Crowding Out Compassion

By James Whitford, published on www.heritage.org, July 2017

Jon stepped into my office with a confident stride that fits his tall, lanky, middle-aged frame. Men his size often intimidate, but the ease that accompanied him brought a peace into the room. He held a cup of coffee, and I’m not sure why, but the steadiness of his hand caught my attention more than anything else.

A year ago, Jon would have tremored. A year ago, he was a different man. Now, weeks away from graduating from our yearlong recovery and work-ready program, that homeless man I first met seemed to have been replaced with the one God had always intended. His visit that day was not to further process the abuse he had suffered as a child or the murder he had witnessed when he was 11 or to discuss where he was in his addiction recovery process. He just wanted to touch base, say hello, and see how I was doing.

In our casual connection that day, Jon shared with me what had helped him the most. “It wasn’t the classes you sent me through,” he said. “It wasn’t the computer literacy certification, the physical wellness, or the job training. It’s my mentor that’s made the biggest difference for me.”

Like every other student in our program, Jon was connected to a mentor committed to building a relationship over 40 weeks. This business executive has given an hour of his time every week to connect with, advise, and be a friend to Jon. A once chronically homeless addict is now a self-sufficient full-time employee, and he attributes his success mostly to a volunteer.

Volunteerism has been core to Watered Gardens Mission from its fledgling start 17 years ago. For the first 10 years, the mission grew exclusively by volunteerism. Today, volunteers fill more than 700 shifts every month, still providing the lifeblood of effort for the largest privately funded poverty relief work in our city. It changed Jon’s life, and he is just one among countless others.

So why is volunteerism on the decline? One might think the most charitable nation on Earth is losing compassion, that primary driving force to volunteer. If so, we had better understand the word. From its Latin roots—cum passus, or “to suffer with”—compassion is the visceral response that compels one to extend a portion of his life to help another who is in need. In fact, the Greek form found throughout New Testament Scripture means literally “from the bowel.”

That empathetic ache of the soul that drove Christ to act is the same force that compels millions of volunteers in America every day to extend a portion of their abundant lives to aid lives that are less abundant. Compassion is the instinctive response to another’s suffering and serves to fuel true charity.

Because we are godly image-bearers, the capacity for compassion is ever-present in humanity, but it is evoked from dormancy only in response to the awareness of another’s plight. Simply put, if we are not aware, we will not care, and if we don’t care, we are certainly less likely to volunteer.

Whether intentional or inadvertent, this is the effect of the efforts of central planners, who aim to socially engineer success for all through wealth redistribution but instead obstruct the natural formation of relationships between those who have and those who don’t have. Where volunteerism is a step toward right solidarity with our struggling fellow man, a welfare state that can only subsidize physical need creates dependence on one hand and paternalism on the other. The citizens of such a divided society, in which subsidiarity is grossly trespassed, become less aware of neighbors in need and much less likely to volunteer help: When we are not aware, we will not care.

  • When a single mother receives welfare benefits that exceed $12 per hour, she is less likely to show up at our Methodist church’s dress-for-interview clothing ministry, and so are the volunteers who run it.
  • When a homeless man receives a HUD voucher for a full year of government-funded housing with all utilities paid, he will not be in the mission’s learning center for GED tutoring, and neither will the volunteers who used to run it.
  • When your elderly next-door neighbor has a cupboard full of government-subsidized food, you are certainly less likely to volunteer preparing him a meal.

America is not losing compassion. It is just being crowded out.

Recent research that argues against a crowd-out condition fails to control for the disenfranchising effect of regulatory requirements and not-for-profits that masquerade as true charities but spend more time at state capitols lobbying for funds than they do at churches and civic groups recruiting for volunteers.

Finally, most researchers have not stood where I do to experience it firsthand. For nearly two decades, I have witnessed crowd out clearly tied to government entitlements.

Jon was offered quite an entitlement package: HUD housing, early SSI disability, food stamps. He was enticed to settle into a workless and dependent life. He admits that turning that down for a life of work and self-reliance instead was one of the hardest things he has ever done.

