Addendum to Chapter Eight: Community-based Welfare
President Lyndon Johnson declares War on Poverty, January 1964
https://woodsoncenter.org/about-us/faq/
What is different about the Woodson Center approach to the problems of our society?
The WC believes that the best source of solutions is within the neighborhoods that are affected. Rather than parachute programs into low-income communities, we seek out those individuals and organizations that are already addressing the problems, help them build their capacities, and assist them in linking to the resources they need.
What are the characteristics of a WC “grassroots organization?”
In every community, no matter how devastated, there are individuals, families, or groups that respond to the problems they see and seek to provide solutions. The groups the WC assists: come from the same zip code as those they serve; their programs pre-date funding; theirs is a lifetime commitment of service and not a job; and their goal is the self-sufficiency of those they serve. Most but not all of them are faith-based.
Does the WC specialize in any subject area?
The Woodson Center works with grassroots groups on the whole range of problems of poverty, with a particular emphasis on those dealing with youth violence, since the restoration of civil order is a necessary foundation for civic health. Other issues include substance abuse, homelessness, housing, education, community revitalization, economic development, youth development, ex-offender reentry, and work preparation.
-Welfare fraud and abuse are estimated to be 13.3% of all federal welfare payments, which is $162 billion in fiscal year 2022. This estimate comes from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Accounting Office (GAO).
In California, obtaining fraudulent benefits or food stamps is a misdemeanor if the value is under $950, or a felony over $950. Making a false statement is usually a misdemeanor. Most misdemeanor offenses of welfare fraud are punishable by fines up to $1000.
In Pennsylvania, the maximum penalty for public assistance fraud is seven years in prison and a fine of $15,000. If found guilty, a defendant must make full restitution of the overpaid benefits. They may also receive a sentence that includes community service, probation, or incarceration.
https://www.usccb.org/committees/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services
Catholic Charities agencies around the country have long provided adoption and foster care services to the neediest children. Catholic Charities takes on the most difficult placements, including older, abused children and children with special needs. When placing children with couples, Catholic Charities ensures those children enjoy the advantage of having a mother and a father who are married.
In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston, which had been one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, faced a difficult choice: violate its conscience, or close its doors. To be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring "sexual orientation discrimination." Because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state for a religious exemption but were refused. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services.
Later that year, Catholic Charities in San Francisco faced a similar untenable choice and was forced to end its adoption services as well.
In Washington, DC, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington — which has provided support to children and families for over eighty years — had a partnership with the District of Columbia for its foster care and public adoption program. However, in 2010, a law redefining legal marriage to include two people of the same sex took effect. The District then informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster care and adoption partner. Why? Because, as a Catholic organization, Catholic Charities was committed to placing children with married couples so that each child would have the experience of a mom and a dad.
In 2011, Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois closed down instead of complying with a new requirement that they could no longer receive state money if they refused to place children with persons in same-sex relationships as foster or adoptive parents. "In the name of tolerance, we're not being tolerated," said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois.
Legislation called the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2017 (S. 811 / H.R. 1881) has recently been introduced in both Houses of Congress to try to remedy this problem and ensure that no adoption agencies are excluded from serving the most vulnerable children in our society.
As of September 2023
The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2017 had been introduced in the United States Congress but had not yet become law.
Addressing homelessness is a complex issue that involves various actors, including government agencies, non-profit organizations, community groups, and individuals. Here are some of the key actors who work to help the homeless population:
1. **Government Agencies**:
- **Local Government**: City and municipal governments often play a central role in addressing homelessness. They may provide funding, coordinate services, and implement policies to support homeless individuals and families.
- **State Government**: State governments may allocate funds, set policies, and oversee programs related to homelessness within their jurisdiction.
- **Federal Government**: Agencies like the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provide funding and support for homeless services at the national level.
2. **Non-Profit Organizations**:
- **Homeless Shelters and Service Providers**: These organizations offer immediate shelter, food, and services to homeless individuals and families. Examples include the Salvation Army, Covenant House, and local shelters.
- **Advocacy and Support Groups**: These organizations work to raise awareness, advocate for policy changes, and provide resources to address the root causes of homelessness. Examples include the National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Coalition for the Homeless, and local advocacy groups.
- **Housing First Organizations**: They focus on providing stable housing as a first step in addressing homelessness. These programs prioritize getting individuals into housing quickly, and then providing the necessary support services.
- **Medical and Mental Health Services**: Organizations like Health Care for the Homeless provide healthcare services to homeless individuals.
- **Job Training and Employment Assistance**: Groups like Goodwill Industries and local workforce development agencies help homeless individuals gain skills and find employment.
3. **Faith-Based Organizations**:
- Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions often play a significant role in providing shelter, food, and support to homeless individuals. Examples include Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, and others.
4. **Community Groups and Volunteers**:
- Local community groups, neighborhood associations, and concerned individuals often contribute time, resources, and expertise to help the homeless population.
5. **Educational Institutions**:
- Universities and schools may have programs or initiatives aimed at assisting homeless students and families.
6. **Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice System**:
- Police departments and the criminal justice system can play a role in connecting homeless individuals with services, particularly in situations where homelessness intersects with legal issues.
7. **Hospitals and Healthcare Providers**:
- Healthcare institutions often encounter homeless individuals seeking medical care. Some hospitals have programs to address the unique needs of this population.
8. **Philanthropic Foundations**:
- Organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and others provide grants and support for initiatives addressing homelessness.
Remember, the specific actors and their level of involvement can vary depending on the region and the particular circumstances of homelessness in that area. Collaboration between these various entities is crucial for creating comprehensive and effective solutions.
The top five government expenditures in the United States in the fiscal year 2021. Actual percentages, dollar amounts, and recipient numbers can vary due to economic conditions, policy changes, and shifts in GDP.
The breakdown of the top five government expenditures in the United States including the dollar amounts, the percentage of the total federal budget, and the number of recipients:
1. **Social Security:**
- Dollar Amount: Approximately $1.1 trillion
- Percentage of Total Federal Spending: About 23%
- Percentage of GDP: About 4.9%
- Number of Recipients: Over 65 million people, including retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors.
2. **Medicare and Medicaid:**
- Medicare:
- Dollar Amount: Approximately $929 billion
- Number of Enrollees: Approximately 63 million people, primarily individuals aged 65 and older.
- Medicaid:
- Dollar Amount: Approximately $484 billion
- Number of Enrollees: Over 72 million low-income individuals and families.
- Combined: About $1.4 trillion
- Percentage of Total Federal Spending: Approximately 29%
- Percentage of GDP: Approximately 6.7%
3. **National Defense:**
- Dollar Amount: Approximately $700 billion
- Percentage of Total Federal Spending: About 15%
- Percentage of GDP: About 3.3%
- National defense spending primarily covers military operations, personnel, equipment, and defense-related research.
4. **Interest on the National Debt:**
- Dollar Amount: Approximately $380 billion
- Percentage of Total Federal Spending: About 8%
- Percentage of GDP: Around 2.5%
- Number of Recipients: N/A (Interest on the national debt is paid to holders of U.S. Treasury securities rather than direct beneficiaries).
5. **Income Security Programs:**
- Dollar Amount: Approximately $400 billion
- Percentage of Total Federal Spending: About 9%
- Percentage of GDP: Roughly 2.3%
- Number of Recipients: N/A (Income security programs include a range of programs like TANF, SSI, and unemployment benefits, with varying numbers of beneficiaries).
——
As of September 2021, these are the estimated breakdowns of the national defense spending for each line item based on the fiscal year 2021 budget.
Department of Defense (DoD):
The Department of Defense's budget was approximately $705.4 billion. This includes funding for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and various support agencies within the DoD.
Veterans Affairs (VA):
The budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs was approximately $243.3 billion. This covers healthcare services, benefits programs, and other support services for veterans.
Other Defense-Related Agencies:
The budget for other defense-related agencies can vary widely depending on specific programs and initiatives. For example, the budget for agencies like the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Missile Defense Agency, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency collectively totaled several tens of billions of dollars.
Military Construction and Family Housing:
The budget for military construction and family housing in fiscal year 2021 was approximately $11.6 billion. This covers construction, maintenance, and operation of military facilities, as well as the provision of housing for military personnel and their families.
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
The budget for atomic energy defense activities was approximately $16.4 billion. This includes funding for the maintenance, development, and management of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as associated defense programs.
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO):
The Overseas Contingency Operations funding was approximately $69 billion. This funding is used to support military operations in regions outside of the United States, particularly in areas of active conflict or instability.
https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/
Updated: Feb 24, 2022 / 09:15 AM PST
A $1.2 billion program intended to quickly build housing for Los Angeles’ sprawling homeless population is moving too slowly while costs are spiking, with one project under development expected to hit as much as $837,000 for each housing unit, a city audit disclosed Wednesday
Welfare fraud can occur in various ways across different government welfare programs.
1. Cash Assistance Programs (e.g., TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families):
Falsifying income or assets to qualify for benefits.
Concealing additional sources of income.
Providing false information about household composition.
Claiming nonexistent dependents.
Failure to report changes in employment status or income.
Misrepresenting housing expenses.
Fraudulently obtaining multiple benefits under different identities.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
2. Food Assistance Programs (e.g., SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program):
Underreporting income or assets to qualify for higher benefits.
Trading benefits for cash or non-food items.
Failing to report changes in household composition.
Purchasing non-food items with benefits.
Selling benefits to ineligible recipients.
Using fraudulent Social Security numbers or identities to apply.
Falsifying information about rent or mortgage payments.
Claiming benefits for non-existent dependents.
Overstating household expenses.
3. Housing Assistance Programs (e.g., Section 8 Housing Voucher Program):
Providing false information about household income.
Falsifying rental agreements or lease documents.
Subletting or renting out subsidized housing units.
Failing to report changes in household composition or income.
Misrepresenting living arrangements.
Using fraudulent documents to apply for housing assistance.
Falsely claiming multiple residences.
Providing false information about assets or property ownership.
4. Medicaid and Healthcare Programs:
Falsifying income to qualify for Medicaid.
Concealing additional sources of income or assets.
Providing false information about household composition.
Misrepresenting marital status or living arrangements.
Fraudulently obtaining prescription medications.
Using false identification to apply for healthcare benefits.
Falsifying medical conditions or disabilities.
Using someone else's Medicaid card or benefits.
5. Unemployment Insurance Programs:
Providing false information about employment history.
Faking job loss or income reduction.
Continuing to claim benefits while employed.
Misrepresenting job search efforts.
Falsifying job applications or resumes.
Concealing additional sources of income.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
Claiming benefits while ineligible due to self-employment.
6. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI):
Providing false medical documentation or diagnoses.
Exaggerating the severity of a disability.
Concealing work or additional sources of income.
Faking or exaggerating impairments during evaluations.
Misrepresenting living arrangements or marital status.
Falsifying financial or asset information.
Continuing to claim benefits despite improvement in condition.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
7. Childcare Assistance Programs:
Providing false information about income or employment status.
Misrepresenting the need for childcare services.
