On Tuesday we briefly discussed the issue of empowering someone vs. enabling them, after listening to the presentation from Opportunities for Broome. The discussion, brought on by learning that OFB's housing placement programs do not have a time limit, really made me think about how fine a line it is between empowering someone and enabling them, and which of the two OFB is doing.
In life, there are two kinds of people. Those who will take the tiniest bit of opportunity and use it to climb their way out of a situation, and those who can have every opportunity in the world thrown at/handed to them, and will make no attempt or effort to gain long-term benefits from them. I personally like to believe that the first type of person is more prevalent. I want to think that the majority of the homeless population that OFB serves is made up of that first type of person. I don't really know how to quantify that, so if any of our data-savvy types can think of and/or find some data on the BC homeless population or the homeless population in general that would prove or refute my theory, that would be wonderful.
That first type of person would look at the lack of expiration date on their affordable housing and take it as a challenge to get out as fast as they can, and use the free or low-cost housing as a stable support to build a stable income around. These people would, I would think, be the people that spend the least amount of time in the housing projects. The second type of person would look at free housing, and see it as an opportunity to remain unemployed, or at a job that doesn't engage their full potential, skating by on the minimum required to remain in the program because"Hey-this house is pretty nice, and I don't have to work hard for it. Why would I work hard just to move into a cruddier house with higher rent?" Again, I really want to believe that this is the minority.
You could impose a limit on how long people can stay, but would even that motivate the lazy individual? Or would they just end up homeless again, while you potentially take away that extra year or two that the first type of individual really needed to jump start their new life?
Ultimately, I decided that while certain organizations and programs certainly make it easier for individuals to take advantage of them, it really is up to the character of each individual, and it would be a disservice to those of strong moral character if OFB (or any other organization) gave them fewer opportunities in an effort to try to protect themselves from those who game the system. Hopefully the benefit to the hard-working residents of OFB's housing program outweighs the cost from the people who try to game the program.
What are your thoughts?
This is a question that comes up a lot in the debates of healthcare, food stamps, and welfare programs. The line between enabling and empowering is extremely thin, and in the society we've grown up in, it is easy to be skeptical of human nature and not have trust in peoples intentions. In fact, the main reason for the lack of support in programs such as welfare, or charitable programs such as Opportunities for Broome, is this idea that people will abuse the system. Here is a link to a New York Times article about this topic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/05/denmarks-work-life-balance/when-welfare-undermines-work-ethic
The author discusses how if people are handed things and do not have to work for them, will they ever get themselves a job or be motivated to sustain themselves without any outside help? I myself had these concerns when listening to Mrs. Robertson speak in class. She specifically mentioned that people in some of the housing communities tend not to leave, and this was causing the waiting lists of her program to be exceptionally long, even upwards of a three year wait. I was left wondering, then, if the long waiting lists would deter me from supporting Opportunities for Broome, or make me want to support them more. Clearly the demand for the housing programs is very high if the waiting list is that long, and to support the program and increase its size would help to serve more people. However, are these programs in such high demand because then enable people to keep living a life where they do not have to sustain themselves? I hope to have these questions answered on the site visit.
This question of Empowering vs. Enabling is a question that I also had while listening to OFB's presentation. I was a bit surprised when I heard there was no limit on how long you could use their housing and my first gut instinct was to disagree with this. I thought that a charity that makes a homeless person wait three years for housing is doing a terrible job. However, I now believe that this wait is simply because they're are too many homeless people for OFB to meet the demand.
ReplyDeleteThis, however, doesn't mean OFB is operating perfectly. I do see the possibility for people to abuse the system as Sarah pointed out. After reading Dina's article, it seems that the problem with people abusing things like welfare programs is not simply that they are available, but that they are more beneficial than a minimum wage job would be.
I definitely think we need welfare programs of some sort...if every person without a job had no form of welfare assistance they would all be broke, homeless, and asset-less. I do, however, think they should be lowered. They are so high now, that according to the article, they are a better option than an entry level job. This removes the incentive to work. I don't think OFB should change it's policies with it's housing, because I like it's policy of charging 30% of the person's income. This way, it isn't a direct handout, and I think once that 30% is removed from welfare benefits, the amount of welfare left for life costs is now less than that of a job. So hopefully the bright line established in the article where the amount of handouts move from empowering to enabling is never reached.
