Enabling the poor to deal with their problems: the Family Independence Initiative

One person that has received a lot of acclaim for fighting poverty in America does so without any set outcomes.  Maurice Lim Miller's Family Independence Initiative simple gives the families cash and a computer. They then cooperate with other families in the program to work together to climb out poverty. Families will share daycare, appliances or transportation to help each other out.

Lim Miller's method reminds us of Brazil's Bolsa Familia program, where families are simply given a bit of money and are entrusted to make the best decisions with it.

From the Guardian, writer Mary O'Hara has this profile.

In a nutshell, Lim Miller explains, FII challenges the conventional notion of "needs-based" poverty interventions and the stereotype that low-income families are not capable and rely on outside guidance. To this end, the organisation recruits small groups of struggling low-income families in poorer communities (they must know one another already) and incentivises them to work together to improve their circumstances. Regardless of any state benefits they receive, each family is given a computer and a modest stipend – no more than $500 (£312) per quarter – in return for documenting and reporting any progress they make by working with the other families.

These small steps, says Lim Miller, can be anything from learning leadership skills to increasing savings, to pooling resources for childcare so that parents can get out to work. But whatever form it takes, the point is that there are no professionals on the ground stipulating what their goals should be, or instructing on how to reach them.

The idea, Lim Miller stresses, is that low-income households are steered away from dependency on welfare programmes, which, he says, "no matter how well meaning are disempowering". It is taken for granted that the families "will spend the money much more efficiently", he adds, if it is simply handed over and left up to them. He says the guiding principle is that people from poor backgrounds are neither the "victims" they are often portrayed as by people on the left, or "lazy" and undeserving as they are frequently labelled by the right. "Just like anyone else, these families want some control and choice in their lives."

The project, which Lim Miller acknowledges was a bold experiment when it launched with a small cohort of families in Oakland almost a decade ago, has grown steadily. There are now more than 350 families participating in Boston, San Francisco and Oakland with further expansion planned, including an online social networking hub. "In the first two years [of the project] in Oakland, incomes jumped among the group by 27%. Savings were up by 300%. Nine out of the 23 families had bought homes," he says. The latest data from the initiative shows considerable progress in San Francisco and Boston with average incomes up.

Lim Miller talks too of a "ripple effect" within communities. "People can see that somebody achieved something … Expectations change." The perception people have of their life chances is critical, he argues. "If you are in a community where no one is getting ahead, what does that do [to you]?"

The participants are not families in crisis but those trying to get a foot on the social mobility ladder. "I've been working with low-income families for over 20 years. These are families who are trying, who want to get out [of poverty] but are stuck," he explains.

U.S. Catholics want more of a focus on helping the poor

A new survey shows that a majority of Catholics think that the church should focus more on helping the poor than on abortion. This was probably widely reported yesterday, but we wanted to make sure to mention it at our blog. We are pretty excited about this news because we feel that this should be the greatest concern not only for the church but for the whole world.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops instead focus on abortion, and no matter what you might feel about this issue, let's face facts... Roe vs Wade is not going to be overturned anytime soon. The history of three pro-life Presidents since the legalization of abortion should be proof enough. No, Romney won't be able to overturn it, unless the entire Supreme Court retires during his presidency.

The church should instead focus more on something that could immediately impact lives, something that even non-Christians would support, something that is mandated by Scripture.

From Reuters Alert Net, writer Mary Wisniewski tells us more about the survey results.

The 2012 American Values Survey finding on Catholics goes against the focus of many U.S. Catholic bishops, who have stressed the church's ban on abortion and artificial contraception in their public policy statements.

The poll found that 60 percent of Catholics want a greater focus on social justice issues rather than abortion, while 31 percent support the opposite approach.

The divide was true even among Catholics who attend church once a week or more, a group often considered more socially conservative. A slim majority of this group, 51 percent, thought the church should focus more on social justice issues.