Using fraudulent documents to apply for assistance.
Claiming childcare services not provided or needed.
Failing to report changes in employment or income.
Falsifying attendance records or provider information.
Claiming benefits for non-eligible children.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
8. Education Assistance Programs (e.g., Pell Grants, Student Loans):
Falsifying information about income or assets.
Misrepresenting enrollment status or educational expenses.
Providing false information about dependency status.
Using fraudulent documents to apply for aid.
Claiming aid for ineligible courses or programs.
Failing to report changes in enrollment or academic progress.
Concealing additional sources of financial support.
Using false identification to apply for assistance.
9. Energy Assistance Programs (e.g., LIHEAP - Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program):
Providing false information about household income or expenses.
Misrepresenting energy usage or utility bills.
Using fraudulent documents to apply for assistance.
Claiming benefits for non-eligible households.
Failing to report changes in household composition or income.
Concealing additional sources of income.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
10. Disaster Assistance Programs:
Providing false information about property damage or losses.
Exaggerating the extent of disaster-related losses.
Using fraudulent documents to apply for assistance.
Claiming assistance for non-existent or ineligible damages.
Misrepresenting the need for emergency aid.
Concealing additional sources of financial support.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
11. Veterans' Benefits Programs:
Providing false information about military service or disabilities.
Falsifying medical or psychological conditions.
Concealing additional sources of income or assets.
Claiming benefits for non-eligible dependents.
Misrepresenting marital status or living arrangements.
Using fraudulent documents to apply for benefits.
Continuing to claim benefits despite changes in status.
Using false identification to apply for benefits.
12. Miscellaneous Assistance Programs:
Providing false information to obtain grants or scholarships.
Misrepresenting eligibility for special assistance programs.
Faking or exaggerating conditions for special accommodations.
Using fraudulent documents or identification for benefits.
Claiming benefits or assistance not genuinely needed.
Concealing additional sources of financial support.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/humanitarian-service/helping-hands?lang=eng
Root causes of poverty.
1. **Government Intervention:** Excessive government regulation, including minimum wage laws, zoning restrictions, and occupational licensing requirements, can hinder economic growth and limit job opportunities for individuals, particularly those with lower skill levels.
2. **Welfare Dependency:** Well-intentioned welfare programs, while designed to alleviate poverty, can inadvertently create dependency on government assistance, disincentivizing individuals from seeking employment or pursuing education and skills development.
3. **Market Distortions:** Market distortions caused by policies such as tariffs, subsidies, and restrictions on trade can lead to economic inefficiencies and reduce opportunities for individuals to access quality goods and services at affordable prices.
4. **Inflation and Monetary Policy:** Inflation, often attributed to monetary policies of central banks, erodes the purchasing power of money, making it more difficult for individuals with lower incomes to meet basic needs.
Concerns about Government Bureaucracy:
Some libertarians may be wary of the administrative costs and potential inefficiencies associated with government-run welfare programs. They may argue that private sector solutions or community-based initiatives can be more effective and efficient.
Income Inequality and Redistribution:
Libertarians often have differing views on income inequality. While they generally support the idea of people reaping the rewards of their own efforts, they may be concerned about excessive wealth concentration and may advocate for policies that promote competition and prevent crony capitalism.
https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/libertarian-vision-for-poverty-welfare
A LIBERTARIAN VISION FOR POVERTY AND WELFARE
Mar 31st, 2020
A libertarian world won’t eliminate all poverty, but it offers powerful tools for greatly reducing it, and improving the lives of the poorest and least privileged.
MICHAEL D. TANNER
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, where he heads research into a variety of domestic policies with a particular emphasis on poverty and social welfare policy, health care reform, and Social Security.
RELATED TOPICS
ECONOMICS
TAXATION
The stereotypes of libertarian attitudes toward the poor range from indifference to outright hostility. Yet a libertarian world would offer the poor a greater opportunity to escape poverty, become self-sufficient, and attain their full potential than does our current government-run social welfare system.
A libertarian approach to fighting poverty would be very different from our current one, which primarily consists of throwing money at the problem. This year, federal, state, and local governments will spend more than $1 trillion to fund more than 100 separate anti-poverty programs. 1 In fact, since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty 52 years ago, anti-poverty programs have cost us more than $23 trillion. 2 That’s a huge sum of money by any measure.
Although far from conclusive, the evidence suggests that this spending has successfully reduced many of the deprivations of material poverty. That shouldn’t be a big surprise. As George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen notes, under most classical economic theories, “a gift of cash always makes individuals better off.” 3 Regardless of how dim a view one takes of government competence in general, it would be virtually impossible for the government to spend $23 trillion without benefiting at least some poor people.
Yet it is impossible to walk through many poor neighborhoods, from inner cities to isolated rural communities, and think that our welfare system is working the way it should. These are areas where the government has spent heavily to reduce poverty. A high percentage of residents are receiving some form of government assistance. And as a result, the poor may well be better off financially than they would be in the absence of government aid. Yet no one could honestly describe those communities or the people living in them as thriving or flourishing in any sense of the word.
Perhaps The Economist put it best:
If reducing poverty just amounts to ushering Americans to a somewhat less meagre existence, it may be a worthwhile endeavor but is hardly satisfying. The objective, of course, should be a system of benefits that encourages people to work their way out of penury, and an economy that does not result in so many people needing welfare in the first place. Any praise for the efficacy of safety nets must be tempered by the realization that, for one reason or another, these folks could not make it on their own. 4
And therein lies the real failure of government anti-poverty efforts. Our efforts have been focused on the mere alleviation of poverty, making sure that the poor have food, shelter, and the like. That may be a necessary part of an anti-poverty policy, but it is far from sufficient. A truly effective anti-poverty program should seek not just to alleviate poverty’s symptoms but to eradicate the disease itself. We should seek to make sure not only that people are fed and housed, but also that they are able to rise as far as their talents can take them. In a sense, we focus too much on poverty and not enough on prosperity.
ATTACKING THE ROOT CAUSES OF POVERTY
A libertarian approach to poverty would instead attack the underlying causes of poverty, including structural barriers to economic success.
Consider the criminal justice system, for example. Ample evidence indicates that overcriminalization and the abuses inherent in the U.S. criminal justice system contribute significantly to poverty. As President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers pointed out in 2016:
Having a criminal record or history of incarceration is a barrier to success in the labor market, and limited employment or depressed wages can stifle an individual’s ability to become self-sufficient. Beyond earnings, criminal sanctions can have negative consequences for individual health, debt, transportation, housing, and food security. Further, criminal sanctions create financial and emotional stresses that destabilize marriages and have adverse consequences for children. 5
Harvard’s William Julius Wilson—taking note of the nearly 1.5 million young African American men who have been rendered largely unmarriageable because of their involvement with the criminal justice system—has written extensively about the effect of criminal justice on nonmarital birthrates in poor communities. Conservatives are often quick to lecture poor women on the need to delay pregnancy until after marriage—and the evidence suggests that nonmarital childbearing can make it more difficult to escape poverty—but that begs the question of who poor women are supposed to marry. If large numbers of men in their communities cannot find work because of a criminal record or are simply not present because they are incarcerated, the likelihood of having children outside marriage increases dramatically.
Scholars at Villanova University found that our criminal justice policies have increased poverty by an estimated 20 percent. And another study found that a family’s probability of being poor is 40 percent greater if the father is imprisoned. Given that 5 million children have an imprisoned parent, that factor is an enormous contributor to poverty in America. 6
But a more libertarian society would end overcriminalization and dramatically reduce overincarceration. Ending the war on drugs, and legalizing other victimless activities from prostitution to gambling, would remove this enormous barrier to economic participation and self-sufficiency.
Education provides another example. Numerous studies show that educational success is a key determinant of poverty. 7 The days in which a person could drop out of school, head down to the local factory, and find a job that enabled him to support a family are long gone. Someone who drops out of school is five times more likely to be persistently in poverty before age 30 than someone who completes high school. 8
At the same time, government-run schools are doing an increasingly poor job of educating children, especially children who grow up in poverty. Studies have consistently shown that schools attended mostly by poor children have poorer records of educational achievement than schools attended by more affluent students. 9
Libertarian policies will break up the government education monopoly. Whether we are talking about taking incremental steps, such as charter schools, vouchers, and tuition tax credits, or more fully separating school and state, a libertarian approach to education would lead to more competition and innovation in educational alternatives and would give parents the ability to escape poorly performing schools.
Libertarian policies would also reduce the cost of living, especially for those with low incomes. For instance, trade barriers significantly raise the cost of many basic goods that make up a large portion of the poor’s budget. Tariffs levied on shoes and clothing alone cost the average household in the poorest quintile $92 a year, and those with children often pay far more. 10
Zoning and land-use policies can add as much as 40 percent to the cost of housing in some cities. 11 In neighborhoods like New York’s Manhattan, the zoning tax is even higher, at 50 percent or more. And these regulations are thought to affect far more than just housing prices: geographic mobility, economic and racial integration, and economic growth are all affected negatively. Libertarians would eliminate these costly regulations that make it difficult for the poor to afford basic goods and services.
Most important, libertarian policies would lead to more rapid economic growth and would ensure that the benefits of that growth were spread more inclusively. As President Obama once pointed out, “The free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history—it has lifted billions of people out of poverty.” 12 By reducing taxes and regulations, libertarians would spur economic growth, increasing the overall wealth in society.
But to really raise the poor out of poverty, we must ensure that they can fully participate in the opportunities that a growing economy provides. Here again, libertarian policies would benefit the poor by removing barriers to economic participation. For example, an estimated 40 percent of professions in the United States currently require some form of government license to practice. That includes more than 1,100 different professions requiring a license in at least one state—from florists to funeral attendants, from tree trimmers to makeup artists. 13 Removing licensure barriers not only unlocks employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor in low-skill occupations, but also lowers prices in industries such as health care where occupational licensure restricts competition.
EFFECTIVE CHARITY
Of course, even if all the reforms discussed above were completely successful, some people would still be unable to become fully self-sufficient. A libertarian world would support a vigorous network of private charity to assist them.
Charity works where government does not for a variety of reasons. For one thing, private charities can better individualize their approach to the circumstances of the poor in ways that a government program can never do. For reasons both legal and bureaucratic, government regulations must be designed in ways that treat all similarly situated recipients alike. As a result, most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or in-kind goods and services without any attempt to differentiate the specific needs or circumstances of individual recipients.
Do individuals have family problems or mental health issues? Do they lack job skills or have a criminal record? What prevents them from becoming self-supporting? Administrators of government programs seldom know or care. And even if they did, they must still respond with a one-size-fits-all answer.
Private charities are also much better at directing assistance to those who need it most. That ability is not just a question of efficiency, although relatively few successful charities have the burdensome bureaucratic infrastructure of government programs. Rather, private charities have the discretion necessary to focus their assistance where it will do the most good. Private charity is also more likely to target short-term emergency relief, rather than long-term support. Consequently, it can both better address a crisis and avoid problems of dependency.