Had Jon succumbed, he would never have met or built a relationship with that compassionate volunteer who encouraged him on to success—just one volunteer in a cause-driven army of compassionate soldiers, all willing to serve well at their own expense. We would be wise not to crowd them out.

Charity Is No Part of the Government

 

By James Whitford, published in the Joplin Globe on April 30, 2017

I was in a meeting with some people who work for a government-funded organization that helps other organizations get funded by the government. I hope that sounds strange to you. It should. The conversation was cordial enough but certainly had its tense moments like when I bluntly declined to participate with a group that strategizes to take tax dollars for the work of charity. Unfortunately today, the position that charity should be privately funded is often ridiculed as unrealistic. But that position is nothing new as is the temptation for legislators to appropriate someone else’s earnings to provide relief for strangers in need.

Less than 20 years after our nation’s founding, a debate arose in the House of Representatives as to whether the US government should provide relief for Haitian refugees pouring into New England. The recordings of that third congress revealed compassion was the driving force to consider whether the sum of $15,000 should be spent from the Treasury to aid those escaping a war-torn Haiti in the midst of revolution. James Madison’s dissent was clear: “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of…sufferers.”

Was Madison heartless? Did his solid stance against government aid reflect an indifference to the suffering of others? Not at all. In fact, he pressed on to consider other ways to care for those refugees without compromising his principled Constitutional position. For those who had fought for freedom against the oppressive rule of a large and expansive government, their newfound liberty demanded this one remain small and limited. The state was to remain laissez-faire, hands-off in the affairs of men, providing only a simple framework of law and order upon which a free and flourishing society could be built; one in which each person was unrestricted to speak his mind, build his dream, defend his family, and to be charitable toward his neighbor in need.

What happened? Only a handful of generations later, that strict constructionist and limited government perspective has given way to a contagious dependency on a massive federal system whose gross overreach feeds the masses but never solves the problem. Instead, true charity that flows out of compassion, selflessness and love for neighbor is crowded out by a seemingly endless supply of state aid that incentivizes its recipients to remain sick and poor.

So why is it nearly every day, one can find another news piece decrying the proposal of federal cuts to various relief programs? Government programs that feed, house, help tutor, even programs that help people travel are all on the cutting block. Are we stuck in a box of believing government is required for us to help our neighbor? Are our community’s relief programs so dependent on government subsidy that they can’t stand alone with local support? Are we to believe that if a government program loses its funding, a more effective form won’t resurrect by the courage of a compassionate community? I don’t.

To conclude that a good work funded by the government needs government funding is to forget there was a day when the government wasn’t so necessary to do good work. There was a time when the expectation for government to feed the hungry, provide shelter for the homeless or clothe the poor was nil. It was once the work of charity. For nearly two decades I have witnessed the work of true charity rescue countless people from the streets, deliver hope and freedom to the addicted, restore families that were broken and put people back to work.

It’s foolish to put faith in programs afforded by a government that can’t afford them. Neither should we fear their end. Instead, let’s put our faith in God and the power of a community that cares. My experience tells me we have reason to believe.

Photo credit: Geoff Livingston US Capitol via photopin (license)

 


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

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.

 

Poverty Demands more than Means-Tested Welfare

By James Whitford, published in the Joplin Globe on October 23, 2016. 

Early one morning, I took a seat on the steps of our mission beside an elderly lady whose words would greatly impact me.  This small-framed rapid chain-smoker sat hunched beside a ratty piece of rollaway luggage. Her face was marked with a line for every year of life and her tennis shoes looked like they’d traveled with her the whole way. She appeared a woman who’d been somewhere remarkable and no less determined there’s still somewhere yet to go.  

It wasn’t too long into our casual conversation before Margaret shared her misfortune. She lost her husband earlier this year along with the home they’d lived in for nearly 20 years. She spoke of her son who had kept her for a while but that she was homeless now because he didn’t want her there anymore.  Tears began to stream down her face. I scooted over to comfort her.  The next words she said are etched in my memory. “My life has never been what I’ve wanted it to be.” She leaned in close and lamented, “How did this happen?”