"The survey confirms that there is no such thing as the 'Catholic vote,'" said Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the institute and co-author of the report. The survey included more than 3,000 respondents. "There are a number of critical divisions among Catholics, including an important divide between 'social justice' and `right to life' Catholics."

U. S. candidates avoid talk about poverty

One thing has been missing during this U.S. Presidential campaign... any talk about lifting the poor out of poverty.

Both the candidates have ignored the issue because they are not trying to earn the votes of those in poverty. Instead they have focused on the issues important to the middle class, single professionals, and senior citizens.

Still the plight of the poor is one of this nation’s biggest tragedies. Without any candidate talking about it, it will be very hard to get any action to improve this issue.

The only bright spot we could find is from the advocacy organization Circle of Protection. They asked for each candidate to record a video that outlines their platform for poverty issues.  You can view each of the videos at this link.

From NPR, we learn of another organization trying to get the candidates to talk about poverty.

Melissa Boteach heads Half in Ten, a campaign by progressive groups to cut poverty in half in 10 years.

"The problem is that when politicians talk about jobs, they don't talk about how they're going to reach the most vulnerable people who have been out of work for the longest time," she says.

Her group and other anti-poverty advocates are so frustrated by the candidates' lack of attention to the topic, they've launched a Twitter campaign with the hashtag "#talkpoverty." They're trying to get someone to ask the presidential candidates in the debates what they would do to reduce childhood poverty in their first 100 days. So far, they've had no luck.

"When you don't talk about something, it's hard to build the political will to implement it," says Boteach.

 Anti-poverty advocates say they're especially disappointed because they think Obama has a very good record to run on. They credit him with keeping millions of additional people out of poverty during the recession with stimulus spending on things such as expanded tax credits for low-income families, unemployment insurance and food stamps. And they note that his health care law will extend Medicaid coverage to millions of additional poor people.

...

But Republicans say one only has to look at the high poverty rate to see that Obama's approach has not worked.

"If someone's in poverty, what do you do about it?" asks Kevin Hassett, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute and a Romney adviser. "What you do is you fix the economy."

Hassett says Obama's plan is largely to expand government aid, but he says it's this spending that's helping to keep the poor in poverty.

"We've got people in poverty that can't find a job [and] that have to rely upon the government safety net, which should be there to protect them," he says. "But the reason they have to rely on the government safety net is that we have a president that hasn't thought, 'Geez, you know, being the highest corporate tax place on Earth is a bad idea.' "

A look at the development aid positions of Romney and Obama

Both of the U. S. Presidential candidates spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative last week. Their speeches outlined what their goals for foreign development aid would look like if elected. A look at the positions of each reveals that both candidates have about the same agenda.

Despite what he says about "big government," Romney doesn't want to make major cut backs. Analysts say that the best hope for more foreign development aid is that the same party runs both Congress and the White House. The now Republican controlled Congress whould be more willing to support any programs Romney comes up with, while they would close the pocketbook for anything Obama proposes.

From the U.K. based paper the Guardian, we have this look at the policy positions on each

Obama's White House and executive agencies have been leading initiatives to update US foreign assistance and elevate development policy alongside defence and diplomacy. But his policymakers had a late start.

Obama picked those he wanted to lead on defence and diplomacy – Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton – well before he took office, but it took more than a year to nominate Rajiv Shah for the top job at the US international development agency, USAid, which still has key leadership vacancies. Staffing delays and two development policy reviews – one led by the White House and the other run by the State Department and USAid – consumed the better half of this presidential term.

As a result, the efforts of Obama's administration to improve the US aid architecture and approach, including gathering better data and evidence about what works, are still getting off the ground. Obama's team missed an opportunity to work with members of Congress – under Democratic leadership before the mid-term elections – to legislate changes. His development policymakers see this election as the difference between launching their policy vision, or actually carrying it out.

Romney, who has been silent on these issues until now, is promising a modern but not new foreign aid approach. His plan addresses the same important issues that have driven the development agendas of both Obama and his predecessor, George W Bush.

