Everyone Has a Story: A Reflection on 2012 Listening Sessions

Sometimes we meet people whose expressions and face momentarily stop us in our tracks, but we ignore the quiet invitation in their eyes to empathetically listen to their story. In the nonprofit and philanthropic world, this can too often be the case. Our tireless push to meet endless need, pressing deadlines and other urgent tasks which enable us to serve can pull our attention away from giving the person in front of us our undivided attention. Unfortunately, many people who experience poverty every day face marginalization within the various systems they encounter. Not only can this make them feel “invisible” when their voices are missing or intentionally overlooked, the organization loses out on important insights that can strengthen the effectiveness of their work. A recent Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring 2013 article Listening to Those Who Matter Most, the Beneficiaries states, “The views and experiences of the people who benefit from social programs are often overlooked and underappreciated, even though they are an invaluable source of insight into a program’s effectiveness” (p. 41).

Since 2010, the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina has listened directly to the voices of individuals and families through Listening Sessions. Our Listening Sessions engage families experiencing poverty by listening directly to their stories in the supportive presence of community stakeholders that walk alongside them each day. Structured differently than a grantee site visit, Listening Sessions create a collective space to engage individuals served with the primary focus on their perspectives. In 2012, three Listening Sessions were strategically designed to uplift the stories of individuals served by current Foundation grantees. The first Listening Session held in April 2012 in partnership with Helping and Lending Outreach Support (HALOS) in Charleston provided an opportunity to listen to the stories of kinship caregivers who live each day as the Unsung Heroes in the lives of children they care for. The second Listening Session in collaboration with the Puentes Project/PASOS in Columbia gave us the opportunity to hear from the Puentes Community Ambassadors who are compassionately leading as Bridges of Light in their communities. The third Listening Session held jointly with GRACE Ministries in Georgetown brought us face-to-face with home-bound and chronically ill senior citizens whose lives are Touched by Grace by the volunteers that serve them.

We listened deeply and empathetically to these statewide issues at a local level through the perspectives of individuals served, applying Grantmakers for Effective Organization’s (GEO) Widespread Empathy definition of empathy to our work. GEO defines empathy as “the ability to reach outside ourselves and connect in a deeper way with other people – to understand their experiences, to get where they are coming from, to feel what they feel” (p. 4). What we heard surprised us; and at times even moved us to tears as we listened to their struggles, hopes, and fears. We walked away reminded that everyone has a story. When we stop to listen empathetically to the experiences of those we serve, their stories can illuminate and inform the ways grantmakers and nonprofit organizations strategically respond to the remaining unmet need.

Read the 2012 Listening Session Summary, Everyone Has a Story.

Written By: Stephanie Cooper-Lewter, Ph.D., Senior Research Director

Latino Immigrant Families in South Carolina

Although South Carolina is a relatively new settlement area for Latino immigrants compared to other regions of the country, the State has experienced unprecedented growth in the Latino population over the past few decades. The most recent U.S. Census data show from 2000 to 2010, the South Carolina Hispanic population increased 148%. Between 2008 and 2010 in South Carolina, 88% of Latino children were citizens by birth, 65% lived in immigrant families, and 33% lived in linguistically isolated households. The Foundation hosted several Listening Sessions, site visits and meetings to inform our understanding of the impact of this trend, listening directly to the experiences of foreign-born and native-born Latinos from across the State.

Research shows Latino immigrant families in South Carolina often face economic hardship, educational challenges, and difficulty in accessing health care. In 2010, the median annual personal earnings for Hispanics in South Carolina was $18,000. During 2008-2010, 40% of South Carolina’s Latino families experienced poverty at the 100% poverty level, and 70% experienced poverty at the 200% poverty level. Of the more than 725,000 students enrolled during the 2010-2011 school year across South Carolina’s K-12 public schools, 6% were Latino. Although education is one of the greatest predictors for moving above the poverty line, Latino students across the State lag behind their white peers educationally, mirroring national trends in the majority of other states. 46% of Latinos are without health insurance in South Carolina; and nearly one out of every four Latino children go without adequate health care.

