Vision - Destination - What do we want to achieve that we can agree on? Our opinion as to how to get there might differ.
The map - Plotting a course of travel
Assets - Resources - What do we have available and are we using it wisely?
Human Resources, experience
Effective & Efficient
What works? - Programs that work instead of re-inventing the wheel
Coordination - making sure the pieces work together well
Communication - internal and external, are we transparent as to our motives as we move toward our goal.
Bridge Communities is a dynamic, holistic, grassroots non-profit organization committed to transforming the lives of homeless families through meaningful partnerships with community-based agencies and individuals. The program of housing, mentoring, employment and education counseling focuses families towards a goal of permanent housing and self-sufficiency.
The problems Bridge Communities addresses are homelessness, underemployment, unemployment, skill deficiencies, lack of education, parenting issues and debt management. The objectives of the Bridge program are:
• Secure an improved employment status therefore increase earned income
• Reduce debt and improve credit rating
• Teach client’s how to better utilize resources through life-skills mentoring
• Improve the client’s and their children’s educational opportunities
• Secure permanent housing upon completion of the Program
The goal of the two-year Program is to increase life skills and earning power to enable families to achieve self sufficiency, sustain permanent housing, and to break the cycle of poverty within the family unit.
Bridge Communities has helped 625 families achieve self-sufficiency and permanent housing. Comprehensive surveys show that 90 - 95% of families develop the knowledge and skills necessary to maintain permanent, stable housing and employment, stabilize or decreased their debt and improve their education level.
Conservatives Think They Have a Magic Formula for Raising People Out of Poverty
I haven't yet read Ta-Nahesi Coates' new book, Between the World and Me. But I did find myself groaning while reading Rich Lowry's review of it at Politico. This was not due to anything Lowry wrote specifically about Coates' work—which, again, I haven't opened—but because he trots out a bit of received conservative wisdom about fighting poverty in a very irksome way. It's a canard I fear we'll hear a lot during the presidential election.
Lowry, who edits National Review, says he dislikes Between the World and Me because it is too nihilistic and doesn't offer a "positive program" to improve the lot of black America. However, he also dislikes Coates' suggestion, put forward in a widely read Atlantic essay, that the government start by considering paying black families reparations. Why? Social science, of course.
In policy circles, this idea is often referred to as the "success
sequence." Conservatives —including
presidential contender Marco Rubio and sorta-kinda-contender Rick
Santorum—are quite fond of it, because in their eyes it shows that personal
responsibility is essential to conquering need. Certainly, Lowry seems to
think so. Would reparations "be transformative for any individual?"
he asks in his review. "No. For poor blacks to escape poverty, it would
still require all the personal attributes that contribute to success. So
Coates is selling snake oil. Even if he got his fantastical reparations that
he has poured such literary energy into advocating, real improvement in the
condition of black people would still require the moral effort that he won’t
Which is just sort of silly.
In the end, the "success sequence" is a mildly catchy way of stating the obvious. It is not a magic formula—though people who follow it rarely end up poor, by Sawhill and Haskins' own admission, a good number of people take all of the right steps and still don't make it to the solid middle class. But yes, you are more likely to get there if you both graduate from high school and promptly find full-time work. That's sort of like saying it's easier to go bear hunting with a gun than it is to wrestle a grizzly into submission—nobody would think otherwise. You are also more likely to be middle class if you get married before having children, in part because wedded couples have been found to be more stable, and two incomes are typically better than one, especially when there is a baby to raise.
I somehow doubt that there are many people who need to be told that graduating high school, finding a job, and settling down before starting a family are ideal things to do. Achieving all of these personal milestones is easier, however, if your family happens to have money, or can at least afford to put food on the table. Wealthier children do better in school. Moving poor kids to nicer neighborhoods while they're young improves their future earnings. The more money men make as adults, the more likely they are to get married. "Moral effort," whatever that means, might be useful when it comes to making your way through the world. But cash definitely is.
It is also entirely possible to end up in the middle class while violating the success sequence, which is not, in fact, some sort inviolable law of nature. As Sawhill and Haskins show, a quarter of Americans who miss one or two items on their to-do list end up earning above 300 percent of the poverty line. Many of those individuals were probably born middle class or wealthy. But that only goes to show how, with a little help, people can find a decent lot for themselves, even if their lives don't conform to Rich Lowry's strict standards.
And that's why, as I said, I'm not looking forward to conservative
politicians picking up the "success sequence" as a theme. If you
treat it as a list of things that we should probably help people do, it's
fine. But, again, it's not magic. And it shouldn't be treated as an excuse
to cut off people from help if they don't live their lives by a very
specific set of rules. This country really doesn't need yet another flimsy
excuse to let people fend for themselves.