Public Assumptions About Low Income Services

Public assumption seems to be that those in poverty should be grateful about handouts and get their 'stuff' together so that they do not require handouts anymore.

Much public assumption leans in the direction of 'they deserve to be where they are, so they DO NOT deserve to be in any kind of comfort whatsoever.'

For the latter statement, 'common' people often mistake 'needs met' for 'comfort,' and misunderstand that - YES - even some limited 'COMFORTS' (like being able to dump stress for a few hours and go see a play or a movie) are HEALTHY for everyone and add to a person's overall and general health. Some 'comforts' are NEEDS from a mental health standpoint. Just because not everything falls in the category of 'food,' 'clothing,' 'medicine,' or 'shelter,' does not mean that a 'handout' is a comfort-LUXURY to those who have low-income needs!

Many clothing 'handouts' items are the second-hand, used pieces that other, more affluent people throw away. This means that the fibres in the cloth will not last as long as store-selected items and that people in need will have to 'ask again' for sufficient, clean clothing in a shorter amount of time than with off-the-rack-selections. When the 'new but second-hand clothing' wears out, no doubt about it, a low-income person requires MORE clothing.

Many low-income people do not have or cannot afford regular laundry services, and the meagre amount that is alloted by certain services (gov't agencies, shelters, etc), is far, FAR below a person's needs for laudromat costs, soap, etc. This means that a low-income person's clothing often is not taken care of in the same way that more wealthy people can take care of clothing to make it last for a very long time.

If a low-income person has even a few small number of clothing items, this is fine, too, and perhaps all of the person's clothing can nicely fit into one or two loads for cleaning. The flipside of this is that, with one or two loads total, the person is WEARING THE SAME CLOTHING items all the time, thus, wearing the clothing OUT in double the time that average people wear out their clothing...

For those who are actually homeless...

SOME SHELTERS do not allow residents to use the washing machines. Some shelters do not have clothing washers at all for the people who stay there. Washing machines that might be present at some locations are only for shelter staff to use for cleaning bedding!

(and much of the general public WONDERS why low-income people don't pull up their socks, make themselves more presentable in public?)

Much of the general public has NO DOUBT about the fact that services exist to aid the homeless and low income members of society. Television and other media show 'us' that there are shelters, United Way organizations, Addictions Treatment Centres, local shelters, Salvation Army organizations, hostels, etc., all over the place.

The problem is this:

Most people DO NOT UNDERSTAND how these services REALLY WORK and they assume that if the services are there, they actually DO WORK!

The reality is:

Each city/town location is different. Different variables 'drive' the economy in different locations, yet most of the agencies, government ones included, work on a 'standard model' that does NOT necessarily take into account diversity of locations or economics in every location.

A Standard that works well in Chicago Illinios, U.S.A., may not work very well in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Standards are present to show 'minimums' and 'averages,' however, in my opinion, a lot of 'staff' and organizations forget (or don't know how to) "TWEAK" the models in order to meet needs properly for their area of diversity in people, economics, culture, etc.

The 'mind-set' of New Yorkers is different than that of those who live elsewhere, and although everyone has the same basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, emotional support, medical supports, mental health supports, etc., the way in which 'regional culture' perceives of all of these varied supports and needs is different.

A general public often assumes that if a service is visible, then the service is WORKING, is long-lasting and has established itself as a 'successful model' for assisting those in need.

In many instances, this is simply NOT THE CASE!

This model, however, does allow a general public to be very, VERY judgmental toward those receiving handouts, and to say about these people that IT IS THEIR FAULT for needing these services - because - ho, hey, look at all the 'successful' services out there for low income people.

The TRUTH: The presence of services has no bearing on whether or not the services are actually making a successful and beneficial IMPACT upon the lives of those requiring and accessing the services!

Case in point: Most of us in North America will actually ADMIT TO knowing that "Government" as an institution does NOT NECESSARILY 'work' successfully just because it is present and controlling society.

Anytime there is a marginalized VISIBLE population, a general public finds it easier to believe that there is fault within the marginalized population than in 'general society.' In part, this is because it is easier to believe that marginalized people are all 'wrong,' while general society is 'okay.'

In a lot of grocery stores, there are 'donation packs' available. Somewhere in the store, you can usually find a big bin or box where people can place donation packs that will go, at some point, to those in need of food.

Currently, the donation package I examined at my closest (large chain) grocery store had mostly macaroni and tins in it. There were no 'healthy' food items in it. No coupons for accessing produce, and a mere 2 cans of fruit in the package.

Some people who are going to be classified as 'low-income-status' will remain in that classification for at least 3-6 months. This is a hopeful, minimized estimate because generally, a 3-6 months at low-income-status is an unreasonably LOW guess at the length of time most people are actually in that state of financial classification.

Even so, having to eat macaroni and tinned food for more than 2-4 weeks is DETRIMENTAL to any person's health in North American culture.

Not all 'food donation packets' are as void of healthy items, but many truly are.

Now I ask.....should people have to be very grateful for receiving something that doesn't even meet their basic human requirement for nutrition?

If you say YES to this question, you might also think that if a person were being mugged and needed a police authority to intervene, then calling a veterinarian to help would also be sufficient, since a veterinarian is an authority of sorts, anyway...

The general public is often thinking 'apples' where food donations to the poor are concerned, but what is REAL about the food needy people are getting isn't even 'oranges' - it's macaroni.

Would you be grateful for no laundry services and a general public sneering at you, telling you to 'clean up' and look after yourself better?

Would you be grateful for a whole case of macaroni when your body is vitamin-deficient and all you requested was a couple of apples or oranges so that you could put some nutrients into your body?

Would you be grateful for a meal at a shelter that contained things in it that you are allergic to - so that you could only eat the bread during mealtime?

Would you be grateful to have people saying "she/he needs to get her/his act together," or 'suck it up, you put yourself there - get yourself out,' or other de-humanizing statements?

DO YOU KNOW what people require BEFORE YOU DONATE?

Or do you donate things and 'help the needy' without truly knowing what it is that they require?

Do you RELY on 'services' to know what low-income people need?

The worst truth is:

Many services don't truly know what low-income people need. Some services staff are simply 'doing their job' so that they do not fall into the low-income category.

Shelter work jobs are discounted as "Low-end" and "unattractive" jobs and, consequently, are some of THE WORST PAID POSITIONS - by society in general. Some of the GOOD shelter workers who REALLY KNOW what is going on with low-income people are some of the lowest-paid workers in society, yet they SAVE LIVES, do 'interventions' for all sorts of things, including:

* Violence interventions

* Addiction interventions

* Suicide interventions

Would you be grateful if you suddenly had a bad time of things, lost your job and home, and someone saved your life?