Unfortunately there is no perfect solution. You can't assess a person's work ethic and say "oh this person won't abuse the welfare so he's okay to receive them." Therefore, we simply have to take the utilitarian approach, give the option that allows for the most net good for the most people. Will some select people abuse the system? Yes they will, but that will happen no matter what system exists; it's inevitable. All a nonprofit can do is try to minimize that system abuse without unfairly harming the people who use these benefits in a smart way to get on their feet again.
Like Sarah, Dina and Richard, I also questioned OFB's housing policy in regards to empowering vs. enabling. As I have stated before, I support organizations that help people who are trying to help themselves. At first, OFB’s endless housing program seemed like a problem to me. However, I agree with Sarah in that I like to believe most people will take steps to improve their lives and get away from depending on others for basic needs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I did not find data specifically about OFB, I looked into other organizations that provide assistance with meeting basic needs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for example, is a federal program that helps low-income families and individuals with purchasing food. The SNAP program raises questions about empowering vs. enabling, just like OFB.
While the program has specific requirements, basically, households living at 130 percent or less of the federal poverty level are eligible to apply/enroll in SNAP. On average, individuals in SNAP are granted about $133.85 per month to spend on food. That is the equivalent of about $1.50 per meal. Many participants run out of their monthly food benefits after only three weeks. In addition, the benefits do not last forever. Depending on household size, employment status and age/health of recipients, SNAP benefits are generally granted for a period of one month to three years, with renewal applications required. Additionally, there are a lot of restrictions when it comes to actually purchasing food with SNAP benefits.
SNAP is a program that helps people meet their basic needs, but does not allow them to live a luxurious life. In this sense, I believe it empowers them, but does not enable them. Many SNAP recipients are children, who otherwise would go hungry and suffer developmentally. They are more likely to do well in school and thrive if they are not struggling with hunger. Adults enrolled in the program must meet employment requirements. Able-bodied adults without dependents are generally limited to 3 months worth of SNAP benefits within any 3-year period if they are not employed. This encourages participants to seek work and not be dependent solely on SNAP benefits.
Of course there are problems with the program. One main issue is trafficking (the resale of SNAP benefits for cash). However, the rate of trafficking is incredibly low (around 1 percent). While there are definitely some individuals who take advantage of the program, the majority of individuals seem to genuinely benefit from the assistance. Children and elderly are especially helped through the SNAP program.
SNAP and OFB are different in many ways. However, the idea that most people enrolled in SNAP are sincerely benefiting from the program supports my theory that the majority of people receiving assistance are not simply taking advantage of the opportunity. Based on the extensive waiting list, it is obvious that many people are attracted to the nice, affordable housing offered through OFB and the organization is meeting a community need. It would be a shame to keep the majority of people from benefiting just to make sure that the minority does not cheat the system. Yes, OFB offers an appealing home with few restrictions/requirements, but those attracted to this type of program are most likely struggling with many aspects of their lives. Just because they have a place to live through OFB, does not mean they now have a high quality of life. I still support donating to OFB, even if there is a risk that certain individuals choose to take advantage of their services because I believe the program mostly empowers individuals.
Resources with data about SNAP:
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-frequently-asked-questions/#who
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx
The lack of a time limit on OFB's housing both bothered and baffled me. I've seen a lot of people take advantage of the services offered by both local non-profit organizations, as well as government benefits, and I feel that not having a maximum length of stay in OFB's supportive housing could be doing a disservice to both those that enroll in the program, as well as those that are trying to get help.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, not having a time limit may allow a person to feel a sense of complacency. If there is no need to leave.. then why put in the extra work to do so? Poverty in America is, in some cases, the result of learned behaviors. People simply do what they have been taught to do. Providing housing without giving people the motivation to eventually leave and live independently is not going to teach people to do anything better, and will just continue the cycle. What about the children that live in these housing units? Will they ever strive to grow up, get an education, get a job, and leave? Or will they remain in the housing program throughout their lifetime, as well?
