Soc DOI 10.1007/s12115-016-0077-6 SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY Poverty and the Controversial Work of Nonprofits Michael Jindra 1 & Ines W. Jindra 2 This is a pre-publication version. The final publication is available at Springer via http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-016-0077-6 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016 Abstract There has been a significant shift among antipoverty nonprofits toward what we call Brelational work,^which involves working with clients over time on life changes. Some scholars discuss this, often in negative terms, as part of a broader neoliberal trend. We argue that relational work is an important and unavoidable part of ongoing efforts against poverty and homelessness. We also discuss the broader theoretical context that make scholars suspicious of this kind of antipoverty work, and argue for a multifaceted approach to poverty that includes attention to relational work and the agency of clients. on changing the lives of the poor takes attention off of needed structural changes. When looking at the relational work of nonprofits, they tend to see it critically as evidence of a weak government welfare state. This debate, which we’ll detail later, can be described as transforming society vs transforming the self. Both are important, but the latter gets little scholarly attention among poverty scholars and there is little work on the actual processes that get people out of poverty. Keywords Poverty . Nonprofits . Sociology . Social work . Policy . Development Relational Work To reduce poverty, should one change people or change social structures? These are usually two very different discussions, occurring at different places. The sociologists and anthropologists who write about poverty tend to propose changes in political/economic structures to reduce poverty and inequality, from measured policy changes to a more radical but often vague restructuring of the Bsystem^ proposed by Occupy and other activists. On the ground, however, local nonprofits work with people in a daily battle against poverty, doing what we call Brelational work^ over the long term. Unfortunately, many in the former group talk down the work of those in the latter group, since they believe a focus * Michael Jindra jindraprof@gmail.com 1 Center for Social Concerns, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA 2 Department of Sociology and Social Work, Gordon College, Wenham, MA, USA Among the thousands of organizations working to alleviate poverty, there has been a significant trend toward relational work over the last ten years.1 Relational work can range from the common Bcase management^ approach of social work that tries to help in certain areas of life (e.g. employability, finances, relationships, health), to more informal approaches involving mentoring or coaching, which can be called Bdevelopmental relationships.^2 It can be one-on-one or group oriented, involving ongoing classes. Often, clients have deeper underlying issues that need to be addressed, such as substance or physical abuse, making more individualized attention a necessity. The common thread between these processes is ongoing meetings or contact between a nonprofit and a client, with some set of goals involved, which also distinguishes it from straight charity 1 Michael Jindra and Ines W. Jindra, BThe Rise of Antipoverty Relational Work,^ Stanford Social Innovation Review, March 17, 2015, http://www. ssireview.org/blog/entry/the_rise_of_antipoverty_relational_work. 2 Junlei Li and Megan M. Julian, BDevelopmental Relationships as the Active Ingredient,^ American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 82, no. 2 (2012): 157–66; Lehn M. Benjamin and David C. Campbell, BPrograms Aren’t Everything,^ Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2014. Soc work with relatively brief and often anonymous interactions between the giver and recipient of aid. This trend toward ongoing relational work is a major shift in philosophy and practice for four of the largest national organizations that provide direct aid to the poor, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and St. Vincent DePaul, and the food bank network Feeding America. All have begun programs that, instead of just counting the number of people served, look at how many they can move out of poverty. The Salvation Army’s program, for instance, is for Bfamilies with a desire to take action^ and involves meeting with a social worker on a regular basis for activities such as one-on-one counseling or life skills training. It has long done relational work through their adult rehabilitation centers, but this program marks a major shift in their financial assistance programs that provide help with utility bills, rent or other needs. Previously this aid was given out with little interaction between staff and client. Catholic Charities’ program involves forming an Bindividual opportunity plan^ for clients, or Basset development,^ financial literacy, and other programs that are intended to empower people (e.g. for jobs), and help them make smart choices about finances.3 Feeding America, the major food bank network in the US, is also looking at ways to make a dent in long-term poverty by modifying the food pantry meal program process to Bhelp clients achieve more stable and self-sufficient lives^ through focusing on employment, health and housing. One could say that nonprofits are trying to shift from services for the poor to services with them. These agencies are among the biggest of the national organizations, but there are a multitude of other agencies involved in relational work focused on reducing poverty, from community action agencies to faith-based organizations,4 including Habitat for Humanity, Bridges Out of Poverty, Love INC, STRIVE, LIFT, or Circles, plus thousands of local independent ones, with some government agencies joining in, such as the Atlanta Housing Authority.5 LIFT, for instance, lets a Bmember^ set a life goal and then try to accomplish it with the help of an Badvocate.