At the inner-city outreach program I direct, we are committed to asking residents, "What can we do to help you help yourself?" This question communicates that we believe the residents are responsible for their own self-improvement. It indicate that we're not here to "do for" them, but to "do with" them, walking alongside them and supporting them in the steps they initiate to improve their well-being. Bob Dole and Bill Clinton could improve the welfare reform debate if they asked, and answered, a few similarly framed queries.
The first question is: "What can government do to help poor people help themselves?" Some leaders are already focusing on this issue. The most intelligent welfare reforms – Virginia's, Wisconsin's and Maryland's – and the best proposals on Capitol Hill all address it. These reforms remove disincentives for work, saving and marriage, and provide transitional health care and day care benefits to recipients who enter the workforce. This sends recipients a clear signal that the state wants to support them in their efforts to become self-sufficient.
Dole and Clinton appear to agree that such policy changes are laudable (witness the two candidates' endorsement of Wisconsin's welfare overhaul). They could, however, broaden the discussion of these reforms. Too often we hear more about how such reforms may save money then we do about how they will save people from the trap of long-term dependency and despondency. A welfare system that actually helps people make the transition out of poverty may prove expensive, at least in the short term, and the candidates should honestly acknowledge this.
They'd also be wise to admit that there are limits to what government can do to change people's self-destructive behaviors and attitudes. The current system – riddled with wrongheaded incentives and founded on dubious ideas about entitlements – is a mess and must be overhauled. Welfare reform is necessary to create a more hospitable climate for miracles of transformation. But the reforms alone won't guarantee that people will change. Only a power beyond government can make that happen.
Over the past two years I've interviewed dozens of urban residents who have moved or are moving off welfare. These individuals credit their success to the help they have received from various faith-based community organizations. These days, many politicians agree that grassroots workers are doing a better job at transforming people's lives than are government agencies.
Clinton and Dole should focus attention on such groups by raising a second question in the welfare debate: "What can government do to help these 'engaged frontliners' to help the poor?" A few political leaders – notable Senators John Ashcroft and Dan Coats, Representative James Talent and a few governors – have proposed some innovative government strategies for supporting effective nonprofit organizations. But so far neither Clinton nor Dole has said very much about these initiatives.
Some of the proposals seek to eliminate the obstacles that frustrate Good Samaritans on the frontlines. Talent's Community Renewal Project, for example, provides neighborhood groups that are working to restore low-income communities with relief from crippling zoning, housing, tax and business regulations. Ashcroft's Charitable Choice bill includes careful language that protects the religious freedom and autonomy of faith-based social service providers that accept governmental monies. The bill would enable religious groups to expand their outreach to the poor without compromising the spiritual character of their programs.
Other proposals seek, in Coats's words, "actively but not intrusively [to] assist grass-roots activists and organizations rebuilding the social and moral infrastructure of their neighborhoods." Coats's Project for American Renewal offers bill that would provide federal monies to community programs that encourage savings, home ownership and entrepreneurship among the poor; that would turn over vacant housing stock owned by the government to local community development corporations; and that would give grants to community organizations, such as citizen patrols and neighborhood block watches, that fight crime and drugs.
The third question the candidates could raise is perhaps the most provocative: "What can government do to encourage the 'uninvolved-but-obligated' to help the poor?" Specifically, the candidates should fearlessly remind churches that they are duty-bound to serve the poor. Too many congregations have washed their hands of the underclass, expecting the government to be our brothers' keeper. Certainly it is the task of church leaders to call "uninvolved-but-obligated" Christians to obedience in living out the command to love our neighbors. Unfortunately, many church leaders aren't doing this, so it may take the politicians to stir the religious community to action.
Governor Kirk Fordice has risen to the challenge in Mississippi. Two years ago he unveiled the Faith and Families program and challenged each of the state's congregations to "adopt" one family on welfare. With one stroke he exhorted churched to do what scripture says they should do – love and assist vulnerable people – and provided a structure for the churches' involvement. Mississippi officials compile profiles of welfare recipients and match welfare families with nearby churches. Church members are provide recipients with emotional support and life- and job-skills training, help them prepare for interviews and find employment, and assist them with day care and transportation. Meanwhile, the state (for a season) continues the recipients' welfare, food stamps and Medicaid benefits and provides the church with technical assistance and advice. The program is not without kinks, but Fordice deserves kudos for challenging churches to act and for providing them with a mechanism for engagement.
Other politicians have also invited churches to collaborate with governmental entities in welfare reform programs. Maryland's Community-Directed Assistance Program allows a welfare recipient's cash benefits to go directly to a church-based group that adopts the recipient. In consultation with the recipient, the group plans a comprehensive strategy for getting their adoptee off the dole within six months. Wendy Bunker, 23, of Arnold, Maryland, was adopted by laypersons from Asbury United Methodist Church. These volunteers helped her find day care, assemble a resume, get counseling, develop a budget, and land a job at a telephone company. Bunker says her "sense of accomplishment is overwhelming."
By raising the three questions described above, Dole and Clinton would focus attention on the appropriate role for the government, civil societ and the poor themselves in welfare reform. Wrestling with these questions also helps us to appreciate that the key words in the debate must be "responsibility" and "transformation." Transformation will come as poor people stop relying on the nanny state and take responsibility for themselves. It will come as churches and community organizations take responsibility for restoring broken neighborhoods and patiently support poor people who are trying hard to climb out of the underclass. And it will come as the government rejects its policy of "doing for" people and embraces a new role in assisting poor individuals – and frontline groups who are partners with them – to help themselves.
| home | about us | site map | contact us | © Faith in Communities 2009 |  |