Listen to this article:

In 1887, President Grover Cleveland vetoed a federal aid package, The Texas Seed Bill, because government aid …

“encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and … prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Of all the places in the United States that might lose such “kindly sentiment and conduct,” I thought my state of Missouri would be the last. Sadly, it too is complicit in weakening our state’s “bonds of brotherhood.”

A case in point: In early 2023, “Clark” was struggling with uncontrolled diabetes when he found help from a private, faith-based medical clinic that catered to the uninsured. In thoughts shared last August on social media, he said, “They treated me like a real person, not looking down on me.” Not long after, my wife and I began supporting this compassion-driven ministry. Sadly, a few months ago their development director called to say they were “… pivoting away from a medical clinic to a counseling clinic because when we refer our uninsured patients for tests, they end up connected to Medicaid and simply don’t need our services anymore.”

Over the last three years, Medicaid expansion in Missouri has resulted in a 27% increase in enrollment. While the cost of providing government healthcare to an additional 300,000 people has been much lamented, I’ve yet to hear an equal outcry that it’s crowding out civil society’s good work, i.e., that “kindly sentiment and conduct” that connects guys like Clark to something they need every bit as much as a service: relationships and hope.

 And Missouri isn’t finished. Implementation of Missouri Senate Bill 82, signed into law by Governor Parson last year, could begin soon. This widely supported bill is intended to reduce a “benefits cliff” for those enrolled in TANF (cash assistance) and SNAP (food stamps). The “cliff” is the point when a welfare recipient’s earned income exceeds the benefit’s qualifying threshold, resulting in its sudden loss. SB 82 intends to address the problem by extending benefits even when earned income exceeds that threshold (currently 130% of the federal poverty line). The idea is to mitigate the concern of accepting an increase in salary for fear of losing government benefits.

 That seems to make sense. But had our Missouri legislators or governor thought a little more like Grover Cleveland, they would have realized the total cost was too high. First, there’s the financial side of the ledger: the fiscal note for this well-intended expansion will likely cost Missourians an additional 180 to 220 million dollars per year in taxes.  

 Then there’s the loss of community commitment and relationships vital to the long-term success of those in need. Take my southwest county of Jasper, for example. We coordinate a collaborative effort among more than 30 poverty-fighting nonprofits. Last year, 1110 households receiving food stamps came through the doors of one of those local organizations. One hundred thirty-six had at least one employed adult and sought food assistance an average of four times per year.

 One of those households is Angela’s. Over time, we’ve built a relationship with her and her two boys and she has told us, “The biggest difference is I don’t have to do it alone.” Indeed, we’ve heard hundreds of people over the years share the importance of relationships on the journey out of poverty. 

 I hope Clark doesn’t end up alone. Because of the state’s actions, he no longer has access to a faith-based medical clinic staffed with compassionate volunteers. When Missouri Senate Bill 82 is fully implemented, extending welfare benefits up to 225% of the poverty line, other faith-based, compassion-driven ministries will see a drop in those coming to them for care and be forced to close. That will come at a great cost to people like Clark and Angela. Moreover, relying on government more than “the friendliness and charity of our countrymen” will, as Grover Cleveland rightly pointed out, weaken the sturdiness of our state’s character. 

---

This commentary originally appeared in The Kansas City Star.

BETHANY HERRON
Vice President of Education
Read more from Bethany

 

Listen to this article:

---

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) new rule just strengthened the Child Care & Development Block Grant. Free, low-cost childcare sounds like a significant breakthrough. 

According to the White House Fact Sheet, HHS’ new rule, which went into effect at the end of April, will “cap co-payments for families…to no more than 7% of income, saving families in states that do not yet cap co-payments over $200 a month on average.” For certain families, such as those at or below 150% of the federal poverty level, the rule encourages states to relieve parents of co-payments, ultimately making childcare free. 

While this rule aims to help families with the greatest need, there is ongoing debate about its effectiveness and broader, likely negative, impact.

Consider My Family’s Story

 

I know the pain firsthand.

I sat in my school administrator’s office, tears streaming down my face, watching my elementary school classmates leave for another coveted, end-of-the-year trip. Once again, my dad’s addiction and resultant family enslavement to after-school debt meant I was left behind. The pain and confusion ran deep. I heard the whispers of my teachers and friends’ parents. Empowering our family appeared to be a helpless cause. Most of all, even as a child, I knew how much it hurt my mother. She lived defeated, feeling like she could never break free from the cycle of poverty. Meanwhile, my father sat imprisoned in a destructive habit that was tearing our family apart. 

