Chapter 4: What the Poor Are Like
(This is Chapter 4 of "Up and Out," a book condensing my long experience about how to best help poor people. I pledged earlier to get it up online as soon as possible, so it would be available for free to everyone trying to cope with helping the Katrina evacuees.)
(These are not things that need to be done during the first part of this emergency. Rather, this is for the time after that, when Katrina evacuees will be moving from getting immediate emergency assistance to trying to normalize their lives. That is when good programs to help them "up and out" of their situation need to kick in. The following concerns that time.)
(For other chapters, look under "Categories" on your left, and click on the chapter you want.)
"UP AND OUT: A GUIDE TO TRUE COMPASSION FOR THE POOR"
PART 1: THE AMERICAN POVERTY TRAP
Chapter 4: What the Poor Are Like
Our experience with the poor, in three charities in three cities in two states, confirmed the following national statistics. Most of the poor are children. Most of them are in single-parent families, usually headed by the mother. Many of these children are being raised by grandparents.
Being in a single-parent family is still the most reliable predictor of poverty, nation-wide. For most poor children, it also means being in a fatherless family.
These children are at greater risk than those in two-parent families for drug and alcohol abuse, doing poorly in school, earlier school drop-out ages, earlier sexual activity, greater delinquency, physical and sexual abuse, mental illness, behavioral problems and suicide, among other risks.
These facts are well-known, even if their implications are not widely understood or even accepted.
What detail I can add to these facts comes from 18 years of experience, with documented high success rates in helping people "up and out" of dependence. Three charities in three cities in two states with a total number of about 5000 clients were involved.
Such details as we learned, for instance, at the San Jose Family Shelter are not so well known. One such detail was that most of the adults who passed through the shelter had, on the average, about 25 outstanding traffic warrants. If they were ever stopped by the police for any reason, it was straight to jail.
Another such detail was that many of our clients used more than one name. Why? There were many reasons. But a big one was that they could get more than one welfare check that way. The head of the Welfare office, sitting in my office, told me that he had only four people in the whole county to check on such things.
In fact, the next county was only about 5 miles down the freeway. If they registered there for welfare too, they could get another check as well.
Another detail was that they littered tremendously. Also, the level of vandalism was high. It cost us a lot. The job-training center in the other side of our building was vandalized and looted. Even a neighboring business was vandalized. Eye-witnesses identified our clients as the culprits in both cases. The shelter was vandalized, especially in the bathrooms. This ranged from tearing down shower curtains and rods to deliberate flooding.
Another detail was that most of them did not want to work. But we insisted. In fact, they could not stay in our shelter if they did not go to work. Most of them got used to it pretty quickly, however, and even liked it before long.
One of the most important details we learned, however, was new to us and everyone else. We learned it by being present in our client's lives every day, rather than through the kind of occasional visits a social worker might make to the home.
This was the situation. We had a licensed day care center, but it was not big enough for all our pre-school children. The parents of the children in our day care center had to work. But parents of the other pre-school children did not have to work, since they had no child care. So they sat in our dining room all day with their children, watched their soap operas on TV and coffee-klatched with the other moms.
The dining room was right outside our offices, and we were looking at them all day long. What we learned was that they seldom interacted with their children in any way whatsoever. The exception was when a child was crying or hungry.
They did not talk to them. They did not read to them or play with them, despite the large supply of children's books, records, games and toys. They did not arrange for them to busy coloring or drawing or playing with games or toys, even by themselves. They did not arrange for them to play with the other children. They did not seem to notice when one child was abusing another or doing something destructive.
They usually did not teach, direct or discipline their children in any way whatsoever. If one of our staff noticed something wrong and reminded them that they were required to supervise their own children, they responded, "Well, I am. I'm right here!" Real supervision was foreign to them.
They did not talk, talk, talk to their children like a middle-class mother might. Not only did they not read to their children, their children never saw their mothers reading. As a result, their children were less ready to learn to read when they reached school age.
The children were incredibly deprived of stimulation, adult conversation, color, children's music and sounds, of imaginative play, of anything in fact that could not be learned from the soap operas or the mother's conversations with other women. This was true even though the resources for all these things were easily available on open shelves nearby.
Yet all of us were also convinced that these mothers loved their children.
Up until that point, I had supported welfare payments for poor women with pre-school children. My assumption was that the best place for children that age was at home with their mothers.
But after we all observed these things, I came to the reluctant conclusion that these children would have been somewhat better off in a good day care center during the day, getting more stimulation and attention, and getting better prepared to learn in school, than at home all day with their mothers. After all, they would still be at home with their mothers at night.
Even if these particular children could not go to a good day care center, but could have stayed with a granny or an auntie during the day while their mothers worked, at least they would have been no worse off. And at least, they would have had a working parent as a role model.
So we came to conclude that welfare, as opposed to work, was of very little net benefit to the pre-school children of these mothers. If that were the case, we concluded, then welfare was not really of much value.
Another detail was that our clients conned, decieved and lied as a matter of course. Our program was shaped to deal with that fact. We had some protection because I was "con-wise." (That happens after 5 years or so in prison. By that time, you have been conned and "had" so many times that you pretty well get to know the stories and the patterns. So you get somewhat harder to con.) But I was not "street-smart," because I had never been "on the street" (a prostitute, delinquent, habitual criminal, drug or alcohol abuser.) So I tried to hire at least some people who were street smart. They saved us a lot of trouble.