Our Foundation is committed to sharing knowledge on a range of issues that families experiencing poverty in South Carolina face. Our recently released Research Brief, Latino Immigrant Families in South Carolina, explores the above demographic changes and highlights eight themes that emerged through our research conversations with Latinos. These themes include motivation to migrate, making the journey, acculturation processes, shifting family expectations, multi-status families, economic hardships, educational challenges and health concerns. Building upon cultural strengths, increased family support services are needed to improve outcomes of Latino families across the State. Strategies employed to foster family resilience and strengthen Latino families should be implemented in culturally responsive and appropriate ways.

Continuing in the tradition of the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine, our Foundation remains invested in the future of South Carolina to ensure all families have the resources to live out of poverty. We apply our core values of compassion, courage, respect, justice and collaboration as we continue to work with our community partners to address multiple obstacles faced by Latino families across the state. We will continue to work towards solutions in partnership with the Latino community to reduce the barriers Latino families face in order to promote family economic well-being and improve the socioeconomic status of all South Carolina’s residents.

To read the Research Brief, Latino Immigrant Children in South Carolina, including citations for the above statistics, please go to: Sisters of Charity Foundation Research Brief

Written by: Stephanie Cooper-Lewter, Ph.D., Senior Director of Research

2012 Presidential Election: Tracking the Candidates on Poverty

More people are living in poverty now than ever before, at least since records were kept. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2011, which for a family of four means an annual income of less than $22,100 a year. All this, and in four weeks citizens across the country will hit the polls to vote in the 2012 presidential election. Incumbent President Barack Obama is running for a second and final term during this election. His major challenger is former Massachusetts Governor, Republican Mitt Romney.
 
Released in January, Poverty, the Media and Election 2012: What Do Voters Think?, reveals the results of a survey of likely voters’ views on poverty and opportunity in the context of the 2012 presidential campaign. The report provides a snapshot of opinions provided by the survey, as well as by other public opinion polls on similar topics. Within this context, the report discussed five key findings in particular:

1. Voters strongly said candidates’ views on poverty are important in deciding their vote for president. 
2. Nearly half of voters said they have not heard enough from presidential candidates about reducing poverty.
3. Half of voters said they have not heard enough from the media about reducing poverty during the presidential campaign.  
4. Voters strongly said candidates’ positions on equal opportunity for children of all races are important in deciding their vote for president.  
5. Voters tended to say children of all races do not currently have equal access to opportunity.

While poverty may not be a significant electoral issue, the findings in this poll suggested that voters are interested in hearing more about poverty and equal opportunity from candidates and the media, and that poverty and opportunity may play a role in their vote.
 
This was welcomed news to the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina which serves as an advocate for the poor and underserved in South Carolina. Educating and serving as a resource for both the community and public policy makers on issues affecting the poor is one way the Foundation engages in the public policy process. As we approach the November election, it is important to know the candidates’ views on poverty issues.
 
There is one organization tracking and sharing this information. Over the past few months, Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity was tracking all candidates on poverty-related issues, from quotes to policy statements to media interaction. It is now covering the official nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties, Obama and Romney. Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity is a non-partisan initiative that brings together diverse perspectives from the political, policy, advocacy and foundation communities to find solutions to reduce poverty in America.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012, marks the conclusion of the 57th presidential race with voters heading to the polls to cast their vote for the next president. Before you visit the polls, find out where each candidate stands on issues of both poverty and economic opportunity.

Please note that the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. This resource is one means to assist voters in analyzing some of the significant poverty and opportunity issues of the campaign so that they can exercise their rights in a most effective manner.

Brooke Bailey is the senior director of communications

Looking at Poverty Differently

One often wonders about how to best serve the poor and marginalized in our communities. We wonder whether we are maximizing our resources to have lasting results. Recently, I met “Toxic Charity” author Robert Lupton at a meeting in Myrtle Beach, S.C. Lupton shed tremendous light on some of the concerns around serving the poor.  

