Friday, May 1, 2009
Concerning the previous posts...
These posts are from an essay written on poverty in the United States and my views on them. Context: It was written for a Social Welfare class this past fall, thus the emphasis on the history of SW in the U.S.
Part I: Land of Plenty, Land of Want
Nothing more overwhelms the human spirit, or mocks our values and our dreams, than the desperate struggle for sustenance. – Henry Kissinger
Poverty- The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence – Webster’s Dictionary
For the past several years, my spiritual journey and faith development have lead me to an increasing awareness of the disparity of wealth in our nation. I have become increasingly aware of the various types of suffering of vast segments of our society. Because of this growing sensitivity within me I have become interested in topics such as injustice, poverty, and inequality in our local community, our nation and world. I’ve read several books about poverty in our nation including Urban Injustice by Dr. David Hilfiker, Bringing in the Sheaves: Transforming Poverty into Productivity by George Grant, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ron Sider and several other books including several texts from sociology classes. I have also listened to lectures (via Podcast) from a variety of people such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Robert Reich, Jonathan Kozol, and Ruby Payne. I became weary of reading about all of these problems so I became involved with several non-profit organizations dedicated to serving the poor, hungry, addicted, homeless, imprisoned, ex-convicts, and developmentally disabled. My experiences with those organizations has been beneficial and has motivated me to become not just knowledgeable, but involved. My participation has helped me put faces to certain social conditions, bringing them out of textbooks and making them a part of reality. For myself these are difficult subjects to actually study, to get my mind around, because of the differentiating definitions and concepts that seek to address these conditions. So far, my conscience (or value system) doesn’t seem to agree with any one view. In this paper I will try examine the various attitudes and approaches towards addressing poverty. In the final analysis, I conclude that faith communities and government institutions are the best vehicles to addressing poverty in America.
What is poverty?
The word “poverty” can be used in a variety of different ways. A person can be impoverished, or poor, in several different aspects of life- emotionally, physically, spiritually, mentally, and several others. In this paper, poverty will be used in a sense in conjunction with material possessions, money and property. Around the world, approximately 1.1 billion people live on less than $1 per day and 2.7 billion live on less than $2 per day. Many of these people face numerous problems, ranging from the tangible, such as sanitation and drinking water to intangible problems such as social relationships and abusive governments. However, because of the enormity and scope of worldwide poverty, in this paper poverty will be restricted to the United States where poverty limits individuals access to things other Americans often take for granted, such as transportation, childcare, nutrition, quality education, adequate medicine, housing, and safe environments. This more restricted view of poverty is made easier to grapple with because of the stark contrast between America’s “haves” and “have-nots.”
Who are “the poor?”
Poverty is a very relative term, largely because of the differing conditions and resources between the developing nations and the so-called “third-world,” or undeveloped nations. Yet here in America the United States government determined a way to make an objective or absolute “official poverty level” in 1961. The Social Security Administration then determined that a individuals’ inability to purchase a standard diet would be considered poverty. So they (the SSA) multiplied the amount needed to afford a standard diet by three, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated the average person or family spends a third of its income on food. From there they multiplied the cost of a single person times the number of persons in a family for a threshold poverty level for families, an amount needed to stay out of poverty.
Below I illustrate two sets of statistics about poverty that often confuse and mislead people about the harsh inequalities poverty:
1. Altogether there are 37 million people are considered in poverty. Of those 16.2 million are white, 9.1 million are black, slightly more Hispanic and 1.4 million are Asian. Twenty million of the 37 million are adults age 18-64, and the elderly (65+) compose 3.6 million. By household, nearly 3 million families with married parents live in poverty, and families that are headed by a single mother make up 4 million.
2. The number of people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 37 million in 2005. That’s 12.6 percent of the total population. Of those 37 million 8.3 percent are White, 25 percent are Black, another quarter American Indian, Hispanics make up a fifth, and 11 percent are Asian. Single mother households make up 29 percent. Nearly 18 percent of the 37 million are children under the age of 18. By age, the United States has a number of children living in poverty that is two to three times higher than other industrialized nations.
Both of these statistics are true. By the first set of statistics one would be lead to think that economic inequality due to race doesn’t exist. The number of whites in poverty far exceeds the number of ethnic minorities. But in the second paragraph the reader can see the poor are disproportionately Black, American Indian, Asian and Hispanic. Children are also disproportionately impoverished. In fact, the United States has a number of children living in poverty that is two to three times higher than other industrialized nations. The first set of statistics would lead people to believe that poverty and racial inequality are not a problem and there would be no need to worry ameliorating such.
What causes poverty?
Why are “the poor”, poor? Are people born poor? Are they poor because they lack the “American work ethic” and thus unable to get out of poverty? Do they suffer from some kind of genetic, mental, or intellectual deficits? There are a couple of different views or explanations of what causes or creates poverty. Some view this societal condition as a personal problem of the impoverished and thus have a residual view. Others view it as a structural or institutional problem.
The explanation of residualism teaches poverty is created by an individual’s own faults or failings. This is the highly popular view that the current circumstances of a person reflects what they have failed to make out of the opportunities given to them. In other words, this perspective teaches that life gave them lemons and the poor threw their lemons away, when instead they should have added sugar and water for lemonade. Residualists see individual poverty as something that could have been controlled or avoided. Sadly, a residual approach to poverty leads to a weak sense of ownership over the condition by society. In this view ownership of the “poverty problem” belongs to the impoverished. This approach justifies statements such as “their inability to keep or get a job is their own fault; they could have prepared themselves; it was their choice to drop out of school, become addicted to drugs, or spend their money on useless things.” Persons holding a residual view would maintain that the poor still have the choice to climb out of their situation.
The institutional view argues that poverty is not a result of individual choices or inadequacies, but rather it is the product of larger social and cultural issues. This view holds that the circumstances an individual faces lie outside the control of the person. Forces within the structure of society, perhaps, including governmental institutions and policies, have created or contribute to society’s poverty. The institutional view recognizes that often times individuals find themselves in situations over which they have no control and have little to no resources to extricate themselves from their impoverished condition. In an institutional view, the economy and government have more control and influence in building strong communities or deprived ones.