^ The Habitat process involves many classes and meetings designed to ensure the new homeowner remains financially stable. The many mentoring programs include the longstanding Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs, and the more recent BMy Brother’s Keeper^ program promoted by President Obama. One can get a good sense of the massive numbers of diverse agencies doing relational work by going to 211 websites/directories for most communities in the US and 3 Catholic Charities USA, B2014 Help and Hope Report,^ 2014, https://www.scribd.com/doc/239814913/2014-Help-and-Hope-Report. 4 Julie Adkins, Laurie Occhipinti, and Tara Hefferan, Not by Faith Alone: Social Services, Social Justice, and Faith-Based Organizations in the United States (Lexington Books, 2010); Steven Rathgeb Smith, BSocial Services,^ in The State of Nonprofit America, ed. Lester M. Salamon, 2nd ed. (Brookings Institution Press, 2012), 192–228. 5 Howard Husock, BAtlanta’s Public-Housing Revolution,^ City Journal, Autumn 2010. Canada (http://www.211search.org). The trend toward relational work has also been influenced by books like Robert Lupton’s popular Toxic Charity, which argues that the simple giving of food or money Bcreates dependence and conflict, not independence and respect^ while an empowerment model involves Bshared responsibility, mutual support and accountability.^6 Relational Work in the Community The national trend helps us see the diversity of these kinds of organizations, but one must go to particular places to see how relational work happens. Over the last five years, we have been studying how nonprofits work with the poor using relational work. Take the example of Julie (a composite character), with three children, who is facing a disconnection notice from her electric company because she is behind on the bill. She stops at the local nonprofit that helps people avoid disconnections. They get details on her situation, including income, benefits and expenses, in order to see if she is getting all the aid she is eligible for, whether she has high expenses and needs budgeting help, or if she needs help getting a job. They also gauge whether she would be a good candidate for the family development program, which consists of monthly meetings to consider how one’s life is going, what goals to set, and how to get there. Julie later begins a family development program and at the first meeting fills out a matrix consisting of 12 different Blife areas^ (e.g. income, housing, support systems) where she marks how she is doing on a fivepoint scale ranging from Bthriving^ to Bcrisis.^ During the ensuing monthly meetings, Julie and the counselor discuss how she is meeting her goals, whether they should be revised, and any problems that arise. She attends classes on various topics, such as budgeting, utilities, or food issues. The counselor may visit her at her home or workplace. Ideally, Julie will be the one actively pursuing solutions, and the counselor will be there to assist. Often, a client will need steady encouragement to pursue goals, such as education or jobs, and to overcome setbacks. Many are in rather chaotic life situations, and a counselor can give them the support to move ahead with plans that could eventually get them out of frequent crisis situations. Relational work is much more diverse than formal case management approaches, however. At many places it is more motivational and empowerment-oriented, and takes place in group settings more than in one-to-one meetings. At Bridges Out of Poverty, their class curriculum uses co-facilitators to help participants reflect on their lives, how they fit in a wider economic class structure, and where they may want to go in 6 Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity: How the Church Hurts Those They Help and How to Reverse It (HarperCollins, 2011), 28–29. Soc the future. In effect, they help people become reflexive, a process known to help people change their lives.7 Residential facilities for those without housing or for victims of domestic abuse offer even more intense opportunities for relational and community work. Shelters for the homeless have shifted away from simply providing nightly beds toward approaches that attempt to help people get out of homelessness in the long run, as in the more recent move to Bhousing first^ approaches. Relational work can also involve home visits, as with programs to support young single mothers, or other mentoring programs. In essence, programs like Head Start’s Bhome visits^ are teaching young women how to be better mothers, though they do not say that directly. There are also a burgeoning number of organizations which help people do budgeting, reduce spending, and make wise financial decisions amidst the temptations of a highly consumerist society. BAsset building^ organizations are also blossoming, prompted by national efforts to increase low savings rate and wealth among low income populations, with nonprofits like the Corporation for Enterprise Development leading the charge. In essence, these organizations or programs play a mediating role between the contrasting worlds of the poor and that of the increasingly neoliberal world of work and institutions, and they do it in different ways. Success in U.S. institutions often demands a certain middle-class daily practice that can be learned, for example, by college students from the working class who made adjustments to be successful. 