“So much for the money. The raging debate in student-aid circles today is whether money is the worst of the barriers facing the poor. ‘No,’ says James Heckman, a professor at the University of Chicago and a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. Among well-prepared students, he finds that the poor enroll at almost the same rate as the rich. For those who can’t raise enough for tuition, targeted grants would be ideal. But to prepare and motivate larger numbers of poor kids, the most effective “college prep” may be enrichment courses for infants and toddlers. The research is proving it, Heckman says. Schools (and testing) play only a minor role in raising test scores. Stimulating tots produces more successful and smart adults” [Jane Bryant Quinn in “New Math for College Costs” (Newsweek, March 13, 2006)].
Everywhere I go, it seems that I read or hear of mounting evidence and even from authors referring to the growing evidence that the best way to raise “student test scores” and produce more college bound students and turn out more productive adults is to invest in children ages 1-5 (i.e., preschoolers). And, when the discussion turns toward the poor, there seems to be a univocal voice among researchers that investing in preschool literacy does more for the the poor than any other resource the government or private sector can provide. In an essay from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota, the research shows that early childhood development equals economic development, especially among the children from low-income and poor families. The writer concludes, “It is time for Minnesota to put its money where the return is: Prepare our disadvantaged children for a successful education and the opportunity for personal achievement.” This could be said of every state. (Connecticut legislature, are you listening!) Quinn, the essayist above, concludes that our federal legislators are not that interested in the research of people like James Heckman, “but governors are.” (As well they should be.) If we want to make long-sighted, cost effective change among rural and urban poor, we need to invest upfront in children, especially pre-school children. “No Child Left Behind” is a good slogan, but the real teeth in such a government policy should result in more investment in children ages 1-5, especially poor children. (Stop level funding Head Start!) As the above thought concludes, “Stimulating tots produces more successful and smart adults.” This is one trickle up economic approach I like--and we know it works.
For the Federal Reserve essay >> “Early childhood development = economic development” by Rob Grunewald and Art Rolnick
Spending time in DC is always a great experience for me. I learn a lot. I remember a lot as well. I spend time just standing in front of buildings like the Supreme court and think of the decisions that were made in that place that changed how we live and how we have been defined as people, and how we end up behaving just because a majority of nine (out of a populations of millions) said so. Or, walking around the capital building, which is very impressive, majestic, and has an appearance of power, where decisions had been passed into law that shaped who we are and how we act. I also listen well—at least I hope I do. I have the privilege of hearing speakers who are “in the know,” and those who can give historic perspectives on where we are at on legislation, politics, economics. The area most impressed upon me this year at our legislative conference is the subject of poverty and children. I don’t credit one particular speaker or legislative idea, or historic note, but I heard a plea to consider our future as we consider what we are doing to and with our nation’s children. I was reminded that we need to consider that how we invest in our children effects us on many levels. I was particularly interested in how our future workforce will be affected. This is a particular concern for major metropolitan and urban centers (cities), where we see high levels of poverty, poorly performing schools, and shrinking populations of younger people. In the investment needed in our poor children is vital, important, and needed, especially if we want a workforce competent for entry-level (at a minimum) and leadership (at the other end) to be available in the future. There needs to be national will—a will that expresses itself locally and throughout the state (a state)—that strategically plans how we will reduce child poverty, better educate our youth, and prepare them for both the workforce and civic involvement. As a State (Connecticut), the legislature passed a law requiring the State to reduce child poverty by 50% by 2014. I am still not sure what their plan is to actually keep that law. As for us, a Community Action Agency, we have drafted a 3 and 10 year strategic plan that over-all has goals (and outcomes) to move people out of poverty. As a Christian, and in particular an evangelical, I am wondering what our local churches are planning on? Do we, too, see the need to be a partner in reducing child poverty? What is our plan? Betcha for the most part, most churches don’t have a plan and probably think that’s not what they are in business for. As I sat in sessions that talked about poverty and our future and as I walked the Hill and visited our U.S. legislators, I translated what I heard into what should be the Church’s response, intention, and action on these matters? That’s where my mind drifted.
