Earlier this week I encountered a meme on my Facebook feed. It was a copy of a tweet which stated, “IDK who needs to hear this, but poverty-wage workers cannot budget their way to economic stability. Offering financial literacy workshops when what they need is a living wage is insulting and immoral.” After reading this statement, I felt extremely conflicted. As a sociologist in training, the core of the quote is true: people need a living wage – a systematic solution – to attain stability. However, based on what I’ve learned during my time with Siemer, the statement is wholly inaccurate. You see, the idea that financial literacy is used to help poor people who mismanage their money is not true.

I have experienced over 20 calls with direct service providers that explained to me why they include financial literacy in their programs for families at-risk for homelessness. To be clear, these caseworkers and coaches all share the assumption that families seeking assistance are the experts on their own lives and finances. Moreover, they emphasize the fact that these families are not frivolous spenders; basic necessities make up what might be consider as “spending beyond their means.” Given this, why do they still rely on financial coaching as a form of support? Below are a few of the main reasons:

1. In order for a caseworker or coach to have a true picture of a family’s expenses and crises, they need to know their budget.
2. This approach is used to help families navigate and enroll in public benefits. Some families are not aware of all the benefits they can apply for; others are daunted by the application process itself.
3. This approach is goal oriented and as such, can place families on a pathway toward home ownership.
4. Regardless of their poverty-level income, families are given tools to address future crises or unexpected expenses that come their way.

Now, none of the above reasons serve as a solution to the root cause of a family’s low-income or lack of economic mobility. But, after stepping back from my sociological, macro-lens, I can see that it is one of the best approaches social-profit warriors have in their toolbox. Permanent solutions that get at the root of the problem may be seen as the correct answer to these problems. But the thing is, macro solutions do nothing for the people in crisis today. What the meme did not capture is the necessity for supporting those in need in the present. In no way do I consider that work “insulting” or “immoral.” So, when dealing with these issues, one cannot favor the macro over the micro, but must look at them side by side before casting judgement.