On the surface, our need was material–and help was readily available. Churches regularly paid our debt. Well-meaning individuals quickly signed us up for every government dollar possible, covered our bills with benevolence funds, and filled up our food pantry. From all outward appearances, the assistance we received should have gotten us out of material poverty. But it didn’t, which raises the question … 

Does Material Assistance Bring Flourishing For Families Needing Development?

 

Clearly, my family needed more than material assistance. No amount of money could target the needs of our home. Instead, misplaced compassion actually stoked the flame because it sustained our brokenness without addressing the issues that caused it.

Imagine the impact the 2024 childcare subsidy expansion would have had on my home. Had my family received more material aid based on surface-level financial need, my father would’ve had more money to fuel his addiction, stay right where he was–and keep us there with him. 

In reality, my father needed relational, addiction recovery, not more money. My mother needed healing for her husband, a cheering squad, a trustworthy job, and budgeting assistance. 

These deeper needs are present in many homes. 

Current research shows monetary assistance doesn’t improve outcomes for those who need developmental solutions. Indeed, for most, more money in the pocket equates to higher spending in other areas, missing each home’s more pressing, foundational needs. 

So, How Do Ministry Workers Effectively Support Families Needing Development?

 

• Strengthen existing family relationships. 

God’s design for the family is that it functions as a web of healthy, interdependent relationships. Love, by definition, is a virtue. Individuals and communities can truly love each other; programs and well-intended, one-way handout programs cannot. It takes a relationship.

Instead of rapidly turning to organizationally-based material relief, start strengthening relationships by asking those in need a simple question: “Where is your family?” 

Example: Your organization encounters a young, single mom who should rely on her family and friends for help. They know her story and her children–and should be more aware of her true needs. Before signing her up for programs that incentivize her to stay below the poverty line, seek to connect her with her family, friends, and church. If no healthy relationships exist, your organization should help her build that community. 

 

• Create a community where skillful case management provides empowering support. 

Such a system can target a family’s true needs. Once identified, dignifying, community-led solutions, such as food cooperatives, community-led childcare solutions, transportation programs, and transitional housing can be engaged. These models will empower individuals and families, ensuring God’s image-bearers are treated with dignity and respect. Community collaboration is key to nurturing a community that supports flourishing. Tools, such as Charity Tracker, can make collaboration possible.

Let’s continue our example from above: The young woman’s family is contacted, but those relationships can’t be repaired in time to help. As well, she faces losing her children because of her circumstances. However, case management reveals she is a hard worker and a kind, loving mother. Community-led, relational solutions designed to incentivize freedom instead of dependency are engaged to support her. 

She and her children become residents at a transitional housing program, while she attends trade school. The local preschool has a subsidized program where she volunteers one day a week for a tuition discount. Meanwhile, a local church helps her find reliable transportation and provides a budgeting class to help her save. Upon graduation from trade school, she is hired at a well-paying job and has enough money saved for a down payment on an apartment. And, family counseling is provided to strengthen relationships with her family of origin. It hasn’t been easy. But, strong relationships were built that encouraged her to press on within a supportive community. 

A Final Thought

 

Material poverty has deep and complex roots. When those roots aren’t directly addressed by compassionate individuals close to the situation, the generalized, financial assistance that takes its place misses the mark and almost always sustains a family’s unhealthy situation. 

So, while it may seem families must have childcare subsidies, the deeper need is for people close to the situation to relationally address families’ real, developmental needs with compassion and discernment. 

 

---

This article is just the tip of the iceberg for practical resources available through the True Charity Network. Check out all the ways it can help you learn, connect, and influence here.

Already a member? Get access to all of your benefits through the member portal.

---

 

 

Listen to this article:

Despite massive monetary and programmatic efforts over the past five decades, poverty as defined by the US government has stubbornly persisted since the initiation of the War on Poverty in the mid-1960’s. Indeed, though federal and state governments spend 1.8 trillion dollars a year on aid to the poor, the poverty rate has barely moved.

Critics of that assessment point out standards of living among the poor have risen. That’s true– if you take into account welfare benefits–which the official measure excludes. Still, it’s clear the percentage of people unable to provide for themselves is similar to that of the 1970’s (12.6% in 1970, 11.5% in 2022). Further, though some evidence suggests material living standards have improved, most indicators of the poor’s physical, relational, and spiritual health show their situation has worsened.
For instance:

• 65% of working age people in poverty did not work for a single week in 2022.
• Male labor force participation is at a record low.
• Disability claims have significantly outpaced population growth.
• So called “deaths of despair” from suicide and drug overdoses are at record highs.
• Two-parent families have declined, especially among the poor.
• Church attendance among the poor is at a record low.

