OA: Please introduce yourself and tell us about what you do.‍

Dr. James Whitford: My wife Marsha and I co-founded a Gospel mission in Joplin, Missouri twenty-five years ago. Our mission, Watered Gardens Ministries, is named after Isaiah 25, where God promises that if people do more than just go through the motions of religion and act like they’re helping the poor, and actually help those in poverty, there will be a blessing. You will be a watered garden; like a spring, His mercies never fail. So we’re supposed to extend ourselves to people in need through relationships. That’s the answer to helping people out of poverty, not government welfare.

Every person is made in the image of God, whether dependent on government welfare or charity or not. Everyone was created with the capacity to produce good and contribute. At Watered Gardens Ministries, we don’t view people as objects of our benevolence, which is incredibly important. 

In order to help people out of poverty, we need to help them into jobs. Having a job isn’t a silver bullet, but it is the common denominator for anyone who wants to escape poverty or homelessness. So when we interact with people on welfare, we need to remember that everyone has a gift or skill intended to be utilized to generate wealth for them and contribute to the betterment of their community.

‍

OA: In your experience, how do people become dependent on government welfare? 

Dr. James Whitford: I see them enticed. I’ve seen federal welfare programs advertised on the radio, TV, and in newspapers. There’s an active pursuit of people to become dependent on government welfare. Why? Because there are bureaucrats who believe that the number of people dependent on a program is a sign of the need for that program. But that’s not true. I could park a truck on a street corner filled with $10 bills and hand them out to passersby. The line would get long, but that doesn’t indicate that everyone in line needs $10.

These perverse incentives draw people away from relational, accountable, and challenging programs that help them move out of poverty instead of becoming trapped in cycles of relief. 

Human nature is to take the easiest way out. There is no bigger culprit incentivizing that than government welfare. Folks keep looking for the easiest way to get what they need for the day, and transactional government-funded charity is so simple to get a hold of. It traps people deep in poverty, never giving the right incentive for folks to get back to work.

‍

OA: Can you share a specific story or two of people you've seen become dependent on government welfare?‍

Dr. James Whitford: I could spend a long time on this. There is one tragic story I specifically recall because we cared so much for Michael. We were ministering to him, and he was doing well. He had been sober for a few weeks. Then someone helped him get onto the food stamp rolls. Michael sold a food stamp card for 50 cents on dollar, bought alcohol with the money, and died from alcohol poisoning. It was incredibly sad. Though that was an abuse of government welfare, I think we are harming other people to a great extent.

Over the last 10 years, there has been a 44% national increase in unsheltered homelessness. More than a quarter of a million people are living on the streets. I spoke with a handful of these people in Joplin and asked how they were able to stay alive or feed their habits. Five of them gave me a very quick response: “We sell food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar, we sell government subsidized phones at $50 per pop, and we panhandle.” 

How sad is it that a form of charity intended to help is doing more harm than good? Dependency on charity—and specifically government welfare—is a tremendous issue today that is fueling a lot of chronic poverty and homelessness.

‍

OA: In your experience, what are the long-term impacts of dependency? 

Dr. James Whitford: First, let’s look at the flip side of that coin. What are the pros of being independent? They are countless, but one that comes to mind is the awakening of purpose in an individual’s life. A reason to get out of bed because they have a job to do and someone is counting on them. Another pro that comes to mind is that of human dignity. Animals don’t enter into agreements or exchanges with each other; only people do. Any time our charity strips from a person the drive to contribute what he can for his needs, it strips away an aspect of human dignity.

As for the negative long-term effects, it ends in purposelessness. Drifting. Losing a sense of dignity. Work restores a person’s sense of agency, when they realize they have something within to create wealth and make choices. It empowers individuals. That is lost with long-term dependency. It’s a form of bondage that a person slips into. One of the greatest long term impacts of dependency is when people learn helplessness. It’s a psychological phenomenon where people lose hope of being able to escape where they are.

‍

OA: Can you share a specific story or two of people you know who have suffered these effects? ‍

Dr. James Whitford: I knew a man named Scott who was in our long term residential recovery program. He was doing so well and was beginning to look for work; he was excited about it. Then he received a letter from the Social Security administration that an old application he had put in for disability insurance was approved. He knew he wasn’t disabled; we knew he wasn’t disabled. Scott came into my office, trembling underneath the weight of this decision when he realized he would receive $4,000 in backpay if he received the disability insurance. I encouraged him by saying he was able to work and could make so much more money than what Social Security would pay him. Scott sat with his head in his hands because he couldn’t figure out what to do. Later that day, he unfortunately walked away from our program and went the disability route. That’s just one story of a person who became dependent on government welfare when there was no need for that at all.