The residual view often poses the idea that poor people either don’t or refuse to work and simply responds by posing the question, “Why don’t they just get jobs?” With this approach the poor are criticized for their lack of motivation. From my experience this summer working at the New Orleans Mission, a homeless shelter in the central city, I found that most of the people who lived in the area and in the shelter were hardworking people. Many of them sought to piece together an adequate living for themselves and families by working several minimum wage jobs, yet they still don’t make enough to pay for housing and other priority expenses.
I would agree that individual behaviors are an important factor in poverty. While in New Orleans I met a man who was certainly different than many of the other shelter residents. Kelwin didn’t mind being homeless because he could spend his monthly $600 Supplemental Security Income checks on prostitutes, fifths of vodka, and freebase cocaine. I wouldn’t see Kelwin during the first week of the month. Often people hear stories about or meet irresponsible characters such as Kelwin and let those experiences distort their perceptions of homelessness and poverty. When sharing Kelwin’s story with others, many times their responses include, “they need to cut out those checks.” For Kelwin, however, there is a deeper underlying problem. He is chronically poor; what money he receives will be spent on frivolous things instead of basic necessities. The deeper roots causing his homelessness go back to his family and education. Neither Kelwin, nor his education were valued. I didn’t meet many people like Kelwin, although we do know that drug abuse is frequent, especially in urban areas. But also without a doubt hopelessness and despair are even more endemic, causing an intense desire to escape through ubiquitous, easy and affordable drugs. I would cautiously suggest situations such as Kelwin’s are extreme and extraneous. I would also agree that institutional forces, such as negative economic and social structures came first. I saw many strong, working people, who are both independent and resourceful and they are swimming against an overpowering force of not ever make ends meet.
In sociology I have studied the importance of social networks. Often times, in the midst of natural disasters people in poverty are without transportation, money, local or cable television which provide news alerts, or social networks. These people are left stranded with few or no options for survival. From taking classes on social networks, I can recognize the importance of them in natural disasters, and the extreme lack of social networks. Before Katrina we were unaware of the lack of technology used in connecting people to their families. I found it interesting that the Red Cross, although providing excellent service administering food and water, did not, at least for a while set up a communications system, where separated families and friends across the nation could be united and jobs could be found. Perhaps such a network now exists after Katrina. Maybe the Red Cross, who was quick to respond (along with the U.S. Coast Guard), can help create more effective disaster plans. After seeing people with no social networks, having nowhere to go, I thought about the people I know and where they live. I know people all around the country, from Tallahassee to Philadelphia to California. That’s not even mentioning the contacts I have in states surrounding Louisiana. But then, to think of some of the poorer people that I know here in Ruston, they don’t know many people and have no support network. These poorer people don’t get to travel, visit family in Shreveport on the weekends, or take trips to Jackson or Dallas to see a concert. The things I easily take for granted, are some of the critical things that people in poverty need the most in desperate situations.
Poverty- The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence – Webster’s Dictionary
For the past several years, my spiritual journey and faith development have lead me to an increasing awareness of the disparity of wealth in our nation. I have become increasingly aware of the various types of suffering of vast segments of our society. Because of this growing sensitivity within me I have become interested in topics such as injustice, poverty, and inequality in our local community, our nation and world. I’ve read several books about poverty in our nation including Urban Injustice by Dr. David Hilfiker, Bringing in the Sheaves: Transforming Poverty into Productivity by George Grant, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ron Sider and several other books including several texts from sociology classes. I have also listened to lectures (via Podcast) from a variety of people such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Robert Reich, Jonathan Kozol, and Ruby Payne. I became weary of reading about all of these problems so I became involved with several non-profit organizations dedicated to serving the poor, hungry, addicted, homeless, imprisoned, ex-convicts, and developmentally disabled. My experiences with those organizations has been beneficial and has motivated me to become not just knowledgeable, but involved. My participation has helped me put faces to certain social conditions, bringing them out of textbooks and making them a part of reality. For myself these are difficult subjects to actually study, to get my mind around, because of the differentiating definitions and concepts that seek to address these conditions. So far, my conscience (or value system) doesn’t seem to agree with any one view. In this paper I will try examine the various attitudes and approaches towards addressing poverty. In the final analysis, I conclude that faith communities and government institutions are the best vehicles to addressing poverty in America.
What is poverty?
The word “poverty” can be used in a variety of different ways. A person can be impoverished, or poor, in several different aspects of life- emotionally, physically, spiritually, mentally, and several others. In this paper, poverty will be used in a sense in conjunction with material possessions, money and property. Around the world, approximately 1.1 billion people live on less than $1 per day and 2.7 billion live on less than $2 per day. Many of these people face numerous problems, ranging from the tangible, such as sanitation and drinking water to intangible problems such as social relationships and abusive governments. However, because of the enormity and scope of worldwide poverty, in this paper poverty will be restricted to the United States where poverty limits individuals access to things other Americans often take for granted, such as transportation, childcare, nutrition, quality education, adequate medicine, housing, and safe environments. This more restricted view of poverty is made easier to grapple with because of the stark contrast between America’s “haves” and “have-nots.”
Who are “the poor?”
Poverty is a very relative term, largely because of the differing conditions and resources between the developing nations and the so-called “third-world,” or undeveloped nations. Yet here in America the United States government determined a way to make an objective or absolute “official poverty level” in 1961. The Social Security Administration then determined that a individuals’ inability to purchase a standard diet would be considered poverty. So they (the SSA) multiplied the amount needed to afford a standard diet by three, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated the average person or family spends a third of its income on food. From there they multiplied the cost of a single person times the number of persons in a family for a threshold poverty level for families, an amount needed to stay out of poverty.
Below I illustrate two sets of statistics about poverty that often confuse and mislead people about the harsh inequalities poverty:
1. Altogether there are 37 million people are considered in poverty. Of those 16.2 million are white, 9.1 million are black, slightly more Hispanic and 1.4 million are Asian. Twenty million of the 37 million are adults age 18-64, and the elderly (65+) compose 3.6 million. By household, nearly 3 million families with married parents live in poverty, and families that are headed by a single mother make up 4 million.