Romney spoke of three "quite legitimate" but familiar aid objectives during his Clinton Global Initiative remarks on Tuesday. "First, to address humanitarian need. Such is the case with the Pepfar (the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief), an initiative that has provided medical treatment to millions suffering from HIV and Aids. Second, to foster a substantial US strategic interest, be it military, diplomatic, or economic." The third purpose, Romney said, is "aid that elevates people and brings about lasting change in communities and nations".

Romney's "prosperity pacts" sound a lot like Obama's "partnerships for growth". Both emphasise economic growth and better use of trade policy and private sector investment. Similarly, Obama and Romney both aim to be more selective about where the US gives foreign assistance to spur policy reform and prosperity, not just deliver social services. The US Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by Bush with bipartisan support from Congress, embodies the same principles.

Housing subsidy families happier instead of richer

Back in the 1990s the U.S. began a housing subsidy program for poor families. It gave poor families a chance to move out of slums and into nicer neighboorhoods. The hope was that the families would be given all of the economic opportunities easily found in richer areas. The theory didn't work to well, but it did impove one thing for the poor, it made them happier.

From the New York Times, writer Sabrina Tavernise looks into the surprising results of the housing subsidy program.

What researchers did find were substantial improvements in the physical and mental health of the people who moved. Researchers reported last year in The New England Journal of Medicine that the participants who moved to new neighborhoods had lower rates of obesity and diabetes than those not offered the chance to move. Beyond the increase in happiness, the new study found lower levels of depression among those who moved.

“Mental health and subjective well-being are very important,” said William Julius Wilson, a sociology professor at Harvard whose 1987 book “The Truly Disadvantaged” pioneered theory about concentrated poverty. “If you are not feeling well, it’s going to affect everything — your employment, relations with your family.”

The researchers measured quality of life using participants’ reports of their own well-being. Researchers asked: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days? Would you say you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?”

A year after they entered the program, the families who had made the move were living in neighborhoods where about a third of the residents lived in poverty. In contrast, those who were not offered the chance to move lived in neighborhoods where half of the residents lived in poverty.

Professor Wilson said it was not surprising that education levels did not change significantly because many of the children who moved remained in the same school districts. And Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard and one of the study authors, said that the preference for educated workers was so strong that changing neighborhoods did not do much to improve job options for the participants, who were mostly African-American women without college educations.

The new U.S. Census Bureau poverty and income data

Just in time for the U.S. Presidential Election, the Census Bureau has released new data on the income and poverty levels throughout the nation. CNN Money has great interactive map where you can scroll over each state to see their data.

Again this year, Mississippi is the state with the highest poverty level and lowest median income. On the bright side, the highest median income belongs to Maryland, while the lowest poverty level belongs to New Hampshire.

One in Three Hispanic Children at Risk for Hunger in the United States

Bread For The World released a new report yesterday on hunger within the Latino population of the United States. The report shows that one in three Hispanic children are at risk for hunger within our borders.

Bread for the World has made the entire report available on their website; "Hunger and Poverty in the Hispanic Community." From Bread for The World's press release we find more figures from the report.

Thirty-four percent of Latino households with children struggle to put food on the table, according to “Hunger and Poverty in the Hispanic Community,” compared to about 22 percent of U.S. households with children overall.  And a shocking 36 percent of all Hispanic children live in poverty, compared to 25 percent of U.S. children overall. 

These figures could be much worse if it were not for government safety net programs. Federal nutrition programs like SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps), WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children), and school meal programs have helped keep more people from going hungry, despite the nation's soaring poverty and unemployment rates. Thirty-five percent of Latinos are eligible for SNAP benefits, but only 21.4 percent actually participate in the program.

“Congress has a responsibility to communities with the greatest need, and we are urging policy makers to create a circle of protection around funding for programs that are vital to hungry and poor people,” added Moreno.

Video: America's Dirty Secret: Child Sex Trafficking

From the Associated Press, a video about child sex trafficking in the United States.