At the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina, we recognize a distinct separation between generational poverty and situational poverty, and how we address them both. We view generational poverty as chronic, with many variables that have caused a person to live in poverty, including family structure, community structure, educational attainment, access to health care, life skills, culture, value and attitudes. We view situational poverty as crisis poverty. A person is without food, clothing or shelter or in need of medical attention now but has no health insurance coverage.  These two distinctions are very apparent and both are worthy of the Foundation’s attention and resources. In the Foundation’s case, more than 85% of our grant funding goes to addressing generational poverty. We feel we have greater impact in South Carolina addressing generational poverty, but we also realize that situational and crisis poverty exists and needs support.

Lupton explained the dilemma faced with providing services through our government, churches and nonprofit organizations. Lupton believes, and I agree, that we often apply crisis tactics to chronic problems, even when the situation is clearly persistent. Applying crisis intervention to a chronic issue can be harmful to a person or a family and it fosters dependency, which perpetuates poverty. This is why people who are poor remain poor.

The question becomes “what can we do differently?” Lupton feels the most important factor missing in most service programs for the poor is that the recipient has no “skin in the game.” You give them something the first time and they appreciate it. You give them something a second time and they anticipate it. You give them something a third time and they expect it. You give it a fourth time and they depend on it. If you really look closely at a person in poverty, odds are that they would much rather be a partner or participant than a charity case.  That is why free clothes closets are not good but thrift stores work. That is why free food banks foster dependency but inexpensive food co-ops allow the person to become a customer.

A lot of organizations are trying very hard to do the right thing for others. This is in no way to criticize the good intentions that organizations have or the work that they do. This is about looking at those we want to help, differently. This is about respecting the client and building their ability to be self sufficient. As Lupton said, “We never do for someone else what they are capable of doing for themselves.”

Communities and organizations dealing with issues around poverty must be willing to shift. The United States gives away more food, money and services than any other country in the world. But rather than just giving it away, can we find new ways to partner or help individuals become more independent? If so, they will become respected and confident consumers with a greater sense of self worth. It will also create an environment where individuals are no longer viewed as “charity” and where chronic issues are addressed more strategically and more collegially.

These kinds of changes will have a positive impact on the entire community. I invite you to read Lupton’s book, “Toxic Charity: HowChurches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It).” It will change the way you look at those you are trying to help. It sure makes sense to me. 

Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

Note: Learn how one Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina grantee puts Lupton's thoughts into practice. Reverend Bill Stanfield, co-founder and chief executive officer of the Metanoia Community Development Corporation of North Charleston, shared a first-hand example of how to build a strong community using the strengths of the community rather than the deficiencies.

Assessing Poverty Through the Man on the Street

Sometimes when I am walking down the street and encounter a person that is homeless or poor, I find myself with an uncomfortable feeling. If there are a group of homeless people gathered, I may even cross to the other side of the street. This is not something I am proud of or consciously decide in advance. It just happens. The other day, I was walking downtown near dusk and I encountered such a person. His clothes were dirty; he was unshaven and unkempt. He was pushing a shopping cart and talking to himself. Actually, he was yelling. His cart was full with contents of soiled clothes, boxes, soda cans, plastic bags, magazines and newspapers. I quickly realized that he was oblivious to me and his shouting was intended for any and all to hear. As I uncomfortably walked by him, I thought about his life. He was in a totally different world than me. He is in a world where he measures his future hour by hour or day to day. He had no real concept of how his words or actions impact others. Moving passed him, I wondered how he had arrived at this juncture in life. Was it drugs or alcohol, sickness, mental illness, unemployment or other afflictions that render him a statistic or consequence of poverty?

Then I questioned if his circumstances run deeper and longer than those of situational poverty. I wondered if he was born into poverty, grew up in foster care or an institution, and has been a product of poverty his entire life.  Did he receive an inadequate education? Was he ever truly loved or embraced by a parent, or knew and had the support of a family unit? I wondered if he was an example of the many root causes of poverty that exist, and he is just living the next stage of his life, a stage that leaves him with few choices.

