in order to survive in old age would be a hero in everyone’s eyes.  If people keep working, that would be super, because they can be independent thereby.  If people save enough to retire with dignity, that would be even better, because they would be permanently independent.   What’s more, their children would be well on their way to permanent financial independence, when they inherited the principal of their parents’ retirement fund.  As part of the War on Dependence, social workers would help younger people set up various retirement savings plans.  Each person who had a workable retirement savings plan could stand tall in the knowledge that he would not become dependent on Social Security.

One of the sad by-products of the endless and hopeless War on Poverty is that self-sufficiency is no longer valued as it once was.  Someone is considered a fool to turn down government benefits if he can “qualify” for them.  What’s more, someone who gets a first-rung-on-the-career-ladder-job at a low wage still feels bad about himself.  Instead of being proud of being independent, he sees that he is still in relative poverty, and that is what’s bad.  People who are supporting themselves, no matter how meager their circumstances, should be encourage to take pride in not being dependent.  We should make self-sufficiency the goal, the prize, the honor.

Social workers could help farmers who accept government subsidies find ways to become self-sufficient so they can be respected for making an “honest living” without help.    Businesses that sold products abroad without help from the government would be recognized and patronized.  Similarly, industries that did not ask for protectionist tariffs imposed by the government, but could stand on their own, would be new American heroes.  Students who found a college they could afford without government help would be seen as more resourceful and valuable future employees.   Colleges that keep themselves in business without whining for more government money would be seen as more competent than those that couldn’t manage on their own.  This turn of events might even drive down the cost of college.  Primary and secondary schools that focus on helping their graduates prepare for the real world would also be recognized and respected; the ability of their graduates to avoid dependence would be the final measure of the schools’ own worth.

Success would no longer be a nebulous and ill-defined chimera, but would be identified as the ability to support oneself and one’s family.  Families that took care of their own (whether the young or the elderly) without government assistance would be honored.  People with disabilities would be helped to develop as much independence as possible, and honored for every bit they could obtain—instead of scorned for their efforts to contribute to their own support.

Oddly, poverty could, in a sense, be eliminated overnight by simply writing checks of the proper amount to all the poor.  It would help if all our programs of assistance were rolled into one program, so we could keep track of how much we were giving to each person.  We might find that we had already eliminated poverty–that the cash value of all the various forms of assistance we provide to the needy would total enough to give them an income over the poverty line.   But few people really believe, deep in their hearts, that mere dollars will eliminate the problems of the poor.

Independence is the solution–and we need to return to the habit of valuing it.  There is still truth in the old proverb, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”  That means focusing our efforts on reducing dependence instead of fostering it.  A War on Dependence would be infinitely better than the old, unwinnable War on Poverty.

 

 

 

 

Posted by donc1950@gmail.com in Social problems, 0 comments