The Equality Act’s Potential Impact on Faith-Based Efforts

 


Jeff Lofting
Director of Education
Read more from Jeff

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a “nearly identical” version of the bill referenced below on February 25, 2021. Learn more in this article from The National Law Review.

 

Imagine for a moment this scenario: You’ve finally escaped a traumatic and abusive relationship at the hands of your husband and found refuge in a local faith-based women’s crisis shelter, which is helping you begin the long process of healing.  For the first time you can remember, you feel safe.

One study shows that 92% of homeless mothers have experienced sexual and/or physical abuse.  Because of this reality, shelters implement strict safeguards to protect the emotional and physical well-being of vulnerable individuals who have placed trust in that shelter, and they have had the discretion to do just that. President Biden’s promised resurrection of the Equality Act during his first 100 days, though, endangers that discretion.

Over the past few decades, a rising tide of efforts grew into the Equality Act of 2019, which threatened to permanently handicap faith-based organizations (FBOs) by limiting their freedom in day-to-day decisions.  Although this legislation only passed the Democratic-led House of Representatives in 2019, there is now a greater possibility that a similar bill could be signed into law with one-party control of both the legislative and executive branches.

In section 3 of the Equality Act, an amendment to the language of the CRA would have effectively prohibited sex-specific facilities, such as homeless and women’s crisis shelters, from separating biological males and females.  One can imagine the emotional and physical dangers this might pose to the safety and well-being of residents who have experienced sexual and physical abuse from the opposite sex.  This nine-page list of individuals charged with sex crimes in intimate facilities suggests that similar incidences could occur in shelters (pg. 26).

Anchorage’s Hope Center, a self-described “safe haven…for homeless women,” recently faced an incident in which an inebriated biological male identifying as a female expected a bed for the night. A representative for the shelter stated, “Some of the women have said to the shelter, if you allow biological men to sleep right next to us at night, to disrobe and change right next to us at night, we’ll brave the cold.” The Hope Center explained that “it would rather close than deviate from its religious views and its mission to serve vulnerable women.”

A quick glance into the history of social work, philanthropy, medicine, and education reveals that faith communities have been the primary providers of assistance and aid to marginalized populations—the sick, poor, enslaved, and the refugee. The love that drives these humanitarian efforts is rooted in a deeply held faith, one which places a moral imperative on caring for those in need and affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every individual.

While the policymakers responsible for the Equality Act likely have good intentions, the unintended consequences of the Equality Act threaten not only FBOs but also individuals in need. The underlying faith that drives the work of FBOs will not allow most to violate their deeply held convictions and would likely cause these organizations to cut back or cease operation entirely in their present realm.

Currently, FBOs are a major player in providing social services for the marginalized populations in their communities. A 2017 study by Baylor University involving eleven major cities found that FBOs are responsible for providing, on average, 60% of all emergency shelter beds and lead the way in measuring positive outcomes for those they serve. The study also linked those outcomes to taxpayer savings of $119 million over three years. Not only do private FBOs save Americans money, but they require less of it to accomplish better results than their public counterparts.

Economist James Rolph Edwards further determined that FBOs are far more efficient in utilizing funds, with two-thirds of income directly impacting those in need—government agencies are half as efficient.

Faith-based efforts to care for those in need clearly have immense benefits for the individual and society as a whole.

Those working in charitable efforts, whether faith-based or secular, are not simply cogs in a social assistance machine—they are individuals making significant sacrifices for the opportunity to impact their communities. They do so joyfully, freely exercising their beliefs in the care of those in need.  The aim is not to turn away those in need, but to help the most vulnerable in the most effective way that they know, based on their convictions.  The Equality Act would handicap their ability to do so and may cause those they seek to protect to “brave the cold.”

It is imperative that leaders of faith-based organizations understand the potential implications of similar future legislation, as well as their rights.  We recommend beginning with the following three steps:

  • Make the faith-based aspects of your mission clear.
  • Remove the necessity for government funding in the operation of your organization.
  • Utilize the resources in the “Further Reading” section below to learn more about this issue and the rights of faith-based organizations.

True Charity Initiative can work with you to take the first two steps above.  Consider joining the True Charity Network to learn, connect, and influence public policy to ensure effective charity.

FURTHER READING:

 

Researchers Gave $5,700 to Homeless People. Misunderstanding Ensued.

 


Nathan Mayo
Director of Member Services

 

 

This article was originally published on RealClearPolicy.com on December 2, 2020.

 

“Researchers gave thousands of dollars to homeless people. The results defied stereotypes.” “Cash transfers help homeless to find stable housing and jobs.” “Trailblazing study gave homeless $7,500 [CAD] – and it worked.” These recent headlines and articles about a new Canadian study are a cringeworthy — and destructive — distortion of reality.