I continued thinking. How many children are on the same journey as this man? Have we done all that we can do to insure that our next generation of poor children won’t end up pushing a shopping cart and living on the street? This may be an extreme example, but my point is that most people don’t just wake up one morning and find themselves living in poverty. There is a reason they have ended up there and quite often their failures may be out of their personal control.

Poverty is systemic and it is pervasive and it starts at birth for many. Those of us interested in eradicating poverty must start early and intervene often. It is too late to make the impact needed, if we wait to intervene at the homeless shelters, food banks or free medical clinics. We can help deal with problems at those places but we won’t prevent them from happening. A lot of our energy and emphasis needs to be with children. They need to start learning earlier. They need adequate food. They need consistent and ongoing health care. They need caring teachers to help shepherd them through school and not give up on them no matter how limited the resources are or how far behind they get. They need the support of families, communities, churches and civic organizations. They need to know that just because they live in a deprived neighborhood or poor school district, they will have opportunities to be taught by talented and committed educators and, yes, if they work hard, they will have a chance to further their education. It is called hope. Hope breeds self-esteem. Self-esteem breeds talent and talent is what we need in this world.

So the man on the street may or may not have had a real chance. But there are plenty of people that do have a chance and have potential if we can help them find it. But it really needs to begin when a child opens his or her eyes at birth. Then each hour and each day is built from a foundation that provides for opportunity and success. If we commit to these goals for all children then fewer of them will be pushing shopping carts on the streets and looking for a place to sleep at night.

Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

Listening to the Next Generation

We are driving through the Pee Dee of South Carolina where the roads are narrow and the pine trees are tall. We pass cotton fields, tobacco farms, and get a true taste of rural South Carolina. We make our way to Marlboro County. We enter the community of Bennettsville. It is the boyhood home of legendary banker Hugh McColl. Bennettsville, South Carolina, mirrors many small rural communities in the South. The town is busy but there are signs and examples that it has seen better days from dilapidated buildings, closed businesses, empty stores and warehouses, vacant homes and abandoned cars and equipment.
 

We arrive at Marlboro County High School. It has been a while since I have been in a high school. It is remarkably clean. I begin my experience with a positive feeling. The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina is here to listen to students about issues they face in their lives and in their community. We want their perspective on things. A mixture of Foundation board and staff has traveled to the “listening session.”  We meet the principal who is professional, well spoken and very engaged with his students. They like him too; you can tell by the way they interact. Then we meet the students.  I am not really sure what I expected, but I know I got a whole lot more than I anticipated from these kids.
 
The students gathered and we broke into small groups. I had seven at my table and we just talked. Every one of them had aspirations to do great things. One wanted to be a lawyer. Another one to be an accountant then another wanted to be a psychologist. But their dreams were tempered. They realized that their dreams were certainly unprecedented because they would be the first in their families to attend college. They also acknowledged that the hill to climb to get an education beyond high school and to get a good job was going to be steep. They all said they would have to move away from Marlboro County to be successful. But they might come back later to “give back to the community.”
 
The students love the community and they love their school. They love their families and participate in many school and church activities. But the town has little to offer. No jobs, no recreation and an unwillingness to change, coupled with a lack of vision for the future. I offered each student an imaginary $1,000 to spend to help others. They chose scholarships for needy students, temporary assistance for needy families, feeding the hungry and helping the elderly. One wanted to spend his money on bringing the community stakeholders together to create a common vision for the town. Wow!
 
If this group is representative of what our next generation is going to be like, then I am not worried at all. They will do just fine and perhaps better than we have done. They have a vision for their lives and their community and are willing to change things to make life better for other people. All we have to do is remove the obstacles we have placed in front of them and create a pathway for the next generation to reach their goals and dreams. If that happens, then towns like Bennettsville, South Carolina, do have a future.

 Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

Foundation Asks SC Gubernatorial Candidates Questions Around Poverty

The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina asked all South Carolina gubernatorial candidates five questions around poverty and economic opportunity in the state. The five questions reflect general issues and policies that are of concern to the underserved in South Carolina and the organizations and voters working with this population.