8 The BGetting Ahead^ classes of Bridges Out of Poverty help people better Bnavigate^ this middle class world by focusing on the implicit rules of middle class behavior that one needs to follow to thrive in the dominant culture. At these organizations, the focus is not on how circumstances hinder you from getting anywhere, but on how one can make positive changes. This is meant to ensure that residents start thinking of themselves not as victims who dwell on their situations, but as active agents with a sense of control over what happens, through their understanding of past hurts, problems and maladaptive patterns. Rather than being a totally individualistic process, this ideally happens in a sea of interdependence, of relationships to case workers, other staff, and to 7 Margaret Archer, Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Ines W. Jindra and Michael Jindra, BConnecting Poverty, Culture, and Cognition: The Bridges Out of Poverty Process^ Journal of Poverty, 2016. 8 Wolfgang Lehmann, BHabitus Transformation and Hidden Injuries Successful Working-Class University Students,^ Sociology of Education 87, no. 1 (January 1, 2014): 1–15. fellow participants and involving other family members as appropriate. Critics This trend, however, is not without its critics. Some fear that the increased work of nonprofits represents a gutting of the universal government safety net, arguing that nonprofits offer only a patchwork approach since not everyone has access to them. The critics see their increased importance as a sign of a creeping Bneoliberalism^ that emphasizes market forces and strengthens work requirements while placing greater responsibility upon low-income populations.9 They worry that that these programs unjustly blame the poor for their predicament, and put the onus on them rather than on structural conditions (e.g. the lack of good paying jobs, poor schools, racism) that cause poverty in the first place. The focus on behavior, work, and selfsufficiency ends up Bpunishing^ or Bdisciplining^ the poor in order to decrease their reliance on government benefits or other aid.10 Because some of these programs highlight particular outlooks on punctuality, speech practices, and future orientation associated with work and education, some dislike how they legitimize middle class values11 and see assumptions about the behavior of the poor that harks back to the Bculture of poverty^ debates in the 1960s.12 Though these are important issues, these critics do not gain much traction outside the halls of academe. For one, the criticisms often come out of a particular Bleft libertarian^ perspective that argues for higher unconditional welfare payments and blanches at any programs, conditions, or requirements that focus on changing or transforming the recipients. In this view, the autonomy of the person must be preserved, and their way of life should not need to change. Rather, the structures of the political economy need to be addressed. In others words, these scholars emphasize an emancipatory “negative freedom” which valorizes minimizing restraints on 9 e.g. P. Joassart-Marcelli, BFor Whom and For What? An Investigation of the Roles of Nonprofits as Providers to the Neediest,^ in The State of Nonprofit America, ed. Lester M. Salamon, 2nd ed. (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2012), 657–681; Susan Starr Sered and Maureen NortonHawk, Can’t Catch a Break: Gender, Jail, Drugs, and the Limits of Personal Responsibility (Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 2014). 10 Much of this discussion also revolves around government welfare reform. Scholars here include Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Loic Wacquant, and the recent work of Soss, Fording and Schram, Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). 11 Katariina Mäkinen, BThe Individualization of Class: A Case of Working Life Coaching,^ The Sociological Review 62, no. 4 (2014): 821–842. 12 Michael Jindra, BThe Dilemma of Equality and Diversity,^ Current Anthropology 55, no. 3 (2014): 316–34. Soc behavior out of concerns with oppression and exploitation in contrast to Bpositive freedom^ approaches (using philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s classic distinction) that aim toward specific ends and involves encouraging some life practices over others. This Bthin morality^ is focused on autonomy and equality13 but the moral language of virtues and character that is common to everyday life is ruled out of bounds.14 They are thus uncomfortable with more relational approaches that help people change daily practices or lifestyles. These critical works often draw on the work of social theorists Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu on power, where the nonprofits represent institutional power through their focus on the responsibility and accountability of the clients. They ignore the fact that Foucault, later in his career, Bchanged his mind^ from his earlier exclusive focus on domination15 and wrote more on ethics, including what he called the Btechnologies of the self^ that enable a type of freedom.16 Highlighting the meditation of the Stoics, the asceticism of the early Christians, or monastic practices of confession and penance, he discussed how these techniques allow individuals by themselves or with others to affect Btheir bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being,^ with the goal of self-transformation towards (among other things) greater Bpurity^ and Bhappiness.