 

At first glance, this unbridled optimism seems to be a reasonable synopsis of the study. Canadian researchers did give $5,700 USD to 50 homeless people and most of the recipients used the cash responsibly. Nearly every news outlet that reported on the New Leaf Project covered the study as proof that we should give more money directly to homeless people; they said we should give cash through charity, government programs, and drop it into Styrofoam cups. Unfortunately, this is a tragic misreading of the facts.

 

The root problem is that the study participants do not resemble the average homeless person on a street corner. Project New Leaf’s website is very forthright: “Project participants were carefully screened for program eligibility to ensure the highest likelihood of success.” This means they selected participants who were adults, newly homeless, citizens or legal residents, and who had low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse.

 

The magnitude of those screening criteria is lost on those unfamiliar with homelessness. It is comparable to a survey finding that “a majority of registered Democrats voted for Donald Trump in 2020” — but the survey only allowed responses from Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016. So how representative were these study participants of the homeless population?

 

On a single night in 2019, The Department of Housing and Urban Development finds that there were around 568,000 homeless people in the US. Of these, roughly 100k were chronically homeless, and would have been excluded from the study. Add to that exclusion a segment of the population classified as “episodically” homeless. Those approximately 57,000 people are homeless occasionally, but not quite chronically.

 

Of the remaining “transitional” homeless, a factsheet from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) informs us that around 30% of them abuse addictive substances (80% of the chronically homeless do). SAMHSA also estimates that around 5% of the transitionally homeless have mental health issues (these issues have affected 60% of the chronically homeless).

 

The actual screening criteria may have been more specific than that, since the New Leaf Project reports that they screened out any who were at risk for those disorders. Depending on how they defined “risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse,” the New Leaf Project screened out between 55% and 90% of all homeless people from participating in their study.

 

The disconnect between findings and perception gets worse. A typical person associates homelessness with panhandling. However, panhandlers are only a fraction of the homeless and are predominately the chronically homeless with addictions that this study did not examine. For example, a 2019 survey of Orlando’s panhandlers found that 92% of them were substance abusers. Most freely admitted to using their “earnings” on drugs and alcohol. An earlier study in Toronto found nearly identical results; 87% reported drug and alcohol use and the median self-reported spending on drugs, alcohol, and tobacco was greater than their spending on food.

 

The New Leaf Project showed potential for giving cash to a small, stable, and high-capacity tier of the homeless. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they only tested a solution on a subset of the homeless population — situations and solutions vary from person to person. Cash transfers may work for someone in a temporary crisis and may harm someone with a chronic addiction, destructive habits, or a mental disorder. Effective charity should offer different solutions for different situations.

 

However, that means that the findings of the New Leaf Project offer a policy option for a tiny fraction of the homeless. Thus, the study has essentially no application to the people you see on the street corner with a cardboard sign. Nine out of ten of those people will continue in their addictions, until passersby stop enabling them and start connecting them with the real help they need.

 

Subsidizing Isolation: Unintended Consequences of the FCC’s ‘Lifeline’ Program

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px|||||”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-27px||5px|||” custom_padding=”||45px|||” global_module=”7656″ saved_tabs=”all”]

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″]

This article was also published on RealClearPolicy.com on December 7, 2020.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default”]

I was reminded of the lost art of “truth in love” recently while volunteering with Watered Gardens Ministries’ overnight shelter. As I listened to a homeless man confidently share about the quality of his romantic relationship, I noticed some red flags. So, I asked him a tough question: I asked him how he knew their relationship was as healthy as he said.

Immediately, his eyes glazed over and, wordlessly, he pulled his phone out and began scrolling absentmindedly. He ignored my presence and left my question hanging in the air, unanswered. It made him uncomfortable, so he dodged it—and his smartphone made it easy.

Jobless and staying at a homeless shelter, how could he afford such a phone? It looked a lot like mine: a touchscreen that clearly came with data as he scrolled through social media. A cursory glance over the shelter dining area revealed that he was not the exception; many residents stared listlessly at their own screens.

That man and other shelter residents can have smartphones courtesy of a government program called Lifeline. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented the Lifeline program in 1984 to help low-income households with what was deemed an essential service: phone access. It originally covered a small portion of low-income residents’ landline phone bills. But, over time, the program ballooned, with greater benefits for an ever-increasing number of people—now, many low-income people qualify for free smart phones with free or very cheap service plans, complete with unlimited talk and text and free data. The government imposes a tax on phone companies to pay for the program. The phone companies then pass the expense off to their customers via the Universal Service Fund, an additional charge on every conventional customer’s phone bill.