She didn’t know how it happened, how the events of her life culminated to leave her homeless on the steps of a mission. Truth be told, no one knows.  In fact, no one can figure it all out because it’s too complex. It’s not complicated. It’s complex.

In his book, The Conservative Heart, Arthur Brooks, author, researcher and leader of the American Enterprise Institute discusses the difference between complicated and complex.

Complicated is building a jet engine. But once the math, the physics and the engineering are figured out and a successful one is crafted, it’s a problem solved.

Complex is a football game in which a limitless number of possibilities can tilt the game in one direction or another. No matter the strength of prediction or the depth of analysis, no one can determine with certainty the outcome of a football game because it’s not a complicated problem. It’s a complex one.  

This difference, says Brooks, is the fundamental reason why the War on Poverty failed. Its architects thought poverty in America was more like a jet engine than a football game. The trillion dollars per year the government continues to put toward welfare programs has built quite a jet engine, but fails miserably in helping us win on the field.

Poverty, like Margaret’s life, is complex. And what she needs is far beyond what any means tested welfare program can offer. Government can’t generate solutions to restore Margaret’s dignity, peace or humanity.  No expert can engineer a program that will renew her spirit or bring joy to her soul. But true and compassionate charity can because at the root of real charity is God’s love for broken man and His heart to extend life to those who need it.  That’s relationship.

It’s through relationship that one extends life to another who needs life. I’m convinced that as we invest more there, our true charity will begin to solve some of the complex problems of poverty and maybe, if God be with us, just in time before our nation passes a tipping point when we survey the American landscape and lament as Margaret did with that same grieving question, “How did this happen?”

Producers Really Are Happier Than Consumers

By James Whitford published in the Joplin Globe March 27, 2016

Recently, after hearing me share that the working poor are happier than the welfare poor, Mark got a job. I’ll never forget when he told me, the huge grin that creased his face and his enthusiastic high-five.

Just a few days ago, I stepped out the front door of the mission and saw Mark with a food box from our pantry. He earned it in our Worth-Shop. Certainly, you know he didn’t have to work for his food that day. He could have gotten it somewhere else for “free,” but this guy whose disheveled appearance and grade-school education would cause many to turn a deaf ear has something beautiful to teach us all: We’re each made in the likeness of a producer, not a consumer. Mark represents a minority who are turning away from handouts for a more fulfilling lifestyle.

The research is clear. Producers are happier than consumers. It’s also clear that givers are happier than non-givers. Increased endorphin release has been measured in response to charitable activity. Both work and charity are keys to joyful living.

The more we feel good about our giving, the more risk we pose of relieving the recipient his need to work and, subsequently, the more we rob him of his joy.

An even greater risk to this joyful living is in our current drift toward socialism. It’s sadly ironic that those who embrace the idea of a statist utopia are actually heading down the path of less charity and less work, a recipe for social malcontent.

Some might question, “Isn’t a socialist society more charitable?” For the most part, no. A number of researchers have proven this, but certainly the study by Hungerman and Gruber on “crowd out” of charitable giving in response to the growth of government welfare programs is telling.

For every dollar the government spends on social service, at least 30 cents of charitable giving is crowded out. One might think that society ends up ahead in that game, but considering the cost of bureaucracy, it’s the poor who end up losing.

The definition of socialism almost always enlists the term “social ownership.” Social ownership is the opposite of private ownership, and yet it’s private ownership combined with compassion that gives rise to charity. Socialism and charity don’t mix. Social ownership also leads to social reliance.

The early American colonists experienced this firsthand. Their initial “social ownership” community model was plagued by a lack of production and stewardship because each individual relied on the group. Maybe Mark could have taught them something about the dangers of social reliance and the importance of self-reliance.

Socialism and work don’t mix, either.

Last week, our case manager was looking for some help to clean up outside the mission and asked a visitor if he’d like to earn a meal voucher. “No thanks,” he said. “I can eat for free.”

If you’re wondering, he wasn’t a very happy person. Neither were we. Maybe Mark, with his enthusiasm, will run into him soon and persuade him to give up welfare and do what he did: embrace work and true charity instead.

