Georgia Works “works”

Georgia Works “works”

Homelessness is a serious problem in many urban communities around the world and in the United States. In the city of Atlanta, at any given time there are approximately 7,000 people sleeping on the streets. 5,500 of these 7,000 are “episodically homeless”— individuals and families who had a home, but due to an acute negative event lost the ability to pay their rent. For these unlucky individuals and families, financial aid is often the boost that they need to help get back on their feet. The other 1,500 homeless people in Atlanta are “chronically homeless” (Closer Look). Many of them have been homeless for quite some time. They do not have a support system. They are often former felons, drug addicts or alcoholics, and there is no end in sight to their homelessness. These chronically homeless males are the people that the Georgia Works program is helping to turn their lives around.

William McGahan retired from a successful career in investment banking in 2012 at the age of 50, and immediately dedicated his life to serving community organizations and working on non-profit boards predominantly in the Atlanta area. In October of 2013, McGahan founded Georgia Works: an independent corporation with 501(c)(3) non-profit status (Exempt Organizations). Georgia Works’ mission is to end homelessness, criminal recidivism, and for graduates of their 12 month program to find a permanent job and permanent housing. It is modeled after the “Ready Willing & Able” program founded in 1990 that had great success helping the homeless populations of New York City and Philadelphia secure permanent housing and employment and become tax paying members of the community. Georgia Works is a life-changing program that not only gives hope to participants, but also benefits residents of Atlanta by improving the community.

McGahan describes the typical Georgia Works participant as “A middle aged African-American male who has been arrested numerous times. He is likely a felon who has child support obligations and has not held a steady job for nearly two years. He’s been homeless at least a year, and he has a history of substance abuse” (Georgia Works!). Homeless males who volunteer for Georgia Works must agree to the following conditions to be admitted to the program:

• Remain drug and alcohol free (submit to random testing every 48-72 hours).
• Work 30 to 35 hours per week.
• Get along and respect others.
• Agree to end public assistance (with the exception of Medicaid).
• Sign documentation allowing staff to identify if they have current child support orders or arrearages.
• Agree to save 20% of income. This “forced savings” will allow clients to have saved approximately $2,000 upon graduation from the program.

By agreeing to these conditions, homeless males can be admitted to the housing units provided to Georgia Works members for a 30 day trial-period known as the “pre-program” where they will immediately begin receiving work-training, and a stipend for food and other needs. At the end of the 30 days, their peers vote on whether or not to allow them into the Georgia Works family (if they do not get voted in, most likely due to their failure to get along and respect others, they can always try again).

Upon passing the pre-program, formerly homeless individuals are on their way to turning their lives around. Georgia Works has secured contracts with Atlanta neighborhoods, as well as partnerships with local landscaping, recycling, and construction companies to put their members to work. A common job is cleaning up public spaces including picking up trash. Program participants work 30-35 hours per week earning $7.40 per hour while remaining drug and alcohol free. Georgia Works has a zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy and members who fail a test are kicked out of the program. However, Georgia Works always opens its doors to former participants who are ready to try to turn their lives around again. By earning $222 per week, participants are able to pay $100 rent, deposit $50 into a savings account, and have $72 to spend as they please. In addition, case management, life skills, and workforce training is provided throughout the twelve months. This holistic program aims at personal development of good habits, work ethic and character with the goal of self-sufficiency.

Providing food, shelter, steady work with pay, a forced savings program, and a strong incentive to stay away from drugs and alcohol is not all that Georgia Works does for participants. I called the Georgia Works office and had the opportunity to speak with Executive Director Phil Hunter and ask him a few questions.[1] When I asked about what Georgia Works does to support graduates, he informed me that they offer in house assistance to help members acquire GEDs which boosts their earnings potential by $7,000-$9,000. They assist members in reacquiring drivers’ licenses by helping them pay fines, go to D.U.I. school, and take them to driving exams which not only improves their quality of life and self-sufficiency, but also raises earnings potential. The companies that they partner with teach workers valuable skills including construction and welding. They have even hired a full time certified addiction counselor to help participants reconnect with friends and family. This has proved to be an invaluable resource for graduates because often, while they have recovered, the people they have hurt have not, and they need help to mend fences and re-enter relationships. All graduates are checked in on by staff 3-4 times in the first year after graduation to see if they need anything and make sure they are staying on track. Georgia Works even hosts alumni breakfasts for members of the community to keep in touch, and stay strong in their quest to put their mistakes behind them and live a normal self-sufficient life.