That night, I spoke with two other residents interested in joining the Forge, Watered Gardens’ long-term men’s program. I encouraged them to join—what could be better for these men than a program that promoted virtue, work, and self-sufficiency? But both expressed trepidation, which I pressed them on: Why choose the path of chronic homelessness over the path out of poverty? Both men cited the same reason: “I couldn’t give up my cell phone.” Participants in the Forge program are asked to give up their phone for six months to enable a distraction-free environment.

That evening at the shelter, I kept thinking: unintended consequences. On the surface, Lifeline seems to be a good and even necessary program. What could be wrong with providing low-income citizens with means to call about job opportunities, schedule doctor appointments, and stay connected to family?  But the insidious problem lies in the risk of addiction and its concomitant issues.

Phone addiction is not limited to the poor. A 2015 study in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions discovered a significant correlation between the extent of smart phone use and depression among university students. However, the negative effects appear to accrue disproportionately to those at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Other studies link heavy phone usage with anxiety, depression, and social isolation, maladies which already disproportionately affect the poor. Robert Putnam, in his ground-breaking book Bowling Alone, indicates that social isolation is especially harmful to the economically disadvantaged; conversely, strong social connections, particularly outside an impoverished person’s socioeconomic tier, are invaluable in their potential to leverage him or her out of poverty. Indeed, the poor have the most acute need for the benefits afforded by a variety of real social connections, including better work opportunities, a sense of community and belonging, and an improved outlook on life—and significant evidence shows smartphones inhibit our ability to make these vital connections.  Is it compassionate to provide a device that’s strongly linked with depression and social isolation to a group that’s particularly vulnerable to those afflictions?

Such research, and experience, indicates that free cell phones harm the homeless more than help them. If Lifeline is going to spend over 20 billion dollars in less than 20 years on subsidized phone service to the poor, perhaps the burden of proof that the program is both necessary and effective is on them. If they can deliver service to 7.5 million people, surely they can afford to run a small randomized controlled trial to determine whether the program is a line pulling people out of poverty or an anchor dragging them beneath the waves.

The Lifeline program is a sobering reminder of what seasoned poverty fighters know well: well-intended interventions don’t always have the hoped-for result. That which was intended to release the poor from unemployment and isolation may be fostering them. The devices’ ensnaring effect was evident: mastered by their phones, the homeless residents were like automatons, drifting through days, lulled into missing a vibrant and opportunity-filled life, victimized by unexamined good intentions and their unintended consequences.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Where Did All the Poor People Go?

 


Nathan Mayo
Director of Member Services

 

 

“We normally see 30 to 40 clients a day,” said the manager of a Joplin, Missouri food pantry. “Since the pandemic, we’ve seen a sharp decrease in number of clients, sometimes as few as four a day.”

This is not what I expected to hear when I visited this food pantry to learn about their programs. But their experience is not an anomaly. From my conversations with other poverty-fighting organizations in southwest Missouri, some report a 50% or greater decrease in clients, which is particularly puzzling given that national unemployment rate has vaulted over 11%.

Many of these missing clients are chronically poor and suffer from a host of other hardships such as mental health problems, social isolation, abusive relationships, limited education, and financial illiteracy. Compassionate nonprofit staff and volunteers draw clients in by meeting their immediate needs and then engage them about their deeper issues. They leverage relationship and accountability to gradually move people from vicious cycles to virtuous ones. This development is tough, but the results are well worth the effort. So where did these clients go?

The nonprofit leaders shared with me the answer that I should have known already. I have personally received two large boxes of free food to my home, dropped off by a neighbor, who got them from a distribution center. My wife and I explained to her that while we appreciated the gesture, we were not in any financial need.

My neighbor insisted that she had to get rid of it. She likely received the food from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s $19 billion COVID response program which purchases and distributes food for free through private foodbanks and also provides crop price support. This program was implemented in addition to the other means-tested food security programs that America already pays $68 billion a year to operate. Typical SNAP benefits (food stamps) have also temporarily increased by 40%. Add to these programs stimulus checks and expanded unemployment benefits— which are currently so generous that 68% of Americans are receiving more income from unemployment benefits than they ever were when they were employed.

While development-oriented nonprofits witness a decrease in clients, some nonprofits and churches have chosen to adjust to the truckloads of perishable USDA-supplied food by giving it out with no questions. It is now common practice to distribute food to people in their vehicles with no interaction to determine whether they need the food or whether they have deeper needs. At least some of that food ends up with people like me, who did not need it at all. 

Some of it does end up with the chronically poor, it is often to their detriment as it draws them away from food banks with case workers who know them and can challenge them. Anonymously walking up to a truck is easier than answering questions about your GED classes or alcohol dependency. Some pantries see an increase in demand because they have gone to extreme lengths to unload the gargantuan piles of USDA food. Other charities who remain focused on ensuring that food is going to the right people, and that the non-food needs of the chronically poor are addressed are watching their ample stock of cans collect dust.

