When arguing for local programs to address poverty other side of scale, you also want to consider the other side of the argument. A common argument is that local initiatives cannot adequately cope with the structures that underpin poverty – economic inequality and poorly structured welfare policies. Local initiatives are critical for the immediate relief of our communities and can become the basis for systemic change. In focusing on individual and family needs at the community level, we can also build stronger support for systemic change: Successful local programs can be models that are scaled across a locality.

Another counter-argument is that the investment in local programs could mean a loss of resources for already established welfare systems or large-scale government projects. However, research also indicates that harmonised solutions that align local efforts to the existing structures, can improve overall efficacy. We can use funds from programs that have proved to be less effective to support those community-based efforts, and achieve better outcomes, without unraveling the safety net. Instead of looking at local initiatives as a distraction, they should be approached as twin approaches that reinforce solidarity with the most vulnerable.

Lastly, it's true that worries about sustainability of local efforts are justified. Doubters may wonder how these programs can be sustained. That said, a number of community programs have proven successful in negotiating funding agreements with local businesses, non-profits, and even local government grants. We can make these efforts more sustainable and durable by building a shared sense of community.

Overall, although systemic change is necessary to ultimately reduce poverty, localized efforts are necessary for immediate assistance and empowerment. By working on both the pressing and systemic, we can develop a holistic strategy to dramatically increase our community’s quality of life.