They also taught me one of the most painful lessons about our clients. It came only a few weeks before I was scheduled to leave. That was when they let me know that many of our families were using cocaine. Although they had not caught them in the act, they knew the signs. But they were too intelligent to tell me sooner. They were concerned, I think, that I might have gotten too discouraged had I known earlier.
What this meant was that many of our clients used the money we saved them, by giving them free housing and food, to buy cocaine rather than the other things their families so desperately needed. Rather than saving it, for instance, for a deposit to move into an apartment and out of homelessness. Or to fix up their old car, so they could get to work better.
That lesson had several parts. One was that poor people should never be given what are, to them, large amounts of "extra" money. That is, windfall money of any significant size. Many will use it to "party" until it is all gone. Not only will it not be put to any good use, it will actually make their lives worse than before.
Another was that any financial help needs, not only to be given "in kind", not cash, but also needs to be hard to turn into cash somewhere. After all, the purpose of helping the poor is not to help them party better or go deeper into their addictions. It is to help them and their children stop being so poor.
But even when they are given considerable amounts of "in kind" help, such as the free food and shelter we gave them, that still frees up the other income they have for more frivolous use. And that is how many will use it.
On "skid row" in Bakersfield, for instance, we had constant requests for food, mostly from street drunks. We did not want to give them cash that would quickly be spent for liquor. Still, we knew they were hungry. So we gave them vouchers for a sandwich. A little grocery across the street worked with us, accepting the vouchers for a sandwich.
After awhile, one of the owners of the grocery came to see me. "You know that these people sell these vouchers on the street for a dollar, don't you?" he asked. They were easily turned into cash for liquor. So are a lot of other things. That is why gifts to the poor need to be non-cash, carefully thought-out, and administered carefully, gradually, and as a rule, in fairly small amounts.
One instructive detail was that there were certain groups of people that we never saw among the homeless. Among these were any Asians, Mormons or Seventh-Day Adventists. And only one Jew. These groups not only have a strong work-ethic, but they also stick together and help each other.
Notably, for the women, being homeless had a lot to do with the kind of man in their lives. We never saw a homeless mom whose man was willing to work, except very briefly. We also never saw a homeless mom whose man was not only willing to work, but also did none of these: drink, use drugs, abuse her or the children, run around with other women or commit crimes. Most of them, sadly, had one or more of these problems. In fact, a homeless woman might count herself lucky if he did only some of these things, but not others.
These were the homeless. But we had very similar experiences later, in another charity, with men and women who were not so poor as to be homeless, but were still very poor. The characteristics were very similar.
Most of the women began to have sex at an early age. Despite some abortions, most had 2 or 3 children by age 18. Most were never married. Most of their children had different fathers. Their fathers usually did not work.
Whatever they told us, there was almost always a man in the house, usually a boyfriend. Usually he did not contribute financially to the household. If fact, he was usually a financial parasite, living off the mother and often other welfare girlfriends as well.
We would try hard to involve the boyfriend in the program. This was not only because he needed it. It was also because our experience showed that sooner or later, he would try to sabotage her program, when he realized that once she was earning her money instead of just getting a check from welfare, his parasitic position in her life might be at risk.
Typically, he would insist on baby-sitting her children when she got a job. (He would not want her to spend "their" money on someone else.) Then he would do such a bad job, or be so unreliable, that she would have to quit her new job. So things went back to the way they were and he could stop worrying. We saw it over and over and over.
His attitude about working was that it was beneath him. That jobs that he could get were too undignified. He scorned friends who worked at entry-level jobs for "chump change." He usually lacked the concept of starting in a low-level job and working his way up.
Chances were small that he was working.
Chances were large that he had a criminal record of some kind, as the only kinds of work he found acceptable were, for the most part, illegal. He dreamed of making a big killing or winning the lottery.
Usually he had dropped out of school early. Often he would be illiterate or semi-literate. Fatherless himself as a rule, he had no clue as to what being a good father was like. Often, he had been part of a gang, and had been delinquent since an early age. He usually had several children by several women. He may have been an outright pimp at some point. He also may have been in several programs, learning mostly how to fake his way through them. He typically was abusive of his women and sometimes their children.
These men shape much of the social life of their communities. They help create the standards and tone of what is "cool." They know how to be noticed in the party and night-life scene. They are imitated by the youth of their communities.
They learn how to be slick and smooth, and how to turn a young woman's head. To many women in their neighborhoods, they seem to be the best "catch" available. The young women of the community often try to become the kind of woman that kind of man would find attractive.
These men are the true hard core of the poor, even more than the moms. They certainly have a large and negative effect on the moms and their children.
Although they do not change easily, there are times when they can be reached. Most notably, it is in a court-mandated drug rehab program, or in a prison-based rehabilitation program, where there is more control and fewer distractions. Faith-based programs and churches sometimes succeed with these men when nothing else seems to work.
Later chapters will fill in the picture more fully. For now, this is probably more than enough.
The poor absolutely can be helped "up and out." It is being proved by the thousands, every day. But it is important to know that it is hard, not easy; medium to long-term, not fast; and gritty, not romantic. It calls for a middle to long-distance run, not a sprint. And it calls for a committment over a period of time.
If only for their children, that is what we need to do. If only for our own children, to secure a good, safer and more livable society for their future, that is what we need to do. It is the kind of investment of ourselves that will not only help the poor and their children, but also bring improvement to the lives of all of us.