That is where the poor people went. Indiscriminate assistance has diverted many of them away from holistic, development-oriented nonprofits and enticed them instead with help that fails to incorporate any element of challenge. This geyser of well-intended but poorly-directed aid has real consequences. Among those who work with the chronically poor, stories abound of financially illiterate people spending pandemic relief benefits on down payments for vehicles they will not be able to afford in a few months. One student who entered a local long-term rehab program admitted that his stimulus check had inspired a spending spree and a relapse of alcoholism. Indiscriminate relief is crowding out true development. The poor suffer in the end, and we can do better.

This harm is not a necessary side effect of pandemic relief. There are numerous ways to provide focused aid that will not sever the chronically poor from their social sector allies. For economic stimulation, payroll tax holidays are better tailored than stimulus checks, because they encourage work and do not result in windfalls to people with limited ability to use that windfall wisely. For unemployment benefits, standard benefits are already targeted to allow people ample time to find a new job, while giving them motivation to be serious about that hunt.

Massive food distribution is simply unnecessary. We already have both public and private food assistance programs for the poor with visibly unused capacity. Furthermore, if the government did not buy up excess produce, prices would likely fall in line with the rest of the falling world food prices, such that the average American family could save $20 to $80 a month on food costs, and fewer of them would be food insecure in the first place.

There are millions of Americans who struggled with poverty before the pandemic and who will struggle with it after it ends. Unfortunately, our national fervor to “do something” is undermining the efforts of skillful nonprofits dedicated to the long-term success of impoverished Americans. Those Americans need more than a handout; they need to know someone who cares.

 

Nathan Mayo is Director of Member Services for True Charity Initiative. This article was originally published in the Washington Examiner on August 6, 2020. For an example of an alternative method employed by Watered Gardens Ministries, a True Charity-certified organization, visit this link.

Why Should Government Mandate What We Can Do Ourselves?

 


James Whitford
Executive Director

 

Versions of this article were also published by The Federalist and The Joplin Globe.

Face masks are “all we’ve got right now to fight this virus, and it is up to each one of us to do our part,” Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly told reporters last week. Kelly signed an executive order last Thursday requiring all Kansans to wear masks when in public spaces. The best Kelly’s got, though, might not be best for every Kansan.

A 2015 randomized controlled study published in the British Medical Journal evaluated 1607 health care workers throughout 14 hospitals. It revealed the continuous use of cloth masks increased respiratory infection rates, with the type of mask and length of wear as relevant factors. Regardless of the efficacy of masks, however, should a governor or any government authority have the power to cover your mouth?

Government tends to grow during crises, and as Robert Higgs from the Independent Institute points out in his book “Crisis and Leviathan,” that growth begins with an expansion of power. From labor disputes and riots in 1886 that propelled public support for expanded federal power to regulate industry, to the 9/11 tragedy that gave way to the Patriot Act growing the government’s power to surveil Americans, crises have historically served as the perfect matrix for government to swell its power and reach into our personal lives.

The common denominator is public fear. In 1886, it was fear of railroad companies growing too powerful or labor strikes stopping their delivery of supplies. In 2001, it was fear that neighbors might be terrorists. In both cases, fear inspired public opinion that government should step in. Fear might be justified in some circumstances, and perhaps the Wuhan virus pandemic is one of them, but to the extent that fear pries open our hands to let loose of personal freedom, it also subjects those hands to be tied by tyranny.

It’s not just the Kansas governor. Attorney General William Barr recently created a task force to investigate anti-government extremists after certain groups instigated violence following the death of George Floyd.

In Barr’s June 26 memo, he wrote, “The task force will develop detailed information about violent anti-government extremist individuals, networks and movements — and will share that information as appropriate with federal, state and local law enforcement.” He added, “The ultimate goal of the task force will be … to understand these groups well enough that we can stop such violence before it occurs and ultimately eliminate it as a threat.”

A free society cannot flourish without just rule of law, but when the government starts spending resources on investigating “anti-government” American citizens deemed “extremists” to stop crime “before it occurs,” one should at least raise an eyebrow. Fear of riots and radical groups such as Antifa shouldn’t drive our support for government expansion or increased supervision. It might be Antifa today, but it could be you tomorrow.

Consider these words from our own Declaration of Independence: “[W]henever any form of government becomes destructive of [our unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” We’ve entered a dangerous time if speaking those words places you on a government watch-list.

Higgs describes the ratcheting effect of government growth. It starts with a crisis justifying expanded power, which requires resources to exercise it — another upward click in the ratchet of non-retractable government growth. No matter the reassurance or motivational tenor that accompanies the rally cry of “safety,” we should remember that no one feels safe when he’s handcuffed, nor should he, even if only under the threat of such arrest.