To the degree that poverty results from individual choices and behavior, private charities can demand a change in behavior in exchange for aid. For example, a private charity may withhold funds if a recipient doesn’t stop using alcohol or drugs, doesn’t get a job, or gets pregnant. For any number of reasons, we don’t want the government to adopt such paternalistic measures, but private charities have proven effective when they do so. 14
Governments lack the knowledge of individual circumstances that would enable them to intervene in matters of individual behavior. Moreover, paternalistic interventions inevitably run headlong into divisive cultural issues. Allowing government to enforce particular points of view on such issues is questionable on ethical grounds and a certain recipe for political conflict. And charities are better at scaling up or down in response to particular needs or issues, whereas government bureaucracies inevitably seek to continue or expand their mission.
Finally, private charity builds an important bond between giver and receiver. For recipients, private charity is not an entitlement, but a gift carrying reciprocal obligations. But more important, private charity demands that donors become directly involved. It is easy to be charitable with someone else’s money. As Robert Thompson of the University of Pennsylvania noted a century ago, using government money for charitable purposes is a “rough contrivance to lift from the social conscience a burden that should not be either lifted or lightened in any way.” 15
CAN CHARITY BE PROVIDED VOLUNTARILY?
Americans are an amazingly generous people. In 2015, we donated $373 billion to charity. Roughly $265 billion of that, or fully 71 percent, was given by individuals (the rest came from corporations, foundations, and other organizations). 16 More than 83 percent of adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. 17 True, a substantial portion of that giving went to entities like universities, hospitals, and the arts, rather than to direct human services to the poor. But even so, Americans voluntarily gave tens of billions of dollars to help the poor.
And it wasn’t just money. We also donated more than 3.2 million hours of our time. Roughly 65 percent of Americans perform some form of volunteer work. And that doesn’t include the countless hours given to help friends, family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system.
Still, if we reduced or eliminated government welfare spending, would there be enough charity to meet the needs of the poor? The numbers provide a reason for concern: as much as Americans give, that amount currently falls well short of the nearly $1 trillion that federal, state, and local governments spend on anti-poverty programs. 18
But that fact ignores evidence suggesting that, in the absence of government welfare programs, private charitable giving will almost certainly increase. Numerous studies have documented a “displacement effect,” whereby government programs crowd out private giving. 19
For example, a comparison of charitable giving across countries confirms the finding that government welfare spending reduces private charitable efforts. Among rich countries, those with lower social expenditures as a share of the economy see a higher portion of their population donate to charity. Moreover, people in countries with a smaller welfare state are also more likely to volunteer (see Figure 1.1).
History suggests that people intuitively respond to greater levels of need with higher levels of giving. Charitable giving, which had risen steadily from the end of World War II until the mid-1960s, declined dramatically in the wake of the Great Society. In the 1980s, when the rise in welfare spending began to flatten out (and, not coincidentally, the public was deluged with media stories warning of cutbacks to social welfare programs), the public responded with increased private giving. 20
Economists Jonathan Meer, David Miller, and Elisa Wulfsberg find that levels of giving fell after the most recent recession even after considering the giver’s individual economic situation. Moreover, Meer and his colleagues point out that this shift could portend a broader change in attitude toward charitable giving. 21 Of course, this effect might be a one-time response to the unusual circumstances surrounding this recession. But since charitable habits are hard to break once formed, it is something to keep an eye on. 22
GIVING AND CIVIL SOCIETY
True charity is ennobling of everyone involved, both those who give and those who receive. A government grant is ennobling of no one. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this point more than 150 years ago when he called for the abolition of public relief, citing the fact that private charity established a “moral tie” between giver and receiver. That tie is destroyed when the money comes from an impersonal government grant. The donors (taxpayers) resent their involuntary contribution, while the recipients feel no real gratitude for what they receive.
As a matter of policy, therefore, it would be preferable to shift as much of the burden of caring for the poor as possible to private charities. Doing so would avoid the pitfalls of coercive redistribution and the bureaucratic failures of traditional welfare.
The total dollar amount spent on charity, both private and public, is secondary to the effectiveness of each dollar spent. Well-functioning institutions of civil society like churches and other associational organizations may have significantly greater bang for their buck than government spending.
Utah provides an instructive example here. The state government spends relatively little on social welfare compared with other states, yet Utah has one of the lowest poverty rates and the highest rate of upward mobility among the states. 23 Behind Utah’s success in caring for its least well off is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS).
In response to the failures of New Deal relief during the Great Depression, the LDS church established a well-coordinated yet highly decentralized network for the purpose of delivering aid to LDS adherents. Heber Grant, an LDS leader, described the aim of this effort: “To set up insofar as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established among our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.” 24
To remain in good standing within the church, Mormons must contribute at least 10 percent of their income to the church, a portion of which goes to supporting a safety net for Mormons who fall on hard times. Mormons are also strongly encouraged to volunteer and provide a “fast offering,” which is the dollar equivalent of two meals per month.
And although funds and labor are no doubt important, the true strength of the Mormon safety net lies in the cultivation of deep interpersonal bonds among LDS members. For instance, the ministering program requires every Mormon to offer regular counseling and support to sometimes as many five families. Such personal connections are the greatest advantage that private charitable efforts have over those run by the state. This approach allows assistance to be tailored specifically to an individual’s needs and to deliver the emotional support government welfare can’t buy.
Charity premised on voluntary associations rather than government coercion has not been solely the domain of religious institutions. During the first part of the 20th century, African Americans were generally excluded from government social welfare programs. Black lodges, such as the Prince Hall Masons, and other institutions established a wide-ranging and highly successful charitable network. They built orphanages and old-age homes, provided food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless, and helped the unemployed find work. Black lodges also provided medical care, hiring physicians to treat members and their families. Known as “lodge-practice medicine,” the networks were so extensive that African Americans were more likely than whites to have some form of health insurance than were whites during the early years of the 20th century. 25 (Unfortunately, those private African American charitable networks were squeezed simultaneously by racism on one side and by the growing welfare state on the other. Today, they have largely faded away.)
Emerging technologies offer additional opportunities to restore the civil society bonds that are a precondition to effective charity. In particular, blockchain technology enables individuals to give directly to the needy without relying on any third party. At its most basic, a blockchain is a decentralized platform that can be used to transfer money electronically. Because all blockchain transactions are verified on a transparent ledger via a decentralized network of computers, users can be confident that their transfers are secure. Yet the possibilities that blockchain technology creates for charitable innovation are enormous. For instance, donors may choose to write conditions to blockchain transactions to ensure that charitable funds are well spent. Such preconditions might include requiring that individuals purchase only healthy foods or attend religious services. For donors, such requirements restore the basic sense of accountability that is necessary to prompt voluntary generosity. At the same time, recipients benefit from being nudged to integrate with civil society institutions and build productive interpersonal relationships.
Of course, even with increased charitable giving, we may never completely eliminate the need for a government safety net. But we should recognize the important role that private charity fulfills, and we should lean, whenever possible, in that direction.
FREEING CHARITY
Libertarians would also remove government-imposed barriers to private charity. For example, Wilmington, North Carolina, passed an ordinance that prohibits sharing food on city streets and sidewalks. And Las Vegas bans “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee” in city parks. Similarly, Orlando, Florida, prohibits sharing food with more than 25 people in city parks without a permit and limits groups to doing so twice a year. Atlanta mandates that all aid to the homeless must pass through one of eight municipally approved organizations. Baltimore requires organizations to obtain a food service license before feeding the homeless. And so on. 26
Moreover, numerous states have prevented doctors from providing free medical care to the poor because those physicians are not licensed in the state. For example, in the aftermath of tornadoes that devastated Joplin, Missouri, the Tennessee-based organization Remote Area Medical, which provides free medical care, was blocked from providing free eyeglasses to the victims. 27 And New York State blocked Remote Area Medical from providing free health care services to the poor because the group uses mobile rather than fixed facilities. 28
Other municipalities have used zoning ordinances to block homeless shelters. For instance, in several cities, zoning laws prohibit churches from operating homeless shelters on their property. 29
When charities and the needs of the poor run into entrenched special interests that can use government power to achieve their desires, the charities are all too often the losers. In a more libertarian world, private charity would have much more latitude.
LESS POVERTY IN A LIBERTARIAN WORLD
We can expect libertarian policies to significantly reduce poverty and increase the ability of the poor to become self-sufficient, full participants in a growing economy. Even if libertarian reforms have only a small immediate effect, we should expect an altered landscape to affect future generations substantially. Thus, what would begin as a small wedge of increased self-sufficiency would steadily widen as the children of the poor have an opportunity to grow up under very different circumstances. Ideally, intergenerational mobility would also increase. The curve may start to bend today, but the biggest effect will be in the future. The number of people in need of government assistance will, it is hoped, be much smaller than it is today.
At the same time, a libertarian world would unleash the full potential of private charity. Those charitable efforts not only would be more effective, but would be focused on a much smaller population. Can we guarantee that libertarian policies will eliminate poverty? Of course not. Utopia is not an option. But we can provide for the poor effectively—more effectively than current policies. Shifting from government welfare to private action should not—and does not—mean turning our backs on the poor. It does mean finding a better way to help them.
https://fee.org/articles/why-true-charity-can-only-blossom-under-capitalism/
Why True Charity Can Only Blossom under Capitalism
Socialists and progressives are wrong to assert that capitalism is inherently greedy.
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Progressives and socialists have been able to seize the moral high ground through their use of effective propaganda. These sanctimonious ultracrepidarians posture as champions of charity, because of their support for economic redistribution and for the welfare state. And they condemn capitalism for fostering greed.
Let’s set the record straight. Capitalism is the only economic system (if freedom to own and sell property can truly be called a system) where the virtue of charity blossoms. Moreover, charity cannot even exist in the progressive-socialist paradigm. True charity can only exist within the context of private property.
An essential aspect of charity is self-sacrifice. Charity can take the form of donations and volunteering. In such cases, the giver sacrifices money, goods, or time, all of which could have been used for their own benefit instead.
The opposite is what is proposed by socialists and progressives. Instead of self-sacrifice, these self-righteous pecksniffians “sacrifice” other people’s resources and claim to be charitable for doing so. That would be as if a church were asking for food to help feed the homeless, and I “volunteered” my neighbor’s food by raiding their pantries. As Murray Rothbard explained, “It is easy to be conspicuously compassionate when others are forced to pay the cost.” By forcing taxpayers to help the needy, the socialists and progressives eschew the self-sacrifice that charity requires.
