'War on Poverty' needs new intention: Reversing poverty requires investment in human capital

Maximizing the prosperity of any city or municipality is essentially what its leaders and elected officials are charged with accomplishing. Efforts to attract new businesses, reduce crime, improve educational opportunities, beautify communities, etc., all serve to enhance a community’s prosperity because prosperity encompasses financial well-being as well the overall quality of life.

Economic development is for naught if the area’s residents are not in a position to patronize the stores, restaurants and entertainment venues available to them. An improved business community and an influx of residential developments in lower income areas are necessary for progress and should be established; however, if the residents are unable to afford to live in the new housing or patronize the new businesses, gentrification is more likely to occur.

The outside-in approach where inner cities’ leadership facilitates the economic development of the business community and then expresses frustration with the lack of patronage from area residents makes for a fascinating juxtaposition. What is far more sensible is an inside-out approach that doesn’t abandon the economic development initiatives that are necessary for a vibrant community; but combines them with genuine investment in the most valuable capital an inner city has – its human capital.

Economic development in inner cities that solely focuses on the creation of businesses, restaurants and retail venues is incomplete. Authentic economic development does that, but it also includes efforts to expose residents to user-friendly information, ideas, principles and skills that can be used to increase their income, raise their quality of life and create prosperity.  The belief that low income residents are unwilling, indifferent or incapable of prospering is a faulty assumption that perpetuates poverty and invites gentrification.

An inside-out approach is based on the strong premise that within a community is a population of untapped potential poised to prosper if genuinely engaged with higher expectations, motivation and resources. Brilliant ideas for small businesses, books, inventions and a variety of vocational and professional careers are often unexpressed because many residents of inner city communities feel disenfranchised and a sense of fatalism that prevent them from dreaming; a prerequisite for prosperity.  

Affluent areas are magnets for large retailers, upscale malls, restaurants of all price ranges, performing arts and entertainment venues because the residents there are in the position to patronize them. For obvious reasons, leadership’s focus in these affluent areas is not on helping their already prosperous residents to improve their quality of life but to provide opportunities to enjoy it. A city’s offerings must match its residents’ wants and needs.

To that end, in order to successfully invest in maximizing the prosperity of the inner city, simultaneous efforts to invest in maximizing the prosperity of inner city residents, children and adults, must occur. An investment in human capital must be an integral factor in an inner city’s effort to create a vibrant, thriving urban community. This investment in human capital cannot be the business-as-usual provision of public assistance and referrals for services. That approach helps residents to manage their poverty, not rise above it.

Also, an authentic investment in human capital must not presume to know what is best for the residents. It must assume the role of a social archeologist determined to excavate the hidden treasure that inner city residents possess and to encourage their embrace of the out-of-the-box thinking and action required for achieving dreams. 

In order for an inner city to thrive, there must be a collective embrace of its residents’ inner wisdom, inner gifts and inner purpose and the provision of sincere guidance and instruction on how to activate them. 

The alleviation of poverty begins with the belief that each person has a life purpose and that pursuing it is the most effective strategy for creating prosperity.

Michelle Hollinger is the president of The Institute for Authentic Social Work and the author of The ABCs of Authentic Work with Families, 7 Steps to Strengthen Your Family and The Sisterhood Exchange.  For more information, visit authenticsocialwork.org.

Where are the child welfare feminists?

The heart wrenching scene in the Oscar nominated ’12 Years a Slave’ where Eliza’s incessant crying over being separated from her children is met with coldness by the mistress is, unfortunately, an accurate depiction of how unsympathetic some women continue to be about the separation of poor, mostly black mothers from their children via the child welfare system. 

Just as the feminist movement came under fire during the civil rights movement because its efforts to secure rights for American women often neglected to address inequalities faced by women of color; women (mostly poor and black) whose lives are torn apart by the child welfare system have been left to their own devices by virtually every significant women’s group in this country.

A large percentage of the professionals calling the shots within the child welfare system are women, and many are not only OK with seeing low income women lose their children based on subjective guidelines, a significant number actually make many of the flawed decisions that sever parental ties.

If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would be hard pressed to believe that a female dependency judge would disrespectfully question a woman in open court about her reproductive habits; or rake a woman whose been battered by an abusive mate across the coals about her ability to keep her children safe. It takes blaming the victim to a whole new level when the person blaming the victim is another woman.

The nation’s child welfare system is significantly imbalanced. Far too many children come into the system when they could remain safely with their families. And many children whose families are not capable of keeping them safe are allowed to remain at home for reasons that frequently do not make sense. 

Presumptions about poor, mostly black families drive decisions to remove children, the majority of whom enter the system due to poverty-related issues that are lumped under the ambiguous label of “neglect.” Most of these families are headed by poor, single mothers whose unemployment, underemployment or dependence on public assistance affects their ability to consistently meet their families’ needs. 

Some of those unmet needs result in mothers - already stretched unbelievably thin - making survival decisions that some people find unacceptable enough to place a call to the abuse registry. A call that is ostensibly intended to help children and families instead prompts nightmarish experiences with double-standard fueled hoops through which poor parents must jump in order to regain custody of their children. 

Deciding between going to work OR attending a parenting skills class is an example of the ludicrous demands often placed on parents who must comply with the system’s requirements or face having their rights terminated in the pursuit of “permanency” for their children.