Study links land grabs to American Universities

African land that is equal to the size of France has been purchased by foreign companies over the last three years. The practice has been termed "land grabbing" where the company uses the land for its own profit. The practice is often attributed to Chinese companies, but a study today shows that American Universities may be involved as well.

From the Guardian, writers John Vidal and Claire Provost take a look at the study that followed the money trail from the land grabs to US education.

The new report on land acquisitions in seven African countries suggests that Harvard, Vanderbilt and many other US colleges with large endowment funds have invested heavily in African land in the past few years. Much of the money is said to be channelled through London-based Emergent asset management, which runs one of Africa's largest land acquisition funds, run by former JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs currency dealers.

Researchers at the California-based Oakland Institute think that Emergent's clients in the US may have invested up to $500m in some of the most fertile land in the expectation of making 25% returns.

Emergent said the deals were handled responsibly. "Yes, university endowment funds and pension funds are long-term investors," a spokesman said. "We are investing in African agriculture and setting up businesses and employing people. We are doing it in a responsible way … The amounts are large. They can be hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not landgrabbing. We want to make the land more valuable. Being big makes an impact, economies of scale can be more productive."
...

In Tanzania, the memorandum of understanding between the local government and US-based farm development corporation AgriSol Energy, which is working with Iowa University, stipulates that the two main locations – Katumba and Mishamo – for their project are refugee settlements holding as many as 162,000 people that will have to be closed before the $700m project can start. The refugees have been farming this land for 40 years.

In Ethiopia, a process of "villagisation" by the government is moving tens of thousands of people from traditional lands into new centres while big land deals are being struck with international companies.

The largest land deal in South Sudan, where as much as 9% of the land is said by Norwegian analysts to have been bought in the last few years, was negotiated between a Texas-based firm, Nile Trading and Development and a local co-operative run by absent chiefs. The 49-year lease of 400,000 hectares of central Equatoria for around $25,000 (£15,000) allows the company to exploit all natural resources including oil and timber. The company, headed by former US Ambassador Howard Eugene Douglas, says it intends to apply for UN-backed carbon credits that could provide it with millions of pounds a year in revenues.

Discerning the clothing collection boxes

We have often seen the blue and green collection boxes in parking lots across America. The boxes have drawings of the globe and claim to give the clothing to far flung reaches of the globe. Do the clothes actually make it to the poor across the world? Also how do these boxes effect donations to your local charities like the Salvation Army and Goodwill?

From the Chicago Tribune, writer Monica Eng describe why those boxes may not be as charitable as they seem.

With more-established charities reducing their fleets of clothing boxes, commercial recyclers have moved in with their own boxes to tap into the valuable supply of discarded American clothing — sometimes, but not always, in partnership with charities.

Although some larger charities around the country have blamed the new boxes for a decrease in donations, local Goodwill and Salvation Army representatives say donations have remained generally stable, considering the economy.

Some of the more controversial new boxes are placed by recyclers who consider collecting used clothes to be a charitable environmental program or who create and run their own charity to which they donate funds.

One of the biggest players, Gaia, falls in the first category. Over the last several years it has been criticized for characterizing itself as an environmental charity with projects around the world, when most of its environmental work remains collecting clothes for sale. Along with the related organizations Planet Aid and USAgain, Gaia has expanded in the last decade despite its connection to the controversial Danish organization Tvind, whose leader was acquitted of charges of money laundering and embezzlement in 2006.

An example of the second category is Florida businessman Jay Katari, who owns or has a stake in several textile recycling companies and has also headed charities called Shoes for a Cure and Cancer Free America, whose logos have emblazoned hundreds of boxes.

Critics contend that he gives very little of his profits to cancer causes, and the controversy led Johns Hopkins Cancer Center and Children's Center to stop taking donations from his organizations. Katari did not return phone calls from the Tribune seeking comment, but he said in one television report out of Maryland that he has given at least $87,000 to cancer charities.