Another man I met, Steven, had been living with his mom and grandma. I asked him about his family during lunch, and he said he was at our mission because an agency recommended he become homeless to receive a housing voucher. That was his intent. Steven left his family to try to receive the money. That’s part of the effect of government welfare that’s often unthought of: if people aren’t interdependent on their families and dependent on the government instead, that divides natural ties and relationships that are vital to hold families together and make a healthy community.

I knew another woman, Jocelyn, who was addicted, homeless, and at one time lived on Skid Row in a cardboard box. She came to southwest Missouri trapped in addiction and dependent on welfare. Then she joined our mission and came to faith in Christ. Her life changed. She went to college, got a bachelor’s degree, and went on to get her master’s. She is now employed with us and manages our adult shelter. But at one point during those changes, she was sober, going to school, but still relying on food stamps. We encouraged her to give them up because she had a family to support her and a job. But she was fearful to give them up. When Jocelyn finally made the jump and gave up her food stamp card, she was later interviewed by a local TV station. In the interview, Jocelyn said, “It was harder for me to get free from food stamps than it was for me to get free from heroin.” 

It was a powerful moment when she admitted to the fear of leaving the government program she’d been depended on for almost the entirety of her life. Yet another harmful effect of dependency is the fear of leaving it.

‍

OA: How does dependency on welfare impact your state as a whole? 

Dr. James Whitford: The labor force participation rate in Missouri has been in decline for 25 years. I think it’s matching national trends; the men’s labor force participation rate for ages 24 to 44 has been declining for 70 years now. In 1950, only 1 in 30 men in that age range were unemployed. Now, it’s 1 in 10. A lot of that has to do with dependency on the government welfare programs. In the last 25 years in Missouri where we saw an overall drop in labor force participation, we also saw an increase in food stamp usage from 450,000 individuals to nearly 700,000 individuals. Dependency on welfare can be correlated with less employment.

‍

OA: How have you seen local businesses negatively impacted by government dependency in your state?‍

Dr. James Whitford: In the work phase of our program, we help our students into employment through partnerships with local businesses. One time, we partnered with a local hospital who said they were in need of people who would consistently show up. I was concerned about whether they would be willing to take people with a felony charge or poor work history. But the administrator assured me that they had such a need of people who would show up sober, on time, and fulfill their work day that they would be glad to partner with us. That was a sign to me that employers are looking for consistent, reliable, base labor, but are having a hard time finding that. 

When more people exist on a safety net rather than a paycheck, it becomes difficult for employers to find that base labor.

‍

OA: What positive impacts do you foresee for our states, businesses, and local citizens if dependency on government welfare is reduced? 

Dr. James Whitford: The word “flourish” comes to mind. Flourishing consists of three things. The first is freedom; if a person or society isn’t free, they won’t flourish. I also think vision or a realistic hope for the future is required. If a person sees nothing for their future, they begin to wither. The third component is purpose. A big thing that contributes to purpose is vocation. If people are less dependent on government welfare, there will be more employment, vocation, and ultimately purpose in their lives. 

If you want a flourishing community, you need an employed community. If you want an employed community, you need to reduce government dependency. I think we would see healthier families, better service, higher quality products from local businesses, and less of a need for state intervention in communities.

‍

OA: What do you think can be done to reduce dependency? 

Dr. James Whitford: We need to impact three different sectors. The first is the local private charity sector. I wish more charities were solely privately funded. More than half of poverty-fighting nonprofits are dependent on the government in some way. From what I’ve seen, those organizations become pass-through organizations for the government and result in dependency when they hook people up to government programs. We want to impact those organizations to deliver charity more effectively through privately-funded, outcome-driven, work-oriented approaches. To measure human impact and outcomes, not just how many people pass through their doors or how much food they give away. To get away from handouts. To enter into reciprocity and have healthy expectations of people. Expectations communicate, “I believe in you.” So we need to impact that sector of charity work in America through the organizations in our communities.

We also need to impact policymakers and philanthropists. Toxic handout charity creating dependency crowds out effective, challenging, empowering development programs. We need to work on impacting the minds and hearts of policymakers and philanthropists to educate them on what good charity looks like. If we can influence all three sectors well, we can reduce dependency.

‍

OA: If you could say only one thing to policymakers on this issue, what would it be?‍

Dr. James Whitford: Subsidiarity. This is the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, closest, most competent authority. It’s wrong to take from an individual what he can do through his own industry and initiative, and give it to the community. 

The first thing we ought to do is look at each individual and believe he or she has something that can be utilized to put them in the position of protagonist to their story out of poverty. Take them out of the position of “object of benevolence” and into the position of “subject with agency.” Also, don’t take from the community—local private churches and charities—and give it to a larger association like the government. 

So what I would say to policymakers is this: Make sure your policy is respecting this timeless principle that is vital for the health of families, communities, and our nation as a whole. The principle of subsidiarity.

‍