Strengthening the Social-Service Safety Net

The number of working Americans seeking aid from local social-service organizations is rising fast in cities and towns across the country. But for a growing share of Americans, help may not be available because of cutbacks in government and private spending on social services and because the social-service system has not adapted well to the 21st century.

As a result, social-service providers have a hard time responding to changes in the geography of poverty, adopting technologies that can increase efficiency, and pursuing collaborative efforts that can improve results.

Perhaps more worrisome, cutbacks in government aid are putting a terrible strain on social-service organizations, causing many to shut down, reduce caseloads, or eliminate important programs. Given the severity of the downturn ahead, we need our nonprofit organizations to be ready to handle the increases in the demand they will face — we cannot keep weakening them. After all, if the country is to emerge fully from this downturn, we need to make services available that will allow poor families to deal with their economic troubles, find work, and increase their earnings so they may contribute to the recovery.

To fix the problems in our social-service system, we need to understand just what types of assistance are available, where, and to whom.

In research I conducted for my book Out of Reach: Place, Poverty, and the New American Welfare State (Yale University Press), I collected data from nearly 1,500 government and nonprofit social-service organizations in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, and tried to figure out how poor people were affected in the last national economic downturn, the recession that swept the country in 2001.

The news media typically focus on the $80-billion in aid each year that provides cash assistance to the needy through food stamps, welfare checks, and the earned income tax credit. But nonprofit organizations understand that a vital part of the safety net for low-income people comes through the more than $150-billion in private and government aid spent on job training, education, child care, mental-health treatment, and a range of other services that help poor people achieve greater well-being.

In many cases, government offers grants and contracts to charities that provide services to the needy. But social-service charities are not located in all the places where people need help. A low-income household in a high-poverty neighborhood or in a predominantly minority neighborhood has access to roughly 50 percent fewer opportunities to obtain social services than such a household in a more affluent, predominately white neighborhood, according to my surveys.

The reasons for this mismatch between programs and need are varied, Nonprofit groups often have a difficult time finding quality, affordable office space in high-poverty neighborhoods. Moreover, social-service organizations decide where to operate based on a range of organizational needs, including access to government grants and contracts, private donors, trained staff members, and volunteers, as well as program partners or collaborators. In the poorest neighborhoods, the very financial and human resources that social-service charities need to survive are often missing.

Compounding matters, social-service organizations experience greater instability both in financing and in providing services than is commonly understood. In part this is because government aid for the poor contracts during economic downturns and budget shortfalls, right when need expands. Private grants and donations to social-service organizations typically contract during downturns as well.

My surveys of social-service providers offer substantial evidence of profound instability and turmoil in the years following the downturn of the first part of this decade. Roughly 30 percent of organizations listed in community directories were no longer operating or offering programs for the poor, with closures often due to lack of money. Of those still operating programs, almost 40 percent of government and nonprofit organizations reported losses in the money they used to operate programs. Nearly three-quarters of those groups said they had to cut programs, eliminate staff positions, or reduce caseloads as a result.

So when governments, foundations, and donors cut support to social-service programs, they don’t simply make it difficult for working poor families to get help this week or this month, but they set off a ripple effect at local charities that will make it harder for the poor to get help next year and in the years beyond.

People who work at foundations and social-service charities confront the challenges posed by the gaps in the safety net each day. The question is, however, what can we do about them? Following are some approaches:

• Although there is pressure to cut government spending on social services, federal, state, and city officials must maintain their commitments to social-service programs. It may not be possible to expand enough to meet all the needs, but cuts to government programs now under consideration in many states and communities will destabilize local nonprofit organizations. Not only does this make it more difficult for people to find help, but it also means that local governments and charities will have fewer organizations to shoulder a growing burden. We should view a strong, government-financed safety net as a necessary part of any strategy to emerge from economic recession, rather than a burden that can be discarded to balance budgets.
• To make more efficient and effective use of existing social-service resources, communities should try to improve the links between people seeking help and service providers. In part, this means using information technology and Web-based service directories to provide caseworkers and clients with accurate information about programs available nearby. Information technology also can help track referrals and share relevant information to improve how caseworkers match assistance to clients. Additionally, government agencies should pursue outreach activities through trusted charitable groups. That will help them connect with more people in need of help and better assess community priorities.
• Local safety nets need a redesign to fit the times. Poverty has shifted outward from central cities; more poor people now live in the suburbs than in the cities. This change means it may no longer make sense to maintain strict municipal and county boundaries in delivering social services. Money can be spent more effectively and efficiently if it is delivered in a way that meets the needs of a mobile clientele. We must also improve social services in rural areas where there are few programs and providers capable of helping the rising number of working poor families. Local government and charity leaders should seek ways to help service organizations find resources to acquire facilities, renovate space, afford higher rents, and relocate to areas with unmet needs.
• Efforts to strengthen community-based religious and secular nonprofit organizations must be bolstered. Religious charities are often located in or near high-poverty neighborhoods, making them good candidates for efforts to expand the availability of services. Such organizations are well known and highly trusted in their communities, which may allow them to reach people who currently fall through the cracks.

  Similarly, we should seek to strengthen the capacity of small secular nonprofit groups that often operate with limited staff members and administrative capacity but that provide critical assistance to low-income families. Moreover, aside from direct services, modest-size nonprofit groups must be encouraged to become a key part of local safety nets. For instance, these organizations can connect poor persons to organizations that offer relevant programs of assistance. They also may be useful advocates for change and expansion of government aid to support services.

• The nonprofit world should lead a renewed effort to strengthen private commitments to the poor. Americans say they support government and private programs that promote work and reduce barriers to employment. But looking at their giving patterns, it appears that social-service groups have not yet tapped the interest that Americans demonstrate in helping the poor. Individuals, corporations, and foundations gave more than $300-billion to charities last year, but less than 10 percent of that money was provided to human-service organizations; the share of volunteer hours allocated to such groups is similarly small.

Although private giving and volunteering cannot make up for the tens of billions of dollars in government aid that finance social-service charities, greater giving will help organizations weather tough economic times. Given the spirit of volunteerism surrounding the recent presidential election, there appear to be significant opportunities to connect to a new generation of donors and concerned citizens. In addition to cultivating giving, however, we must help connect donors, many of whom may not live in high-poverty areas or be knowledgeable of the organizations operating in those areas, to nonprofit groups that are working in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

By strengthening our public and private commitments to helping the poor, we can provide a safety net that offers support to those in need while remaining true to traditional American values of individualism, efficiency, and equitable access to opportunity.

Scott W. Allard is an associate professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and the author of Out of Reach: Place, Poverty, and the New American Welfare State, published this month by Yale University Press.