Index of Economic Freedom

After 50 years of war on poverty, it appears there must be a better solution to helping our struggling neighbors than government funded programs.  Recent data supports that people are most prosperous in economically free societies. Check out these graphs from the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom.
Note the correlation between national economic freedom and individual prosperity. Economic Freedom is important for the poor!  Do government funded programs hurt? Actually, they do. Limited government is a primary marker for economic freedom.  How is the US doing? Unfortunately,  government spending is up again this year and we rated the lowest in North America in the category of fiscal freedom. 

Bandaging Homelessness Makes it Worse

By James Whitford published in the Joplin Globe November 8, 2015

For 10 years, I practiced wound care. I’ve probed, irrigated, and cut dead tissue out of the nastiest ulcers and cavities imaginable.

I could share stories that would probably shame any haunted house you visited this Halloween. When my wife and I opened the doors to our mission 15 years ago, I didn’t realize it was the first step to becoming a different kind of clinician. Although my background was steeped in peer-reviewed research-driven methods, scientifically proven best practices and everything else that’s measurable and objective, I came to learn quickly in my calling to the poor that wounds of the heart are also very real. These aren’t wounds that one can measure with any physical device, but they have real signs and symptoms commonly linked to chronic poverty.

Recently, one of our residents sat in my office and shared with me that after her mother left her at age 13, her dad became physically abusive. One night he felt guilty about leaving welts on her back and demanded that she whip him in return. She refused, so he dragged her to the kitchen, where he lit the stove and threatened to burn himself if she didn’t comply. She ran away shortly after that and became addicted to pain medication. No wonder. The pain from a heart wounded like that is unbearable.

She’s just one. We meet thousands of people every year. Together, with hundreds of compassionate volunteers and partners, we’ve become somewhat of a hospital for the broken-hearted.

Let’s talk about treatment. People who know of my wound care background will sometimes jest, “You’re still in the business.” In some ways, that’s true. There’s certainly this commonality: You can’t just put a Band-Aid on it. In wound care, an open wound that’s simply covered and not cared for is a recipe for an infected abscess. Depending on the wound, proper care may demand debriding, cleansing and packing, then close monitoring. It’s not easy, but it’s necessary.

The same goes for the wounded at heart. We can see the outward appearance of poverty and simply think that the Band-Aid of food, clothing and shelter is what we’re called to provide. Not only does that fall short, but that might actually be more harmful than helpful.

It’s why the National Alliance to End Homelessness has it wrong. Its tagline “A housed person isn’t homeless” may be true, but it leads us to believe that a house is the answer. The alliance champions “rapid rehousing,” a government-funded effort that subsidizes housing for people who’ve become homeless.

Sounds good, but I see the problem at ground level. One man who refused to be held accountable at our mission was rapidly rehoused. I saw him just a few days ago. He’s housed but out of the community and not doing well at all. The lady I mentioned above was rapidly rehoused with her boyfriend. Few would believe either of them are ready for such a relationship. Another resident admitted that he was encouraged by a local agency employee to give up his transitional housing and become homeless so he would qualify for rapid rehousing. What’s being promoted here?

Giving folks a house doesn’t make a home, and putting a Band-Aid on the problem of homelessness will only make things worse. This holiday season, apply the right kind of compassionate care to the problem of poverty. Build relationships and heal hearts.

Old Techniques Good for Today

By James Whitford published in the Joplin Globe Sept 13, 2015

Last month, the Foundation for Government Accountability published a paper titled “SNAP To It: Restoring Work Requirements Will Help Solve the Food Stamp Crisis.” Crisis? Some might argue. But take a look at the numbers. There’s been greater than a 20 fold increase in food stamp use among able bodied adults since 2000. Nationally, this program now accounts for nearly a tenth of all welfare expenditure. In the last 10 years, Missouri doubled in food stamp spending from 720 million to 1.4 billion annually. Our Jasper County portion of that is more than 2 million dollars every month. Although these numbers seem at critical levels, some might still argue that they don’t represent a crisis.