After repeated attempts to collect responses, the Foundation only received answers from Nikki Haley (R) and Jim Rex (D).

These questions are one means to assist voters in analyzing some of the significant poverty and opportunity issues of the campaign so that they can exercise their rights in a most effective manner. It is not the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina’s intention to you how to vote. Likewise, Foundation does not endorse or campaign for candidates or political parties. Our hope is that voters will examine the positions of candidates on these issues, as well as their personal integrity, beliefs and performance.

To view five questions and candidates' responses, click here.

Counting People Counts for South Carolina

The year 2010 is an important one as it pertains to gathering census data. The recession has depleted many of the government resources necessary to adequately prepare and implement the process of collecting data. Many funders around the country have invested resources to supplement the government’s efforts. For example, the California Endowment gave more than $4 million to nonprofit groups working to draw attention to the census in that state.

Although South Carolina is significantly smaller than California the issues around identifying and effectively collecting census data are the same, if not worse. In poor areas of the state and many of our minority communities, it appears more difficult to gather data and to get individuals to participate. For example, the growing Hispanic population in the state, not only has language barrier issue, but also the need for confidentiality. It is important that the census is protective of undocumented immigrants and that an awareness campaign is developed to let individuals know that being counted will not be a risk to them in any way, shape or form.

Attention must also be given to our large homeless population in our more populated cities around South Carolina. Alternative census locations need to be aimed towards food banks, homeless shelters, free medical clinics and other places where the homeless population is likely to frequent. It is also important that the census representatives are inclusive of the population they are attempting to identify and gather information. In other words, the census staff needs to be representative of the ethnic composition of the communities and neighborhoods where they will be working. These workers need to be able to “speak the language” and be trusted messengers in the data gathering process. Otherwise, many individuals will disappear and not be counted, which could have an adverse affect on our state’s resources and federal funding to adequately serve our actual population.

Some estimates suggest that nearly 10% of South Carolina’s true population went uncounted in 2000 which equates to nearly 400,000 people. That represents a huge gap between actual and collected data in the state. We must invest in the right tools and the right strategy to collect accurate census data this time. If not, then all South Carolinians will suffer in the long run. It will mean fewer dollars to support our state which has already been decimated by a poor economy and huge budget shortfalls.

Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

Lt. Governor Needs to Understand Before Generalizing

A recent statement by our state’s Lt. Governor regarding government assistance has caused me to wonder about how we view other individuals with less means in our society. I can assure you that truly understanding poverty in South Carolina cannot be passed off with a sweeping generalization about poor people. It certainly cannot be better understood by using a comparison of these individuals to stray animals. The challenges and barriers facing the poor in South Carolina is both crosscutting and extremely complicated. Often times, people and even leaders, want to stereotype others into certain categories without examining all of the real facts.

Poor people in our state are faced with a multitude of challenges each day. A parent, and often a single parent, may be working multiple jobs to keep the family afloat. To assume that by not attending a parent-teacher conference, they are not interested in their child’s wellbeing is not a fair assumption. Furthermore, if you plan to punish a family because a parent does not attend such a meeting by taking away subsidies for their children to eat, what have you accomplished? You sure haven’t helped the child. We have a split society in South Carolina- “the haves and the have not’s”. It is pretty easy for those of us who have steady incomes and positions of influence to pass judgment on the other half of society.

We know where our next meal is coming from and we know that there will be a roof over our head tonight. What we don’t know are the obstacles a parent living in poverty may face. Do they have access to transportation? Do they have adequate access to information or communication? The fact of the matter is that every child that attends public schools receives some level of support from the tax payer. Some school districts fair better than others and therefore some children fair better than others. Let’s not make rash generalizations about people living in poverty unless “we have walked in their shoes” and we have all the facts.

We should be spending our time and energy debating how we are going to help our poor communities get a fair education for their children, more job training and job opportunities for their citizens and therefore, more people contributing in a positive way to our society as a whole. I would much rather spend our time focusing on opportunities and possibilities than establishing additional barriers for the already marginalized segment of South Carolina’s population.


Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

It's Time to Remove South Carolina's Handicap: Why TANF Reauthorization is Crucial

How much is a child in South Carolina worth? Not nearly as much as a child in Connecticut according to the federal program designed to alleviate poverty. The federal government provides the state of Connecticut with $1,052 a year for each child in poverty. The same federal fund values poor children in South Carolina at $179 per child. And it’s not just in South Carolina; it seems children throughout the South are worth less than their counterparts in other parts of the nation.

Apart from our underfunded school systems or our high unemployment rates, federal welfare reform legislation hinders the many southern states like South Carolina from achieving its desired results. South Carolina gets less federal money to lift families out of poverty than almost any other state.

Before welfare was reformed in 1996, funds were allocated based on a formula which required states to provide matching dollars to draw down federal funds. Thus, states with higher per capita incomes, and therefore a higher tax base, could draw down more federal funding. States with small tax bases, like South Carolina, had few dollars to invest and, therefore, got few dollars back.

When welfare reform was passed, a new program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was established. The goal of TANF is to move families from welfare to work. To achieve this, these families receive assistance in job training and job skills and assistance to reduce the barriers they face in obtaining and maintaining employment, like transportation and childcare. Most of South Carolina’s families receiving TANF assistance are single parents with one or two children. Currently our state has only enough funds to serve 25% of the families eligible for childcare assistance. And it has even fewer dollars to address a family’s need for transportation and training.

The most difficult part of this new welfare reform bill was figuring out how to distribute the block grant to states. Naturally, high-income states sought to continue getting the big federal dollars they received under the old program, while low-income states desired a new formula based on the number of families in poverty living in each state. This time, like many times before, the high-income states, often with larger delegations, won the fight and received the lion’s share of the money. Federal funds were allocated to states based on the average amount of funds received for the prior three-year period, which was under the old program. Low-income states were left with the task of implementing new programs and new federal requirements with very little money.

Some poor states were thrown a bone, “a supplemental payment,” in exchange for their votes to pass the welfare reform legislation. Seventeen states qualified for this bone, because their level of spending per poor person was less than 35% of the national average or they had more than a 10% increase in population from 1990 through 1994. With spending per poor person at 37.66% of the national average and only a 5% increase in population during the given time period, South Carolina just missed the mark to receive supplemental funding.

What’s more, when the supplemental funding was formed, it was frozen so that no other states could be added and the original seventeen would not lose the funding. Thus, even though a state like South Carolina qualified for supplemental funding the second year, it could not receive the additional funding. In fact, South Carolina was the only state in deep poverty that did not get any extra help. States like Kentucky, South Carolina and Virginia were held to the same federal requirements, which cost a lot more, as every other state, and were given less money with which to meet those requirements.

The law that created welfare reform, the TANF Act, is up for reauthorization next year. States are planning to ask Congress to take a look at the funding for the program and add some new dollars to make up for the buying power lost to inflation over the past 13 years. Based on the consumer-priced index, this would be approximately an additional $5 billion nationally. The new money needs to be distributed using a new formula - one based on poverty. A formula that equalizes the payments to states based on the percentage of each state’s population living in poverty would benefit 33 of the 50 states, the majority of states. It would target federal dollars where they are most needed - to states with high poverty. And South Carolina would receive a fair and equal share of the new money.

Over the last 13 years, it is estimated that South Carolina has lost approximately $150 million in TANF funding. This is money that did not go to South Carolina families moving from poverty to self sufficiency. If the amount of funding is increased using the consumer-priced index South Carolina would receive $32 million under the current formula. The amount would increase to $93 million if funds were distributed using the suggested new formula based on need. A formula based on poverty leads to an additional $61 million. This would make a significant impact on our state, and it’s now time to get our fair share of funding.

The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina envisions families in South Carolina with the resources to live out of poverty. The current funding is based on the amount a state received 13 years ago under a different program. It is an injustice to continue to use this formula, as states with the largest number of citizens in poverty will receive the smallest amount of funding. As a Foundation we feel that we must bring this to light and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. Our state has been short-changed in TANF funding and we feel that it is time for South Carolina to receive its fair share.