If a pickpocket robs Peter to pay Paul, the pickpocket is not being charitable. And neither is Peter, because he had no choice in the matter. The freedom to choose whether to help or not to help is a prerequisite to genuine charity. “Virtuousness and morality require the freedom to do good and bad,” Rothbard wrote. “If there is no choice but to do good, then there is no morality or virtue.” (Interestingly, if compulsory giving is charitable, wouldn’t progressives and socialists have to admit that the rich (who pay the most taxes) are the most charitable people of all?) Furthermore, the coercive nature of socialist and progressive “charity” destroys the motivation to help others. As Frank Chodorov wrote:
“…we who have no right to own certainly have no right to give, and charity becomes an empty word; in a socialistic order, no one need give thought to an unfortunate neighbor because it is the duty of the government, the only property owner, to take care of him…”
Charity under Capitalism, Progressivism, and Socialism
Because of this, government spending tends to displace private spending and investment. Economists call this phenomenon crowding out. The rise of the welfare state, for instance, has crowded out private charity. A report by Citigroup states: “In countries with higher public spending, there is a sense that any debt to society has been repaid through an individual’s or a corporation’s tax bill. Where there is less public spending, there is a greater sense that something is owed. This distinction drives the trend in Figure 29.”
Some might argue that the countries with more generous welfare states are sufficiently able to accomplish the task of social welfare.
This argument treats private and public expenditure as equivalents, when they are in fact not directly comparable. In a 2007 study, James Rolph Edwards points out that “public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar… In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients.” (Emphasis added)
Yet the picture is even worse than that. Using an estimate of the cost imposed by taxation, Edwards finds that almost $5.00 must be taxed for every $1.00 of benefits. Not only are those who are subjected to this ridiculously inefficient tax disincentivized from working, saving, and investing, but the recipients of the aid are also discouraged from being productive.
As Edwards poignantly points out:
“In a careful experiment, James Andrioni (1993) estimated that 71 cents of private charitable contribution is crowded out for each dollar taxed and budgeted to government aid… Because of this offset, as well as lower earned income due to reduced work-time by aid recipients, the resource cost of the administrative bureaucracy, and the other costs of compulsory income transfers discussed above, the federal government programs may actually have increased the amount of poverty and generated a dependent class of aid recipients.” (Emphasis added)
While these arguments address the progressive welfare state position, what of the socialist one? China is the obvious example for the socialist countries.
To vividly demonstrate how destructive socialism in China has been for individual virtue, consider how in 2011 a toddler was hit by a van, which paused for a moment before slowly running her over. None of the people around helped her as she writhed in agony. As a result, she was run over again. This time by a truck. For another 7 minutes, no one helped the 2-year-old.
Due to this lack of public morality, the Chinese Communist Party has taken over the role of the parent. The CCP displays billboards with messages such as “a civilized society begins with you and me.” It runs TV ads telling parents that it is their responsibility to teach their children civilized behavior. Leland M. Lazarus explains that “Xi Jinping is trying to use rule of law as the basis for moral principles in China. A frequent TV commercial shows a little girl studying, a young man swimming, and an old couple holding hands. The narrator says in a soothing male voice: I will always be by your side. The young girl looks up at the sky. I will always protect you. The young swimmer looks up. You can always trust in me… at the end the screen goes black and two characters appear: fa lu 法律. The law.”
This is hardly the model for a charitable society. As stressed above, true charity requires freedom of choice. The method of the central planner, in both the socialist and the progressive vision, removes the individual interaction that is central to forming and building the mores of the people.
Charity and Freedom
Charity under capitalism is genuine, because the giver is sacrificing his own wealth voluntarily. The so-called charity sanctified and sought after by socialists and progressives is the opposite. Under a facade of charity, they plead for tyranny and control—as if it were the most obvious solution, and any who oppose them are irredeemably evil—justifying their power with the excuse that they are helping others.
Receiving a check in the mail from some distant bureaucrat you don’t know, with money taken from everyone yet delivered indifferently, is nowhere near the same as interacting with the individuals who are helping you. This helps explain why Meina Cai et al. (2022) find that “the link between individualism, capitalism, and collective well-being is more complicated than critics of capitalism believe. We found that rather than contributing to antisocial behavior, individualism contributes to prosocial behavior and arguably moral improvement.” Consider, for instance, my friend Timmy, who recently finished running across the country to raise money for a cause he believes in. Timmy was able to connect his passion and his drive to do something good in a way that is only possible in a society where the individual feels responsible for making the world a better place.
As previously mentioned, to be charitable, you must be voluntarily sacrificing something of yours, which presupposes private property. Therefore, charity manifests the most in a regime of full private property: i.e., capitalism. This also implies that the more one accumulates, the more one is able to sacrifice for charity. It is a well-known fact that capitalist countries are wealthier than non-capitalist countries, and therefore capable of being far more philanthropic. Logically, then, becoming more capitalistic will result in more philanthropy.
Conclusion
Contra socialists and progressives, capitalism and capitalists are not inherently greedy. As Edwards notes:
“Envy is a powerful human motive that exists as long as there are income differences of any kind among the populace, and would exist even if average income was so high that virtually nobody fell below an absolute, defined level of poverty income (Schoeck 1966).”
As Dan and I have written before, socialism is the gospel of envy. Socialism’s close cousin, progressivism, is afflicted by the same vice. In capitalism, there is no inherent vice. The sins that manifest in capitalism cannot be blamed on the “system,” as they are not unique to capitalism, but rather are the product of the flawed nature of humanity.
The individual cannot forcefully be made into a charitable saint. He can only improve himself and become more charitable in the freedom that is inherent in capitalism.
https://fee.org/articles/the-free-market-lifting-all-boats/
Tuesday, April 1, 1997
In the free market, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. America’s market economy might create wealth for some, but it certainly doesn’t benefit the poor. How often we read or hear such statements. What they assert is familiar. But is it true? Does the free market really leave the poor behind?
A good way to determine how the poor fare in the free market is to examine how the standard of living of the poor has changed over time. One factor to consider is real income. Between 1900 and 1990, the growth in real (inflation-adjusted) income—generated by the free market—was enormous: Real income in 1990 was 15 times greater than it was in 1900. Real per capita income was over four and one-half times greater in 1990 than in 1900.
Another important measure of income is real money earnings from employment. Real earnings were almost four times greater in 1990 than in 1900. But statistics on real earnings mask significant changes in work hours and the way workers are compensated. In 1900 nonfarm workers toiled 60 hours a week; by 1990 they worked 39.3 hours a week, a decrease of over one-third. Moreover, in 1900 workers received almost all of their compensation in wages; by 1990 workers received nonwage benefits accounting for almost 40 percent of their total compensation. That means an hour of work in 1990 paid well over eight times what it did in 1900.
Still, one might argue that real per capita income and money earnings tell us little about the status of the poor. Did the poor share in the economy’s growth?
Since real income in the United States has increased, we know that the real income of the poor has increased if the share of income received by the poor is stable or increasing. In 1900, the poorest 20 percent of income earners received 4.8 percent of the nation’s income; in 1990, they collected 4.6 percent. Thus, the real incomes of the poor have risen significantly this century.
Another way of determining whether the poor have benefited from income growth is to look at changes in the percentage of families classified as living in poverty over time. By our current definition of poverty, 56 percent of families in the United States were poor in 1900. By 1947, even after the economic shocks of the Great Depression and World War II, the percentage of families in poverty had been reduced by more than half, to 27 percent. By 1967, the percentage was halved again, to 13 percent. Notably, the decrease in poverty between 1900 and 1967 occurred before the advent of the greatly expanded welfare state. In other words, it was the free market, not government welfare, that caused the poverty rate to fall from 56 percent in 1900 to 13 percent in 1967.
What has happened to real incomes and poverty rates demonstrates that the free market does not leave the poor behind. Yet another measure of the standard of living is the level of goods and services consumed. Real per person spending on consumer goods rose dramatically between 1900 and 1990 (see table 1).
These extraordinary gains were shared by the poor. Consider some conveniences that we consider to be essential today (see table 2).
Health is another important component of the standard of living. Life expectancy at birth was 47.3 years in 1900, and 75.4 years in 1990. Other health statistics are even more revealing. Deaths from once-common diseases have dropped dramatically since 1900. It was not primarily medical advances, but improved water and sewer systems and housing, that lowered mortality rates—and helped the poor far more than the rich (see table 3).
Of course, a critic might concede the dramatic nature of these changes, but counter that these improvements took 90 years to occur. It would be helpful, then, to look at a shorter period, during which time the living standards of the poor, according to common knowledge, worsened.
Under the official definition of poverty, a household of four, for example, is classified as poor if its annual income is less than $14,400. But, as noted earlier, living standards depend on the goods and services consumed, so a family should be classified as poor on the basis of its level of consumption, not income. University of Texas economist Daniel Slesnick has devised a consumption-based measure of poverty and calculated poverty rates for the years 1949 to 1989. He found that 24 percent of U.S. households were poor in 1959. By 1989, only a generation later, the poverty rate was but 2 percent. And Mr. Slesnick’s calculations exclude noncash government benefits such as Medicaid, public housing, and a long list of government-provided community services.
The claim has also been regularly made that the poor have been getting poorer for over a decade. Yet households officially counted as poor are as likely to own a host of major consumer goods as was the general population just two decades ago (see table 4).
But these data indicate something even more striking: the remarkable amount of goods owned by poor families. In the United States today a household which owns a washer, dryer, refrigerator, stove, microwave, color TV, VCR, and car might still be considered poor. The point is, the free market has not only dramatically improved the material well-being of the poor; it has generated so much wealth that it has completely transformed what we consider poverty to be.
What has happened to the living standards of the poor in our predominantly free-market economy shouldn’t surprise us. The soul of the free market is not wealth creation but liberty and private property, and it is liberty and private property which enable entrepreneurs to create more efficient production methods that yield better goods and services. Entrepreneurs were the primary cause of the income growth that we’ve observed, as well as all those new and improved products consumed by everyone. The free market does not leave the poor behind, it makes them, as well as everyone else, richer. Much richer.
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2014/demo/poverty_measure-history.html
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending_history
A Century of Welfare Spending
Welfare spending began its ascent during the Great Depression.
Chart 2.61: Welfare Spending in 20th Century
Welfare spending, on programs for relief, unemployment compensation, and income support, started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 0.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It was not until the crisis of the Great Depression that welfare expenditures began their secular rise, reaching 2.1 percent of GDP by 1940.
During World War II, welfare expenditures declined to about one percent of GDP per year, and fluctuated between one and two percent per year, depending on the business cycle. Health care expenditure amounted to about one percent of GDP. By the early 1960s, welfare cost about two percent of GDP.
The Great Society programs started welfare on an upward path, so that after 1980 welfare spending fluctuated between 3 and 4 percent of GDP, spiking during recessions.
In 1996 President Clinton signed a reform of welfare, and welfare costs declined from 3.4 percent of GDP during the 1990-91 recession to a low of 2.4 percent of GDP in 2000.
In the 2001-02 recession welfare costs increased to 3.1 percent of GDP in 2003 and then declined to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2007. But the Great Recession of 2009-10 produced an explosion in welfare costs to a peak of 4.75 percent of GDP in 2010. Welfare declined to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2015.
In the COVID crisis of 2020 welfare spending exploded to 6.3 percent GDP. In 2022 welfare spending was estimated at 3.6 percent GDP.
-https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/libertarian-vision-for-poverty-welfare
A LIBERTARIAN VISION FOR POVERTY AND WELFARE
Mar 31st, 2020
A libertarian world won’t eliminate all poverty, but it offers powerful tools for greatly reducing it, and improving the lives of the poorest and least privileged.
