Sure, when the government gets involved, the regulations they place on the institution make it so they are hamstrung in how they do things.
Are there specific regulations that always apply, or is that a general thing - there is always some form of restriction, and regardless of type that hamstrings a given organizations ability to function?
They take out any religious overtones, make it so you can not do restrictions ie discipline without their involvement etc.
There's that whole Constitution thing... pesky, I know, but I think it's for the best. I'm curious as to what you mean by restrictions/discipline?
Also there is usually more community involvement when it is private. When people know you depend on their donations they want to be more involved. Churches send in chapel teams and volunteers as well as money. When it is government run, there is usually waste. The passion for doing God's work slowly goes away because you are no longer able to preach the gospel. I gaurantee that when you have a government shelter and a faith based shelter in an area, the faith based shelter will have a better success rate. The more government involvement, the more the clients see it as an entitlement also instead of an oppertunity.
I think we agree that sense of entitlement to things, when one really isn't, can be a problem, and that people can get stuck in a cycle of "getting by" instead of "getting ahead", but I have a feeling we have some differences on the fine points.
I think it's odd that, divorced from the opportunity to prosyletize, the opportunity to help people seems less attractive. Any thoughts as to why that is?
I know what your point is, there are many programs set up to fill needs. One such program I like alot is a program called Homeless Prevention. It is a program that allows for people to show them three recent pay stub slips, and an agreement from a landlord that will accept a voucher from the program and one time only they will pay the first month's rent and security deposit to get someone into an apartment, as long as they can realistically afford the apartment based on their pay stubs. This program is really nice when combined with our Work Status program that allows someone to stay at the mission for up to 3 months while we require them to save 70% of their pay. They are provided a bed and 3 meals a day while on this status. When they leave we hook them up with another charitable organization called Project restart that will provide them with donated furniture for their apartment. When done right this is enough to get back on their feet. They also can get food baskets from the food bank and us once a month after they move out until they do not need it any longer. They can still come in on clothing nights and get clothing when they need it, and if they are hungry they can get breakfast and dinner here too.
That sounds like a great combination of programs, actually, especially if there's community outreach to owners of rental properties to get them to help out by keeping rates reasonable and being willing to participate in the program.
That is just one way without handing them money that could be used inefficiently without them moving forward.
On the note if inefficient use of funds, I know I lose a lot of money to waste. No fortune, by any means, but I'm sure it adds up to hundreds of dollars per year. I'm in a position to be able to afford that, somewhat, but if every last penny counted, I'd probably have to learn a lot of new behaviors. I know the first time I did one of those financial planning exercises where they ask you to track your spending (a lot like diets that start you off by tracking what you eat!), it was a wake-up call.
Granted, there are probably some more egregious examples of misuse of money to be found than the ones I'm guilty of, but it's a problem that extends beyond the community you're talking about, to be sure. But I think you are aware of this already.
Medicare is sometimes given to those who are able to obtain SSi benefits instead of just welfare or SSD benefits. Many of the clients on disabilities are able to get SSI, especially if there is a mental health issue involved. Those that receive SSI can get up to $2200 per month, plus food coupons, Medicare etc.
Is that in take-home dollars, or before taxes? If that's cash in hand, oof, I thought I was doing okay financially until reading that!
Then again, I don't have any particularly debilitating mental health issues or persistent medical costs, so I imagine that eats into the benefits quite a bit.
Those who are on SSD make between $800 and $1200 per month in general, plus food coupons, Medicaid etc. All others recieve GA which is about $120 a month, food coupons (which are often sold) and either Medicaid or can get Charity Care for health. It is not a large amount, but it adds up fast and does not stop. It is not enough to live on, just enough to slip through most of the recipient's fingers.This is not about 'living the good life.' None of them have a good life this way, it is simply a waste. The homeless should be offered financial counciling and job oppertunities, as well as job training and other services instead of a meager amount that will just continue a cycle of binge and beg. The goal should be to get as many into society instead of providing a way for them to remain outside of it.
Shocking as it may be, I don't disagree with a single word you've said there.