It’s worth observing that the poor aren’t a completely static class; many individuals are only poor for a period of their lives. However, for many born into poverty, isolation, dysfunction, and generational poverty is the norm. All of that despite major advances in our economic and technological growth. It’s worth stopping to consider just how dramatically we’ve faltered–and why.

Anatomy of a failure

While there’s never been a “golden age” for poverty, most economic, social, and educational indicators trended positive for lower-income Americans prior to the beginning of the War on Poverty–regardless of race. It’s instructive to note that prior to its inception, civil society (i.e. churches, charities, mutual aid societies, and extended families) took the lead role in assisting the down and out.

Unfortunately, well-meaning bureaucrats came to believe government-sponsored transactional aid is a better alternative than civil society’s relational aid. They rapidly implemented that strategy, resulting in the government now standing at center stage. Tragically, at the precise moment civil society should have insisted its role not be minimized, it adapted its form of assistance to mimic public relief. Meeting immediate needs became the focus, without much attention paid to breaking cycles of poverty or building meaningful relationships to overcome alienation. (A contributing factor to that shift was also the church voluntarily stepping back its efforts due to concerns over the social gospel movement).

Time has shown how inept that approach is; government-inspired transfer payments have not solved the problem of economic mobility or communal alienation. Instead, that approach is a primary reason there has been no substantial reduction in intergenerational poverty.

Despite the convictions of some, lack of economic opportunity hasn’t been the driving factor, as seen in part by the success of immigrants arriving from poor countries (many of whom are racial minorities). Nor is racism the major culprit, as evidenced by isolation, dysfunction, and generational poverty in the inner-city and Appalachia. Neither does the breakdown of the family, addiction, loss of community, changes in American schools, the loosening of sexual mores, and the reduction in religious observance bear sole responsibility. While these factors doubtless contribute to the negative trends, they are also present in the middle and upper classes–yet their negative trends have been far less pronounced than those of the poor.

The transition from civil society to transfer payments has made the American poor far less resilient against these negative cultural forces and less able to take advantage of economic opportunities than previous generations.

Toward a workable solution

There are three basic spheres in which all people interact: the market (i.e. for-profit business), the government, and civil society (mentioned above). Each has strengths that if deployed properly, benefit society. Conversely, each has weaknesses that can harm it.

For instance, the government is well-positioned to use force to provide for the common defense and protect people from fraud, abuse, and other forms of unjust exploitation. The market’s price mechanism and voluntary exchange are good at allocating scarce resources to their most valuable use and innovating new technology. Civil society fosters personal relationships which help people grow, flourish, and get back up when they fall.

To put it another way, when it comes to serving people in poverty, the government is best suited to protect the poor from abuse and exclusion from opportunity. The market is best suited to offer a long-term path out of poverty (work), and civil society (families, churches, charities, and communities) is best equipped to befriend them, encourage them, and get them on the path to personal, social, spiritual, and economic sustainability.

Thus, there was little reason to believe government agencies, renowned for their ability to expand perpetually with diminished outcomes, could offer a good alternative to private charity. As has been seen, that hypothesis has been debunked conclusively.

Even if SNAP, TANF, and numerous other federal programs started reducing poverty tomorrow, current levels of spending (which include poverty alleviation and numerous middle and upper-class entitlements) are unsustainable. In as little as 20 years, the entire system will be bankrupt. Common wisdom opines, “if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” That means the most likely outcome is what many European countries have faced: The institution of “austerity measures,” or significant program cuts across the board. Since the poor in the U.S. vote in lower numbers than the middle class, it’s an easy deduction their benefits will be cut disproportionately.

A unique opportunity is at hand

That outcome should provide civil society a window of time to regain its role as the dominant player in poverty alleviation. The question is: Will churches, ministries, and families be ready to handle the increased responsibilities? Will their programs be transformative and foster financial independence? Or will they shrink from the challenge?

If we seize the opportunity, we must keep this truth in mind: People in poverty should not be viewed as the objects of our charity but as the subjects of their own stories of development. Assistance provided should build on their assets and capabilities, enabling us to subsidize growth, not misery. We should strengthen existing relationships and build new ones to help people flourish rather than just survive.