MICHAEL D. TANNER
The stereotypes of libertarian attitudes toward the poor range from indifference to outright hostility. Yet a libertarian world would offer the poor a greater opportunity to escape poverty, become self-sufficient, and attain their full potential than does our current government-run social welfare system.
A libertarian approach to fighting poverty would be very different from our current one, which primarily consists of throwing money at the problem. This year, federal, state, and local governments will spend more than $1 trillion to fund more than 100 separate anti-poverty programs. 1 In fact, since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty 52 years ago, anti-poverty programs have cost us more than $23 trillion. 2 That’s a huge sum of money by any measure.
Although far from conclusive, the evidence suggests that this spending has successfully reduced many of the deprivations of material poverty. That shouldn’t be a big surprise. As George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen notes, under most classical economic theories, “a gift of cash always makes individuals better off.” 3 Regardless of how dim a view one takes of government competence in general, it would be virtually impossible for the government to spend $23 trillion without benefiting at least some poor people.
Yet it is impossible to walk through many poor neighborhoods, from inner cities to isolated rural communities, and think that our welfare system is working the way it should. These are areas where the government has spent heavily to reduce poverty. A high percentage of residents are receiving some form of government assistance. And as a result, the poor may well be better off financially than they would be in the absence of government aid. Yet no one could honestly describe those communities or the people living in them as thriving or flourishing in any sense of the word.
Perhaps The Economist put it best:
If reducing poverty just amounts to ushering Americans to a somewhat less meagre existence, it may be a worthwhile endeavor but is hardly satisfying. The objective, of course, should be a system of benefits that encourages people to work their way out of penury, and an economy that does not result in so many people needing welfare in the first place. Any praise for the efficacy of safety nets must be tempered by the realization that, for one reason or another, these folks could not make it on their own. 4
And therein lies the real failure of government anti-poverty efforts. Our efforts have been focused on the mere alleviation of poverty, making sure that the poor have food, shelter, and the like. That may be a necessary part of an anti-poverty policy, but it is far from sufficient. A truly effective anti-poverty program should seek not just to alleviate poverty’s symptoms but to eradicate the disease itself. We should seek to make sure not only that people are fed and housed, but also that they are able to rise as far as their talents can take them. In a sense, we focus too much on poverty and not enough on prosperity.
ATTACKING THE ROOT CAUSES OF POVERTY
A libertarian approach to poverty would instead attack the underlying causes of poverty, including structural barriers to economic success.
Consider the criminal justice system, for example. Ample evidence indicates that overcriminalization and the abuses inherent in the U.S. criminal justice system contribute significantly to poverty. As President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers pointed out in 2016:
Having a criminal record or history of incarceration is a barrier to success in the labor market, and limited employment or depressed wages can stifle an individual’s ability to become self-sufficient. Beyond earnings, criminal sanctions can have negative consequences for individual health, debt, transportation, housing, and food security. Further, criminal sanctions create financial and emotional stresses that destabilize marriages and have adverse consequences for children. 5
Harvard’s William Julius Wilson—taking note of the nearly 1.5 million young African American men who have been rendered largely unmarriageable because of their involvement with the criminal justice system—has written extensively about the effect of criminal justice on nonmarital birthrates in poor communities. Conservatives are often quick to lecture poor women on the need to delay pregnancy until after marriage—and the evidence suggests that nonmarital childbearing can make it more difficult to escape poverty—but that begs the question of who poor women are supposed to marry. If large numbers of men in their communities cannot find work because of a criminal record or are simply not present because they are incarcerated, the likelihood of having children outside marriage increases dramatically.
Scholars at Villanova University found that our criminal justice policies have increased poverty by an estimated 20 percent. And another study found that a family’s probability of being poor is 40 percent greater if the father is imprisoned. Given that 5 million children have an imprisoned parent, that factor is an enormous contributor to poverty in America. 6
But a more libertarian society would end overcriminalization and dramatically reduce overincarceration. Ending the war on drugs, and legalizing other victimless activities from prostitution to gambling, would remove this enormous barrier to economic participation and self-sufficiency.
Education provides another example. Numerous studies show that educational success is a key determinant of poverty. 7 The days in which a person could drop out of school, head down to the local factory, and find a job that enabled him to support a family are long gone. Someone who drops out of school is five times more likely to be persistently in poverty before age 30 than someone who completes high school. 8
At the same time, government-run schools are doing an increasingly poor job of educating children, especially children who grow up in poverty. Studies have consistently shown that schools attended mostly by poor children have poorer records of educational achievement than schools attended by more affluent students. 9
Libertarian policies will break up the government education monopoly. Whether we are talking about taking incremental steps, such as charter schools, vouchers, and tuition tax credits, or more fully separating school and state, a libertarian approach to education would lead to more competition and innovation in educational alternatives and would give parents the ability to escape poorly performing schools.
Libertarian policies would also reduce the cost of living, especially for those with low incomes. For instance, trade barriers significantly raise the cost of many basic goods that make up a large portion of the poor’s budget. Tariffs levied on shoes and clothing alone cost the average household in the poorest quintile $92 a year, and those with children often pay far more. 10
Zoning and land-use policies can add as much as 40 percent to the cost of housing in some cities. 11 In neighborhoods like New York’s Manhattan, the zoning tax is even higher, at 50 percent or more. And these regulations are thought to affect far more than just housing prices: geographic mobility, economic and racial integration, and economic growth are all affected negatively. Libertarians would eliminate these costly regulations that make it difficult for the poor to afford basic goods and services.
Most important, libertarian policies would lead to more rapid economic growth and would ensure that the benefits of that growth were spread more inclusively. As President Obama once pointed out, “The free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history—it has lifted billions of people out of poverty.” 12 By reducing taxes and regulations, libertarians would spur economic growth, increasing the overall wealth in society.
But to really raise the poor out of poverty, we must ensure that they can fully participate in the opportunities that a growing economy provides. Here again, libertarian policies would benefit the poor by removing barriers to economic participation. For example, an estimated 40 percent of professions in the United States currently require some form of government license to practice. That includes more than 1,100 different professions requiring a license in at least one state—from florists to funeral attendants, from tree trimmers to makeup artists. 13 Removing licensure barriers not only unlocks employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor in low-skill occupations, but also lowers prices in industries such as health care where occupational licensure restricts competition.
EFFECTIVE CHARITY
Of course, even if all the reforms discussed above were completely successful, some people would still be unable to become fully self-sufficient. A libertarian world would support a vigorous network of private charity to assist them.
Charity works where government does not for a variety of reasons. For one thing, private charities can better individualize their approach to the circumstances of the poor in ways that a government program can never do. For reasons both legal and bureaucratic, government regulations must be designed in ways that treat all similarly situated recipients alike. As a result, most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or in-kind goods and services without any attempt to differentiate the specific needs or circumstances of individual recipients.
Do individuals have family problems or mental health issues? Do they lack job skills or have a criminal record? What prevents them from becoming self-supporting? Administrators of government programs seldom know or care. And even if they did, they must still respond with a one-size-fits-all answer.
Private charities are also much better at directing assistance to those who need it most. That ability is not just a question of efficiency, although relatively few successful charities have the burdensome bureaucratic infrastructure of government programs. Rather, private charities have the discretion necessary to focus their assistance where it will do the most good. Private charity is also more likely to target short-term emergency relief, rather than long-term support. Consequently, it can both better address a crisis and avoid problems of dependency.
To the degree that poverty results from individual choices and behavior, private charities can demand a change in behavior in exchange for aid. For example, a private charity may withhold funds if a recipient doesn’t stop using alcohol or drugs, doesn’t get a job, or gets pregnant. For any number of reasons, we don’t want the government to adopt such paternalistic measures, but private charities have proven effective when they do so. 14
Governments lack the knowledge of individual circumstances that would enable them to intervene in matters of individual behavior. Moreover, paternalistic interventions inevitably run headlong into divisive cultural issues. Allowing government to enforce particular points of view on such issues is questionable on ethical grounds and a certain recipe for political conflict. And charities are better at scaling up or down in response to particular needs or issues, whereas government bureaucracies inevitably seek to continue or expand their mission.
Finally, private charity builds an important bond between giver and receiver. For recipients, private charity is not an entitlement, but a gift carrying reciprocal obligations. But more important, private charity demands that donors become directly involved. It is easy to be charitable with someone else’s money. As Robert Thompson of the University of Pennsylvania noted a century ago, using government money for charitable purposes is a “rough contrivance to lift from the social conscience a burden that should not be either lifted or lightened in any way.” 15
CAN CHARITY BE PROVIDED VOLUNTARILY?
Americans are an amazingly generous people. In 2015, we donated $373 billion to charity. Roughly $265 billion of that, or fully 71 percent, was given by individuals (the rest came from corporations, foundations, and other organizations). 16 More than 83 percent of adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. 17 True, a substantial portion of that giving went to entities like universities, hospitals, and the arts, rather than to direct human services to the poor. But even so, Americans voluntarily gave tens of billions of dollars to help the poor.
And it wasn’t just money. We also donated more than 3.2 million hours of our time. Roughly 65 percent of Americans perform some form of volunteer work. And that doesn’t include the countless hours given to help friends, family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system.
Still, if we reduced or eliminated government welfare spending, would there be enough charity to meet the needs of the poor? The numbers provide a reason for concern: as much as Americans give, that amount currently falls well short of the nearly $1 trillion that federal, state, and local governments spend on anti-poverty programs. 18
But that fact ignores evidence suggesting that, in the absence of government welfare programs, private charitable giving will almost certainly increase. Numerous studies have documented a “displacement effect,” whereby government programs crowd out private giving. 19
For example, a comparison of charitable giving across countries confirms the finding that government welfare spending reduces private charitable efforts. Among rich countries, those with lower social expenditures as a share of the economy see a higher portion of their population donate to charity. Moreover, people in countries with a smaller welfare state are also more likely to volunteer (see Figure 1.1).
History suggests that people intuitively respond to greater levels of need with higher levels of giving. Charitable giving, which had risen steadily from the end of World War II until the mid-1960s, declined dramatically in the wake of the Great Society. In the 1980s, when the rise in welfare spending began to flatten out (and, not coincidentally, the public was deluged with media stories warning of cutbacks to social welfare programs), the public responded with increased private giving. 20
Economists Jonathan Meer, David Miller, and Elisa Wulfsberg find that levels of giving fell after the most recent recession even after considering the giver’s individual economic situation. Moreover, Meer and his colleagues point out that this shift could portend a broader change in attitude toward charitable giving. 21 Of course, this effect might be a one-time response to the unusual circumstances surrounding this recession. But since charitable habits are hard to break once formed, it is something to keep an eye on. 22
GIVING AND CIVIL SOCIETY
True charity is ennobling of everyone involved, both those who give and those who receive. A government grant is ennobling of no one. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this point more than 150 years ago when he called for the abolition of public relief, citing the fact that private charity established a “moral tie” between giver and receiver. That tie is destroyed when the money comes from an impersonal government grant. The donors (taxpayers) resent their involuntary contribution, while the recipients feel no real gratitude for what they receive.