Georgia Works has had an incredible impact on the lives of its members, and the neighborhoods of Atlanta. As a result of the program, the individuals involved become self-sufficient, and transform their lives from a hopeless situation to having a future with friends and family. The communities have a reduced homeless population, and are cleaner as a result of the work that participants are doing to pick up trash and keep public areas clean. The employees, standing proud in their uniforms, also serve as an inspiration to the other homeless, drug addicts, and alcoholics that there is a place where they too can turn their lives around. The success rate of the Georgia Works program as well as other statistics provided on their website are very impressive. Since its inception in October of 2013, 156 men have come through the twelve-month program. Of those 156, 70 of them are currently involved with the program today and off the streets. 42 members have graduated to complete self-sufficiency. That is a success rate of 72% of members who have enrolled in Georgia Works that remain off the streets and on their way towards or have already achieved self-sufficiency! Some other notable statistics include:

• 32 men currently enrolled in the program are working on jobs that can lead to full-time positions.
• 90% of men that have graduated from Georgia Works are still in their original jobs and apartments.
• $18,000: The cost of incarcerating a man for one year in Georgia.
• $10,000: The cost of taking a man through Georgia Works from homelessness to being a taxpayer.
• $13: The average hourly wage of Georgia Works graduates. That is above the living wage in Atlanta, achieving their goal of self-sufficiency for graduates.
• Many graduates make substantially more than $13/hour, as high as $20.
• 20: The number of graduates who have reacquired their driving privileges.
• 6: The number of positive drug and alcohol tests out of 1000’s since inception.
• 0: The number of members or graduates who have been arrested since joining.
• 90% of men who are now in contact with their children and families.

These results paint the portrait of a company that is doing a great service to individuals and to the community as a whole in Atlanta, and possibly could serve as a blueprint for more programs like this in other urban areas. To quote a recent graduate: “Georgia Works Works. It’s that simple.” (Georgia Works!).

The above portion of this work provides a snapshot of the Georgia Works program. I will now proceed to analyze the output and policies of the Georgia Works program through an ethical lens. Specifically, this analysis will study the conditionality’s faced by participants who wish to enter the Georgia Works program and whether or not they are ethically virtuous.

The first condition that jumps out at a reader looking over the Georgia Works program is that participants in the program are required to give up all government aid and subsidies aside from Medicare if they wish to join the program. On the surface, it is hard to understand the virtue of forcing a poor person to forgo his rightful government support. The stated goal of Georgia Works is to reduce homelessness, criminal recidivism, and to graduate self-sufficient men with permanent jobs and permanent homes. Does forgoing government subsidies aid participants in accomplishing this mission? As an outsider, one could read into this condition and come to the conclusion that Georgia Works believes that these homeless (and predominantly black) men have a character flaw: they are lazy, they have been riding the coattails of tax paying citizens, and the reason that they are poor is that they do not work hard enough because they rely on public assistance. During my conversation with executive director Phil Hunter, I asked him about this curious condition for Georgia Works participants[2]. He explained how the “no handout” policy’s purpose is both financial and for the psychological protection of participants. Immediately upon being accepted to the program, participants receive a stipend that is of greater value than food stamps. Housing is also free until they begin working. Because they get their housing through the program, and they eat meals through the program, the participants do not have a need for food stamps. Phil and I did not discuss welfare checks, but by extrapolating his food stamp logic I believe reasoning for forgoing this assistance is that while participants are in the program, they are not subject to a quality of life that is associated with living below the poverty line, and that is why they do not need welfare checks. There is scholarly ethical reasoning that supports his logic: William Beveridge states that “The correlative of the State’s undertaking to ensure adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earnings, however long, in enforcement of the citizen’s obligation to seek and accept all reasonable opportunities of work and to co-operate in all measures designed to save him from habituation to idleness” (Mead 102). In this case, it is a private corporation rather than the state which is providing the opportunity for earnings. Beveridge argues that it is not unethical in a virtuous sense to impose a condition on a worker who is seeking and accepting a reasonable opportunity for work, especially one that is designed to save him from habituation to idleness. When the idea of the program is to promote self-sufficiency, and the program has set up a path for the worker to achieve this goal over the course of a full year of hard work, responsibility, and sobriety, it is possible to make the argument that the program has instilled this condition to make sure that the program is not undermined by giving the participant too much too soon before he is ready to actually be self-sufficient. This condition is not enacted because of racism or elitism, rather it is benevolent because it is in the best interest of the person subject to the condition and thus it is virtuous.