The fight to regain custody of children from the powerful child welfare system is one that low income families lose frequently. Court appointed legal representation is often nothing more than a suited body standing in court; in many cases having met the family for the first time just before the hearing. 

Guardians Ad Litem, the powerful volunteer child advocates that represent the “best interest” of the children sometimes lose sight of the fact that children fare better with their families, regardless of the zip code in which they live. And it is not uncommon, after a family has complied with the system’s mandates, for them to be informed that their child’s attachment to his/her foster parents must now be considered when determining whether their family will be reunified. 

In her brilliant, well-researched book, ‘Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare,’ University of Pennsylvania professor Dorothy Roberts spells out how poor black women are far more likely to have their children taken away than white women, even if the concerns that brought each family to the system’s attention were the same.

What the child welfare system does to many poor women is a travesty and it’s beyond time for women’s groups to pay attention. The system’s dysfunction perpetuates because of its legally sanctioned secrecy and its ability to hide behind the veil of “confidentiality.” Also, the general public assumes that when a family becomes involved with the system, it deserves to be there. That is frequently not the case. 

Michelle Hollinger is the president of The Institute for Authentic Social Work and the author of TheABCs of Authentic Work with Families and 7 Steps to Strengthen Your Family. Learn more about the Institute at www.authenticsocialwork.org.

Empathy, not antagonism, can save more children

The purpose of the child welfare/protection system is to keep children safe. In situations where children are not safe with their family, the system is charged with discovering the reason that they aren’t safe – and to help the family to fix it. If the unsafe situation is such that a child has already been harmed or is in imminent threat of harm – it may be necessary for the child to be removed from the home, placed in an alternate setting, ideally with relatives, and if that’s not possible, with a foster family. 

The alternate living arrangement for the child is intended to be temporary while the unsafe situation at home is made safe. If the situation cannot be made safe within a designated time frame, a permanent home for the child must be secured. 

That, essentially, is how the child welfare system is supposed to function. There are myriad dynamics affecting which children are removed from their families and which remain. Not all of the children removed faced situations so unsafe that maintaining them at home was detrimental to their well-being. 

Consider that when the child welfare/protection system becomes involved with a family, it is an especially difficult time in a family’s life. Simply by virtue of the fact that an outside entity with the legal authority to dismantle the family is involved makes it a scary encounter. Emotions are running high and parents are feeling vulnerable and defensive – normal human behavior. Add to the mix that this is very likely a neighborhood that has seen its share of children removed for seemingly innocuous, culturally accepted circumstances; (circumstances that a generation or two ago would not have been labeled abusive) and a parent’s fear is even more probable.

Enter an investigator who does not understand that a parent’s reaction regarding intervention has nothing to do with the investigator; that the anger and defiance are not necessarily resistance, but far more likely to be a mixture of fear, helplessness and distrust.

When the investigator responds to IT (the anger, defensiveness, fear), that’s an indication that the investigator doesn’t understand the importance of seeing beyond the behavior. When an investigator takes the parent’s response personally, the investigator loses sight of human behavior 101 and shifts his/her focus to addressing the reaction instead of attempting to defuse it. Further, when an investigator expects this behavior from “those people,” he/she could very well get caught up in the argument about the intervention – instead of getting to the intervention itself. 

This adversarial encounter has now become a barrier to the investigator actually learning more about the reason that they’re there in the first place. In some cases, a very fixable situation that posed no significant safety risk to a child has been masked by an encounter that is now the focus of child protection’s response and the basis for its subsequent decision. 

A parent’s instinctual response to what they perceive as a threat to their children is to protect their offspring with whatever response is necessary to remove the threat (a practice that humans applaud in the animal kingdom). It is a normal and healthy human response; however, when some parents exhibit it, the normal, healthy response is held against them. 

The investigator wields enormous power. How it is used can determine a family’s future. Unfortunately, that power is sometimes misused in order to achieve a quick resolution. Removing the child becomes the most expedient action because it allows the investigator to escape a “volatile” situation. Equally, if not more, distressing is the investigator that misuses his/her power to punish a parent for daring to express human emotions regarding the prospect of having their child taken from them.

The unnecessary removal of a child who could’ve remained safely with their family is a horrible outcome; however, it is an outcome that has occurred many, many times. One of the reasons that caseloads are so high is due to the number of children in the system that have no business there.

With an overloaded system, families that really are in dire straits but whose external appearance looks/sounds “normal,” and “cooperative,” are more likely to keep their children. Nice and cooperative do not equal safe just as angry and defiant do not equal unsafe!

Ideally, the investigator uses their power to de-escalate the situation by empathizing with the parent’s fear, helplessness, etc., and clearly explaining that they’re here to help, not hurt. “If I were in your situation, I think that I’d be angry/defensive/confused/fearful, too,” is one of the most empathetic, calming and equalizing statements an investigator can say to a parent. 

Even if the investigation reveals that a removal is warranted because of an unsafe environment, an investigator that takes the time to empathize with a distraught parent establishes an atmosphere of humanity and understanding that can become the foundation upon which the work to improve the family is built. 

Empathy and a solid assessment that gets to the family’s real issues are the starting points to ensuring true safety for children.

Michelle Hollinger is the founder of The Institute for Authentic Social Work and the author of ‘TheABCs of Authentic Work with Families’ and ‘7 Steps to Strengthen Your Family.’ Learn more about the Institute at www.authenticsocialwork.org.