^17 These intense reflexive processes can be found in a range of contemporary contexts and traditions, as newer work in the anthropology of ethics points out,18 but they have rarely been discussed in the context of programs that attempt to combat poverty, homelessness or other social problems. At Grace Ministries, a faith-based residential center for the homeless, the explicitly formative practices involve interpreting mistakes, conflicts and vulnerabilities in Christian terms, with a focus on God’s grace as a way to seek restoration and guidance through 13 Philip S. Gorski, BRecovered Goods: Durkheimian Sociology as Virtue Ethics,^ in The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary Society, ed. Philip S. Gorski et al. (New York: NYU Press, 2012), 100. 14 James Laidlaw, The Subject of Virtue: An Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 15 Michel Foucault, The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, Vol. 1: Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, ed. Paul Rabinow (London: Penguin, 2000), 177. 16 Foucault, Ethics; Laidlaw, The Subject of Virtue, 92–137; Cheryl Mattingly, BTwo Virtue Ethics and the Anthropology of Morality,^ Anthropological Theory 12, no. 2 (2012): 161–184. 17 Foucault, Ethics, 204. Foucault’s work is complex, and we can’t do justice to the varied treatments of concepts such as Bpastoral power,^ or Bmonastic discipline^ here, but see Laidlaw (note 14) for a good summary of how Foucault’s work evolved, including the implications for notions of virtue, ethics and freedom. 18 James Laidlaw, BFor an Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom,^ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8, no. 2 (2002): 324–27; Joel Robbins, Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in a Papua New Guinea Society (Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 2004). community self-evaluations and other reflexive practices like devotions, ultimately leading to a more stable life, including self-sufficiency.19 Places like Grace also help people become more responsible family members, with family stability playing a key role in lessening inequality both now and for future generations.20 Bridges, in a more secular context, promotes a certain reflexivity that promotes an Bagentic practice^ that allows for upward mobility, which comes more naturally in upper-class milieus,21 but often needs the mediation of social contexts like nonprofits where a lower class habitus exists. The shift toward this kind of relational work also matches well with the recent academic upsurge in interest on noncognitive and social skills, such as selfefficacy and executive function, by James Heckman and others.22 These skills are not innate to individuals, as earlier believed, but can be learned. They depend on positive environments to develop, so instability and stress affects them. As Walter Mischel, known for his Bmarshmallow^ experiments on self-control argues, adults need activities that Bminimize loneliness, provide social support and strengthen the individual’s ties and connectedness to other people.^23 Newer fields such as behavioral economics and network theory teach us even more about how intensely we are influenced by others, all pointing at the potential of relational work. Transforming the Self, Transforming Society The larger, controversial questions involved here goes back to the early days of social work in the late nineteenth century, and reflects perennial questions about human action, ethics and beliefs about the poor. The primary contrast is between approaches that stress the transformation of the self versus those that stress the transformation of society. The former includes varied approaches that are often religious or quasi-religious, including the Greek and Christian practices discussed by Foucault, spiritual/training regimens in the broader 19 Michael Jindra and Ines W. Jindra, BUtilizing Relational Work and Technologies of the Self against Poverty^ (Unpublished Manuscript). 20 Robert I. Lerman and W. Bradford Wilcox, BFor Richer, For Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America^ (Institute for Family Studies, 2014), http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10 /IFS-ForRicherForPoorer-Final_Web.pdf. 21 Claire Maxwell and Peter Aggleton, BAgentic Practice and Privileging Orientations among Privately Educated Young Women,^ The Sociological Review, 2014. 22 James J. Heckman, Giving Kids a Fair Chance (Boston: MIT Press, 2013). 23 Walter Mischel, The Marshmallow Test: Understanding Self-Control and How to Master It (New York: Random House, 2014), 239. Soc Nietzschean project,24 Western Buddhism,25 and contemporary self-help approaches such as Bmindfulness^ that draw on the above traditions. The transformation of society through social movements and activism, on the other hand, is stressed much more strongly among those on the political left who are suspicious of approaches involving changes in individuals. This latter slant is found in broader journalistic and academic accounts of the lives of the poor–such as those by Barbara Ehrenreich–because of the way they frame their subjects, as heroic, Bnoble victims^26 who deal with their situations the best they can, but can’t do a whole lot to get out of poverty. This victimization frame is common among academics and not always helpful when it relieves