So how can a Christian be a capitalist if we are exhorted by the bible to be self-less, not selfish, interested in others not our own self-interests? I would suggest there are two types of self-interests. Even Paul in Philippians 2 says, “Don’t merely look out for your own personal interests, but the interests of others.” And—obviously asking God through Christ to save me is in my ultimate best and self-interest. So it is possible to be a faithful Christian and to still consider your own self-interest—just not at the expense of others, nor in disregard to other’s self-interests. Perhaps that is why there is a four wheel to our socioeconomic form: civic duty, or put simply a interdependency on the rest of our community. Thus, my self-interests as a capitalism is secured and will have its highest potential for good when as many as possible share the benefits of this socioeconomic form of life (here in America).
In one sense my socioeconomic interest is personal, and in another sense my interests is dependent on the mutual interests of others. Of course if in my self-interest I want to be able to purchase a shwingle-maker at a good price and I am only one out of 300 million who want or desire one, I will have to pay a rather hefty price for it. All things being equal (pun intended), I would have to have an enormous income—most probably not a reality. But if somehow hundreds of thousands of others are also interested in obtaining a good shwingle-maker, I benefit from others having this interest, for then the demand will keep the price down. (Yes, overly simplified, I know.) Obviously capitalism, while purporting individual self-interests as a needed element to make it work, there is still a sense of interdependence on others in the system to make it work well—for your own interests.
The same is true of other aspects of life in America. It is in my self-interest to have a good education, learn well, and find a good job. But it is also in my self-interests that as many as possible—if not all—have a similar experience. It is in my self-interest to have all children gain a good education, have a good family life, and remain in stable relationships with their fathers (per the data listed in the first post on this thread).
In praise of capitalism and our constituted republic, almost all other forms of government do not offer such personal incentive to look out for the interests of others. It seems build into the system. Of course there is abuse, and greed, and malicious self-interests among those who benefit from our capitalistic form of economy. This is true of dictatorships, all forms of socialist economies, monarchies, etc. The yearning to return to biblical forms, so-called, of government conveniently forgets or ignores that greed, selfishness, and other forms of evil existed among the “elite” and “privileged” and, as well, among those “in charge” of the various governmental forms found in biblical history (i.e., tribal leaders, the judges, the priestly rulers, kings). The socioeconomic concept of self-interest does not seem to me to warrant Christian rebellion against our form of government or economic way of life. (Funny thing, those Christians that argue against, preach against, and self-righteously denounce capitalism, seem always to be benefiting from it all the while they criticize it.) Any socioeconomic form will fall prey to evil and destruction if only a selective few (as in most socialist or communistic economies), or even the selective many for that matter, “look out for their own personal interests, and not the interests of others.”
Again, capitalism works best if all enjoy and benefit from the land. It is not in our self-interests to remain neutral, nor to collectively ignore the poor, especially poor children. It is a good investment from an economic view point to provide some form (or forms) of public assistance, along with private aid, to remedy, ameliorate, or eliminate the barriers to self-sufficiency and a full and productive life—lives then that, through their own self-interests, will add to the civic best interests of all. Not all self-interests are sin.
The
first post in this thread,
Helping the poor is in our self-interest…
I have not presented here or elsewhere that our American socioeconomic system, that is, the blend of a constituted republic and capitalism, is the biblical vision. Not at all. I am so surprised myself when such is read into the bible, and even more so flabbergasted when some form of collectivism or socialist form of government is read into it as well. Neither are the facts nor the experience under the Torah of the Old or the vision of the New. However, I do think the inspired and God-breathed principles can be applied to any form of government, including the socioeconomic form of capitalism.
Capitalism works best if all enjoy and benefit from the land. Now that seems both reasonable from an economic and quality of life perspective, but also as one applies the principles of the Old Testament to our own socioeconomic experience. With reagrd to almost all of the Old Testament texts regarding the poor, there is often a connection made between the poor and the land—between the most vulnerable populations who were landless (i.e., did not “own” property or have a family inheritance to family land) and full participation in the giftedness of being landed (cf. Deuteronomy 14:29). Perhaps, as God designed it, societies and their civic and governing structures work best when everyone benefits from and is included “in the gift of the land.” Seems capitalism, as a economic form, has a high potential to fulfill God’s design for caring for and assisting the poor, i.e., the potntial for the poor to sharing in the blessings of this form of economy, that is to be landed.