In 2009, boxes for a new cancer charity called Go Green for the Cause began to appear in parking lots across the nation. Nicole Leve, executive director of the organization, says it has about 1,000 boxes nationally and about 200 in the Chicago area that raise money for cancer charities. Commercial recyclers operate most of the clothing operations and pay Go Green for clothes deposited in the bins, Leve said. Katari runs one of those recyclers and has been a generous donor to the charity, she said.

A look US charity oversight in light of the Greg Mortenson allegations

From Wikimedia Commons

The story about Greg Mortenson has raised questions into oversight of non-profits in the US. It is alleged that Mortensen printed false tales in his book "Three Cups of Tea" The state of Montanta is about to begin an investigation on Mortenson's charity Central Asia Institute over improper use of funds raised mainly fuel his personal book tour.

When any charity files for tax-exempt status, the IRS usually accepts them without much investigation. So a charity that does little to no actual charitable work can be accepted and begin raising money. Experts say that laws already in place need to be better enforced to prevent any future charitable fraud.

From Reuters, writer Michelle Nichols has this anaylsis of US charity oversight.

U.S. tax authorities grant groups charitable status, which exempts them from taxes, and require most to file annual informational tax returns, but experts say the main source of regulation faced by nonprofit groups is at state level from the attorney-general.

"The problem is that very few states have put the resources they should into this part of the attorney general's activities and the quality of regulation ... varies," said Leslie Lenkowsky, a professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University.
...

U.S. tax authorities reject very few applications by groups wanting to become charities, but making it more difficult would raise concerns about what criteria would be used to determine a nonprofit and could hinder efforts by groups to do good.

There are several independent charity watchdogs such as Charity Navigator and the American Institute for Philanthropy, where donors can get advice about larger nonprofit groups.

But their views can differ. The institute wrote a critical report about Mortenson's Central Asia Institute, while the Navigator gave it a top four star rating and then added a donor advisory warning when concerns about the group were raised.

"The vast majority of donors are looking for information that is readily available; they don't have a lot of time to do research for their charitable giving," said Ken Berger, chief executive of Charity Navigator.

"We're trying to oversee what is basically a $2 trillion part of the American economy -- one out of every 10 jobs -- 10 percent of GDP, and we are a very small operation," he said. "Creating further regulation would not be viable unless we get serious about enforcing existing law more rigorously."

Jump for Opportunity

For those of us that didn't get schooling in international development, or who are unable to go to poor nations on a missions trip, there is one important thing you can do. The big thing the rest of us can do to make a difference is raise money. And the easiest way to do that is by creating a fun event. We found one such example of fun fund-raising today. Michael Simmons and several others are going to jump out of planes to raise money for Opportunity International.

From the Times of Trenton, writer Eva Loayza introduces us to Jump for Opportunity.

The Plainsboro resident is one of several young entrepreneurs who will be skydiving in Orlando a week from Saturday to raise awareness and money for Opportunity International, a nonprofit organization that provides small business loans, savings, insurance and training to over 2 million people working their way out of poverty in the developing world.

The jump is part of Jump for Opportunity, a first-time event that challenges participants to face their fears for a good cause. The event is being sponsored by Young Ambassadors for Opportunity, an Opportunity International program for “passionate, globally-minded young professionals dedicated to providing economic opportunities for people living in chronic poverty.”

The money raised by the skydiving fundraiser will support Opportunity International’s financial programs and services in Tanzania.

Simmons is one of 26 people who have registered to take the leap — and quite a leap it is. The group will be jumping from 18,000 feet. While he skydived for fun once before, he admits, “I’m definitely, pretty scared. He remembers the fear as he sat on the edge of the plane waiting to jump, his legs dangling in the air. The worst “is when you jump out and your stomach drops,” he said.
...

“It’s easy to get desensitized from the reality that a large percentage of the world lives in.”
According to statistics on the Opportunity International website, 60 percent of the more than 40 million people living in Tanzania live on less than $2 a day.

Funds raised by this event will support efforts to build a full-service bank that would make microfinance loans available to people living in poverty. Microfinance is a means of extending credit, usually in the form of small loans with no collateral, to nontraditional borrowers such as the poor in rural or undeveloped areas.