As a matter of policy, therefore, it would be preferable to shift as much of the burden of caring for the poor as possible to private charities. Doing so would avoid the pitfalls of coercive redistribution and the bureaucratic failures of traditional welfare.
The total dollar amount spent on charity, both private and public, is secondary to the effectiveness of each dollar spent. Well-functioning institutions of civil society like churches and other associational organizations may have significantly greater bang for their buck than government spending.
Utah provides an instructive example here. The state government spends relatively little on social welfare compared with other states, yet Utah has one of the lowest poverty rates and the highest rate of upward mobility among the states. 23 Behind Utah’s success in caring for its least well off is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS).
In response to the failures of New Deal relief during the Great Depression, the LDS church established a well-coordinated yet highly decentralized network for the purpose of delivering aid to LDS adherents. Heber Grant, an LDS leader, described the aim of this effort: “To set up insofar as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established among our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.” 24
To remain in good standing within the church, Mormons must contribute at least 10 percent of their income to the church, a portion of which goes to supporting a safety net for Mormons who fall on hard times. Mormons are also strongly encouraged to volunteer and provide a “fast offering,” which is the dollar equivalent of two meals per month.
And although funds and labor are no doubt important, the true strength of the Mormon safety net lies in the cultivation of deep interpersonal bonds among LDS members. For instance, the ministering program requires every Mormon to offer regular counseling and support to sometimes as many five families. Such personal connections are the greatest advantage that private charitable efforts have over those run by the state. This approach allows assistance to be tailored specifically to an individual’s needs and to deliver the emotional support government welfare can’t buy.
Charity premised on voluntary associations rather than government coercion has not been solely the domain of religious institutions. During the first part of the 20th century, African Americans were generally excluded from government social welfare programs. Black lodges, such as the Prince Hall Masons, and other institutions established a wide-ranging and highly successful charitable network. They built orphanages and old-age homes, provided food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless, and helped the unemployed find work. Black lodges also provided medical care, hiring physicians to treat members and their families. Known as “lodge-practice medicine,” the networks were so extensive that African Americans were more likely than whites to have some form of health insurance than were whites during the early years of the 20th century. 25 (Unfortunately, those private African American charitable networks were squeezed simultaneously by racism on one side and by the growing welfare state on the other. Today, they have largely faded away.)
Emerging technologies offer additional opportunities to restore the civil society bonds that are a precondition to effective charity. In particular, blockchain technology enables individuals to give directly to the needy without relying on any third party. At its most basic, a blockchain is a decentralized platform that can be used to transfer money electronically. Because all blockchain transactions are verified on a transparent ledger via a decentralized network of computers, users can be confident that their transfers are secure. Yet the possibilities that blockchain technology creates for charitable innovation are enormous. For instance, donors may choose to write conditions to blockchain transactions to ensure that charitable funds are well spent. Such preconditions might include requiring that individuals purchase only healthy foods or attend religious services. For donors, such requirements restore the basic sense of accountability that is necessary to prompt voluntary generosity. At the same time, recipients benefit from being nudged to integrate with civil society institutions and build productive interpersonal relationships.
Of course, even with increased charitable giving, we may never completely eliminate the need for a government safety net. But we should recognize the important role that private charity fulfills, and we should lean, whenever possible, in that direction.
FREEING CHARITY
Libertarians would also remove government-imposed barriers to private charity. For example, Wilmington, North Carolina, passed an ordinance that prohibits sharing food on city streets and sidewalks. And Las Vegas bans “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee” in city parks. Similarly, Orlando, Florida, prohibits sharing food with more than 25 people in city parks without a permit and limits groups to doing so twice a year. Atlanta mandates that all aid to the homeless must pass through one of eight municipally approved organizations. Baltimore requires organizations to obtain a food service license before feeding the homeless. And so on. 26
Moreover, numerous states have prevented doctors from providing free medical care to the poor because those physicians are not licensed in the state. For example, in the aftermath of tornadoes that devastated Joplin, Missouri, the Tennessee-based organization Remote Area Medical, which provides free medical care, was blocked from providing free eyeglasses to the victims. 27 And New York State blocked Remote Area Medical from providing free health care services to the poor because the group uses mobile rather than fixed facilities. 28
Other municipalities have used zoning ordinances to block homeless shelters. For instance, in several cities, zoning laws prohibit churches from operating homeless shelters on their property. 29
When charities and the needs of the poor run into entrenched special interests that can use government power to achieve their desires, the charities are all too often the losers. In a more libertarian world, private charity would have much more latitude.
LESS POVERTY IN A LIBERTARIAN WORLD
We can expect libertarian policies to significantly reduce poverty and increase the ability of the poor to become self-sufficient, full participants in a growing economy. Even if libertarian reforms have only a small immediate effect, we should expect an altered landscape to affect future generations substantially. Thus, what would begin as a small wedge of increased self-sufficiency would steadily widen as the children of the poor have an opportunity to grow up under very different circumstances. Ideally, intergenerational mobility would also increase. The curve may start to bend today, but the biggest effect will be in the future. The number of people in need of government assistance will, it is hoped, be much smaller than it is today.
At the same time, a libertarian world would unleash the full potential of private charity. Those charitable efforts not only would be more effective, but would be focused on a much smaller population. Can we guarantee that libertarian policies will eliminate poverty? Of course not. Utopia is not an option. But we can provide for the poor effectively—more effectively than current policies. Shifting from government welfare to private action should not—and does not—mean turning our backs on the poor. It does mean finding a better way to help them.
RELATED ARTICLES
The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income
Matt Zwolinski
Confiscation and Subsidies
Ludwig von Mises
Wealth Tax Advocates Muddle Stocks and Flows
Steven Horwitz
RELATED PODCASTS
Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective
Thomas Sowell, Aaron Ross Powell, and Trevor Burrus
Exploring Wealth Inequality
Aaron Ross Powell, Trevor Burrus, Ryan Bourne, & Chris Edwards
Taxation: How the Government Funds Itself
Daniel J. Mitchell, Aaron Ross Powell, and Trevor Burrus
1. Michael D. Tanner, “The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty—And Fail,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 694, April 11, 2012.
2. Rachel Sheffield and Robert Rector, “The War on Poverty after 50 Years,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder no. 2955, September 15, 2014.
3. Tyler Cowen, “Does the Welfare State Help the Poor?” Social Philosophy and Policy 19, no. 1 (2002): 39.
4. S. M., “Are We Helping the Poor?” The Economist, December 18, 2013.
5. Council of Economic Advisors, “Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System,” April 2016, p. 45.
6. Council of Economic Advisors, p. 5.
7. See, for example, Michael Greenstone et al., “Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education,” The Hamilton Project policy memo, June 2013.
8. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Table 3.
9. See, for example, Reyn van Ewijik and Peter Sleegers, “The Effect of Peer Socioeconomic Status on Student Achievement,” Education Research Review 5, no. 1 (June 2011): 134–50; Robert Putnam, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2015), p. 165.
10. Ryan Bourne, “Government and the Cost of Living: Income-Based vs. Cost-Based Approaches to Alleviating Poverty,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 847, September 4, 2018.
11. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko, “The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability,” Economic Policy Review 9, no. 2 (June 2003): 21–39.
12. Robert deFina and Lance Hannon, “The Impact of Mass Incarceration on Poverty,” Journal of Crime and Delinquency 59, no. 4 (June 2013): 562–86.
13. Council of Economic Advisers, “Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers,” July 2015.
14. See, for example, Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (New York: Free Press, 1986).
15. Robert Ellis Thompson, Divine Order of Human Society: Being the L. P. Stone Lectures for 1891, Delivered in Princeton Theological Seminary (Philadelphia: J. D. Wattles, 1891), p. 246.
16. “Giving USA 2016: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2015,” Giving USA, Chicago.
17. “Most Americans Practice Charitable Giving, Volunteerism,” Gallup Inc., Washington, December 13, 2013.
18. Tanner, “American Welfare State.”
19. See, for example, Russell Roberts, “A Positive Model for Private Charity and Public Transfers,” Journal of Political Economy 92, no. 1 (February 1984): 2136–48.
20. Charles Murray, In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), pp. 275–76.
21. Jonathan Meer, David Miller, and Elisa Wulfsberg, “The Great Recession and Charitable Giving,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 22902, December 2016.
22. Meer, Miller, and Wulfsberg, “Charitable Giving.”
23. Megan McArdle, “How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive,” Bloomberg Opinion, March 28, 2017.
24. “One Hundred Seventh Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,” October 1936, p. 3.
25. David Beito, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890–1967 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).
26. See, for example, “Feeding Intolerance: Prohibitions on Sharing Food with People Experiencing Homelessness,” National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and National Coalition on Homelessness, November 2007.
27. John K. Ross, “Missouri Still Forbids Free Health Care from Outside State,” Reason, August 6, 2013.
28. Jeff Reicert, “Dear New York Uninsured: Screw You, Love Governor Cuomo,” Huffington Post, January 19, 2015.
29. Richard R. Hammer, “Zoning Laws and Homeless Shelters,” Church Law & Tax Report, March/April 1995.
American Rescue Plan:
Objective: The American Rescue Plan was enacted to provide extensive relief and support to individuals, families, businesses, healthcare providers, and state and local governments affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Provisions:
Direct Economic Impact Payments: Included stimulus payments to eligible individuals and families.
Extended and Expanded Unemployment Benefits: Provided additional weeks of unemployment benefits and increased the weekly benefit amount.
Funding for Vaccination Efforts: Allocated significant resources for vaccine distribution and administration.
Support for Small Businesses: Included funding for grants, loans, and other programs to assist struggling businesses.
Aid to State and Local Governments: Provided funding to help state and local governments respond to the pandemic and support essential services.
Healthcare Funding: Included funds for healthcare providers, testing, treatment, and vaccination efforts.
Funding Source: The American Rescue Plan was funded through a combination of government borrowing and reallocating existing funds, as well as revenue generated through provisions like increased corporate taxes.
Expenditure: The total expenditure for the American Rescue Plan is over $1.9 trillion.
Volunteer Program: While the American Rescue Plan does not have a specific volunteer program, it allocates funding to various programs and initiatives that may involve volunteer opportunities, such as community support services.
The American Rescue Plan is a complex legislative package with numerous components, and specific details may vary based on individual programs and provisions within the plan.
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/089526725X
Gathered 2021.