A greater crisis stems from a lack of personal involvement. Eligibility for welfare is determined without real personal knowledge of individual circumstances. In the late 1800’s, much of America realized the detriment of indiscriminate aid and in response, Charitable Organization Societies became popular.  Charity leaders organized themselves to do more than eliminate duplicate distribution; they promoted a more rigorous investigation to determine those who were deserving of relief. Work tests were commonly used to make this distinction.

Is it unreasonable to require work of those in need? Remember that work is integral to human flourishing.  I remember when a man who was missing 6 of his fingers came in our mission needing food. I asked him to help fold papers and stuff envelopes. He was a great help and we got to know each other as he worked for his food basket that day.  It would have been easy to consider this man disabled, simply give him a food box and feel sorry for him as he left. Rather than first recognizing dysfunction, impairment and inability in the poor, we should look first for existing talent and ability instead. Providing opportunities for people to earn what they need is part of that healthy expectation and esteems the poor as participants and producers rather than passive recipients.  A flourishing life is one that produces.  This year alone, we’ve witnessed more than 6000 episodes of just that; people exercising their talent and ability in exchange for basics from meals and clothing to furniture and appliances.  This has given our staff and team of volunteers countless opportunities to partner with and become personally involved with the poor in our community, to thank them for a job well done and to encourage them upward.

I’d like to think there’s more of that to come. Our Missouri legislature recently reformed welfare. Beginning January 1, 2016 work requirements will be reinstated for able-bodied childless adults who receive food stamps.  For years, work requirements have been waived, a primary reason we’ve seen such a dramatic rise in food stamp enrollment. Soon, the choice for many will be a work activity or lose the benefit. If the Foundation for Government Accountability research is correct, rather than work, more than 30,000 will instead drop off the food stamp roles in Missouri within the first year.  That so many will choose to opt out should cause us to question how they were determined eligible for relief in the first place.  Shouldn’t the role of determining who’s really in need be left to those who are willing to become personally involved?

Modeling Potential Income and Welfare-Assistance Benefits in Illinois

Single Parent with Two Children Household and Two Parents with Two Children Household Scenarios in Cook County, City of Chicago, Lake County and St. Clair County

Excerpted from Illinois Policy Institute. Written by Erik Randolph, Senior Fellow.

Of particular interest in this study are the following:

  1. General conclusions on pages 13-14
  2. The course of action on pages 15-16
  3. The single parent scenarios on pages 26-29

The single parent scenarios especially show a serious trough of disincentive for those earning between $15 and $35/hr. Everything in between these two points represents an economic loss for the individual. In this scenario, it’s better to stay on welfare than to move to the middle class.

Read the full report.

The Rising Cost of Social Security Disability Insurance

Excerpted from “Policy Analysis” Newsletter from the CATO Institute. Written by Tad DeHaven – Originally Published August 6, 2013

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is one of the largest federal programs, and it is one of the most troubled. The program’s expenditures have doubled over the last decade, reaching an estimated $144 billion this year. Spending has risen so rapidly that SSDI’s trust fund is projected to be depleted just three years from now.

SSDI was originally created as a modest safety net aimed at severely disabled workers who were close to retirement age. But Congress has expanded benefit levels over the decades, and eligibility standards have been greatly liberalized. The result is that people capable of working are instead opting for the disability rolls when confronted with employment challenges. Once on the disability rolls, experience shows that individuals are likely to remain there, which is bad for the individuals, taxpayers, and the economy.

Read the full article. (PDF)

Less Welfare, More Charity

Published on 8-23-14

Excerpted from the CATO Institute (www.cato.org). Written by Michael D. Tanner – Originally Published on www.nationalreview.com, August 20, 2014

In 1985, wealthy New York businessman George McDonald was moved by the plight of the city’s homeless population; he was particularly struck by the story of a woman who had frozen to death on the streets after being ejected from Grand Central Station. Initially, he responded by providing the homeless with free meals, but he soon found that his generosity was doing nothing to help beneficiaries to improve their situation. The same people continued to show up for food month after month. His willingness to help might have kept people from going hungry, but it did nothing to help them rise out of poverty.

Read the full article on www.cato.org.