2. The number of people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 37 million in 2005. That’s 12.6 percent of the total population. Of those 37 million 8.3 percent are White, 25 percent are Black, another quarter American Indian, Hispanics make up a fifth, and 11 percent are Asian. Single mother households make up 29 percent. Nearly 18 percent of the 37 million are children under the age of 18. By age, the United States has a number of children living in poverty that is two to three times higher than other industrialized nations.
Both of these statistics are true. By the first set of statistics one would be lead to think that economic inequality due to race doesn’t exist. The number of whites in poverty far exceeds the number of ethnic minorities. But in the second paragraph the reader can see the poor are disproportionately Black, American Indian, Asian and Hispanic. Children are also disproportionately impoverished. In fact, the United States has a number of children living in poverty that is two to three times higher than other industrialized nations. The first set of statistics would lead people to believe that poverty and racial inequality are not a problem and there would be no need to worry ameliorating such.
What causes poverty?
Why are “the poor”, poor? Are people born poor? Are they poor because they lack the “American work ethic” and thus unable to get out of poverty? Do they suffer from some kind of genetic, mental, or intellectual deficits? There are a couple of different views or explanations of what causes or creates poverty. Some view this societal condition as a personal problem of the impoverished and thus have a residual view. Others view it as a structural or institutional problem.
The explanation of residualism teaches poverty is created by an individual’s own faults or failings. This is the highly popular view that the current circumstances of a person reflects what they have failed to make out of the opportunities given to them. In other words, this perspective teaches that life gave them lemons and the poor threw their lemons away, when instead they should have added sugar and water for lemonade. Residualists see individual poverty as something that could have been controlled or avoided. Sadly, a residual approach to poverty leads to a weak sense of ownership over the condition by society. In this view ownership of the “poverty problem” belongs to the impoverished. This approach justifies statements such as “their inability to keep or get a job is their own fault; they could have prepared themselves; it was their choice to drop out of school, become addicted to drugs, or spend their money on useless things.” Persons holding a residual view would maintain that the poor still have the choice to climb out of their situation.
The institutional view argues that poverty is not a result of individual choices or inadequacies, but rather it is the product of larger social and cultural issues. This view holds that the circumstances an individual faces lie outside the control of the person. Forces within the structure of society, perhaps, including governmental institutions and policies, have created or contribute to society’s poverty. The institutional view recognizes that often times individuals find themselves in situations over which they have no control and have little to no resources to extricate themselves from their impoverished condition. In an institutional view, the economy and government have more control and influence in building strong communities or deprived ones.
The residual view often poses the idea that poor people either don’t or refuse to work and simply responds by posing the question, “Why don’t they just get jobs?” With this approach the poor are criticized for their lack of motivation. From my experience this summer working at the New Orleans Mission, a homeless shelter in the central city, I found that most of the people who lived in the area and in the shelter were hardworking people. Many of them sought to piece together an adequate living for themselves and families by working several minimum wage jobs, yet they still don’t make enough to pay for housing and other priority expenses.
I would agree that individual behaviors are an important factor in poverty. While in New Orleans I met a man who was certainly different than many of the other shelter residents. Kelwin didn’t mind being homeless because he could spend his monthly $600 Supplemental Security Income checks on prostitutes, fifths of vodka, and freebase cocaine. I wouldn’t see Kelwin during the first week of the month. Often people hear stories about or meet irresponsible characters such as Kelwin and let those experiences distort their perceptions of homelessness and poverty. When sharing Kelwin’s story with others, many times their responses include, “they need to cut out those checks.” For Kelwin, however, there is a deeper underlying problem. He is chronically poor; what money he receives will be spent on frivolous things instead of basic necessities. The deeper roots causing his homelessness go back to his family and education. Neither Kelwin, nor his education were valued. I didn’t meet many people like Kelwin, although we do know that drug abuse is frequent, especially in urban areas. But also without a doubt hopelessness and despair are even more endemic, causing an intense desire to escape through ubiquitous, easy and affordable drugs. I would cautiously suggest situations such as Kelwin’s are extreme and extraneous. I would also agree that institutional forces, such as negative economic and social structures came first. I saw many strong, working people, who are both independent and resourceful and they are swimming against an overpowering force of not ever make ends meet.
In sociology I have studied the importance of social networks. Often times, in the midst of natural disasters people in poverty are without transportation, money, local or cable television which provide news alerts, or social networks. These people are left stranded with few or no options for survival. From taking classes on social networks, I can recognize the importance of them in natural disasters, and the extreme lack of social networks. Before Katrina we were unaware of the lack of technology used in connecting people to their families. I found it interesting that the Red Cross, although providing excellent service administering food and water, did not, at least for a while set up a communications system, where separated families and friends across the nation could be united and jobs could be found. Perhaps such a network now exists after Katrina. Maybe the Red Cross, who was quick to respond (along with the U.S. Coast Guard), can help create more effective disaster plans. After seeing people with no social networks, having nowhere to go, I thought about the people I know and where they live. I know people all around the country, from Tallahassee to Philadelphia to California. That’s not even mentioning the contacts I have in states surrounding Louisiana. But then, to think of some of the poorer people that I know here in Ruston, they don’t know many people and have no support network. These poorer people don’t get to travel, visit family in Shreveport on the weekends, or take trips to Jackson or Dallas to see a concert. The things I easily take for granted, are some of the critical things that people in poverty need the most in desperate situations.
Part II: Response
The Response to Poverty
Welfare is nothing new. It was first recognized when extended families and friends would help other family members and friends in times of need. When that assistance was insufficient, the church (if present) would help the poor. Yet eventually, because of the demand of need, friends, family, and even the church could not help. So societies began to depend and trust on the state or government to take care of the poor, hungry, and sick. I’ve read that official state welfare originated in England to provide economic assistance. From the colonization of North America on, Americans have always had some sort of support from state/institutional aid, support from private organizations, and voluntary assistance. Early on, poorhouses were created but soon they were deemed ineffective and too costly. The pension programs of welfare that we know now began after World War I. It was a pension program available to widowed wives of veterans.