Speaking of the condition of sobriety, participants are conditionally subject to frequent drug and alcohol testing if they wish to enter the program. This is another example of a participant being subject to a rule which other citizens, including his superiors, are not subject to. This condition also has ethical literature to support its virtue. In his Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke proposes that if the goal of a condition is to improve a man as a person based on a subjective set of circumstances, then it is not virtuous. However, if the goal is to increase the man’s likelihood of achieving his civil interests—his interest in life, freedom, and access to material goods—then this conditionality may be virtuous” (89-90). When trying to help a population of which a large majority have previously battled drug addiction and alcoholism, a zero-tolerance condition on drug and alcohol use would seem to logically increase a man’s likelihood of achieving his “civil interests” and thus this condition also may be virtuous. A different argument is made by Alan Deacon: “someone is obligated to make the most of opportunities created for them by others” (146). Deacon argues that if Georgia Works is acting benevolently towards its participants, then it is not acting unethically if it creates conditions that help the participants make the most of the opportunities that it has created for them.

A Third condition that’s importance to achieving the goals of Georgia Works for its participants is not immediately clear is that participants must sign documentation allowing staff to identify if they have current child support orders or arrearages. This condition forces participants to give away private information that other citizens are not required to divulge. Stuart White argues that “by subjecting welfare recipients to disciplines from which others are free, conditionality demeans them” (82). However, there is no malicious intent with this condition; rather, Georgia Works is being virtuous to the very people who have been most hurt by the participants inability to lead a self-sufficient life. As Georgia Works helps these men turn their lives around, this condition insures that their children, wives, or other family members they might owe money to and most likely have hurt at some point will be able to enjoy the benefits that are owed to them as well. In Alan Deacon’s opinion: “it is possible that a welfare contractualist such as [Stuart] White could agree that some obligations should be enforced whatever the level of social injustice” (147). Thus it is possible that given these circumstances, Stuart White would agree that this conditionality is virtuous and just.

In my opinion, Georgia Works should serve as a blueprint for other urban areas dealing with a large homeless population. Georgia Works provides a life changing opportunity to leave an otherwise hopeless situation of chronic-homelessness. They embody the age-old saying of “if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.” This program is beneficial to the homeless population, their friends and family, neighborhoods that have large homeless populations, and the communities which Georgia Works workers clean up. Furthermore, based on my analysis, the conditionality that participants are subject to not only is ethical and virtuous, but also is beneficial to the goals of the program and the participants.

Works Cited

“Closer Look at the Chronically Homeless.” CBS46 News. N.p., 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

“Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF).” Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF). IRS, 10 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

“Georgia Works!” Georgia Works. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Mead, Lawrence M., and Christopher Beem. Welfare Reform and Political Theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005. Print.

 

 

[1] The following information was collected through personal communication with Phil Hunter on March 30, 2015.

[2] The following information was collected through personal communication with Phil Hunter on March 30, 2015.

FIFA: The Unethical Church that Governs a Beautiful Religion

The World Cup has continuously been the one of the greatest sporting spectacles to bless nations across the world. I say “bless” because for most nations around the world soccer is more than just a sport. In John Oliver’s YouTube spoof of the World Cup in Brazil, a Brazilian woman discusses how soccer truly is a religion. This highly anticipated event, occurring only once every four years, attempts to unify each nation under the religion of soccer.  Unfortunately, over the past decade the World Cup has become shrouded in controversy. Why would such an amazing event with the goal of unifying nations become subject to alleged criticism? Simple, the World Cup is run by a corrupt international civil society organization called the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

The Growing Power of Urban Agriculture

Chemical fertilizers, E.coli, mono-cropping, fast-food restaurants, unethical treatment of animals, high fructose corn syrup, natural, genetically modified, Monsanto, Tyson, exploitation of small farmers, obesity, diabetes, food safety… These are some of the words that accurately describe the current state of the food industry in the United States. There are a handful of big suppliers, who control the majority of the food system, who use highly mechanized processes to produce food that contains chemicals. Small scale farmers are forced to go out of business since they can’t compete with the massive multinational corporations, the dollar menu at McDonalds is cheaper than buying vegetables, and diabetes in the US is at an all-time high (Clemens). As more and more of the hidden costs of how agribusinesses work start to surface, the amount of people who question these methods start to increase. One of these people is Will Allen, who is the founder and owner of the non-profit organization Growing Power Inc. Allen is trying “to create an alternative to the nation’s centralized food system by teaching people how to grow food, cook food and embrace a way of living that’s sustainable.” (Allen, xiii) This paper will look at the actions of Growing Power Inc. through the lenses of consequentialism and evaluate this viewpoint in terms of its sufficiency to explain the situation.

The Case for the Ethical Burrito: A Kantian Perspective on Advertisement

Chipotle and the Ethical Burrito

Chipotle opened its first store in 1993 and has seen astonishing growth and financial success since going public in 2006. Chipotle has been one of the industry’s leaders in serving sustainable food. It is trying to change the way people think about and eat fast-food. It has recently been marketing its commitment to serving high-quality and sustainable ingredients through various media outlets and programs. Despite being considered an industry leader in sustainability, Chipotle’s advertisement and practices have been criticized for being unethical and misleading to customers. The ethics of its advertisement and practices have been questioned, but nevertheless, Chipotle is shining the necessary light into the problems of the farming and agriculture industry. Chipotle is making consumers more aware and conscious about what they are eating. Even if not all of Chipotles practices are completely ethical or sustainable, it is setting an example that other companies in the industry can follow.

The Container Store: Stacking Up Ethically

Many retail companies are not known for outstanding treatment of their employees. In more recent years, the media has delivered news stories with companies involved in lawsuits over wage inequalities, discrimination, or poor labor conditions. The retail industry in particular has been receiving a lot of criticism. One think tank recently published a report which states:

Retail is far from the only low-paying sector of the American economy, yet … [it is] one projected to add a substantial number of new jobs over the coming decade, [so] the choices the nation’s major retailers make about employment will play a crucial role in determining the nation’s economic future. (Resnikoff)

While very recent press has indicated retail companies such as Target, Wal-Mart, and T.J. Maxx may increase employee wages slightly in the near future, there are also companies who do not receive considerable media attention but who have, from their very founding, held higher standards regarding treatment of their employees. One such company is The Container Store (TCS). From its website, to its blog, to newspaper articles, books, YouTube videos, and more, The Container Store makes it clear that it aims for a business model encompassing all stakeholders, but employees in particular. In this paper, I will evaluate how the company has upheld this employee-centered model and determine whether it can be considered an ethical company through Immanuel Kant’s ethical theories.

“Buy-One, Give-One”: Just the Starting Point for Warby Parker

Warby Parker is a fashion company. They specialize in low-cost, designer quality eye glasses. Their name was inspired by two characters in a Jack Kerouac novel. Their glasses are available online and individually tailored to the customer. Their main aim is to be trendy. They also happen to be good. Warby Parker executes a largely unadvertised buy-one, give-one strategy. For every pair of glasses sold, a pair of glasses is donated to a person in need. Warby Parker comes across as a company that genuinely believes in doing good. My analysis of Warby Parker covers their charitable arms, how they manage to stay competitive, and their corporate strategy.
Through VisionSpring, Warby Parker has focused on glasses to underprivileged areas, the actual location varies based on demand. They are committed to this particular charity because they have the means and expertise but also because, 703 million people worldwide currently do not have access to eye care. Glasses have been shown to increase productivity by 35% and income by 20%. These statistics reaffirm the justice of Warby Parker’s approach.