people of any responsibility for their situation, as anthropologist Richard Shweder argues.27 Concepts like effortful control, resilience, or transformation that (some) individuals can develop are left out, along with cultural and class differences as contributors to poverty. Even Annette Lareau, in her very insightful work on contrasting social class family patterns, shies away from the obvious implication that teaching new class patterns would help.28 Ehrenreich goes so far as to rip a helpful program like Bridges, and flippantly suggests that instead of trying to develop soft skills, one should simply get a job with the activist organization ACORN.29 The academic associations most concerned with poverty, such as the Society for the Study of Social Problems and the Society for the Anthropology of North America, also share this unwillingness to address social problems at different levels and from different viewpoints. Their publications and conference presentations are almost uniformly of the structuralist bent, with repeated condemnations of welfare reform and little interest in how people actually make changes that help them leave poverty. The denigration of relational work here is ironic, since critics have usually achieved their own career success through a very specific pattern of hard work and focus. 24 Peter Sloterdijk, You Must Change Your Life: On Anthropotechnics, trans. Wieland Hoban (Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2013). 25 David Loy, The Great Awakening: A Buddhist Social Theory (Wisdom Publications Inc., 2003). 26 Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America (Harpers, 1999). For critiques of these approaches, see Robert Cherry, BHelping Black Men Thrive,^ National Journal, Spring 2015, 56–70. 27 Richard. A. Shweder, Why Do Men Barbecue? Recipes for Cultural Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ Press, 2003), 128–29. 28 Annette Lareau, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, with an Update a Decade Later (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). 29 Barbara Ehrenreich, BA Homespun Safety Net,^ New York Times, July 12, 2009. Those of a more conservative bent often make a similar mistake in assuming that a free market will create jobs and provide opportunities that people will naturally take advantage of. They also underestimate how people’s backgrounds often prevent them from making the sensible decisions and habits that allow prosperity in middle class terms, and thus how they need help. Mere job training often won’t do it, since soft skills are also crucial. Some need a socialization process that their backgrounds haven’t given them. As part of the process, this requires digging into sensitive areas of class and culture, and of giving people the tools that most of the middle class already has. Here, cultural sociologists have made great strides in understanding how cognition connects cultural patterns to practices and thus how these patterns and behaviors can change.30 To have a more complete view of poverty and social problems in general, one must take in structural, cultural and individual/agency factors31 which will involve interdisciplinary approaches that take scholars outside their comfort zone. For instance, as sociologists Hitlin and Johnson argue,32 we must include social psychological models of the life course to reveal how people can change their lives. More broadly, the approach of critical realism, with its complex understanding of the interrelationship between structures and persons that includes Bbiology, existential condition, individual personality, immediate environmental situation and larger social structural environments^ shows promise.33 Those more rare scholars that look seriously at both structures and persons include Isabel Sawhill (Bbalancing personal and public responsibilities^) and Robert Cherry (Bthird way^ 30 Jindra and Jindra, BConnecting Poverty, Culture, and Cognition: The Bridges Out of Poverty Process.^ Journal of Poverty, 2016. 31 Corey Abramson, BFrom ‘Either-Or’ to ‘When and How’: A ContextDependent Model of Culture in Action,^ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 42, no. 2 (2012): 155–80; Margaret Archer, BStructure, Culture and Agency,^ in The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture, ed. Mark D. Jacobs and Nancy Weiss Hanrahan (John Wiley & Sons, 2008), 17–34; Nicole M. Stephens, Hazel Rose Markus, and Stephanie A. Fryberg, BSocial Class Disparities in Health and Education: Reducing Inequality by Applying a Sociocultural Self Model of Behavior.,^ Psychological Review 119, no. 4 (2012): 723; Orlando Patterson and Ethan Fosse, eds., The Cultural Matrix: Understanding Black Youth (Harvard University Press, 2015). 32 Steven Hitlin and Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, BReconceptualizing Agency within the Life Course: The Power of Looking Ahead,^ American Journal of Sociology 120, no. 5 (2015): 1429–72. 