Where Empowerment Begins

James Whitford, Executive Director Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission – Published in The Joplin Globe, April 30, 2014

 

I recall a trip to Grand Rapids where mission and church leaders around the nation gathered to discuss the role of virtue in a free society. During one of the dinners in a conversation about welfare, a gentleman who ran a mission in a large inner city mentioned “Mother’s day”. I could tell the others at the table got it.

I had to ask. He explained many of the welfare-dependent use the term Mother’s Day to signify the monthly date when welfare checks arrive. Why? Because welfare distribution has created a paternalistic viewpoint of government among many of the poor. “Uncle Sam” has become “Dad” or “Husband.” And, in the minds of many, that welfare check is viewed as charity, a gift or even worse, an entitlement. However, if government is by the people, then all it has comes from the people and therefore has nothing of its own to give to the people. So the government cannot be charitable, and welfare, in fact, short-circuits true charity.

I believe Joplin is solidly on a track to solve problems of poverty through true charity. While the government cannot enter into a personal relationship with a poor mother or inspire a young homeless man or give hope to the abused and addicted, you and I can. Face to face charity founded in relationship is the beginning of empowerment. It has been a blessing for me to hear more “empowerment” talk around our community like the use of “hand up” instead of “hand out.” Recently, I even heard someone use the phrase “hand across” to avoid the paternalism one might catch in the use of “hand up.” Although I’m excited to hear more discussion along these lines, proper perception is important. A “hand up” or “hand across” could imply that the poor need help to step up (where we are) or step across (to our side of the tracks.) But if we vacate all pretension and embrace love for our fellow man, we’ll be compelled to step out of our place and into the place of our poor neighbor for this pure and simple reason; to be with him. This is where empowerment begins. True and effective charity is born from a compassion that leads us to develop real relationship with the most broken and destitute even when there appears no hope for change.

I believe Dr. John Perkins would agree. He was born into poverty in Mississippi in 1930 and tragedy followed him through his youth. This nationally recognized author and founder of the Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) teaches that effective charity begins with real relationship and that anything else is bound to be ineffective and costly in the long run. In his book, Beyond Charity, he writes:

“In confronting these conditions, it is much easier to build a new prison or enact a new welfare law or give someone a handout than it is to develop the person. So far, we have settled for the impersonal and the bureaucratic. But, as we are seeing now, in the long run these Band-Aids will be much more expensive than we ever imagined.”

He goes on to discuss one of CCDA’s founding principles, Relocation. He argues that the most effective ministry occurs when love draws us out of our place and into the place of the poor. These are very exciting days in Joplin. We are realizing that instead of waiting in our missions and churches for the poor to come to us, we can fight poverty where it is, embrace the person as he is, and from a new perspective of humility realize a “hand up” or “hand across” may not be what someone needs to join us, but just what we need to join him.

 

Redefining Poverty

James Whitford, Executive Director Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission – Published in The Joplin Globe, June 19, 2013

 

I remember meeting a man on the main road through Fond Parisien, a small community on the eastern side of Haiti. He was walking along the dusty roadside pulling a two-wheeled dolly behind him. I didn’t understand the word he hollered out, but I recognized what was in his hand as he waved it exuberantly above his head. It was a popsicle. A cooler was secured on his dolly and in it were plastic wrapped popsicles packed like sardines. The thought of one in the middle of a scorching day at the medical mission was enough for me to strike up conversation. I don’t recall the words we exchanged, but I do recall the man’s vibrancy. Even through a language barrier that required an interpreter, it was obvious he was full of life and hope. I’m certain that purchasing his popsicles that day didn’t help him come close to crossing the threshold of poverty as we define it in America. And yet, he never seemed impoverished at all.

In contrast, I know many people in our city who, through state welfare, have much more materially than my salesman friend in Haiti, yet seem much more impoverished. One man showed up at our rescue mission a few days ago who I know from some time back. He once asked me why he should have to work for his food after I offered him an opportunity to earn a meal voucher. Not long after that encounter he qualified for food stamps and then state funded housing and even a government subsidized cell phone. But he’s homeless again and needing shelter. Why? Because the tens of thousands of dollars he received in government subsidized goods and services were only a form of poverty alleviation rather than poverty resolution.

How do we resolve it?