The Four Seasons: Inequality in Luxury Hotels

As tourists walk across the Széchenyi Lánchíd Chain Bridge in Budapest, Hungary, they approach the stunning Gresham Palace. The Four Seasons Hotel Gresham Palace obtains a remarkable site due to the panoramic view of the famous Danube River, Buda Castle, and Fisherman’s Bastion from the front rooms of the hotel. As you enter this Four Seasons, your eye is drawn towards a glass atrium leading up to the front desk. A crystal chandelier is in the center of this atrium and further adds to the grand interior architecture and design of the hotel. After having the opportunity to walk through the Four Seasons Hotel Gresham Palace and stay in the Four Seasons Firenze, I understood why this hotel chain is one of the most well known in the world. The Four Seasons brand is one of luxury and is a part of one of the most influential industries in the world: hospitality. However, even though this hotel chain is luxurious for customers, the hospitality industry the Four Seasons falls into entails poor employee wages, high employee turnover, and lack of stability. Furthermore, this industry has created mass tourism leading to social discrepancies, economic dependencies, and weakened culture. Thus, is the Four Seasons Hotel Chain ethical for partaking in an industry that has led to such problems? Should the Four Seasons shift their attention from customers to employees in order to address industry concerns?

Uber: Transforming Transportation

Uber is a company that has taken new technological developments and used them to create a superior service within the transportation industry amid the changing sociocultural influences of today’s societies. In their strategies to align stakeholder interests and expand into new territories, Uber has instigated some public concern about their operations, but has overall set the company up with the potential to provide a great value to society. In addition to providing an explanation of why Uber has been valued so highly in the eyes of investors and the admiring public, my analysis of Uber will look at whether the company is providing sufficient benefits to outweigh its downsides on the basis of consequential ethics. As a user of Uber’s App myself, the analysis will provide a foundation for Uber customers to decide whether this is a company worthy of our business.

Patagonia: An Exemplar of Deontology

Our world moves exponentially faster today than it ever has before. Utilizing incredible advancements in technology, we have been able to revolutionize the ways we live, communicate, and conduct business. Corporations, many of which began as very small operations, now control billions of dollars and employ thousands of workers all across the globe. Unfortunately, our consumption-based culture has created an artificial “environment” that exists within the greater ecosystem of our planet. For it to thrive, we rely the natural world to supply these corporations with raw materials, which are later converted into consumable products often at the lowest possible cost. Sadly, these gifts are discarded back into the environment as waste, resulting in the unprecedented levels of pollution we experience today. Our current technological capabilities have facilitated this process, and have become one of the greatest threats to the health of our planet. However, one might ask, is it possible that these immensely powerful corporations could utilize their resources to help establish a respect for the natural world from which we have grown so distant? In the following paper I will prove that Patagonia is a corporation that does not only compete at the highest level in its industry, but remains committed to environmentally responsible business practices. Using the Kantian approach to ethics known as deontology, I will evaluate Patagonia’s business activities and demonstrate how a focus on sustainability can simultaneously benefit both the natural world and a company’s bottom line.

INSITE: A Consequential Problem or the Ethical Solution?

The war on drugs is surrounded in controversy from drug-control policy and recreational drug use to treatment of addicts and rising healthcare costs. Most countries have strict zero tolerance policies with society’s support – deeming the subject taboo and unethical, drugs as evil, and addicts as “bad” people. Canada as taken alternative measures in Vancouver’s Downtown East, which had “astronomical levels of HIV and drug overdose.” INSITE is a legal, supervised injection site offering a safe environment to use illicit drugs and to connect with healthcare services. The Canadian facility allows drug users to shoot-up safely without fear of arrest and with on-site medical assistant. The government-funded injection site is the only facility of its kind in North America. There is sufficient evidence that INSITE has public health benefits by lowering HIV and AIDS rates, but the subject is still controversial. Critiques argue harm reduction practices encourage drug users, perpetuate a problem, and give the “green light” on illicit drug use. Advocates claims INSITE saves lives, reconnects marginalized drug addicts with the community, has financial benefits to healthcare costs, and is overall beneficial to society. In first applying consequentialism to INSITE, it is clear the facility provides public health benefits for the larger community. When delving deeper, one must ask who are the beneficiaries of INSITE? Do harm reduction programs really help addicts or the general public? Is the action of opening INSITE causing unintended consequences? This paper will seek to understand INSITE and the consequential ethics behind it.