The old money ($16 billion) would still use the old formula that allots for more funding for high-income states that can draw down more federal funding. Everyone wins. Everyone gets more money. TANF is designed for people out of work, and with the current economy, now is the time for Congress to reauthorize TANF.

A formula based on poverty best matches the original intent of the TANF legislation, and is the most unbiased way to allocate new federal funds. The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina is planning to do all that we can to make sure South Carolina and other southern states get an equitable share of any new TANF funding. We want to make sure Congress gets it right this time, so that South Carolina no longer has to work under a handicap. Just think of what an additional $93 million for South Carolina’s low-income families would mean.


Tom Keith is the president for the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

What does poor mean today?

We so often hear the term poor people but do we ever stop to think what “poor” means. Growing up, for me, it was the older man standing on the street corner holding out his hat asking for change. Today, it is much different. Without going into the financial part of it, which is somewhere in the $20,000 range for a family of four, a snapshot of today’s poor looks something like this:

• The Homeless- This is a critical part of our population that is primarily dealing with situational poverty. They have no place to live, have no food and have health needs. They are dependant on others to provide these services. In addition, many of these individuals are dealing with unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues.

• The Elderly- Many of the elderly population living in poverty are on a fixed income and barely get by. They qualify for Medicare and social security but have very limited funds for anything else. A major concern for the elderly is around long-term care and Medicaid eligibility. There are a limited number of beds for long term care for elderly people living in poverty and a good many of these facilities are substandard.

• Children- Many children live in single family homes that are well below the poverty line. A lot of these children may be eligible for Medicaid but have not been registered. Health access is a major concern for children living in poverty. Furthermore, children living in poverty are often left at home after school which can be unsafe and unproductive. There is a growing need for more accredited after school programs that can provide tutoring, mentoring and a safe haven for children that, otherwise, may find themselves home alone.

• The Working Poor- These individuals are working one or two low-wage jobs and are barely making ends meet. They often live in low-rent housing and have minimal discretionary money for spending. Many qualify for subsidies, but struggle to receive these benefits they are entitled to because of a complicated government system.

• Fathers- Low-income fathers struggle to meet their child support obligation and often find themselves incarcerated or unable to deal with financial expectations because of lack of education and job skills. While there is a much progress in supporting these fathers, more can be done. Fathers’ supporting their children is a critical need and we must invest more in developing their skills and abilities so they can meet their responsibilities.

The question becomes “What do we need to do as a society to impact these and other constituencies not mentioned?” I think we have many options, and here are a few:

• Invest in education. Find more ways for young people to get their GED, get training at technical colleges and increase their skill level.
  

• Invest more in early childhood education so children, especially those from poor families, will be better prepared for school and be more successful.

• Improve parenting skills for parents living in low-income situations.
  

• Provide better training and skills around financial management.
  

• Make sure all children have access to health care.
  

• Make sure all individuals who qualify for Medicaid are registered in a quick and responsive manner. Let’s remove barriers.
  

• Strengthen the network of providers of health care for the poor through our free medical clinics, other private health access programs and free medication programs.
  

• Provide more job training for adults.
  

• Provide more adult literacy programs.
  

• Insure those living in poverty have equal access to justice as those who can pay.
  

• Make sure systems of government are “user friendly” and help not deter clients who need services.
  

• Involve the private sector more, including businesses, churches, civic groups, retirees and others, to help continue to address problems that face those living in poverty.
  

• Transportation. This has a major impact on those living in poverty and is a barrier to many services such as medical appointments, employment, social services and grocery shopping. In many areas, public transportation is not available at all and there are no viable alternatives. This needs to be addressed as a system and we need to find better ways to serve the poor and allow them access to transportation to meet their daily needs.

There are many more examples of those living in poverty and of steps we can take to help these individuals and families. When you think about those living in poverty and it seems overwhelming, it is. However, we can make a difference and we should.

Tom Keith is the executive director of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina.