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.

Listen to this article:

This article was originally published on InsideSource’s DC Journal on July 12, 2023.

Because I fear that America is sinking into the mire of national debt and government dependency, I testified in favor of work requirements for the food stamp program at a U.S. Senate hearing on the Farm Bill in April of this year. Few offered similar arguments, and most gave impassioned speeches about the need to grow welfare programs. To the latter, I’d like to extend an invitation to my home state of Missouri, which instituted work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) on food stamps in 2016. 

The outcomes of Missouri’s work requirement efforts saw 85% of ABAWDs move from welfare to work, and state-wide food insecurity dropped from 14.2% to 12%. So I was encouraged to learn that the “Limit, Save, Grow” debt ceiling bill being debated in Congress this Spring included a provision to raise the welfare work requirement age for ABAWDs from 50 to 56 years of age while limiting the ability of states to waive those requirements. 

Unfortunately, the bill failed.  

More Americans returning to work equates to less government spending on social safety net programs. That’s one reason the failure of the Limit, Save, Grow Act as an answer to the debt ceiling crisis really hurt. Our national debt has doubled in the last 10 years from $16 trillion to $32 trillion. The current rate of government spending is untenable, and the U.S. Treasury Department has been forced to admit in its 2022 Financial Report that “The projected continuous rise of the debt-to-GDP ratio indicates that current policy is unsustainable.” 

As the June deadline for default on the national debt approached, the U.S. Government was still trying to figure out how to continue spending what it doesn’t have by borrowing more to pay what it owes. Higher interest rates, a stock market meltdown, and economic recession loomed while the “Limit, Save, Grow” Act was tossed aside for a compromise that increased the debt ceiling but failed to reign in government spending. Its replacement, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law by President Biden on June 3rd, only trims deficit spending by three percent over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects it will leave us with a debt bill of $45.2 trillion in 2033. 

We should have kept the word “Limit” in the bill. 

Like “Limit,” the word “Save” implies something about economics, but the most significant opportunity for saving in this scrapped bill was that of human dignity. Although the Fiscal Responsibility Act retained some aspects of work requirements for SNAP (food stamps), overall, the rules were relaxed enough that SNAP enrollment is now projected to increase by 78,000 people at a cost of $2.1 billion.

Sadly, though being employed is essential to escaping poverty, more people on food stamps ultimately results in fewer people working. Having the opportunity to provide for yourself and your family establishes a sense of dignity that can be stripped away by welfare dependency.

In my twenty-three years of building relationships with the poor and homeless at the mission my wife and I founded, I’ve learned that nothing offers more dignity than the independence achieved through work. Even the very basics of food, shelter, and clothing are earned by those who come through our doors, saving the dignity of those we serve.

A homeless woman, Selena, recently told me, “Allowing me to work for my bed and meals lets me feel like I can keep my dignity.” Another homeless man remarked, “It’s like you take the shame out of the game. 

And another woman left me a voicemail after earning her food, saying, “Thank you for treating me as equal.” It is a uniquely human quality to exchange labor for goods or services, and welfare without expectation of exchange limits potential and strips dignity. 

Because expansive government crowds out neighborliness, the failure of the Limit, Save, Grow Act also impedes the growth of stronger communities. Alexis de Tocqueville wondered at the greatness of America’s communities and civic associations no less than he warned us of losing them: “The more [government] stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance.” The more government reach extends to meet the needs of our neighbors, the more that “notion of combining together” is lost. 

Offering those in poverty the opportunity to untangle themselves from the ever-expanding welfare safety net would be a refreshing disruption to the status quo by limiting government spending and reach, saving human dignity, and growing stronger communities. The Limit, Save, Grow Act would have helped. It pointed toward a more robust, less dependent America. 

The Fiscal Responsibility Act may have given us room to breathe, but it fails to offer any lasting hope to Americans that the ship won’t sink.

 This article was originally published in The Joplin Globe on December 18, 2022.

Have you noticed an increase in the homeless population in your community? You’re not alone. In the United States, homelessness has been on the rise for the last handful of years. Since 2015, the number of people living in tents, camping under bridges, and wandering the streets has increased by 31% from 173,000 to 226,000.  

Why has this happened? That is the question every mayor, downtown business owner, and nonprofit leader wants answered. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer for the quarter million people living on the streets. The reasons for each individual’s homelessness are complex and unique.  

I have encountered thousands of homeless individuals, each with his or her own unique story. One woman, Betty, lost her husband and then found herself on the streets after a breakdown in her relationship with her family. Mike, on the other hand, ended up homeless after years of neglect and abuse at the hands of his alcoholic parents. The “why” is different for every person and trying to answer it from a 30,000 foot perspective often results in government-style central planning that simply masks the symptoms without ever addressing the distinctly unique source of each individual’s struggle. 

Often, policymakers believe that the cure to homelessness is simply housing. But a house only addresses a symptom, not the source of the problem. This is why, 10 years and $16.2 billion later, the government approach of Housing First has proven a failure. A house doesn’t end addiction or treat years of trauma. As a result, oftentimes people either leave their government housing or sadly, die from their untreated afflictions. Homelessness isn’t an epidemic to be treated with a house as if housing is the cure. Houselessness isn’t the real problem and “why” isn’t the only question we should be asking. We should also be asking, “How?” 

I asked that question of five unsheltered individuals who admitted they couldn’t take shelter in my mission because of drug use. “How are you continuing to support your habit? How are you living on the streets?” Without pause, they gave me three responses: selling food stamps for fifty cents on the dollar, selling government subsidized cell phones for fifty bucks a pop, and panhandling. The epidemic is not homelessness or houselessness. It’s dependency. 

Dependency is a national epidemic, supported by the fact that there are about five million more people dependent on the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) than there are people in poverty (42 vs. 37 million). There are ongoing debates surrounding the integrity of the SNAP program and level of abuse, but whether chronically homeless people are misusing food stamps or not, they’re often dependent on them. Whether they use government phones for personal use or sell them, they’re dependent on them. Whether or not they use money given at the corner while holding a cardboard sign for clothing or drugs, they’re dependent on it.  

So, let’s solve dependency. The first step is to measure it. It’s easy enough for a community to measure dependency on panhandling by point-in-time counts through the year. We have even figured out how to measure dependency on local nonprofits through a tool that measures recidivism, or the number of times clients return to charities for help. But measuring dependency on welfare programs has been a more difficult problem to solve.  

Most departments of social services at state capitols report welfare data at the county level, not the city level, leaving each city’s leadership without a clear baseline of welfare dependency. It was like this in my state of Missouri, as well.  

Next year that changes. Thanks to a joint effort by True Charity Initiative and the Foundation for Government Accountability, the governor signed off on the 2023 appropriations bill that requires social service offices to break down welfare usage by community—including dollars spent and the number of people dependent on every program. And Missouri mayors are thankful. The former mayor of Joplin, Ryan Stanley told me, “A county-wide number is too broad and treats all cities as though we are the same. True and timely data create real and accurate pictures of who we really are.”  

It still takes real compassion, respect for human dignity, and a sincere interest in why a person is homeless to help someone who’s homeless. It worked for Betty, and it’s working for Mike. A personal approach represents the cure to deep and chronic poverty, but for the medicine to take, we must dry up dependency.  

We must eliminate repetitive handouts that place the recipient in a position of expectation that progresses to entitlement and dependency. It’s what traps people standing on street corners begging and sleeping under bridges instead of in houses. That dependency on public and private charity can now be measured in Missouri cities. There is no reason we shouldn’t establish a baseline and then get to work in our communities to improve it.