A new approach to reducing poverty

Published March 2, 2015

by Mitch Kokai, John Locke Foundation, March 2, 2015.

Forget income inequality. A real challenge for American public policy reformers involves economic mobility. That’s the argument from Yuval Levin in the latest cover story for Commentary magazine. Among his recommendations for improving mobility is a new approach to “the curse of entrenched poverty.”

This would involve the next stage of welfare reform, and it’s the arena where a conservative approach to problem solving can do the most good.

The overwhelming fact about our half century of intense and costly efforts to combat entrenched poverty is that they have not worked. Very little we have done has proven consistently effective in helping people in the worst circumstances to rise up and succeed, and a fair amount of what we have done has made things worse. That means we do not have an answer that can be put into effect using the resources and power of the government. Rather, those resources and that power can enable experimentation with different approaches by different public and private providers of services and aid throughout the country.

This was the essence of Paul Ryan’s anti-poverty proposal last year. Ryan would let states choose to replace the full amount of money they now receive to administer means-tested federal welfare programs (such as food stamps, housing assistance, utilities subsidies, and others) with a single, consolidated “opportunity grant.” They could then develop their own approaches to spending the money to help their poor residents rise, provided that these approaches involve programs that require work, emphasize reaching self-sufficiency, and prove their effectiveness over time. And states would have to provide each service through at least two competing providers, only one of which can be a state agency.

Liberals tend to see proposals like this as embodiments of some kind of fetish to privatize. But in fact, they are expressions of humility. Experimentation is what you do when you do not know the answer. The challenge facing welfare reformers is daunting: They have to find ways to help people who lack not only money but often also stable families, functional communities, and decent schools. They have to encourage work and responsibility while offering aid, and they often have to help people break bad habits or confront addiction or abuse while also respecting their dignity and independence. This can’t be done by a government check. Welfare often works best when it is accompanied by advice, by obligations, and by evident compassion at a personal level. Using public resources to let different institutions—from state social agencies to local civic groups to churches and nonprofits—try different ways of meeting this daunting challenge in different circumstances is not market idolatry; it is what you do when you haven’t found the right solution and when it isn’t clear that any one solution will suffice.

A conservative mobility agenda will therefore need to transform the federal welfare apparatus into a means for enabling robust experimentation with different local approaches to helping the poor rise. The same spirit should also inform an education policy geared to the nation’s poorest children—they and their families should have options to choose from and the resources to make their choices matter, since education is a crucial tool for rising from the bottom.

http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org

March 2, 2015 at 8:36 am
Richard Bunce says:

... and cuts many of the government bureaucrats out of the system. Always a step in the right direction.

March 2, 2015 at 11:03 am
Frank Burns says:

Interesting use of innovative solutions. I don't reckon the portly professor in the NC Poverty Center ever considered this, do you?

Incidentally, should the portly professor be paid full time salary if he only teaches part time? Anybody looking out for the taxpayer at that university?

March 2, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Richard Bunce says:

Might be better if he is not passing on his nonsense to students...

March 2, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Norm Kelly says:

No lib/socialist in Washington is going to let go of the control strings! It's either the central planner's way or it's no way at all. The central planners have shown that the one size fits all method is a failure. But for any lib to admit failure is heresy to their religion. The ONLY solution in the mind of any lib in Washington, and many in NC, is a central planner solution. There is NO WAY any socialist Demoncrat Party member in Washington, and many other areas of the country, is going to let ANY experimentation happen. Taking power away from themselves, removing the ability to buy votes, will NEVER happen so long as there's at least one socialist in Washington. And with the communist-in-chief in office, any attempt to allow local autonomy will be vetoed. If the past 6+ years have proven anything, it's that demons are more committed to following the failed path of Europe than ever before. See, even when the failures of socialist Europe are blatantly obvious, our liberal leaders choose to close their eyes and minds to the facts! And the only way they continue to stay in power is by followers who are also willing to go through life with either eyes closed or rose-colored glasses firmly planted. Kinda like those that think socialized medicine is good for anyone, or those who support a central planner take-over of the Internet. Used to be free and open, soon to be closed, expensive, monitored & edited by the central planners! Probably end up with a once-a-year change in plans with your Internet service just like Obamacancer! Won't that be fun! If you like your government health insurance, you're going to love your government Internet service. Just ask you local lib how much you're going to LOVE it!