While the current system does create obstacles to effective charity, there is still some room for effective charity providers to “crowd in” right now. Many people in poverty are so hungry for change and relationships that they will gladly accept developmental challenges offered by a loving ministry–despite lower-barrier alternatives that are available through the government. That will be all the more true as benefits continue to dry up.

If we do our part, the government’s War on Poverty will go down in history as an unfortunate intermission in an otherwise successful campaign for opportunity and human flourishing, driven by the churches, charities, associations, and families that have always been foundational to its success

 

---

 

 

Listen to this article:

As of September 1, if you were homeless, work requirements established in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act no longer apply to you. They neither apply if you’re a veteran or have aged out of the foster care system and are under 24.

The federal government doesn’t believe that “personal responsibility and work opportunity” can help the homeless, veterans or foster care youth.

The phrase “loving people to death” is apt. It was used by a homeless woman in Portland, Oregon, last month, according to Kevin Dahlgren, who tweeted his interview beside the woman’s tent. “They feed you three meals a day. You don’t have to do s**t but stay in your tent or party,” she said.

Dahlgren, who works for a homeless service provider in Portland, said the woman he interviewed is not the only one claiming they’re being loved to death. And he’s right.

More than 230,000 people will sleep on the streets in America tonight, a number that has risen 35 percent in the last eight years, along with welfare spending, which has increased from $848 billion annually to $1.19 trillion, a 14 percent increase after considering inflation.

More welfare isn’t the answer. And neither is reducing welfare work requirements that might help people escape the dependency trap. But, unfortunately, the recently passed Fiscal Responsibility Act did just that.

Signed into law June 3 as a compromise deal to raise the debt ceiling, this law is less than “responsible” because it takes another step toward “loving people to death.” Although it increases the age for work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving SNAP benefits or food stamps, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the effects of exemptions for other groups will have an overall effect of increasing the food stamp rolls by 78,000 people, costing Americans an additional $2.1 billion. It’s more than an issue of cost, though. More than 70 percent of SNAP households already have no earned income, so increasing SNAP enrollment by removing work requirements is a step in the wrong direction for Americans needing work and the dignity it provides.

This kind of welfare expansion and other handouts often hurt the homeless more than help them. If you don’t believe me, take their word for it.

While visiting a homeless encampment in Huntsville, Alabama, three years ago, I met a couple beside their tent. Sitting outside their makeshift home, Shay and Wendy told me that community members should quit “dropping stuff off because it makes us lazy.” Shay concluded our conversation with, “I appreciate the compassion, but it just keeps us sitting on our butts.” I visited that homeless camp last month, and to my chagrin, Shay and Wendy were still there and not looking too good.

Maybe we really are loving people to death.

One businessman I spoke with recently in Portland described the decline in his city as a “doom-loop.” He doesn’t know what to do but is keenly aware that handouts and welfare are loving people to death. Loving with short-sighted, one-way charity condemns our homeless neighbors to a life on the streets that often ends in tragedy. Americans nationwide are witnessing that doom-loop to death in their urban centers — subsidized by ever-expanding welfare programs.

“We sell Obama phones for 50 bucks and then go get another one,” one person admitted regarding the federally subsidized cell phone program. “It’s easy to sell food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar, too,” another confessed. 

These comments are from the unsheltered who are also unable or unwilling to join a work-based program, often because of addiction to hard drugs that often leads to severe mental illness or death.

As the founder of a homeless mission, I’ve learned that people in poverty need opportunity and a community that believes in them. I’ve cheered on countless people who once fell in the “marginalized” or “underserved” category celebrated leaving the margins and entering the mainstream. John, once a grisly, homeless meth-addict who stood on the street corners holding a cardboard sign, was cheered on to sobriety and independent housing; he is now working at a local hospital. Jocelyn lived in a cardboard box and feared giving up drugs and food stamps. But after leaving our mission, she went on to college, where she earned a master’s degree, and now lives a life free of drugs, independent of the government. 

Many, like John and Jocelyn, once hopeless, now have hope and are contributors to society, utilizing their gifts and skills to serve others. And they are doing it free from poverty and welfare dependency.

The federal government may not believe in the value and potential of the most vulnerable among us, but I do. The Fiscal Responsibility Act and its inference that if you’re down and out, you have nothing to offer is offensive. I can only hope that the homeless, veterans and foster care youth will see it for what it is and say, “No thanks. I won’t be loved to death.”

This article was previously published by the DC Journal.