Kelly got the second part right, though: “[I]t is up to each one of us to do our part.” It’s not up to President Donald Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci to do our part in remaining vigilant and informed. It’s not up to Congress to do our part in stimulating our economy. And it’s not up to a governor to ensure we wear masks.

It’s up to each of us to care about others enough to wash our hands, stay home when we’re sick, support those who feel they need to shelter in place, educate people in our circles of influence, and wear masks as a precautionary measure. Government mask enforcement isn’t “all we’ve got right now to fight this virus.”

Consider the greater weapons of conscientiousness, courtesy, kindness, and charity. I choose to fight with those, and I’m not alone. I know volunteers who have delivered meals to the elderly, others who’ve traveled and then responsibly self-quarantined, and many who have gladly worn masks in our mission while preparing meals for the homeless.

Before the government steps in to protect us from each other, let’s exercise real compassion and neighborly concern — and do it ourselves. This love for others won’t just prevent the spread of a virus. It will preserve our liberty.

James and his wife, Marsha, founded Watered Gardens Ministries in Joplin, Missouri, in 2000, now a 105-bed mission working with the homeless and poor. He currently serves as the mission’s executive director. James also founded the True Charity Initiative in 2012 to champion a movement of privately funded effective charity at the most local level.

 

How the CARES Act Could Be “Helping” That Hurts

 

By Savannah Aleckson, published in the Joplin Globe on May 3rd, 2020

 

It’s been a historic year already, and we’re not even halfway through 2020. From the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak here in the United States, to the subsequent bottoming out of the stock market and the accompanying job losses and panic, it’s been a rollercoaster. In an attempt to stabilize the economy in these tumultuous times, Congress recently passed the CARES Act, a massive relief package far surpassing any stimulus in US history.

The aim of the CARES Act is clear–to float an economic lifeline to those impacted by COVID-19. While help may be necessary for businesses and individuals suffering the undeserved economic consequences of shelter-in-place mandates, we ought to vigilantly watch interventions posited as “good” by the government. As we know, not everything touted as being helpful actually is. Thoughtful citizens ought to watch for three overlooked but very real negative effects of the CARES Act:

It will cause inflation, a win for bureaucracy and a loss for the average citizen.

The gargantuan size of the CARES Act is historic and provides relief to different sectors of the economy–large corporations, small businesses, non-profits and individuals–to the tune of two trillion dollars. Where does that money come from? It’s not money our federal government has, as we sit at a 23 trillion dollar national deficit. To cut checks to most Americans, float loans to businesses, and give grants to nonprofits, the government does a sort of sleight of hand–it sells government bonds that when cashed in require more money to be printed. It feels harmless; Americans need more money to weather this crisis. But does printing more money create more value in the economy? Does wealth increase when more dollar bills are in circulation? No. We know from Economics 101 that increasing the money supply without producing more labor, goods, or services causes inflation. Prices go up and tend to outpace increases in the average person’s paycheck.

Indeed, the ripple effects of these actions extend far beyond Capitol Hill–the local coffee shop where you get your morning pick-me-up will feel the effects, as will your next door neighbor who has been dutifully putting away a little money into savings each month and your own family as you budget for necessities like food and rent. Savings decrease in value because it takes more dollars than it once did to purchase goods or services. Inflation is like a tax on savings—rather than a direct tax paid to the government, inflation is the price paid for the government increasing the money supply.

It will prop up non-profits who have limited impact—or worse, a negative impact.

Under the CARES Act, nonprofits in existence March 1st, 2020 will be able to receive a loan up to 10 million dollars from the federal government. Should these non-profits keep their staff on payroll during this crisis, the loan will be forgiven, essentially turning the loan into a grant.

Is this a concern? Shouldn’t non-profits doing good work receive help to weather these trying times? Yes, they should. But who should give the help? The stimulus package can be thought of as the federal government giving back to taxpayers a portion of their own dollars they paid in taxes to use as they see fit (yes, a dream come true). But organizations claiming 501(c)3 status have never paid taxes. Should they receive money from a government to which they never gave? Rather than joining the money-grab and contributing to harmful inflation, nonprofits ought to lean on the compassion and generosity of donors in their communities, many of whom will soon receive an influx of cash from the return of their tax dollars.

Another compelling reason to put the onus of charity support on individuals is because the federal government is horrible at determining where resources should be directed at the local level. Private donors demand more accountability from the non-profits they support; they watch for indicators of a non-profit’s effectiveness, prudent spending, and a real impact made in the community. The federal government simply can’t be this discerning when distributing funds to nonprofits; in fact, no prerequisites are in place in the CARES Act to vet charities for their effectiveness. The unavoidable result of this indiscriminate giving is that effective, impactful charities won’t be the only ones who receive government funds, but ineffective, mis-managed, dependency-fostering non-profits will also–inevitably exacerbating the problems of unhealthy dependency and generational poverty.