Maybe we should start by redefining it. We have long defined poverty at some material threshold. Currently a family of four with an income under $23,283 per year is “impoverished.” Don’t believe it. The longer we define it materially, the longer we’ll throw material at it as a solution. What if we used productivity as the measuring stick? After all, productivity and poverty mix like oil and water. Arthur Brooks explores the science of charity in his book, Who REALLY Cares? In it, he cites research that reveals a person on welfare is statistically more likely to say he or she is “inconsolably sad” than a working poor man at the same level of material poverty. Not only that, but the working poor will on average give 500% more to charity than the comparable welfare recipient. My point is this: More often than not, productive people are happy givers. They are not poor.

I see the incredible value of this in our mission every day. From the four fingered man who helped us stuff envelopes for a food basket to the homeless guy who helped mow lawns for his bed and meals, few things build self esteem and change the poverty mindset like productivity. So the next time you drive up to someone holding a sign that says, “Will work for food,” consider how you might take him up on the offer instead of handing him cash. For him, it could be the beginning of moving from poverty alleviation to poverty resolution.

 

Why work?

James Whitford, Executive Director Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission

 

Last week a couple of nice police officers approached me at the rescue mission to discuss a problem.  People are hanging out at the park in downtown on Main Street. I know. Your first thought is, “Well, it’s a park isn’t it?” But it’s not just people at the park. It’s “those people” at the park.  Your next thought might be, “Isn’t the mission on Kentucky Street?” Yep. We’re not even neighbors to Spiva Park. But that’s okay. The police officers were nice and I understood. People are complaining and fearful of the homeless.

I think the question that must be answered is “Why not look for a job instead of hang out in the park?” And although I doubt it was the answer they sought, the officers kindly entertained my discussion on the connection of a growing welfare state to a derailed motive and disincentive to work.

What are the motives that drive us to work every day? Providing for our family, comfort, even luxury might be common responses. Even more base and important are simply food, shelter, and clothing. Hunger drives a person to food, rain drives him to shelter, and winter to layer up.  The motive to work is clear. However, human nature always tends toward the easiest road to meet these basic needs.  And few would disagree that the easiest road right now is “Welfare Way.” If we don’t significantly narrow this tax payer toll road, we’ll see a continued loss of motivation to work. Maybe we should consider (and educate) the more virtuous motive that is the flip-side of self-sufficiency.  If we’re not “self-sufficient,” then we’re “other-dependent.” Consider the words of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, “We worked night and day that we might not be a burden to any of you” and the instruction to “…work with your hands…so that you may be dependent on no one.” A thriving city with a healthy economy is one that embraces this virtuous aspect of self-sufficiency, that is not being a burden to or dependent on another.  The homeless man who gave me his food stamp card four months ago gets this concept. To date, the card has accrued more than $800 but he has no interest in it because he understands that virtuous side to self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, a derailed motive to work is not the only road block to fixing the problem. The welfare benefit is actually incentivizing laziness.

A couple of months ago, the Cato Institute completed a study, “The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013, An Analysis of Welfare Benefits by State.” Applying welfare rules from each state to a virtual family of a single parent and two children, the authors summed the welfare from various programs like SNAP, TEFAP, LIHEAP, TANF (food stamps, food commodity, utility assistance, cash) and a few others for which the virtual family would be eligible. In Missouri, this household could receive a total of $26,837 in benefits annually. Not only does that equate to more than 12 dollars per hour, but the total package exceeds 130% of the federally defined poverty level for that family. Don’t feel too bad. Missouri is only one of 35 other states in which welfare is beating a minimum wage job. So for many the question becomes, “Why work?”  When you combine a derailed motive with the welfare disincentive, maybe the best thing to do is just go hang out in the park.

 

 

Beyond good intentions, charity requires justice

James Whitford, Executive Director Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission – Published in The Joplin Globe August 31, 2012

 

A well-dressed guy showed up at our mission who wanted to help by distributing government subsidized cell phones to our people. He was wrong on a couple of counts. First, they aren’t “our” people. Each is his own and with difficult decisions to make every day just like you and me. Hope, effort, potential, risk, and love are no less a part of the day for the homeless and poor than they are for us. We should always remember that.