It is not a question of redistributing wealth or some false-sense of equity or some socilist form of equality I am suggesting. The bible does not describe a socioeconomic system that supports wealth distribution in order to make everyone equal. Even those who advocate such in modern times, don’t really mean it—in their organizations, everyone gets paid differently and I never hear of their wealth being distributed. They only want your wealth and mine to be more distributed. Plus—it won’t work to make a “just” world. Nonetheless, to not view some form of social and government, private and public as a necessary component for our socioeconomic system, is to both ignore God’s design for how we are to live as people in a society (of any kind) and to hinder the potential of our own form of socioeconomics.
The
first post in this thread,
Helping the poor is in our self-interest…
We cannot avoid thinking about economics when we describe life. Nor as Christians can we separate the mundane of life from economics. Just can’t. Even though I don’t subscribe to the proof-texting methods of some who seem to see “more verses in the bible about money than about heaven,” I do find that there is much in the bible concerning life as it is to be lived and much of that comes to us through the language of economics. Some might still be surprised, maybe even a little appalled or outraged, at my previous posting yesterday in this thread on poverty and our self interests. (Good thing blogs are voluntary reading, ey?) Yes, it is true that your self-interest is at stake when we do not deal with issues of poverty, that is, ignoring the poor nor valuing the importance of civic and public policy working together to care for, advocate for, and assist the poor cost our economy $$—yours and mine included. Someone still pays for the poor in one way, shape or another—that is, the outcome and consequences of poverty cannot be separated from our socioeconomic way of life. If poor children are less likely to obtain sufficient education for gainful employment, or are more likely to be involved with drugs and crime, or simply more likely to be unhealthy, the consequences of such are paid for by the society at large one way or another. Yes, in real dollars.
Here’s the rub, at least in how I view it. Capitalism rests on three basic ideas or premises: 1) people are motivated by self-interests of some kind; 2) the concept of private property (i.e., property owned by an individual or family, not the crown or government leased or rented to an individual or family); and 3) the minimizing of the role of government. The three make our socioeconomic system viable and work, mostly for the benefit of many of us. (Yes, I include and have to admit this last one in my argument; but I will deal with that as well here.) The way I see it, even as Christians, we benefit from capitalism, that is our socioeconomic form of life, and therefore in some measure, each of us gain from a system that is built on our self-interests. It seems ridiculously unfair to reap the benefits of our individual self-interests while at the same time we (1) despise and bash capitalism (i.e., as often heard among liberal and socialist Christians) and/or (2) argue against governmental assistance for the poor (i.e., as often heard among conservative Christians). In fact such is illogical at the least, and evil at the worst.
This seems to be what is behind Jeremiah’s own words in his chapter 5 sermon:
“They are fat, they are sleek,
They also excel in deeds of wickedness;
They do not plead the cause,
The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper;
And they do not defend the rights of the poor” (Jeremiah 5:28)
The “fat” and “sleek” are enjoying the benefits of their socioeconomic life, while depriving the same of the orphan and the poor. They enjoy the fruits of the land, while not pleading the cause of the orphan “that they may prosper.” While we are feeding our self-interests through the socioeconomic life we are privileged to reside in, we allow a situation where others cannot enjoy the same.
The children born in poor families had no control over that, and they are viewed by God as the most vulnerable in any society. It is not a question of mere charity—for that can keep them poor, I understand that—it is a matter of system, structure, and service that moves them out of poverty and into potential and prosperity, that is, into enjoying the goods and blessings of our socioeconomic way of life.
The
first post in this thread,
Helping the poor is in our self-interest…
On Wednesday I had the privilege of speaking to a group of area caseworkers, the frontline staff to many of our local human service agencies, on the topic of poverty, welfare, and self-sufficiency. Most likely I didn’t have to try to convince that (small) crowd of the need for government to provide a means to assist and help the poor and marginalized in our communities. I didn’t have to spend time on that part of the issue, that side of the debate. Although I have spent many a thread and posting here on the biblical support for community-wide, governing entity support for the poor (and will likely continue to set forth that biblical support), I am amazed at the lack of acknowledgment and understanding that there is a socioeconomic self-interest for all community residents in caring for poor and offering assistance to them within the framework of our government and social structure. And if you don’t like the idea of self-interests here, stop utilizing the American socioeconomic framework and its constitution to support a christianized view that argues againt government assistance for the poor. You can’t have it both ways. For our form of government is propped up by its cousin, capitalism. Capitalism is a form of economics that is built on the concept of self-interest. Either you want capitalism’s benefits or you don’t—and if you do, then you have a self-interest in what happens to and with the poor. It is not in your self-interest to allow the poor to remain poor, for the conditions of poverty costs.
While presenting data on the subject of poverty, I showed two sets of information that not only has implications socially and morally, but economically as well.
Children in fatherless homes are:
- 5 times more likely to live in poverty
- 9 times more likely to drop out of school
- 37% more likely to abuse drugs
- 2 times more likely to be incarcerated
- 2.5 times more likely to become a teen parent
- 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
- 32 times more likely to run away
And if that’s not enough, here are some statistics on the relationship between children living in poor families and education. Students from poor families are:
- 9 test points lower in average IQ scores by age 5
- 2.0 times more likely to have repeated a grade
- 3.4 times more likely to have been expelled
- one-third less likely to attend college
One would think a God-ward morality would be enough to demand that communities address these issues and hold accountable our government representatives on the matter of policy regarding poor children. There is also an economic, and as well, a quality of life issue that face us through this data. It is not in the best interests for any community to leave children who are in fatherless homes or children in poor families without addressing these issue withinto public support and with programs that would help alleviate and ameliorate these conditions.
Each of the outcomes from the data represented above have an economic cost that works againts our self-interests. Not only is there a moral aspect to the conditions of children living in poverty, additionally, the future conditions indicated by this data suggests that we’d do well to have policies and programs that alleviate the barriers of poor children that prevent full, prosperous, healthy and productive lives. And, our own self-interests (i.e., the furtherance of our own socioeconomic experience and quality of life in America) suggests that collectively we should support some form of government assistance for these populations. There is a return of investment. Of course I am not suggesting that individuals or churches should not be offering assistance, but that both are needed—required, really. We should, collectively, through the mechanism granted to us through our form of government—voting, advocacy, and redress—support public policies that will ameliorate the conditions of poverty, especially fatherless homes, in order to address and remove the barriers that prohibit self-sufficiency. We should advocate and hold our government representatives accountable for such policies. You see, our self-interests is at stake here, yours and mine both, for not addressing the issues of poverty, especially as it relates to educational attainment and family life, will not benefit our socioeconomic environment, in fact it will cost it and remove potential for prosperity.
This thread is continued for the next three days, for a total of four parts…
I have read a number of articles over the past few decades on the cultural wars—left and right—that relate to the lines separating our two political parties and their election-year issues and rhetoric. Both sides, it seems, like to argue about the results and not why we have abortion (the right’s issue) and why we have misuse of guns (the left’s issue). In my grant writing role, I have written many for pre-school, and one in particular that helps low-income parents develop a rich print home environment for their children that will support their children’s literacy learning in pre-school...maybe it is just me, but there might be a connection between the cultural war issues and pre-school. Here is one of many findings from research and longitudinal studies:
The 1999 Profile of School Readiness in Fairfield County indicates that longitudinal research reveals “that children, particularly low-income children, who are enrolled in quality early childhood programs show greater school success and less grade retention, are more likely to graduate and less likely to drop out, have fewer teen pregnancies, and obtain more gainful employment than children who have not been in quality early childhood programs.”
