The following is a response to Tom Orr's insightful "Poor in Indiana: Part III." The marked link below will lead the reader to Mr. Orr's discussion of the "cliff effect."

Supporting those who have fallen into poverty makes humanitarian sense. Failure, however, to provide an effective transition from poverty to independence turns that support into a trap. The grants social service agencies fight over frequently add bells and whistles to that trap, not a way out. That's both disrespectful and condescending.

Effective transitional support would encourage decisions that lead to independence. That makes economic and humanitarian sense. It also treats people with respect.

So let me see: dependence or independence? Perhaps what we have chosen to pay for is precisely what we are getting. So let's be honest. Rather than blaming irrational policies for thoroughly predictable results, we elect to blame the poor for remaining dependent.

That's amazing, but I suppose it's easier than changing how we allocate grant money. Of course, it's not defensible morally or intellectually; it's just easier. Consequently, the poor are not the only ones who make "bad" financial decisions. They are, however, more likely to endure sanctions--even when their decisions are good ones

Tom Orr's Series Entries:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poor-indiana-part-i-thomas-orr https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poor-indiana-part-ii-thomas-orr The Cliff Effect: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poor-indiana-part-iii-thomas-orr