While looking over the statistics of the breakdown of social service organizations (O’Neill 76) I was reminded of a categorization system that I was introduced to in a public policy legislation class I took last term. Helen Ingram and Ann Schneider (authors of Policy Design for Democracy) developed a social construction of the target populations of public policy based on their public image and political power. This broke down individuals into four characteristics: Advantaged, Dependents, Contenders, and Deviants. This same system can be broken down more simply into those that the majority of society deems “deserving” and “undeserving”. With such a range of focuses within the social services, you can see within Table 4.1 in Nonprofit Nation how this type of social image impacts the number of organizations addressing certain aspects of need. Child and youth services (combined with child day-care services) make up the highest number of firms, which fall under the category of “dependents”. This category illustrates a sector of society that holds high public image and a felt responsibility from the general public to protect due to their lack of political standing or capacity for self-assistance. Services for the elderly and disabled fill a high base for nonprofit aid, falling under the “advantaged” category of society because their strife has not come about by faults of their own and, as functioning adults in society, they can create political attention to their needs, which in turn can influence the nonprofit sector to shift attentions towards their causes. Similarly, in the online reading online reading we read about the Low-Income House Energy Assistance Program, and its affects on the individuals in Louisiana. The $10.5 million helps low-income individuals pay their utility bills, demonstrating a focus on certain sector of society. Home-owning low-income families fill a special section of the societal psyche, demonstrating a simultaneous immediate need while still upholding a respectable image in societal norms. This demonstrates again the increased aid observed for programs that focus on individuals who hold personal respectability within the social eye despite their need.
The counterpart to this distinction is those need bases that fall under the “undeserving” spectrum. This trend often involves the connotation and misconception that most public individuals hold of the causes of the required need. This often occurs in public assistance directed towards the homeless community and drug rehabilitation. The greatest misconception of the homeless class is a stereotype of ‘laziness’ or ‘mendacity’ that has suppressed public service to this sector, despite the fact that a survey done by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 13% of homeless single adults or unaccompanied teenage youth and 17.4% of homeless adults in families were employed. The disparity that these working people are enduring is the conflict between the imbalance of the shortage of affordable rental housing and simultaneous increase in poverty, but this reality is overlooked due to the “untouchable” status that this sector of society has unfortunately adopted. Drug rehabilitation has also fallen between the cracks. In relation to public policy legislation and government action, treatment is seven times more cost-effective than domestic law enforcement, ten times more effective than interdiction, and twenty-three times more effective than attacking drugs at their source. And yet within political action and the spectrum of social service action, drug rehabilitation is limited. Speculation can deduce that again this is due to the connation of a drug abuser’s discord, and their self-created demise. It becomes a moral conflict for many, feeling that aid should not be given to those who had an essential part in the creation of their problem while still needing to address the presence of need.
I do not mean to condemn the social services, as the nonprofit sector is truly the little work addressed at rectifying the bias that we see in governmental public policy legislation and saving these citizens. I only attempt to bring attention to the kind of bias that we hold within us in all aspects of life, even in times of selfless aid, and possibly help create a more balanced palate of assistance.
I, too, mentioned the labels given to homeless or unemployed people that imply that they are in their current situation because of their own laziness. I guess it is easier to blame people's problems on their own personal flaws because, in doing so, the burden is taken off of taxpayers or the public in general to do something about it. If people looked below the surface and connected the lines, it would be much harder to negate the facts behind issues like homelessness, welfare, and unemployment, but many are simply not willing to do so. For example, you shared some statistics showing that a person can be employed, yet still be homeless. I think if more people knew and/or accepted that, they might look at homeless people with empathy rather than resentment.
ReplyDeleteI took a Sociology class that dealt specifically with these issues, for they are much more common than people think. We read a book in that course (I think it was SOC 207) titled Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. In the book Ehrenreich leaves her comfortable life to try and get by in America by working multiple minimum wage jobs and living in places hotels and trailer park, only to learn that minimum wage is far below the minimum amount a person or a family needs to live off of. It is a very good and short/easy read if you are interested.
I found it enlightening that you broke the societal conceptions of social services into two categories -- "deserving and undeserving." To add credence to your argument that there should be a "balanced palate of assistance" I feel that the two should be inseparable, or at least more similar than society gives credit.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that "services for the elderly and disabled... [fall] under the “advantaged” category of society because their strife has not come about by faults of their own." I think of those of the "undeserving" category also are in the situation they are in mostly because of faults not of their own. According to an independent study 40 to 45% of homeless people have some form of mental illness (http://anxietypanichealth.com/2008/10/15/a-national-shame-the-mentally-ill-homeless/). Additionally, there are socio-economic constraints that homeless people have that most other people don't have to deal with. I agree with you that there is a misconception in society about those "undeserving" are lazy. I feel that the two categories "deserving" and “undeserving" are really more similar than society gives credit to.
I like that you (and the rest of our group) relate information we learned from other classes to what we're studying in this one. Just goes to show that everything we learn elsewhere, whether it be in accounting or 3PM, is linked. When I read the four characteristics ("Advantaged, Dependents, Contenders, and Deviants") words like "brahmin" and "untouchables" came to mind. It seems that as long as there is life on Earth, whether it be in the US, India, or among lion prides in Africa, there will always be some sort of caste system. However, people [Americans in particular] have the power to help those in need. Going back to your post, it's obvious that there is a significant amount of work to be done in social service agencies and in government bureaucracy. In response to both your and Will's data on those who would probably be labeled "untouchable," it's obvious that much reform is needed in the mental health system. In particular, peoples' attitudes about mental illness need to change. Schools, parents, teachers, and other authority figures must recognize that like cancer or diabetes, neurological disorders are physically traumatizing as well. Instead of just giving change to people on the street or simply punishing a troubling student, people must ponder others' state of mind and offer help (i.e. counseling and medication). Maybe then, less people will rot on the street and violent acts like the tragedy in Arizona can be prevented.
ReplyDeleteI like the characteristics you gave for each of the category within social services. It gave a more realistic and personal understanding on how society rates the importance of social services. I agree that there are political advantages in helping the elderly and how nonprofit tend to serve those more than others. Its also sad that the "untouchable" status ones are not being given the attention and aid they need. There should be a organization that only provide rental housing for homeless people who are working because I feel they deserve a place to live for a while till they get back on their feet. I agree that some nonprofit tend to ignore helping the drug abusers because of the cycle of addiction and how they will only get worse. I think rehabilitation should be expanded and emphasize to help drug addicts. An example would be helping their addiction by rehab instead of provide clean needles, which only limit the problem but not really solving it.
ReplyDeleteI agree about your views on the homeless. It seems absurd to think that someone would choose this lifestyle out of laziness. Rather, dire circumstances such as injury or mental illness could cause someone to become homeless. A guest speaker from one of the local shelters spoke in one of my previous classes, they categorized homeless into two categories, the temporary and chronic homeless. One may be temporarily homeless due to a loss of a job for example. Non-profits are able to create immediate help and are oriented towards both short and long-term care.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your arguing points regarding the costs of not providing welfare and all the statistics. It seems that by not helping those in need it creates an even greater burden. Rather, it is inhumane not to do so, and without government funding private organizations function to the same level.