Both sides of the political cultural war, and my own conservative, evangelical church community as well, should be investing in preschool and quality literacy learning for kids, especially economically vulnerable, at-risk children. I wonder if it’s
just that some of our children have the means, wealth, and addresses that make literacy learning so much more available, accessible, and probable than others in our cultural wars. If justice toward the poor is more than just a court system issue (which I think it is), I think here we have an injustice that needs to be addressed by both church and government.
“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
On Wednesday my Executive Director asked if I’d speak at our annual banquet dinner, which was last night (10/19/07), for five minutes on any subject I choose. Of course I am pretty well versed to take up on any moment notice speaking, but what should I speak on—well actually that was an easy one: Child poverty. Our agency, NEON, Inc, a SW CT Community Action Agency, is basing much of its strategic planning on reducing child poverty, so that was an easy one. With that, it is our desire to develop and encourage partners in this plan. So, I combined the two—reducing child poverty and encouraging others to join us. It was only five minutes, well maybe 6 and a half. The following are just the notes (bullets) I used. Some you’ve already read here In the Margins. It was quite noisy as I started, but as I got into it and began reading the statistics, it was amazing how quiet it became. Can’t you imagine an end to child poverty?
I can’t help myself…I am not only just the meek and mild Director of Finance & Planning Services for NEON, Inc. I am a former pastor, a former Christian college Greek professor, a father, and a person who is passionate about what I do as an advocate for children in poverty, for children who live in crisis…
There are...
- an estimated 160 million children on the streets of this world and 104 million orphans with no mother or father and no one to care for them.
- roughly 37 million Americans, including nearly 13 million children who (still) live in poverty.
- And...one in ten children in the State of Connecticut lives in poverty.
Children who live in poverty are:
- 1.5 to 3 times more likely to die in childhood
- 2.7 times more likely to have stunted growth
- 3 to 4 times more likely to have iron deficiency before school begins
- 1.5 to 2 times more likely to be partly or completely deaf
- 1.2 to 1.8 times more likely to be partly or completely blind
- about 2 times more likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities
- 2 to 3 times more likely to die from accidental injuries
- 1.6 times more likely to catch pneumonia
President Lyndon Johnson placed before congress in the mid-1960s the challenge to end poverty…he said…
“This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America…and I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in this effort…It will not be a short or easy struggle—no single weapon or strategy will suffice—but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.”
In the OT there is a ordinance that illustrates how communities can aspire to help those on the margins, the disadvantaged, the poor and working poor. The people were commanded not to glean to the edges of their fields, not to go back and clear off what was left after harvest so that the working poor and needy could come find food for themselves and their families. They left the margins of the fruit of their labors and make it available to the widow, the orphan, and the needy—they left it for those on the margins so they’d have their needs met.
“The imagination of faith refuses to be content with human arrangements—social, economic, political, urban, rural—that are not based on the practice of human freedom in the presence of God. That imagination will pertinently challenge those arrangements through envisioning alternatives, through prophetic speech and action, through the creation of communities that include, strengthen, and give integrity to those at the margins” ~Andrew Davey, one of my favorite authors
There are amazing partnerships that we already have:
- The Norwalk Redevelopment Agency
- The City of Norwalk itself
- The WorkPlace, our regional Workforce Investment Board
- The Department of Social Services
- The Department of Labor
- Connecticut’s Justice Branch and Department of Corrections
- The United Way
- The Norwalk Court
A growing list of businesses and corporations
The list is actually many pages long…we couldn’t do the work without you…
We are going to be asking all of you—and more of you—to imagine with us a community where the poor’s needs are taken care of and their children have the opportunity to move beyond poverty toward a self-sufficient, fruitful, and positive life for their own children and future families.
Can’t you imagine that?
NEON, under Mr Mann’s leadership, is future-looking…we can imagine the end of poverty…NEON is developing strategies to make this future possible, right here in this part of Connecticut.
NEON wants to be, not only a a great social service agency—which we are striving to be—but an agency you can be proud of, one that you—each of you—will know we have the best interests of the least among us. And—that we are partners in this war on poverty—partners in ending poverty.
NEON is committed to harnessing its capacity and resources to reduce child poverty. That’s in part what we’ve come to acknowledge this evening…
Together we are to imagine a good future for the children now living in poverty.