It threatens the role of civil society.

In a global pandemic that has caused pain, fear, and a major economic downturn in our nation, help is warranted. And yes, a good argument can be made that the federal government ought to quell some of the damaging effects. However, as responsible citizens who value our liberty and want the best for our vulnerable neighbors, we must remain on guard against government’s usurpation of responsibilities that belong to us—namely, the responsibility to care for our family, friends, and neighbors.

Government interventions such as the CARES Act are dangerous. As resources are pumped into the economy in the form of checks to individuals, grants to businesses, or hand-outs to nonprofits, the unfortunate and all-too-common effect is the undermining of civil society; when we think the government is taking care of our neighbor, we’re less likely to.

These are unprecedented times, and certainly unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures to address them adequately. However, federal responses to crises should never interfere with the individual duty to care for our neighbor. When it does, our social fabric decays as we become an increasingly isolated and unconcerned society– certainly a more terrible crisis than the current one.

Savannah Aleckson PhotoSavannah Aleckson is the True Charity Initiative Regional Director for the Joplin, MO area. True Charity seeks to equip charities, churches, and nonprofits with the principles and practice of effective charity.

James Whitford: Could government welfare be undermining compassion?

I love our fight for civil society.

It’s not just Joplin. Communities throughout the Midwest fight to retain hospitality and restore neighborliness while volunteers care for their community members struggling in poverty.

The fight for civil society is a worthy one, too. A recent Barna Group survey revealed that Americans are twice as likely to say they’re lonely compared with 10 years ago, and several studies conclude isolation is an epidemic that affects health at a number of levels, including heart disease and mortality.

The death of civil society is literally deadly.

How do we preserve it?

It’s a question we must wrestle with in a society where social media interrupts conscientious parenting, drugs are prescribed to merely numb broken hearts, and a person can somehow survive in a sea of people yet remain isolated.

The cornerstone of civil society is compassion. Without compassion, we simply won’t care enough to engage the young parent who needs guidance and encouragement. Without compassion, we won’t care enough to pray with or comfort the brokenhearted. And without compassion, we’ll give no time to the lost and lonely in our downtown who’ve learned to survive in seclusion but never thrive in healthy relationships.

Then is it a lack of compassion that eats at the fabric of civil society?

If giving is a measure of compassion, then it’s a valid argument. The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Culture and Opportunity reported that Americans are giving less of their time and volunteering fewer hours since 2005. Citygate Network, a national association of gospel missions, reported that two-thirds of their membership saw a decrease in donations during the last quarter of 2018 compared with the prior year.

What gives?

There’s reason to believe that compassion wanes because of government “solutions” that too often meet a need but fail to meet the person. Could America’s welfare state be driving a wedge between one’s compassion and another’s plight?

In his 1835 “Memoirs on Pauperism,” Alexis de Tocqueville studied Europe’s growing welfare programs, noting their disruption of civil society and the vital, compassionate, charitable transaction:

“Individual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor. The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate. The latter, supported by aid, which he had no right to demand … feels inspired by gratitude. A moral tie is established between those two classes whose interests and passions so often conspire to separate them from each other … This is not the case with legal charity (that) allows the alms to persist, but removes its morality. The law strips the man of wealth of a part of his surplus without consulting him and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth. The poor man, on the other hand, feels no gratitude for a benefit which no one can refuse him. Far from uniting … the rich and the poor … it breaks the only link which could be established between them.”

“Removes its morality … feels no gratitude … breaks the only link.” I’ve seen that during nearly two decades of poverty-fighting. It’s why our True Charity Initiative educates our community and others concerning the importance of private, local, compassionate charity. Privately funded charity is the only charity that stems from individual compassion — and without individual compassion, civil society is lost.

Keep up the fight, Four States. It’s worth it.

You can find out more about True Charity’s upcoming educational summit at truecharity.us/summit2019.

James Whitford is co-founder and executive director of Watered Gardens Ministries and True Charity Initiative.

This article was originally published in the Joplin Globe on September 1st, 2019.

Why Private funding?

by James Whitford

Our Founding Fathers said so. 

The debate as to whether helping those in need should be a matter of public or private funding is not new. Few would argue, though, that helping the poor is a not a responsibility within a healthy society. The question here is with whom does that responsibility rest? Government or the compassionate neighbor? Our Founding Fathers had an opinion. During the Haitian revolution, islanders fled to New England escaping French persecution. The influx of refugees proved difficult and a petition to the federal government was made for assistance. In 1794, James Madison stood on the House floor and objected, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” 

The fact that benevolence from the public treasury is not a power granted by the Constitution was reaffirmed by Thomas Jefferson in 1817. He penned, “Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.”

In like, Benjamin Franklin simply said “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.”

That was their opinion and if it’s yours, you’re already favoring private funding over public. 

But even if we set aside the hope of our Founding Fathers to spare this great Republic from a metastatic federal government, we should ask ourselves, “Can we afford it?”  

We can’t afford public funding.

Just checked the U.S. Debt Clock. Twenty-one trillion, two-hundred twelve billion, one hundred seven million and 6 other digits that are escalating too quickly for me to record. No, we can’t afford it. Not including Medicare and Social Security, the federal government projects to spend 918 billion dollars on caring for the poor this year. That number is important. Not only does it represent a fourth of our entire federal budget, but it’s very close to the annual debt escalation over the last decade. In a nation where we celebrate freedom, we’re wise to remember that the borrower is slave to the lender. Indebtedness and freedom don’t mix well. Jesus rightly said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Today, I believe we can rightly say, “Don’t take from Caesar what he doesn’t have.” Now on that point of what government has or doesn’t have, we should ask ourselves, “Whose money is it, anyway?”

Public money belongs to someone else.

Some may think this a lofty argument for private funding, but for the hardworking taxpayer, it’s very relevant. By that person, the question, “Whose money is it?” may very well be answered, “It’s mine!” Is he right? Consider Micah 4:4 and the description under Christ’s future reign: “…each man will sit under his own grapevine and under his own fig tree with no one to frighten him.” Whose fig tree? His own.  These and scores of other verses in the Bible indicate that private property is a natural right. John Locke, whose writings greatly influenced our current standard of law, conveyed personal property as a God-given right and the product of one’s labor: “…the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and…hath mixed his Labour with…thereby makes it his Property.”

In other words, if a man plows a field, the harvest is his. 

Whether it goes to Planned Parenthood or comes to my Gospel Rescue Mission, it’s not the government’s to give. It’s someone else’s personal property and that someone else should have the right to support what he or she desires. 

If you agree that it’s not the government’s money, then we must ask, “Can it be the government’s responsibility?”

It’s our responsibility

In Isaiah 58, God promises a life that flourishes when we divide our bread with the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the poor. Justice for the poor is His and ultimately, the Church is His vehicle to deliver it. In Isaiah 58, He was speaking to a nation of His people. Today, the mandate still rests with the nation of His people. 

There are reasons for that. Paul writes in 2 Timothy, “Support widows who are genuinely widows.” Pure and undefiled religion not only included helping orphans and widows, but discerning those who really needed the help. The Church, built by relationships, was the natural source for this accountability. This principle of people-who-know helping people-in-need would later be defined as subsidiarity, addressed by Pope Pius XI in 1931. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative…so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.”

Subsidiarity is about neighbor helping neighbor before the government helps your neighbor. 

Some might say, “That’s impossible!” Edward Divine, a leader in the formation of social work and General Secretary of the New York Charitable Organization Society in 1896 challenged, “If there were no resources in times of exceptional distress except the provision which people would voluntarily make on their own account and the informal neighborly help which people would give to one another… most of the misfortunes would still be provided for.”  

I believe it. I was in Joplin, Missouri on May 22 of 2011 when it suffered a catastrophic disaster. A mile-wide F5 tornado rendered more than 7000 people homeless in less than an hour. I watched what government funding could never have done. The relief provided through personal sacrifice, private contributions and countless kind and neighborly acts was immeasurable and proof that in times of great need, a good neighbor can do much more than a big government.

Lastly, we can bet that with government funding comes government oversight. These strings are long tying our missions to bureaucrats in Washington. And though they may not seem too stringent, it’s only a matter of time before the administration changes along with the rules.  

To embrace liberty is to embrace more than just freedom from government tyranny, but freedom from government dependency. After all, the latter is certain to lead to the former.

A version of this article was published in the Joplin Globe on February 25th 2019 and Instigate Magazine’s January/February 2019 issue.

Freedom to escape from welfare dependency

By James Whitford, published in the Joplin Globe on July 6th, 2018

In the afterglow of this past week’s Fourth of July celebrations, I remain grateful for those who fought to provide and protect our freedoms in this country. I’m also reminded of the freedom for which many churches and missions fight for the sake of those entrapped by government welfare dependency.

What is this freedom for which we fight? The “experiential freedom” that only work-oriented solutions to poverty are able to provide to our neighbors who struggle but have potential and ability often unacknowledged.

In 1833, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this fight. As the English Poor Laws had corrupted countless through government relief, he penned “Memoir on Pauperism” and noted two reasons a person works: to survive and to better one’s condition of living.