Our speaker stressed that they do encourage people to strive for independence, which I think is great, but again... leaving is entirely optional. Gentle encouragement is lovely, and I would not advocate for pushing people out without follow-up services (perhaps a case manager, counseling and medication management in place for those living with mental illness, safety plans and resources for those with a history of substance abuse, etc.) to ensure well-being, but I think offering unlimited length of stay is more enabling than empowering.
Also, as we all heard, the waiting list for housing is three years. Imagine being a person that is struggling, honestly just wanting a little bit of help to you get out of a bad situation, and being told that you need to wait THREE YEARS... and then finding out that people have been living in those units for extended periods of time, with no desire or incentive to move out? I'd be more than a little upset, personally.
Like everyone has said it was very surprising to learn that OFB does not put time limits on their housing units. And yes this could be enabling, but Mrs. Robertson also said that while people are living in the housing units they have case managers and easy access to many other services. I don’t see this as a problem at all. Even though there is always a constant worry of people taking advantage of the system, but that is literally everywhere no matter what restrictions are in place. Maybe some of the people are in school, have children, and are working. Going to school part time takes more time that going full time. They would need an extended time to be able to actually finish school. If there was a time restriction the individual would probably have to quit school because he/she would have to work more to actually pay rent and all the other expenses involved with raising children. Also, Mrs. Robertson said that some people truly are not ready to go out and provide fully for themselves or their families without some extra assistance. This stuck with me, because if you take someone who is not ready emotionally or financially they will end up stuck in the same situation as before. An endless cycle is created by putting restrictions on everything. Yes, you’d be able to help more people, but then you get into the quality versus quantity issue.
ReplyDeleteWhile the number of people that OFB serves might bother you, maybe we should assess a different quality of the organization. For example, the success rates of people that are able to move out and maintain a stable home for themselves. On page 2 of this document, (http://www.urban.org/center/met/projects/upload/Assisted_Living.pdf) there is a chart that has indicators of success for assisted living organizations. While the issue of the waiting list time and applicants waiting to be housed is present, there are also six other factors that we could assess for effectiveness. And is OFB really enabling the people living in their communities? I do not think so, the people there still have to work and pay their rent. They are not living there for free. They buy their food, and provide for themselves and their families. Maybe they need a few years of housing. I have been fortunate enough to ever experience homelessness so honestly I cannot make a judgement of how long these people need in order to get back on their own feet. We must remember that OFB is trying to improve the quality of life for the homeless community of Broome County and they are working towards that mission.
In class, I was also extremely turned off by the use of the word “enable” in the OFB presentation. However, in regard to the lack of expiration date on housing, I am not sure that I agree with most of the comments above. Yes, there will always be people who abuse the resources of nonprofits, but I believe that we cannot be too quick to discount the organizations that allow people to “overstay their welcome.”
ReplyDeleteMany of the people who enter into programs such as OFB have never had a stable source of income, food, or a permanent place to live. OFB gives these people a place to call home. This might lead to complacency, as Courtney said, but it also could lead to stability in a person’s life. This article addresses the importance of stable housing in a child’s development.
http://assets.newamerica.net/blogposts/2012/stable_housing_is_unequivocally_good_for_children_and_families-72615
According to a study by Children’s HealthWatch, children from families who had moved two or three times in one year, or from families who were behind on rent were “52% more likely to be at risk for developmental delays.” These are the effects of instability of housing on children who at least have temporary homes. Some of the people helped by OFB did not have any housing at all, so one would expect that this percentage would be even higher. Honestly, I would be more concerned if an organization like OFB did have a concrete expiration date on the affordable housing. Like Meredith said, uprooting a family before they are ready to go back out into the job and housing market would probably result in a return to poverty.
As a class, we have already debated whether or not we want to help a large group of people in a small way or a smaller population in a large way. Opportunities for Broome seems to take the second approach, which is not a problem for me. When it comes time to donate our money, we need to decide which approach we support and whether or not we feel that OFB effectively carries out its mission.