Social welfare consists of many different programs that are specialized to help various groups of people in need. These social welfare programs help both all people and help specific groups of people. Various forms include: disability payments, medical assistance, cash aid to families, food stamps, housing vouchers, elderly assistance checks, health insurance, financial student aid and pensions.
But as far as I know social welfare is not only used to assist the needy, but for several other reasons as well. Government programs can create a hegemonic relationship between itself and the people, creating control and order. It can be used as a bulwark by the government to protect itself. Social welfare prevents future political unrest, such as the increasing of AFDC benefits during the inner-city riots in the 1960s. It can be used as an intimidating force as well, to punish unrest, forcing strikers and working people into accepting low wage jobs. It can also be used as a tool to gain public political support. If a candidate promises a favorable change of the welfare system, the recipients would be more likely to support the candidate.
In the 1980’s the Reagan Administration tried to stimulate the failing economy by cutting benefits for the poor. $140 billion dollars were cut from social welfare programs, yet at the same time taxes were lowered for corporations (a type of corporate welfare). During this time Social Security benefits were terminated for 350,000 people and unemployment grew substantially. With unemployment grew the number of people without insurance, and children went without lunch at school. A tremendous problem grew and people began to attack the current social insurance program Aid For Dependant Children (AFDC). Both sides of the partisan fence agreed in denouncing welfare programs, and no agreement was achieved until the Clinton administration in 1996.The foregoing reveals how contentious and complicated and costly social welfare programs have become. And the cost is not just in dollars; the quality of life for millions of Americans hangs in the balance of governmental policies.
There are several types of social welfare programs today. The first type of welfare is considered a social insurance program i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Everyone, despite their economic standing or background, has the opportunity to benefit from these programs. Corporate welfare is when governments give tax breaks, grants, or special treatment to large companies. Social Insurance programs are government funded and administered by the federal government as well. But what most people consider welfare when talking about poverty and similar issues are public assistance programs- Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp or Louisiana Purchase Program, and Medicaid.
Welfare as we know it today was redesigned in 1996 under the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996,” or popularly known as the Welfare Reform Act. Funding for welfare programs that were once financed and administered by the federal government, were bundled into “Temporary Assistance to Needy Family (TANF) block grants,” given to and to be administered by the State government. This allows the State to meet its own needs with only general provisions from the Federal Government as to how it is to be spent. When I visited the Office of Family Support I learned through this “reform act” more specific programs were created by the state, including: the Child Care Assistance Program, Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program (FITAP), Kinship Care Subsidy Program, and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA).
The Child Care Assistance Program’s intent is to help needy families who are working, looking for work, or in school/vocational training. It gives them monthly allowances to pay for various kinds of childcare for children under 13 and disabled children under 18. FITAP provides cash assistance and promotes job preparation to decrease dependency on welfare. The Kinship Care Subsidy Program provides cash assistance to children living with a relative who is not their parent. Refugee Medical Assistance provides short-term assistance for asylees, refugees, victims of human trafficking and other “at risk” immigrants. It provides medical assistance for the first 8 months of them being within the United States and social services for the first five years. The RMA is the only benefit left for immigrants, who are not yet citizens.
Has this proven a successful change? Did the reform act reform anything? The number of people on welfare (TANF) has declined. People who received AFDC before were soon weaned, or dropped, off of welfare and placed into the workforce. More single mothers are being employed and child poverty hasn’t made a significant increase. Does this mean that people were taken out of poverty, or were people simply dropped off welfare? It is understandable that some may have obtained jobs after getting off of welfare, but it is questionable that those jobs help keep them out of poverty. Having a job does not ensure an adequate wage to lift one out of poverty. Forty percent of people who were dropped off the rolls wound up without a job or cash assistance. Furthermore, there was a three-city study that showed that most (93%) families forced off of welfare still remained in poverty, leaving them without an “economic safety net”. Regrettably, this is a disappointing net effect of welfare reform. We can only learn more about the effects of welfare reform with time as government continues to tweak social welfare programs.
Pushing individuals into low-wage jobs by removing them from welfare rolls has deep, negative consequences. In a previous class, Social Stratification, we read an article called Making Ends Meet by Katherine Edin. The article demonstrates how often mothers are forced to choose to work at low-wage jobs, despite the many disadvantages of low-wage work and the struggle to help their families and themselves. The study found that in keeping a low-wage job (and often receiving less money than when on welfare) many mothers end up having to spend more money in other places like childcare. In working at a full-time low-wage job, mothers would have no time to generate supplemental income. Also, many who have to rely on full-time work do not have time to spend with the children they are working for. The article further explains how working mothers spend most of their money on housing expenses, leaving little room for costs of transportation, childcare, medical care, clothing, and other necessary goods. Many and most struggle to make ends meet by supplementing their income with support from a parent, a significant other, friend, working overtime, a second job, or help from an agency or charities.
Welfare is nothing new. It was first recognized when extended families and friends would help other family members and friends in times of need. When that assistance was insufficient, the church (if present) would help the poor. Yet eventually, because of the demand of need, friends, family, and even the church could not help. So societies began to depend and trust on the state or government to take care of the poor, hungry, and sick. I’ve read that official state welfare originated in England to provide economic assistance. From the colonization of North America on, Americans have always had some sort of support from state/institutional aid, support from private organizations, and voluntary assistance. Early on, poorhouses were created but soon they were deemed ineffective and too costly. The pension programs of welfare that we know now began after World War I. It was a pension program available to widowed wives of veterans.
Social welfare consists of many different programs that are specialized to help various groups of people in need. These social welfare programs help both all people and help specific groups of people. Various forms include: disability payments, medical assistance, cash aid to families, food stamps, housing vouchers, elderly assistance checks, health insurance, financial student aid and pensions.