Secondly, distributing cell phones to the poor doesn’t constitute real help. I certainly appreciated his approach more than the lady who preceded him. She simply pulled up in her wagon with cell phones in a box and began indiscriminately handing them to anyone who would sign the paper on her clip board. There was certainly a spike in street sales that day. As I spoke to him in my office, I wondered if he knew that his cell phones were the result of the Telecommunications Act that taxes cell phone corporations so the “underserved” can have what you and I pay for every month. (Yes, those fees are passed on to us. Take a look at your cell phone bill.) No, this man just wanted to help. And though I didn’t question his motive, genuine intent does not always equate to true charity.

Consider the word charity. The dictionary defines it as “generous donations or actions to aid the poor or ill.” The Bible interchanges the word charity with love. But I am afraid our nation is losing sight of what true charity really is. Are “free phones” for the poor sponsored by the government an act of charity? Is feeding the hungry with food stamps an act of charity? Does the provision of shelter using tax dollars fall within the definition of charity?

In the Pope’s 2009 Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), he pens these words:

“Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or acting. I cannot “give” what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice.”

Justice is prerequisite to true charity. How can charity be true if it’s accomplished by taking from one what is rightfully his? We have seen a great deal of funding flow into Joplin in the last year, both private and public. Did some of those public tax dollars do any good? Of course. Should we be happy for the people who are helped by public funding? I am. I simply suggest we recognize that this is not true charity and that rather than celebrate accomplishments achieved at the expense of working, taxpaying Americans, we should instead wince, drop our heads a bit and find a new resolve to stand for what is just, a place where liberty is preserved and true charity abounds.

 

Effective Compassion not Government’s Job

James Whitford, Executive Director Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission – Published in The Joplin Globe

 

I was recently contacted by the Missouri Association for Social Welfare with a request to participate in the annual point-in-time homeless count. This is a particular day when all agencies serving the homeless are encouraged to do an on-site head count of the homeless and turn in the numbers to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a champion of collaborative effort in Joplin over the past several years, I am always interested in gathering good data

for all of us to use. However, when that data becomes a tool for bringing government funding into our city, I can’t help but cringe. Remember, as a nation, we’re almost 17 trillion dollars in the hole. We all should cringe. I’m pleased like many others that Missouri has an A+++ credit rating with a balanced budget, but don’t forget that a third of the revenue in our state comes directly from Washington. Yes, Missouri is on federal welfare. So, any way you skin it, we are in a situation that calls for every one of us to do our part in finding alternatives to the use of government dollars in caring for the sick, the hungry, the elderly and the poor.

Years ago, when I started managing a large pizza restaurant, it was typical for the cooks to eat the mistakes they made. Food cost was high and figuratively speaking, everyone was fat. It wasn’t until I instituted the policy “no eating mistakes” that the number of mistakes dropped significantly. Here’s my point; problems rarely get solved when the presence of the problem guarantees our next meal. Yet, this type of disincentive is subtly at work when we report homeless numbers to a government that returns aid in response. And to compound the problem, aid doesn’t resolve the issues. Food, clothing and a house don’t solve the problems of hunger, poverty or homelessness any more than triple antibiotic ointment heals a wounded heart.

What is effective? Read Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion. He delineates the marks of effective compassion: building or restoring family relationships, using discernment in the process of accountability, entering into economic exchange with the poor, providing freedom and exercising faith. Government’s primary responsibility is maintaining order in society so freedom can flourish, not demonstrating effective compassion. That job belongs to you and me, personally. And part of our responsibility in caring for our fellow man is to view him as God intends. Consider that my rescue mission alone has documented in the last 6 months more than 2000 instances of the homeless and poor earning what they need. Did we view Kathy as poor while she partnered in our “Worth-Shop” to earn Christmas gifts for her kids? Did we consider Joe “homeless” while he was framing in our new garage so he could earn tires for his car? Maybe we’d be better off and move toward real solutions if instead of counting “homeless” and “poor,” we counted “inventive, diligent partners with ingenuity, capacity and potential.” That would be a point-in-time count I’d like to see.