Work/betterment is the natural cause/effect relationship that every person should be free to experience. That’s why I call it experiential freedom. And all other freedoms, including the economic freedom to act in our own best interests, depend on it. Why? Because every decision we make is based in what we’ve experienced. If we’re not free to experience, we’re not free to act.

Welfare has a nasty way of stripping freedom when it comes to experiencing the benefits of work. I meet people every day who don’t work for fear that life wouldn’t get better or that it might even worsen if they did.

I was mentoring Ken at our mission and on our fourth visit together, he mentioned he was applying for a part-time job but that he had to limit himself to about 15 hours of work per week. “If I work more than that, I’ll lose my benefits,” he reasoned. He believes things will get worse for him if he works more. How sad.

On another occasion, a young man named Josh admitted playing the system for a yearlong HUD housing voucher instead of committing to our yearlong work-ready program, Forge. Why? Because free housing seemed better than our offer of commitment, effort and accountability.

And many times, I’ve heard a person say, “I can only work for cash under the table because my disability attorney told me if I get a real job, it’ll hurt my case for early SSI.” Why? Because many of our policies incentivize sickness and poverty more than they do health and wealth.

Our welfare state policy has created an environment in which regular employment doesn’t seem to add up for many, at least not to a better life. And in some cases, at face value, it appears to worsen a person’s situation.

But this welfare cliff is not as dangerous as many fear. “Three Myths About the Welfare Cliff,” a recent paper published by the Foundation for Government Accountability, reveals that work pays off even in the face of a threatening withdrawal of state support.

This truth is reflected in the president’s recent executive order, Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility. More importantly, legislation that follows its direction could help free able-bodied adults currently caught in the welfare dependency trap. If D.C.’s renewed attention to the truth that government can’t solve problems of poverty is followed with policy that reduces the enticement of welfare’s low-hanging fruit, local churches and missions such as mine may find themselves winning the fight to empower the poor through work-oriented solutions.

It is a fight.

For Ken, Josh and countless others I work with on a daily basis at the mission, work is not adding up. Welfare dependency is stripping people of experiential freedom, the realization of work and betterment, the joy of earned success, and the hope of independence. Regrettably, our policies have perverted the natural cause/effect relationship of which Tocqueville spoke.

Until we win this fight, much of America will remain bound, trapped in poverty, never really free.

Picture found on pixbay.com

It’s our Christian duty to support work

By James Whitford, published by the Hill on July 1st, 2018

After nearly two decades of service to our neighbors in need, I’ve learned an important lesson: People struggling in poverty need hope. And few things offer more hope than a job. My time spent in ministry to the homeless and poor has led me to support the work requirement reforms to welfare programs in the House farm bill as consistent with both Christian principles and practical lessons.

As Christians, we must never lose sight of our responsibility to go beyond alleviating the immediate suffering of those in poverty, but also to help people help themselves to rise out of poverty — for good. We must endeavor to empower those in need so they can feed and clothe themselves and their families in the future.

As Christians, we are called to charity, but we’re never told in the Bible that charity shouldn’t include work. In Deuteronomy, God instructed His people to leave the extra wheat in the fields and grapes in the vineyard for the poor wanderer, the orphan and the widow, but He didn’t say to glean or gather them for the poor. For anyone who wanted help, work was required.

And today, if we really care, work is still required. This means if a person is able, we must help him to find and keep a job. Unfortunately, the majority of able-bodied men and women on food stamps across America are not working even during a time of record-low unemployment. Now is the time for Christians to support the elimination of federal policies that have trapped so many people in hopeless poverty, dependent on the impersonal and inhumane “charity” of government.

My ministry has reinforced to me the power and hope of work — because I’ve seen it firsthand. The transformational power of work overcomes addiction and dependency, helping people discover self-sufficiency and a life of meaning instead.

The Prophet Isaiah calls on us not just to feed people but to “pour yourself out for the hungry and to satisfy the afflicted.” When we invest ourselves like this to really help people out of poverty, Isaiah goes on to promise we’ll “be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail.”

In our ministry, we believe that every person has a reason to hope that his poverty will end. But there is no meaningful path toward that goal if it does not include that most fundamental of anti-poverty programs: a job. People who come to us experience work and learn there is reason to hope.

That hope is lacking for far too many people on welfare today, and the House farm bill’s changes to the food stamp program would empower missions like mine to address it.

Every person is a noble creation who deserves the opportunity to succeed. We are failing in our Christian duty to love our neighbors as ourselves if we fail to provide all people, of whatever background, the real hope of a better tomorrow that comes through a job. Smart policy that prioritizes work for able-bodied adults helps ensure that we uphold that duty.