But as far as I know social welfare is not only used to assist the needy, but for several other reasons as well. Government programs can create a hegemonic relationship between itself and the people, creating control and order. It can be used as a bulwark by the government to protect itself. Social welfare prevents future political unrest, such as the increasing of AFDC benefits during the inner-city riots in the 1960s. It can be used as an intimidating force as well, to punish unrest, forcing strikers and working people into accepting low wage jobs. It can also be used as a tool to gain public political support. If a candidate promises a favorable change of the welfare system, the recipients would be more likely to support the candidate.
In the 1980’s the Reagan Administration tried to stimulate the failing economy by cutting benefits for the poor. $140 billion dollars were cut from social welfare programs, yet at the same time taxes were lowered for corporations (a type of corporate welfare). During this time Social Security benefits were terminated for 350,000 people and unemployment grew substantially. With unemployment grew the number of people without insurance, and children went without lunch at school. A tremendous problem grew and people began to attack the current social insurance program Aid For Dependant Children (AFDC). Both sides of the partisan fence agreed in denouncing welfare programs, and no agreement was achieved until the Clinton administration in 1996.The foregoing reveals how contentious and complicated and costly social welfare programs have become. And the cost is not just in dollars; the quality of life for millions of Americans hangs in the balance of governmental policies.
There are several types of social welfare programs today. The first type of welfare is considered a social insurance program i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Everyone, despite their economic standing or background, has the opportunity to benefit from these programs. Corporate welfare is when governments give tax breaks, grants, or special treatment to large companies. Social Insurance programs are government funded and administered by the federal government as well. But what most people consider welfare when talking about poverty and similar issues are public assistance programs- Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp or Louisiana Purchase Program, and Medicaid.
Welfare as we know it today was redesigned in 1996 under the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996,” or popularly known as the Welfare Reform Act. Funding for welfare programs that were once financed and administered by the federal government, were bundled into “Temporary Assistance to Needy Family (TANF) block grants,” given to and to be administered by the State government. This allows the State to meet its own needs with only general provisions from the Federal Government as to how it is to be spent. When I visited the Office of Family Support I learned through this “reform act” more specific programs were created by the state, including: the Child Care Assistance Program, Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program (FITAP), Kinship Care Subsidy Program, and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA).
The Child Care Assistance Program’s intent is to help needy families who are working, looking for work, or in school/vocational training. It gives them monthly allowances to pay for various kinds of childcare for children under 13 and disabled children under 18. FITAP provides cash assistance and promotes job preparation to decrease dependency on welfare. The Kinship Care Subsidy Program provides cash assistance to children living with a relative who is not their parent. Refugee Medical Assistance provides short-term assistance for asylees, refugees, victims of human trafficking and other “at risk” immigrants. It provides medical assistance for the first 8 months of them being within the United States and social services for the first five years. The RMA is the only benefit left for immigrants, who are not yet citizens.
Has this proven a successful change? Did the reform act reform anything? The number of people on welfare (TANF) has declined. People who received AFDC before were soon weaned, or dropped, off of welfare and placed into the workforce. More single mothers are being employed and child poverty hasn’t made a significant increase. Does this mean that people were taken out of poverty, or were people simply dropped off welfare? It is understandable that some may have obtained jobs after getting off of welfare, but it is questionable that those jobs help keep them out of poverty. Having a job does not ensure an adequate wage to lift one out of poverty. Forty percent of people who were dropped off the rolls wound up without a job or cash assistance. Furthermore, there was a three-city study that showed that most (93%) families forced off of welfare still remained in poverty, leaving them without an “economic safety net”. Regrettably, this is a disappointing net effect of welfare reform. We can only learn more about the effects of welfare reform with time as government continues to tweak social welfare programs.
Pushing individuals into low-wage jobs by removing them from welfare rolls has deep, negative consequences. In a previous class, Social Stratification, we read an article called Making Ends Meet by Katherine Edin. The article demonstrates how often mothers are forced to choose to work at low-wage jobs, despite the many disadvantages of low-wage work and the struggle to help their families and themselves. The study found that in keeping a low-wage job (and often receiving less money than when on welfare) many mothers end up having to spend more money in other places like childcare. In working at a full-time low-wage job, mothers would have no time to generate supplemental income. Also, many who have to rely on full-time work do not have time to spend with the children they are working for. The article further explains how working mothers spend most of their money on housing expenses, leaving little room for costs of transportation, childcare, medical care, clothing, and other necessary goods. Many and most struggle to make ends meet by supplementing their income with support from a parent, a significant other, friend, working overtime, a second job, or help from an agency or charities.
Part III: Views and Conclusion
Views on Helping the Poor
The residual view that teaches us poverty is caused mostly by personal inadequacies and faults. Understandably it has its own view of how to alleviate poverty. The residual mindset tells us that aid, when given, should have certain conditions attached. Aid should be minimal, uncomfortable and temporary in order to deter dependence and push recipients to work, even menial labor to pay/make up for their aid.
While working at the homeless shelter in New Orleans I was able to experience how people operated under the residual view. In regards to the overnight guests, or clients, the attitude of the leadership was moderately stern. Everything from check-in, dinner, and the process of finding out where to sleep was often uncomfortable and inconvenient. They would serve a large hot meal at night, and a small bowl of oatmeal in the morning for breakfast if the client woke up early enough. No lunch was provided, so the homeless would not stick around the shelter because then people would become comfortable and not “get on their feet.” I learned soon that the goal of their “hospitality” was to make visitors or guests feel welcome but not comfortable. Most people would get tired of constantly being moved around the facility in groups, getting permission to get up to get something to drink or go to the bathroom. The client felt they had traded their individuality and freedoms to stay moderately safer than being on the streets. There was also a bit of intimidation used around the shelter; there was a drug dog, several armed security guards were present, and the staff (former homeless men) often times would needlessly go on a power trip here or there. Often times I would feel that the atmosphere was a bit rough. “Jeez, it’s a homeless shelter not a prison”, I would think to myself. But I would also remind myself that many people who are chronically homeless do not have much structure in their lives and the lack of structure may be the cause of it. The shelter also had “rehabilitation” programs that were also somewhat residual in ideology. The men could join once they were off of drugs for a month and once they were on the programs they would quit using if they were using, and begin to work for a small amount of money per week, which they could save or spend on approved weekly outings. They would do all the building maintenance, yard work, sweeping, painting, building, and fixing everything. They were also given the opportunity to take classes and get tutoring to help them get a GED if they needed it.
