Touching A Sacred Cow

With federal, state and municipal services in retrenchment mode perhaps it’s time to explore some alternatives, even it means challenging some sacred cows. For example, those of us who live in the San Francisco Bay Area, have become virtually inured to the sight of homeless persons on our streets, but how many of us have done something about it? I’m not talking about the occasional twenty dollar bill guiltily thrust into an outstretched hand but rather about ‘real help’, the kind of help that would involve entering into a relationship with the homeless person to identify his or her real needs, calling around to find an appropriate support network, staying in touch over a longer period etc. Not many of us I’m sure, perhaps none of us. It’s as if we tell ourselves that because some other institutions (federal, state or municipal) have made themselves responsible for taking care of the homeless there is less or no need for us to make any personal effort.

In the 1930’s Albert Jay Nock called this phenomena state power versus social power but nowadays we would probably  describe it as coercion versus voluntarism or civil society. Nock argued that as one waxes so the other wanes. As the extent of coercion increases in a society so the extent of voluntarism or civil society, decreases and vice versa. The more we are taxed to provide for the homeless the less we feel like donating our own time, energy and resources to tackle the problem. Of course there may be nothing wrong with this situation. If the homeless are just as better off receiving benefits from the state or city as from a collection of individuals and benevolent voluntary institutions, then we should be indifferent between the two approaches. But is this true? It certainly would be if all the homeless required is money or a home. But this is far from the case. Approximately one third of the homeless are mentally ill and approximately three quarters are substance abusers. Others simply prefer the homeless lifestyle:

“Sleeping in shelters or on the streets is dangerous, but for a person who has grown up amidst the bullets of drug wars and the knife thrusts of domestic violence, the attraction of free food, medicine, clothes, and lots of leisure time may outweigh the disadvantages.”

This suggests a much more complex and nuanced solution than simply finding all the homeless a home.  In his book The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky references the seventy five percent success rate that CityTeam (formerly San Jose City Mission) achieved in its substance abuse program. The problem was that their solution was not politically correct:

“The keys to success included one-on-one bonding of addicts with volunteers who were usually former addicts themselves, reaffiliation of addicts with family and community, a discerning refusal to accept excuses, and an emphasis on work and responsibility. The cornerstone of the new life, however, was spiritual; participants in the substance abuse program were expected to attend services regularly read the Bible, and learn what God expected them to be.  When county officials, impressed by CityTeam’s success, proposed government funding to expand the program on the condition that the religious requirements be dropped, the offer had to be refused.”

If Nock was right, as debt strapped government, state and municipal authorities are forced to shrink their welfare budgets, we should expect to see a resurgence of voluntarism to take up the slack.  Would it be so surprising if volunteers, working within the institutions of civil society, also do a better job?

——————————

“Governing a large state is like boiling a small fish.” Lao Tzu