Somewhere I read that 12% of Ohio's population were poor by the government's designation, but that no one can live on that amount. I think quintiles work better--so I'd put it at the bottom one fifth. A designation of poverty is a little squishy by any agency's rule book--I know a 40 year old man living on disability, unemployment and Medicaid whose "income" is higher than mine because of all the government programs for which he's eligible. It allows him to build up his 401-k, because he is allowed income from part time employment without losing his benefits. Being disabled doesn't mean he's stupid--even if he could work full time (and I don't think he is able), it wouldn't pay.
I began browsing through some of the non-profits, foundations, government agencies, faith-based organizations and community organizations that assist those we used to call "the down and out" with food and nutrition needs. That could be the poor, children, elderly, disabled, homeless, and anyone with a special health problem whether gluten sensitivity, diabetes, HIV, TB, etc. All social programs are intertwined since poverty is never simple, so it's not long before you're into the medical and educational and post-prison programs, too.
In the process I came across a jumbled alphabet soup of acronyms of government agencies and programs, like TANF, TEFAP, SFPP, SNAP, and OASHF. Then I realized that those groups, programs and agencies which all had directors, assistant directors, marketers, data gatherers, IT support, boards and researchers were yet again bundled into coalitions and super-organizations which also have directors, assistant directors, boards, etc.
I'll just highlight one coalition/organization because it had four name changes in seven years,
The Coalition to Protect Ohio's Future, beginning in 2003 as The Emergency Campaign to Protect Ohio's Future. But after browsing the list of 127 agencies which supported it, and looking through their lists of staff and boards and community partners, I concluded that the ratio of poverty staffer to needy recipient must be about 1:1. Another thing I noticed was that many of these coalitions and non-profits organized themselves in the early 2000s. I suspected that had something to do with the change in the Welfare law of 1996; that instead of the check going to welfare mothers it was going into the accounts of middle class social workers, researchers, and academics who run these organizations. I didn't have to look too far because one of these organizations had in fact hired another sister organization (they are very good at recycling government grants to other agencies) to research why the poor were staying poor.
"In 1996, Congress transformed the nation’s welfare system to mandate higher workforce participation by program participants. The new program, named Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), imposed a maximum five-year limit for receiving cash benefits, but also permitted states to use federal funds for many types of assistance intended to aid a person in finding and keeping a job. Such assistance can include training, transportation, and child support functions." Staying Employed: Trends in Medicaid, Child Care, and Head Start in Ohio
I also realized that I couldn't tell what these groups/agencies/coalitions actually did even by carefully parsing their vision and mission statements! Here's the mission statement for The Coalition to Protect Ohio's Future:
"To ensure support from the public, the legislature and the administration for governmental services and government funded services that support health, human services and early care in Ohio."
It sounds to me like it exists solely to make sure their supporting agencies have a funding stream, to get money, a slice of which would go to the Coalition and keep it moving on into "Ohio's future." Not a word about ending poverty or hunger, or healing the sick, or anything as grandiose as those movie star challenges on TV. And what in the world is "early care," anyway?
And one last thing. No matter the date on the study or report, it was always "in these difficult times," or "during this economic downturn," or "in this time of growing need." Virtually all these reports were written during the Bush eight years, and until Obama came along, no administration had spent more on domestic social programs than George W. Bush. These programs had enormous growth under him, and because his tax programs brought in more money to the government coffers and even the state budgets were flush with full employment tax money, it was like fertilizer for the poverty gardeners (mixing my metaphors here).
Posts