I’ld like to end by rephrasing President Johnson’s challenge to congress, to challange us
“The administration and the staff of NEON today here and now renews its commitment to the unconditional war on poverty…and I urge this Community to join with us in this effort…It will not be a short or easy struggle—no single weapon or strategy or single agency or person will suffice—but we shall all not rest until all our children are no-longer living in poverty. As one of the wealthiest parts of the country, we can afford to win it. Our children cannot afford for us to lose it.”
Thank you for being here tonight
Children who live in poverty are
- 1.5 to 3 times more likely to die in childhood
- 2.7 times more likely to have stunted growth
- 3 to 4 times more likely to have iron deficiency before school begins
- 1.5 to 2 times more likely to be partly or completely deaf
- 1.2 to 1.8 times more likely to be partly or completely blind
- about 2 times more likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities
- 2 to 3 times more likely to die from accidental injuries
- 1.6 times more likely to catch pneumonia
One might, at first glance, think these statistical conclusions are somewhere overseas, on some foreign soil. However, these statistics actually come from the State of Connecticut (Facts about Homelessness in Connecticut, Child Poverty Council State Plan). When people talk to me of equal opportunity—that is everyone in American has the same opportunity to be up-ward mobile, to experience the American dream, to fulfill the benefits of our constitutional rights to the pursuit of happiness, I wonder what playing field are they playing on? “Everyone should just pull up their bootstraps and get to work, then they won’t be dependent on government or charity.” How many times do I hear this or something akin to it in words and attitude? Problem is, some people don’t even have boots; and some don’t even live long enough to put on these mysteriously, magically appearing boots. (As if everyone is born with these boots.) But enough of the clichés. Fact is we all might be on the same playing field, but some experience major setbacks, obstacles, and barriers that prevent them from playing the game well. (Sorry for another cliché and metaphor, but you get the point.) Children—at least the children that make up these demographic profiles—do not have the same level of access to the advantages of our own constitutional rights and economy. But to put it in biblical terms, there are unjust situations within our communities that prevent children from growing up (even starting out) that oppress their abilities to access the same advantages of other children. Might this be what Isaiah meant when he rebuked Israel?
“So as to deprive the needy of justice
And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
So that widows may be their spoil
And that they may plunder the orphans” (Isaiah 10:2).
In light of facts like those listed above, we, too, should hear the prophet’s words, “Now what will you do in the day of punishment?” (Isaiah 10:3a).
“There is an estimated 160 million children on the streets of this world and 104 million orphans with no mother or father and no one to care for them.”
“There are roughly 37 million Americans, including nearly 13 million children who (still) live in poverty.”
“One in ten children in the State of Connecticut lives in poverty.”
My good friend and founder of Action International Ministries, Doug Nichols, has sent out a request to become Advocates for Children in Crisis. At work, our agency is in the midst of developing a 3 and 10 year strategic plan that has as a component of its foundation the reducing of child poverty in its service delivery area (mid-Fairfield county, CT). And, my state’s legislature passed a law that seeks to reduce child poverty in Connecticut by 50% by 2014.
These are not happy coincidences—at least not to me. I wrote Doug Nichols to tell him to sign me up. It ain’t hard or difficult, we are just being asked to talk about it, mention it, make people aware that children live in crisis, live in poverty. I told him that I’d be glad to be such an advocate. I set aside this page on my blog to highlight and discuss Child Poverty. It is simply unacceptable that in one of the richest countries on earth, among a land with plentiful resources and capacity, within an economic environment that thrives on up-ward mobility, which fought an oppressive empire so everyone would have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and a constitution that guarantees that our government will “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” that we allow children to live in poverty. It is simply unacceptable.
I will post stats, demographics, anecdotes, stories, legislation, and of course my comments. When I can I will also post best practices, prayer requests, and other information on child poverty (here in Connecticut, the United States, and throughout the world). I will post links to organizations and agencies that are working on child poverty issues and those actually doing the work—both within the church and non-church.
I hope you will become part of the discussion as well, maybe even the solutions.