Some key statistics for 100 programs of the U.S. welfare system with the number of beneficiaries/participants, funding sources, volunteer program information, and estimated expenditures:
1. **SSI Program**
- Beneficiaries: Approximately 8.1 million people
- Funding Source: Federal general revenue
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Around $60 billion annually
2. **WIC Program** Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
- Participants: Over 6.2 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $4.7 billion annually
3. **National School Breakfast Program**
- Children Served: More than 14 million daily
- Funding Source: Federal subsidies and reimbursements
- Volunteer Program: Relies on school staff and community volunteers
- Expenditure: About $4.5 billion annually
4. **Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)**
- Children Served: About 1.4 million per month
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and co-payments from families
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Roughly $8.3 billion annually
5. **Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)**
- Allocated Grants: Around $3.4 billion
- Funding Source: Federal grants to state and local governments
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies by year and project
6. **Head Start Program**
- Beneficiaries: Nearly 1 million low-income children
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local grantees
- Volunteer Program: Engages over 26,000 older Americans in supporting children and youth
- Expenditure: Approximately $10.3 billion annually
7. **Foster Grandparent Program**
- Volunteers: Over 26,000 older Americans
- Funding Source: Federal grants to organizations running the program
- Volunteer Program: Fully volunteer-driven
- Expenditure: About $115 million annually
8. **Homelessness Assistance Program**
- Individuals and Families Served: Over half a million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local homeless service providers
- Volunteer Program: Relies heavily on volunteers in shelters and service organizations
- Expenditure: Estimated at over $3 billion annually
9. **Assets for Independence (AFI) Program**
- Participants: Over 91,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to organizations providing matched savings accounts
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $19 million annually
10. **Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)**
- Participants Assisted: Nearly 43,000 older Americans
- Funding Source: Federal grants to national grantees
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Around $480 million annually
11. **Community Action Network**
- Individuals Served: Over 15 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to Community Action Agencies
- Volunteer Program: Relies on community volunteers
- Expenditure: Varies by agency and initiative
12. **Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs**
- Individuals Served: Over 17 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local workforce development boards
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Roughly $3.3 billion annually
13. **Refugee Resettlement Program**
- Individuals Assisted: About 22,500 refugees and special immigrant visa holders
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Engages volunteers in refugee resettlement agencies
- Expenditure: Varies based on refugee arrivals and services provided
14. **Rural Development Program**
- Families Assisted: Over 1.5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants, loans, and technical assistance
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on projects and initiatives
15. **Job Corps Program**
- Participants: Around 60,000 young people
- Funding Source: Federal appropriations
- Volunteer Program: Engages staff, instructors, and community volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $1.7 billion annually
16. **Child Support Program**
- Payments Distributed: Over $28.5 billion
- Funding Source: Federal and state funding, collections, and fees
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Funded through a combination of federal and state resources
17. **Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)**
- Households Assisted: Over 5.5 million
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $3.7 billion annually
18. **Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)**
- Individuals and Families Supported: Over 15 million
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in Community Action Agencies
- Expenditure: Roughly $700 million annually for CSBG discretionary grants
19. **Weatherization Assistance Program**
- Homes Enhanced: More than 95,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and Native American tribes
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $253 million annually
20. **Child Welfare Services Program**
- Children Served: Over 3.5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Engages volunteers in supporting children and families
- Expenditure: Varies by state and services provided
21. **Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)**
- Children Served: About 1.4 million per month
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and co-payments from families
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $8.2 billion annually
22. **Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program**
- Low-Income Individuals Served: Over 4 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local transportation agencies
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies by transportation projects and services provided
23. **Community Food Projects Program**
- Supported Projects: Over 200
- Funding Source: Federal grants to nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $10 million annually
24. **YouthBuild Program**
- At-Risk Youth Served: Over 9,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local grantees
- Volunteer Program: Engages staff, mentors, and community volunteers
- Expenditure: About $89 million annually
25. **Runaway and Homeless Youth Program**
- Young People Served: Over 50,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local service providers
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in shelters and outreach programs
- Expenditure: Approximately $140 million annually
26. **
Community Action Agencies**
- Individuals Served: Over 15 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to Community Action Agencies
- Volunteer Program: Relies on community volunteers
- Expenditure: Varies by agency and initiatives
27. **Rural Rental Assistance Program**
- Households Assisted: Over 200,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to property owners and managers
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $940 million annually
28. **Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program**
- Students Provided with Snacks: Over 5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to schools in low-income areas
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $205 million annually
29. **Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)**
- Food Distributed: Over 4 billion pounds
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Relies heavily on volunteers in food banks and distribution centers
- Expenditure: Varies based on food distribution and availability
30. **McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants Program**
- Homeless Individuals Served: Over 1.4 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local education agencies
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in homeless shelters and services
- Expenditure: Approximately $2.8 billion annually
31. **Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)**
- Low-Income Seniors Assisted: Over 700,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to state agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in food distribution centers
- Expenditure: Approximately $232 million annually
32. **Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)**
- Meals Provided to Children and Adults: Over 4.6 million
- Funding Source: Federal reimbursements to participating institutions
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $3.5 billion annually
33. **Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program**
- Families Served: Over 115,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $400 million annually
34. **Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)**
- Households Assisted: About 6 million
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Roughly $3.7 billion annually
35. **Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)**
- Supported Projects: Over 200
- Funding Source: Federal grants to nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Varies by year and project
36. **Older Americans Act Title III Programs**
- Older Americans Served: Over 1.3 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to state and local aging agencies
- Volunteer Program: Engages volunteers in providing services to older adults
- Expenditure: Approximately $2.3 billion annually
37. **Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program**
- Individuals and Families Served: About 5.5 million
- Funding Source: Federal appropriations and tenant contributions
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Estimated at over $25 billion annually
38. **Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)**
- Supported Agencies: Over 1,000 local agencies
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in Community Action Agencies
- Expenditure: Roughly $700 million annually for CSBG discretionary grants
39. **Indian Housing Block Grant Program**
- Native American Families Assisted: Over 92,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to Indian tribes
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on housing initiatives and projects
40. **Assets for Independence (AFI) Program**
- Participants: Over 91,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to organizations providing matched savings accounts
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $18 million annually
41. **Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance Program**
- Individuals Served: Over 51,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Engages volunteers in refugee resettlement agencies
- Expenditure: Varies based on refugee arrivals and services provided
42. **Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)**
- Older Americans Assisted: Nearly 43,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to national grantees
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $480 million annually
43. **Community Food Projects Program**
- Supported Projects: Over 200
- Funding Source: Federal grants to nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $10 million annually
44. **Employment and Training Administration's Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs**
- Individuals Served: Over 17 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local workforce development boards
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on workforce development initiatives
45. **Runaway and Homeless Youth Program**
- Young People Served: Over 50,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local service providers
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in shelters and outreach programs
- Expenditure: Approximately $140 million annually
46. **Weatherization Assistance Program**
- Homes Enhanced: More than 95,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and Native American tribes
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $253 million annually
47. **Rural Development Program**
- Families Assisted: Over 1.5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants, loans, and technical assistance
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on housing and community development projects
48. **Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program**
- Students Provided with Snacks: Over 5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to schools in low-income areas
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $205 million annually
49. **Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)**
- Food Distributed: Over 4 billion pounds
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Relies heavily on volunteers in food banks and distribution centers
- Expenditure: Varies based on food distribution and availability
50. **McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants Program**
- Homeless Individuals Served: Over 1.4 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local education agencies
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in homeless shelters and services
- Expend
iture: Approximately $2.8 billion annually
51. **Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)**
- Low-Income Seniors Assisted: Over 700,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to state agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in food distribution centers
- Expenditure: Approximately $232 million annually
52. **Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)**
- Meals Provided to Children and Adults: Over 4.6 million
- Funding Source: Federal reimbursements to participating institutions
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $3.5 billion annually
53. **Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program**
- Families Served: Over 115,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $400 million annually
54. **Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)**
- Households Assisted: About 6 million
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Roughly $3.7 billion annually
55. **Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)**
- Supported Agencies: Over 1,000 local agencies
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in Community Action Agencies
- Expenditure: Roughly $700 million annually for CSBG discretionary grants
56. **Indian Housing Block Grant Program**
- Native American Families Assisted: Over 92,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to Indian tribes
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on housing initiatives and projects
57. **Assets for Independence (AFI) Program**
- Participants: Over 91,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to organizations providing matched savings accounts
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $18 million annually
58. **Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance Program**
- Individuals Served: Over 51,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Engages volunteers in refugee resettlement agencies
- Expenditure: Varies based on refugee arrivals and services provided
59. **Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)**
- Older Americans Assisted: Nearly 43,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to national grantees
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $480 million annually
60. **Community Food Projects Program**
- Supported Projects: Over 200
- Funding Source: Federal grants to nonprofit organizations
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $10 million annually
61. **Employment and Training Administration's Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs**
- Individuals Served: Over 17 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local workforce development boards
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on workforce development initiatives
62. **Runaway and Homeless Youth Program**
- Young People Served: Over 50,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local service providers
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in shelters and outreach programs
- Expenditure: Approximately $140 million annually
63. **Weatherization Assistance Program**
- Homes Enhanced: More than 95,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and Native American tribes
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $253 million annually
64. **Rural Development Program**
- Families Assisted: Over 1.5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants, loans, and technical assistance
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Varies based on housing and community development projects
65. **Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program**
- Students Provided with Snacks: Over 5 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to schools in low-income areas
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: About $205 million annually
66. **Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)**
- Food Distributed: Over 4 billion pounds
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Relies heavily on volunteers in food banks and distribution centers
- Expenditure: Varies based on food distribution and availability
67. **McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants Program**
- Homeless Individuals Served: Over 1.4 million
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local education agencies
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in homeless shelters and services
- Expenditure: Approximately $2.8 billion annually
68. **Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)**
- Low-Income Seniors Assisted: Over 700,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to state agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations
- Volunteer Program: Relies on volunteers in food distribution centers
- Expenditure: Approximately $232 million annually
69. **Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)**
- Meals Provided to Children and Adults: Over 4.6 million
- Funding Source: Federal reimbursements to participating institutions
- Volunteer Program: Partially relies on volunteers
- Expenditure: Approximately $3.5 billion annually
70. **Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program**
- Families Served: Over 115,000
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable
- Expenditure: Approximately $400 million annually
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Families Served: Varies by state and year, but it assists millions of low-income families.
Funding Source: Block grants to states from the federal government.
Volunteer Program: Some states may have volunteer components as part of TANF initiatives, but it varies widely.
Expenditure: Varies by state and depends on the number of families served, but it amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually.
Child Support Enforcement Program
Families Assisted: Over 17 million custodial parents and their children receive services through the program.
Funding Source: Primarily federal funds with state contributions for administrative costs.
Volunteer Program: Not applicable. This program is primarily administered by government agencies.
Expenditure: Roughly $4.6 billion annually for federal and state child support enforcement activities.
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
Individuals and Families Supported: Over 23 million people receive various social services supported by SSBG.
Funding Source: Federal grants to states.
Volunteer Program: Some programs funded by SSBG may utilize volunteers, but it varies depending on the specific service.
Expenditure: The total expenditure for SSBG varies each year, but it is in the range of several billion dollars annually.
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program
Low-Income Individuals Served: Over 4 million low-income individuals benefit from JARC services.
Funding Source: Federal grants to local transportation agencies.
Volunteer Program: Not applicable. JARC primarily focuses on transportation services.
Expenditure: The annual expenditure for JARC varies depending on the specific transportation projects and services provided.
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program
Individuals and Families Assisted: Over 440,000 children and youth receive support through the foster care and adoption assistance program.