33 Christian Smith, To Flourish or Destruct: A Personalist Theory of Human Goods, Motivations, Failure, and Evil (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), 254–55; Suzanne Fitzpatrick, BExplaining Homelessness: A Critical Realist Perspective,^ Housing, Theory and Society 22, no. 1 (2005): 1–17. Soc policies).34 These same debates play out in international contexts, where one can contrast more multidimensional approaches to change35 with those who are more cynical about personal transformation since problems are viewed as mostly structural.36 People and Nonprofits Given the complexity of these influences and causes, it makes sense that different antipoverty organizations focus on different pieces of the puzzle, with different nonprofits in essence oriented to the different groups of the poor, such as more itinerant males, or single mothers. Activist organizations take on structural issues and barriers like racism and exploitation, nonprofits such as STRIVE tackle class and subcultural differences, and places like Grace Ministries concentrate more on the unique individual in his or her social context. Ideally, organizations will include some aspect of all these approaches, such as Bridges Out of Poverty, with its analysis of community barriers, exploitation and other structural forces, its focus on the tools needed to overcome social and cultural class barriers, and its encouragement of reflexivity that encourages individuals to consider their lives.37 Undergirding this is often a moral ethos that commands help for those who are struggling. They work face-to-face with people every day and concentrate on issues that clients themselves may have some control over, which tend to be personal, familial, and communal, not structural. Nonprofits have their disadvantages, of course. They vary in quality, understanding and sensitivity toward their clients, and can have confusing overlaps in services, forcing those seeking help to run around to several locations, with varying policies and requirements, to receive help. They can have inconsistent funding and suffer from frequent staff turnover that affects their programs, and some geographical areas have a stronger presence than others, unlike universal government programs. 34 Isabel V. Sawhill, Scott Winship, and Kerry Searle Grannis, BPathways to the Middle Class: Balancing Personal and Public Responsibilities,^ Washington, DC: Brookings, 2012; Robert Cherry, Moving Working Families Forward: Third Way Policies That Can Work (New York: NYU Press, 2013). 35 Robert Brenneman, Homies and Hermanos: God and Gangs in Central America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Bryant L. Myers, Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011). 36 Paul Farmer, Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). 37 Philip E. DeVol, Bridges to Sustainable Communities (Aha! Process, Inc., 2010). Overall, however, nonprofits serve as perhaps the strongest link between the lives of the poor and the wider society they are often alienated from, and their work is crucial in allowing people to have more options. Many of their clients have multiple issues: low education, poor health, histories of neglect or abuse, little work experience, single parenthood without support from a partner, low self-efficacy and Bexecutive functioning,^38 unstable personal situations, and family/ neighborhood cultures that are disconnected from middle class worlds of work and institutions. At the same time, they need to manage connections with complicated institutions such as government agencies, utilities and banks, along with the idiosyncratic needs of potential employers. These nonprofits help people adjust to the neoliberal world of work and institutions that most people must navigate to thrive. They serve diverse clientele–some have disabilities (mental, personality, physical) that limit their ability to work and function, while others will be able to work and thrive given the right support. Thus some nonprofits focus on day to day needs, while others do more intensive work to help people become self-sufficient. Nonprofits that work with the poor simply do not have the luxury of removing the human agent, which happens with accounts that lay all blame for poverty on structural forces external to individuals. Those that only blame the Bstructures^ underestimate how challenging it is for some people to get and keep stable jobs. Changing the structures or offering more opportunities may do little to help segments of the population with the greatest personal challenges, such as those we see seeking help at nonprofits. Some policies, such as universal health care coverage, provide stability to those struggling and may be all the help that some need. But others, without the stable background and socialization that is needed to work as part of an organization, will still struggle. The debate between transforming society vs the person is not an either/or debate. Staff at most nonprofits see the need for improvements in the Bsystem^ whether through improvements in jobs, benefits or more radical changes. But they know many people won’t be able to take advantage of better social structures without personal transformations. 38 Stephen R. Crook and Gary W. Evans, BThe Role of Planning Skills in the Income–Achievement Gap,^ Child Development 85, no. 2 (2014): 405–411. Soc Michael Jindra is a cultural anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame. His research and writing currently centers on the relationship and tension between cultural diversity and economic inequality and includes research with local antipoverty nonprofits. He has taught at colleges in Michigan and Minnesota,and is a former Peace Corps Volunteer and financial analyst. Ines W. Jindra is an associate professor of social work at Gordon College in Massachusetts. She received her MSW and Ph.D. from the University of Fribourg in her native Switzerland. More recently, she was a Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame. She is interested in narrative biographical research, in homelessness, poverty, and urban issues, as well as in religious conversion and religious development, and is the author of A New Model of Religious Conversion (Brill, 2014).