This debate is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about over the course of this semester and I keep going back to something Doris Buffett said in one of the very first videos we watched for class (possibly even before class began). Doris Buffett says that she isn't giving money away, she is investing it. I think this is a critical difference and a very important point in the empowering vs enabling debate. We don't want to give away money, we want to invest it – we want to see the impacts of it. Generally speaking, handouts don't work as well as programs that empower people and allow them to help themselves. We want to invest money where it can do more, and the effects of the money we invest ought to keep giving through the progress those that need the money make. Some of these comments have touched upon how it is impossible to have a perfect program but I believe (as I have said many times in class) that we have to focus on maximizing benefits – one of the ways to maximize benefits for the greatest number of people is to make sure that the benefits of the program don't outweigh the benefits of self-sufficiency. The goals of these non-profits should always be to not only help people in the short term but lead them to self-sufficiency and growth, a long term solution and long term help.
ReplyDeleteJust like Courtney, I was bothered and baffled by OFB’s housing policy (or lack there of). Although it must be extremely comforting to know that you and your family have a permanent place to live for little or no cost for as long as you need, I don’t think this is helpful to society as a whole. It also prevents people who would actually make better use of the low cost housing but living there temporarily and then finding somewhere else to live once they got back on their feet.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Courtney’s comment about the children that grow up in OFB housing units, I question whether they will follow in the same path as their parents and not strive to be anything more. I completely agree that poverty in America is sometimes the result of learned behaviors. I would really like to know more about the programs that OFB offers that help families dig themselves out of poverty, and in turn teach their children positive leadership skills.
I was also taken back a little when the OFB representative stated that there is a three-year waiting list. I’m sure that OFB is effective and helps those in need but I think there should be a limit for how long an individual person or a person and their family are allowed to stay in the housing that OFB provides. RISE noted that they have a maximum amount of time that their clients are allowed to stay in their shelter, but they are more than welcome to return after they have left if there is still housing available. The clients that RISE helps therefore feel like they have a support system after they have left the facility, which allows them to feel more comfortable taking more chances once they have attempted to get back on their feet. I think putting a maximum amount of time policy gives people that extra push.
Although I agree with Martha’s comment that OFB allows people to have stability in their lives, I do not think they are a big enough organization to provide this sort of stability. I don’t think they are helping enough people, and could be helping more if they put a limit on their housing policy. I definitely think we have a lot to consider when it comes to donating this grant money and if we do in fact want to support OFB’s mission.
After class, I had the same thoughts as you did, Sarah.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Opportunities For Broome is truly enabling these people that come into the housing program. I think the idea is wonderful on paper, but the fact that it does not have a time limit is what worries me. I admire Sarah's belief that she thinks that most people are go-getters and will use the opportunity provided to them to better their lives. However, I am not that optimistic. I believe that people are naturally lazy. If these people have a house that they do not need to move out of, I think that people will not have an incentive to move.
To better their housing program, I believe OFB should put a time limit on how long residents can stay in their houses. Although this may push people out of housing, I believe it will force residents to go out and look for jobs that they normally would not do if they did not have a time limit on how long they could stay. I think this would better the program immensely because it would be empowering these people, rather than enabling them.
I'm glad that some people felt the same befuddlement that I did over OFB's lack of time limit and large waiting list. I had worried that I was concerned over nothing, but I feel validated in my concerns now.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that this discussion about OFB has brought to my mind is the power (either negative or positive) of advertisement and representation. Based off of the few paragraphs on their application and the research (mostly from their website) done by the groups who presented on them, the class was all for OFB. I believe all of the first-day presenters chose OFB, and 100% of people voted that they should be finalists. Clearly something about their application and website was marvelously done, and struck a chord with all of us. If that blurb had been next to a donation can at a checkout or during a tabling session, I would have most likely dropped some money in the can. But as soon as we heard more about their organization, it began to look less and less like the golden child of our finalists (at least to some of the class). Holes in their strategy started appearing, and I think that a lot of us started to question whether or not they were actually worthy of the grant. One of my burning questions is: Could a better presenter have changed the course of this discussion? Would someone who was a skilled wordsmith have been able to better manipulate the image of the three year waiting list and the unlimited stay? Or have we gotten good enough at asking the right questions over the course of this semester that we would have gotten to the heart of the matter anyway? I'm very interested in how the people who write the descriptions and tell the stories have such a huge influence over other peoples' views of organizations. We have spent almost a whole semester learning how to ferret out the important details about non-profits. Many people don't have the knowledge or skills that we have acquired. It really makes wonder about how many well-intentioned people might be getting smooth-talked by people who aren't worthy of their money.