Adopting the Poor

It's no secret that, among the myriad of reasons that can be
used to explain why poverty exists, one of the foremost is
the fact that a relatively small percentage of people in
the world control a disproportionate amount of the world's
wealth. (I am, unfortunately, not one of those privileged
few.) Now I am not interested, at least not in this particular
forum, in discussing why this is the case and what the
ramifications of this phenomenom may be. I reckon it has
ever been thus. For those in that privileged class, I would
just say, "Hey, remember Marie Antoinette?" But I digress.


No, I am proposing a way to tentatively reduce this
income disparity, at least in a modest sense. It is through
adoption. Those folks whose income exceeds a certain
threshold, say an annual income of $200,000, could be
given tax breaks or tax credits if they "adopt" an
underprivileged family for a time. The adoptive families
could also receive tax credits for the volunteer hours
they might spend helping said families. And, yes, I know
that churches and civic organizations sometimes "adopt"
certain marginalized groups or economically depressed
geographic areas as the loci of their humanitarian concern.
But my idea makes it more personal and more specific.


This is how I see it going down. The wealthy family,
let's call them the Smiths, adopts a poor family,
let's call them the Jones (Not terribly original
monikers, I admit. But I am tired and my imagination
is running on fumes. So sue me! If you come up with the
solution to end poverty, you can have this blog!) Anyhoo,
the Smiths agree to provide the Jones financial assistance
and other resources to help them become card-carrying
"productive members of society." This assistance would
continue until the Jones no longer need it.


Now this is NOT a "handout," but in the immortal
(?) words of Jesse Jackson, it is a hand up. The
Smiths, you see, would have gone through a rigorous
selection process conducted by a blue-ribbon panel of
leaders of the social service, religious, and health care
fields in the community in which the Jones reside.
And no, that is not a sarcastic way of saying their
names were picked out of a hat! For lack of a better
term, call them the "worthy" or "working" poor.
But because they have jumped through a series
of pretty rigorous hoops, they have earned the
right to be "adopted." These hoops might include
criminal background checks, occupational aptitude
tests, character references, and documentation of
the reasons regarding their need for assistance.

Now this is how the process would work. The Smiths
would not assist the Jones with anything they can
already do for themselves. They would only fill in the
gaps, by paying a past due utility bill, for example, or
by providing a "nest egg" to help the Jones build up
their savings and maybe a college fund for the children.
Perhaps the Smiths might lend them some money to
help the Jones start a small business.

Furthermore, the financial assistance would be on a
sliding scale. As the level of the Jones' income increases,
the amount of support provided by the Smiths would
decrease, with the goal that eventually the Jones' would
stand on their own feet and require no further assistance
from the Smiths, at least not of a monetary nature.

Furthermore, the Jones' would have a numberof
responsibilities in this scenario. For every two adults over
the age of eighteen in the family unit, at least one
would have to have a full-time job or be actively looking for
work or in training for a job. Until such time as they secure
employment, they would volunteer with charitable
organizations in the community or some type of community
helping agency. Habitat for Humanity has the right idea in
demanding "sweat equity" of their families. It promotes both
personal responsibility and a sense of pride. Documentation
would be kept for all of the above, e.g. copies of job applications,
school records, a log of calls made to potential employers, an
accounting of the hours per month spent in volunteer activities,
that sort of thing. If the Jones needed assistance in getting
from work or school, the Smiths could help arrange it.

The Smiths could also serve as informal mentors or "job
coaches." They could perhaps assist the Jones, if necessary,
with financial management, household budgeting, and the like.
There would also be a personal relationship. The two
families would be required to socialize in some fashion at least
once a quarter.


Hopefully, this relationship would be of benefit to both
families, as well as benefiting society as a whole. The Jones
would have a relationship with successful people who could
serve as role models and the Smiths would be exposed to
how "the other half lives" and would hopefully become more
sensitized to the needs of the poor. Now I know this sounds
like a private sector version of "welfare to work," but so what?
Poverty is a terrible thing and we must try anything that
has a chance of mitigating its terrible effects. And in any
event, often the private sector can do such things a lot
better than the government. But really we need both the
private and public sectors to address and take seriously
this terrible problem. Furthermore, I believe the
personal component of this program is its unique twist
and what might make it effective.

Yes, I know Jesus said the poor would always be with us,
but I don't think he was suggesting that as a reason for
inaction.