The institutional view tells us that poverty is caused by social factors beyond a single person’s control. As opposed to the individualist approach to society, the institutional view provides a stronger sense of public togetherness or collectiveness. The poor are entitled to receive our aid; just as we would help a family member in need so would we help any other person without setting terms or conditions. Instead of being unpleasant and temporary, aid would be pleasant, that is, not demeaning, and generously long term. The institutional view tells us we are to uplift the poor from where they are, help them find work they would enjoy, because they would prefer to.
Several years ago I visited two non-profit community organizations, The Simple Way located in East Philadelphia, PA and the Camden House in Camden, NJ. There they serve meals to countless numbers of people everyday, and supply them with blankets in the winter, clothing, school supplies at a thrift store where a bag of what they need would only cost a dollar. They also provided tutoring programs, after-school day care, a drama-production team and every couple of months they put on a circus for students and families in the community. All of these things for free, no requirements. By doing things with them they are doing more than throwing a rope for people to pull themselves out of poverty. They join with them in their circumstances, and work to change the environment around them. They bring people out of lives filled with hopelessness and despair and giving them hope.
I would like to think of the solution to poverty is much like an anecdote I once heard from a preacher-
“A group of Christians lived in a small village at the bottom of a mountain, and near this village was a road that went up and then back down the mountain. It was a treacherous road when slippery with all of its tight turns without guardrails. Accidents occurred frequently, often times the injuries were fatal. Saddened by all of the accidents the group of Christians decided to pitch and get an ambulance. That way when someone had an accident they could get them to a hospital quicker. They ended up saving many lives, but several people remained crippled for life. One day a young man came and asked, “Why don’t they close the road and build a tunnel?” The church people quickly responded that it was not realistic or advisable and the mayor would oppose the idea. The visitor was shocked that the Christians were more concerned with the mayor’s economic interests than human casualties. He suggested that they talk to the mayor or other area churches about making a collective effort. But they responded they don’t dabble in politics. The visitor left, angry, and thought, “What is more spiritual, picking up the bloody victims of destructive social structures or trying to change the structures themselves?”
After much thought and analysis, I conclude that I have an institutional view of poverty and approaches to address it. Besides being a corny sermon story, the anecdote I mentioned above provides great insight into how we try to fix or amend social problems. We look at the symptoms and not the causes of the problems. We worry too much about how much effort a true solution would require.
What is a true solution to poverty? In reality, there are a series of steps to the solution. First, we as communities or a nation must care about the poor and the homeless. Until we care about the least of these, little to no progress can be made. “Caring” for those in poverty will require a heightened awareness of the seriousness of poverty. As Katrina revealed a depth of poverty in one of the most adored cities in America, our political institutions must reveal to the remainder of our nation the depth of poverty in our communities and the societal costs of poverty. Every branch of government has a role in identifying and exposing the seriousness of poverty and how its presence reveals our nation to be a land of hypocrisy and not a land of opportunity. And before our political leaders will make this issue a priority, the voters must exercise their influence on those who make government policy. Voters must first be advocates. And to be advocates, we must be educated. And how are we to become educated? We must not neglect both the role and responsibility of faith communities. Faith communities in America are chiefly responsible for shaping our value systems. They are capable of uniting and accomplishing great things, from ending slavery and providing the right to vote for women, to pushing government to enact laws ending discrimination, to electing candidates who promise to end wars. Faith communities are a social network unto themselves, crossing all age and gender and race barriers. The war on poverty must be fought not from the top down, as LBJ sought to do, but from the bottom up. Faith communities have the capacity to be just as powerful an institutional force as the federal government. We need the financial resources and the will of both institutions to address poverty in this nation. We need leaders in both to shape the vision. Sadly, such leaders have not appeared simultaneously in both institutions. Yet some day, they will, and then we’ll see great inroads on our greatest national embarrassment.
The residual view that teaches us poverty is caused mostly by personal inadequacies and faults. Understandably it has its own view of how to alleviate poverty. The residual mindset tells us that aid, when given, should have certain conditions attached. Aid should be minimal, uncomfortable and temporary in order to deter dependence and push recipients to work, even menial labor to pay/make up for their aid.
While working at the homeless shelter in New Orleans I was able to experience how people operated under the residual view. In regards to the overnight guests, or clients, the attitude of the leadership was moderately stern. Everything from check-in, dinner, and the process of finding out where to sleep was often uncomfortable and inconvenient. They would serve a large hot meal at night, and a small bowl of oatmeal in the morning for breakfast if the client woke up early enough. No lunch was provided, so the homeless would not stick around the shelter because then people would become comfortable and not “get on their feet.” I learned soon that the goal of their “hospitality” was to make visitors or guests feel welcome but not comfortable. Most people would get tired of constantly being moved around the facility in groups, getting permission to get up to get something to drink or go to the bathroom. The client felt they had traded their individuality and freedoms to stay moderately safer than being on the streets. There was also a bit of intimidation used around the shelter; there was a drug dog, several armed security guards were present, and the staff (former homeless men) often times would needlessly go on a power trip here or there. Often times I would feel that the atmosphere was a bit rough. “Jeez, it’s a homeless shelter not a prison”, I would think to myself. But I would also remind myself that many people who are chronically homeless do not have much structure in their lives and the lack of structure may be the cause of it. The shelter also had “rehabilitation” programs that were also somewhat residual in ideology. The men could join once they were off of drugs for a month and once they were on the programs they would quit using if they were using, and begin to work for a small amount of money per week, which they could save or spend on approved weekly outings. They would do all the building maintenance, yard work, sweeping, painting, building, and fixing everything. They were also given the opportunity to take classes and get tutoring to help them get a GED if they needed it.
The institutional view tells us that poverty is caused by social factors beyond a single person’s control. As opposed to the individualist approach to society, the institutional view provides a stronger sense of public togetherness or collectiveness. The poor are entitled to receive our aid; just as we would help a family member in need so would we help any other person without setting terms or conditions. Instead of being unpleasant and temporary, aid would be pleasant, that is, not demeaning, and generously long term. The institutional view tells us we are to uplift the poor from where they are, help them find work they would enjoy, because they would prefer to.
Several years ago I visited two non-profit community organizations, The Simple Way located in East Philadelphia, PA and the Camden House in Camden, NJ. There they serve meals to countless numbers of people everyday, and supply them with blankets in the winter, clothing, school supplies at a thrift store where a bag of what they need would only cost a dollar. They also provided tutoring programs, after-school day care, a drama-production team and every couple of months they put on a circus for students and families in the community. All of these things for free, no requirements. By doing things with them they are doing more than throwing a rope for people to pull themselves out of poverty. They join with them in their circumstances, and work to change the environment around them. They bring people out of lives filled with hopelessness and despair and giving them hope.
I would like to think of the solution to poverty is much like an anecdote I once heard from a preacher-
“A group of Christians lived in a small village at the bottom of a mountain, and near this village was a road that went up and then back down the mountain. It was a treacherous road when slippery with all of its tight turns without guardrails. Accidents occurred frequently, often times the injuries were fatal. Saddened by all of the accidents the group of Christians decided to pitch and get an ambulance. That way when someone had an accident they could get them to a hospital quicker. They ended up saving many lives, but several people remained crippled for life. One day a young man came and asked, “Why don’t they close the road and build a tunnel?” The church people quickly responded that it was not realistic or advisable and the mayor would oppose the idea. The visitor was shocked that the Christians were more concerned with the mayor’s economic interests than human casualties. He suggested that they talk to the mayor or other area churches about making a collective effort. But they responded they don’t dabble in politics. The visitor left, angry, and thought, “What is more spiritual, picking up the bloody victims of destructive social structures or trying to change the structures themselves?”
After much thought and analysis, I conclude that I have an institutional view of poverty and approaches to address it. Besides being a corny sermon story, the anecdote I mentioned above provides great insight into how we try to fix or amend social problems. We look at the symptoms and not the causes of the problems. We worry too much about how much effort a true solution would require.
What is a true solution to poverty? In reality, there are a series of steps to the solution. First, we as communities or a nation must care about the poor and the homeless. Until we care about the least of these, little to no progress can be made. “Caring” for those in poverty will require a heightened awareness of the seriousness of poverty. As Katrina revealed a depth of poverty in one of the most adored cities in America, our political institutions must reveal to the remainder of our nation the depth of poverty in our communities and the societal costs of poverty. Every branch of government has a role in identifying and exposing the seriousness of poverty and how its presence reveals our nation to be a land of hypocrisy and not a land of opportunity. And before our political leaders will make this issue a priority, the voters must exercise their influence on those who make government policy. Voters must first be advocates. And to be advocates, we must be educated. And how are we to become educated? We must not neglect both the role and responsibility of faith communities. Faith communities in America are chiefly responsible for shaping our value systems. They are capable of uniting and accomplishing great things, from ending slavery and providing the right to vote for women, to pushing government to enact laws ending discrimination, to electing candidates who promise to end wars. Faith communities are a social network unto themselves, crossing all age and gender and race barriers. The war on poverty must be fought not from the top down, as LBJ sought to do, but from the bottom up. Faith communities have the capacity to be just as powerful an institutional force as the federal government. We need the financial resources and the will of both institutions to address poverty in this nation. We need leaders in both to shape the vision. Sadly, such leaders have not appeared simultaneously in both institutions. Yet some day, they will, and then we’ll see great inroads on our greatest national embarrassment.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
In the News.
Violations ? at homeless shelter sends dozens to the streets
06:11 AM CDT on Thursday, July 17, 2008
Susan Edwards / Eyewitness News
The City Council is asking for answers why a New Orleans shelter was partially shut down, forcing out dozens of homeless, and what it can do to help get the New Orleans Mission in compliance with the state fire marshal's office.
"We've got dozens of people right now put on streets last night, many of them moved now to a new homeless camp under another interstate or highway," said Councilman Arnie Fielkow, during today's city council meeting.
The second floor of the shelter was boarded up and shut down Tuesday, closed for business, at least for now.
"All of those people we service during day are dumped back in streets of New Orleans," said Assistant Director George Scott.
Scott estimates that number to be at least 100 people. The shelter's second floor offered a number of daytime services, moving homeless from hotspots like the Claiborne Bridge.
"Services such has housing, mental health referrals, job leads and those kinds of services," he said.
Yesterday, the state fire marshal's office shut down the second floor because of safety concerns and code violations.
This is the second time since September the state has cited the mission. Scott said they thought they were taking the right steps to correct the problems. Now, they are left frustrated, trying to understand what went wrong.
"People from all across America came to help us with this buildng and to help us provide services desperately needed for such a large homeless population here in the city of New Orleans," said Scott.
Councilman Fielkow said the city will do what it can to help the New Orleans Mission, and the people who need it.
"We can't have another situation where another 50 to 100 people are put out on the street that were being sheltered before," he said.
Eyewitness News' calls to the state fire marshal's office have not been returned.
Fielkow told Eyewitness News tonight that the city delivered a check to the shelter to help them meet the requirements of the state fire marshal.
http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl071608mlshelther.61781a82.html
06:11 AM CDT on Thursday, July 17, 2008
Susan Edwards / Eyewitness News
The City Council is asking for answers why a New Orleans shelter was partially shut down, forcing out dozens of homeless, and what it can do to help get the New Orleans Mission in compliance with the state fire marshal's office.
"We've got dozens of people right now put on streets last night, many of them moved now to a new homeless camp under another interstate or highway," said Councilman Arnie Fielkow, during today's city council meeting.
The second floor of the shelter was boarded up and shut down Tuesday, closed for business, at least for now.
"All of those people we service during day are dumped back in streets of New Orleans," said Assistant Director George Scott.
Scott estimates that number to be at least 100 people. The shelter's second floor offered a number of daytime services, moving homeless from hotspots like the Claiborne Bridge.
"Services such has housing, mental health referrals, job leads and those kinds of services," he said.
Yesterday, the state fire marshal's office shut down the second floor because of safety concerns and code violations.
This is the second time since September the state has cited the mission. Scott said they thought they were taking the right steps to correct the problems. Now, they are left frustrated, trying to understand what went wrong.
"People from all across America came to help us with this buildng and to help us provide services desperately needed for such a large homeless population here in the city of New Orleans," said Scott.
Councilman Fielkow said the city will do what it can to help the New Orleans Mission, and the people who need it.
"We can't have another situation where another 50 to 100 people are put out on the street that were being sheltered before," he said.
Eyewitness News' calls to the state fire marshal's office have not been returned.
Fielkow told Eyewitness News tonight that the city delivered a check to the shelter to help them meet the requirements of the state fire marshal.
http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl071608mlshelther.61781a82.html
Sunday, July 13, 2008
More Photos
This is the Learning Center, where the guys on the Discipleship Program do their Bible Studies, Computer Skills classes, and tutoring help for getting a GED.
This is Hero, the drug dog. Quite possibly both the nicest and meanest dog ever.
Our garden full of fresh potatoes, tomatoes, herbs, corn, squash, etc. We'll it was full of them, before the pest got them.
Our dining room.
Friday, July 11, 2008
some pics of the mission
This is the bunkhouse. Holds 130 people.
This is the womens center.
The Chapel. 6 P.M. M-Thursday
I think this is Tupac (above). And pretty Jesus knocking at your door (below). Both and more were painted by the sherriffs prison art program.
More to come later.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What exactly are we doing?
What all do Eric and I do? We usually begin our day around 630 to 7. At that time we start preparing for volunteers to come and work. That means gathering materials, making sure everything is in its right place (cleaning supplies, paint brushes, vacuums, etc.) At 8 we try to attend bible study with the guys on the discipleship team. Volunteers usually arrive around 830 and that is when the fun begins. At that time we are constantly running around making sure everyone is where they are supposed to be staying busy with all the materials that they need.
Lunch at 1230, sometimes more volunteers arrive afterwords and back to work. After all the work is done by volunteers Eric and I make sure everything is once again in its right place. Around 4 everyone starts lining up outside the mission to get a bed ticket. We'll take some ice water out and talk to folks in line. Then they all come in at 5 and go to the chapel service at at 6, dinner at 7, showers at 8, then lights out at 10. But during that time were doing random things like making sure there are towels for everyone. Making sure no one is going crazy or doing something stupid. Eric and I were talking yesterday how there's rarely a night when something crazy happens- somebody flips out and throws something, there's a fight outside, somebody has to call the police. One of the officers gave us his personal phone number so we don't have to call 911 anymore.
On weekdays when we don't have volunteers we usually help out with other things that need to be done around the mission. There is always something to be done. Clothes to be sorted, food to be organized, coolers to be restocked.
We also have a day room available for people to come in off the street and rest. So every day Eric and I rotate day where we check people in, open the bag room for people to get to their belongings, and make sure once again- nothing crazy happens.
Saturdays we have a day off, a sabbath if you will. We are also able to have Sundays off until 8 o'clock, when Eric and I check people into their beds.
I'm sure that's not all. There's probably more, you get the gist.
The best part is being able to talk to people.
Lunch at 1230, sometimes more volunteers arrive afterwords and back to work. After all the work is done by volunteers Eric and I make sure everything is once again in its right place. Around 4 everyone starts lining up outside the mission to get a bed ticket. We'll take some ice water out and talk to folks in line. Then they all come in at 5 and go to the chapel service at at 6, dinner at 7, showers at 8, then lights out at 10. But during that time were doing random things like making sure there are towels for everyone. Making sure no one is going crazy or doing something stupid. Eric and I were talking yesterday how there's rarely a night when something crazy happens- somebody flips out and throws something, there's a fight outside, somebody has to call the police. One of the officers gave us his personal phone number so we don't have to call 911 anymore.
On weekdays when we don't have volunteers we usually help out with other things that need to be done around the mission. There is always something to be done. Clothes to be sorted, food to be organized, coolers to be restocked.
We also have a day room available for people to come in off the street and rest. So every day Eric and I rotate day where we check people in, open the bag room for people to get to their belongings, and make sure once again- nothing crazy happens.
Saturdays we have a day off, a sabbath if you will. We are also able to have Sundays off until 8 o'clock, when Eric and I check people into their beds.
I'm sure that's not all. There's probably more, you get the gist.
The best part is being able to talk to people.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Any sense?
This week has been quite busy. Monday and Tuesday we had a group of thirty youth come in and volunteer at the mission. Keeping them busy cleaning, doing other projects, making sure they're cleaning up and putting up equipment, having their materials. From 7 AM to 10 PM Eric and I are constantly walking around also working on projects, giving people rides, going to Home Depot. It's all good work I enjoy it, but often it's hard to just take it easy and take my time. I'm constantly making sure everyone as what they need in a timely manner, so they don't have to ask twice. A couple folks have noticed this, namely Richard, a volunteer here. He'll jest, "Chris, bruh, its 10 a.m. you need to hurry up and sweat harder." (While I'm soaking with sweat.)
So, I want to not be in a rush- To take my time on things as to not get caught up in busy-ness. I don't want to miss out on the simple things here. Talking to people.
I am enjoying my time here greatly. Being able to serve all these people, becoming friends with everyone, seeing people all over town that I am getting to know and love, is a great blessing.
more coming soon.
So, I want to not be in a rush- To take my time on things as to not get caught up in busy-ness. I don't want to miss out on the simple things here. Talking to people.
I am enjoying my time here greatly. Being able to serve all these people, becoming friends with everyone, seeing people all over town that I am getting to know and love, is a great blessing.
more coming soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