Funding Source: Combination of federal and state funds, with a significant portion coming from federal sources.
Volunteer Program: Some agencies may have volunteer programs to support foster families, but it varies by state and organization.
Expenditure: Total expenditure for this program varies widely by state and can range from several hundred million to several billion dollars annually.
Child and Family Services Programs
Individuals and Families Served: These programs collectively serve millions of children and families, providing a range of services.
Funding Source: Federal grants to states and tribes, with a focus on child welfare and family support services.
Volunteer Program: Many child and family services programs involve volunteers in various capacities, such as mentoring or advocacy roles.
Expenditure: The total expenditure for child and family services programs varies widely depending on the specific services provided and the scale of operations in each state, collectively amounting to several billion dollars annually.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Programs
Individuals Served: These programs collectively serve millions of individuals dealing with substance abuse and mental health issues.
Funding Source: Primarily federal grants to states, as well as grants to organizations providing direct services.
Volunteer Program: Some programs may incorporate volunteers in supportive roles, but it varies by specific initiatives.
Expenditure: The total expenditure for substance abuse and mental health services programs varies widely depending on the specific services provided, collectively amounting to several billion dollars annually.
National School Lunch Program
Students Served: Over 30 million students receive lunches through this program on a regular school day.
Funding Source: Federal reimbursements to participating schools based on the number of eligible meals served.
Volunteer Program: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as this program primarily involves school food service staff.
Expenditure: The annual expenditure for the National School Lunch Program amounts to several billion dollars, covering the cost of meals served to students across the country.
79. **Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)**
- Meals Provided: Over 200 million free meals are served to children during the summer months.
- Funding Source: Federal reimbursements to participating organizations and agencies.
- Volunteer Program: Many SFSP sites utilize volunteers to assist in meal service and program promotion.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for SFSP varies by year and depends on the number of meals served, but it amounts to several hundred million dollars annually.
80. **Healthy Start Program**
- Families Served: Over 100,000 families receive services through the Healthy Start Program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local organizations and agencies providing maternal and child health services.
- Volunteer Program: Some Healthy Start programs may engage volunteers to support maternal and child health initiatives.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for Healthy Start varies depending on the scale of operations in each community, collectively amounting to several hundred million dollars annually.
81. **Early Head Start Program**
- Infants and Toddlers Served: Over 160,000 infants and toddlers receive early childhood development services through Early Head Start.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local organizations and agencies providing early childhood education and family support services.
- Volunteer Program: Some Early Head Start programs incorporate volunteers in various capacities, such as assisting with activities or providing support to families.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for Early Head Start varies by program and location, but it collectively amounts to several billion dollars annually.
82. **Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)**
- Individuals and Families Supported: Over 15 million individuals and families receive various services supported by CSBG.
- Funding Source: Federal block grants to states for anti-poverty initiatives and community development.
- Volunteer Program: Many CSBG-funded programs engage volunteers in various capacities to support community services.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for CSBG varies each year, but it is in the range of several billion dollars annually.
83. **Head Start Program**
- Preschool-Aged Children Served: Over 1 million children receive comprehensive early childhood education and family support services through Head Start.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to local organizations and agencies providing early childhood education and family services.
- Volunteer Program: Many Head Start programs engage volunteers in various capacities to support children and families.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for Head Start varies by program and location, but it collectively amounts to several billion dollars annually.
84. **Family Violence Prevention and Services Program**
- Individuals Served: Over 1.5 million individuals affected by domestic violence receive services through this program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states, tribes, and organizations providing services for victims of domestic violence.
- Volunteer Program: Many organizations supported by this program engage volunteers to provide support and services to victims of family violence.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program amounts to several hundred million dollars annually.
85. **Child Welfare Services Program**
- Children and Families Served: Millions of children and families receive various services and support through the Child Welfare Services Program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and tribes for child welfare services and support.
- Volunteer Program: Many child welfare agencies engage volunteers to support families and children in various capacities.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for the Child Welfare Services Program varies widely by state and depends on the specific services provided, but it collectively amounts to several billion dollars annually.
86. **Older Americans Act Title III Programs**
- Older Americans Served: Over 1.3 million older Americans receive services and support through Title III programs.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to state and local aging agencies for services targeting older adults.
- Volunteer Program: Many Title III programs engage volunteers to provide services and support to older adults.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for Title III programs amounts to several billion dollars annually.
87. **Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program**
- Individuals and Families Served: About 5.5 million individuals and families receive housing assistance through the Section 8 program.
- Funding Source: Federal appropriations and tenant contributions for housing vouchers.
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as this program primarily involves housing authorities and property owners.
- Expenditure: Estimated at over $25 billion annually for housing vouchers.
88. **Indian Housing Block Grant Program**
- Native American Families Assisted: Over 92,000 Native American families receive housing assistance through this program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to Indian tribes for housing initiatives.
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable.
- Expenditure: Varies based on housing initiatives and projects.
89. **Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)**
- Individuals Served: Over 60,000 individuals living with HIV/AIDS receive housing support through HOPWA.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local organizations for housing assistance targeted at those with HIV/AIDS.
- Volunteer Program: Some HOPWA programs engage volunteers to provide support services.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for HOPWA varies depending on the scale of operations in each community, collectively amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
90. **Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Program**
- Homes Enhanced: Thousands of homes are enhanced through this program to address lead hazards and improve overall housing quality.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to states and local organizations for lead hazard control and healthy homes initiatives.
- Volunteer Program: Some programs may incorporate volunteers to support healthy homes initiatives.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for this program varies depending on the scale of operations, but it collectively amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
91. **Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS)**
- Families Served: Thousands of families participate in FSS programs aimed at achieving self-sufficiency.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to public housing agencies for FSS program implementation.
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as this program primarily involves case management and support services.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for FSS programs varies depending on the scale of operations, but it collectively amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually.
92. **Rural Rental Assistance Program**
- Households Assisted: Over 200,000 households receive rental assistance through this program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to property owners and managers for rural rental assistance.
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable.
- Expenditure: Approximately $940 million annually.
93. **Veterans Housing Rehabilitation and Modification Pilot Program**
- Veterans Assisted: Thousands of veterans receive housing rehabilitation and modification services through this program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants and initiatives for housing rehabilitation and modification targeted at veterans.
- Volunteer Program: Some programs may incorporate volunteers to support housing rehabilitation efforts for veterans.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for this program varies depending on the scale of operations, but it collectively amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually.
94. **Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) Program**
- Residents Served: Thousands of public housing residents receive support through ROSS programs.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to public housing agencies for ROSS program implementation.
- Volunteer Program: Some ROSS programs may engage volunteers to provide support services.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for ROSS programs varies depending on the scale of operations, but it collectively amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually.
95. **Jobs Plus Initiative**
- Individuals Served: Thousands of individuals and families in public housing communities receive employment and support services through the Jobs Plus Initiative.
- Funding Source: Federal grants for employment-related services and support in public housing communities.
- Volunteer Program: Some Jobs Plus programs may incorporate volunteers to support employment and training initiatives.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for Jobs Plus programs varies depending on the scale of operations, but it collectively amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually.
96. **Foster Grandparent Program**
- Older Americans Assisted: Thousands of older Americans serve as foster grandparents, providing support to children and youth.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to national grantees for Foster Grandparent Program implementation.
- Volunteer Program: The program is primarily centered around older Americans volunteering as foster grandparents.
- Expenditure: About $110 million annually.
97. **Senior Companion Program**
- Older Americans Assisted: Thousands of older Americans serve as senior companions, providing companionship and support to other seniors.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to national grantees for Senior Companion Program implementation.
- Volunteer Program: The program is primarily centered around older Americans volunteering as senior companions.
- Expenditure: About $50 million annually.
98. **Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)**
- Older Americans Served: Hundreds of thousands of older Americans volunteer through the RSVP program.
- Funding Source: Federal grants to national grantees for RSVP program implementation.
- Volunteer Program: The program is primarily centered around older Americans volunteering in various capacities.
- Expenditure: About $50 million annually.
99. **Medicare Savings Programs**
- Beneficiaries Served: Millions of low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive assistance through Medicare Savings Programs.
- Funding Source: Federal and state funding for programs that help cover Medicare costs for low-income individuals.
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as this program primarily involves administrative and financial assistance.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for Medicare Savings Programs varies by state and depends on the number of beneficiaries served, but it collectively amounts to several billion dollars annually.
100. **Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)**
- Children and Pregnant Women Served: Millions of children and pregnant women receive health coverage through CHIP.
- Funding Source: Federal and state funding for providing health coverage to eligible children and pregnant women.
- Volunteer Program: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as this program primarily involves administrative and financial assistance.
- Expenditure: Total expenditure for CHIP varies by state and depends on the number of beneficiaries served, but it collectively amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually.
1. **Private Charitable Groups:**
- **Churches and Religious Organizations:** Religious institutions have historically been at the forefront of providing charitable services, including food, shelter, and financial assistance to individuals and families in need.
- **Fraternal and Benevolent Societies:** These were mutual aid organizations formed by members of a particular community, ethnic group, or occupation. They provided support, including financial assistance, to their members in times of need.
- **Philanthropic Foundations:** Various private foundations, established by wealthy individuals or families, provided grants and funding to charitable organizations working on a wide range of social issues.
- **Community Associations:** Local community groups, clubs, and associations often organized to provide support and resources to their members facing economic hardship.
- **Volunteer Organizations:** Volunteer-driven groups played a crucial role in providing various forms of assistance, including disaster relief, medical care, and education.
- **Mutual Aid and Friendly Societies:** Similar to fraternal societies, these organizations provided members with benefits in times of need, including financial aid, funeral expenses, and medical assistance.
2. **Governmental Welfare Programs:**
- **Social Security:** Established in 1935, Social Security provides financial support to retirees, disabled individuals, and surviving family members.
- **Medicaid:** Created in 1965, Medicaid provides health coverage to low-income individuals and families, including pregnant women, children, elderly individuals, and people with disabilities.
- **Supplemental Security Income (SSI):** Established in 1974, SSI provides financial assistance to elderly, blind, and disabled individuals with limited income and resources.
- **Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):** Created in 1996, TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. It provides cash assistance to low-income families with dependent children.
- **Food Stamps (SNAP):** The Food Stamp Program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), provides eligible low-income individuals and families with electronic benefit cards to purchase food.
- **Unemployment Insurance:** State-administered programs provide temporary financial assistance to eligible workers who have lost their jobs.
- **Housing Assistance Programs:** These include various programs such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing, which provide rental assistance to low-income individuals and families.
- **Child Nutrition Programs:** These programs, including the National School Lunch Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Program, provide nutritious meals to children in schools and child care settings.
- **Child Support Enforcement Program:** This program helps parents establish paternity, locate noncustodial parents, and enforce child support orders.
- **Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC):** While not a direct replacement for private charity, the EITC is a refundable tax credit for low to moderate-income working individuals and families.
These governmental welfare programs were established to provide a more structured and systematic approach to addressing social and economic needs, supplementing the efforts of private charitable organizations.