On one hand I empathize, on the other hand - she made the poor choices that wound up getting herself incarcerated. There are long-lasting consequences to their actions. When society has to choose between spending a dollar on re-entry or spending it on other more (perceived) worthwhile causes - we know how that goes. Before you all get mad at me for saying that, we don't live in a fantasy world with infinite resources that can do X and also do Y.

The article clearly states she dropped out of high school. ( Although she later went back to get a GED. )

Of the three steps to avoid poverty, she clearly followed one ( the full time job ).

Virtue signalling does not help people. Making clear the guidelines to building a good life IS useful.

I think the article voices many concerns about poverty. Here’s one example: “ The first year out of prison is critical for ex-inmates. They’re often leaving prison with little money, uncertain housing, fractured relationships with family, and no job, not to mention the psychological toll of incarceration. “They’ve got to construct a whole life for themselves: Where am I going to live? How am I going to have money in my pocket to eat, clothe myself, get across town?” says Ann Jacobs, executive director of the Institute for Justice and Opportunity at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.”

I believe he was suggesting the three steps as a guideline to be followed if at all possible.

You’d have to think that if everybody clearly understood the steps ( and their relationship to success or failure ) that poverty rates would go down. That’s the goal.