American problems to be represented at the World Social Forum

The World Social Forum will take place in Senegal next week. The annual meeting gathers grass roots organizations to talk about the social and development issues of the world. This year, a group of American NGOs will arrive at the forum to remind the world that there are poor people here as well. The American poor face struggles in obtaining food, water and employment just like those in the rest of the world.

From the Inter Press Service, writer Andrea Lunt tells us about some of the American NGOs that will attend the WSF.

"In some ways there is this misconception around the world that because we live in the States, we don't deal with poverty, but it is real, especially in Michigan," said Oya Amakisi, a social activist travelling to the WSF this year.

"Our lives are very precarious right now. A huge percentage of people don't talk about it, but there are folks in three- piece suits living in cars," she told IPS.

Amakisi was one of the organisers of last year's regional U.S. Social Forum (USSF), which brought together up to 20,000 participants from around the world for a five-day conference in Detroit.

She is also affiliated with the Detroit to Dakar (D2D) initiative which was launched to highlight the parallels between social struggles in North America and in developing countries in Africa.

Amakisi said she hoped the upcoming WSF would be a place where activists can converge to share experiences and put forward solutions, not just discuss problems.

"We want to really learn how to create long-term effective change and transformation. Another world is possible… this is not our only option; struggling every day is not our only option, trying to figure out if we can keep a roof over our heads and feed our children should not be our only option."

"How can we get the basics – food, water shelter, respect, safety, education. The only thing we want is to be treated like human beings and have our voices heard in terms of how our lives are handled."

US AID proposes cuts, but asks Congress not to cut any more

One political tussle in the US will have major implications for international development aid. President Obama has made development aid a big part of his strategy in foreign policy. Republicans recently voted into the House and Senate want to make big budget cuts and are eying development aid as a target.

In an interview with Reuters, head of US AID Rajiv Shah says he has made changes to the organization that will save taxpayers $65 million dollars. He is presenting the changes to Republicans in order to keep going with future plans to expand. Writer Andrew Quinn interviewed Shah on the changes and the hard sell he has to make to Congress.

"We're making those hard decisions and tough changes," Shah told Reuters in an interview, saying skeptics on Capitol Hill must be persuaded that overseas aid is an essential part of U.S. security strategy for coming decades.

"We need our partners on the Hill in both parties to recognize that, done well, development saves lives and improves economic opportunities, and needs to be elevated and not cut."

Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November and some, including the new chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, have promised to take a tough new look at President Barack Obama's plan to nearly double the U.S. aid budget to $52 billion by 2015.

By contrast, the Pentagon's budget request for fiscal 2011 was more than $700 billion -- although U.S. military planners are also looking at spending cuts in the future as U.S. political leaders grapple with the ballooning deficits.
...

The administration has sought $52.8 billion to cover both State Department and foreign assistance in the 2011 fiscal year, about two-thirds of which is earmarked for aid spending, chiefly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Shah, in a speech on Wednesday, outlined steps USAID is taking to improve its balance sheet, including moving costly senior jobs from places such as Paris and Tokyo, reducing its real estate portfolio and doing more work with in-house experts rather than expensive contractors.

Administrative changes alone can save about $65 million in operating expenses, Shah said, adding that the "leaner, meaner" aid agency he is trying to create will ultimately be a more effective tool of U.S. foreign policy.
...

USAID is accelerating plans to "graduate" countries from U.S. assistance packages. The first of these, Montenegro, can expect to see U.S. development support end in 2012 and at least six others are also likely to see U.S. money dry up, he said.

The US introduces many ways to measure poverty

The US Census Bureau has released the results of various alternative poverty measurements. The standard poverty measurement was developed in the 1950s so many believe that it needs updating. The different alternative measurements show the number of US citizens in poverty to be anywhere from 39 million to 53 million.

From the Washington Post, writer Carol Morello tells us the results.

Under a complex series of eight alternative measurements, the Census Bureau calculated that in 2009, the number of Americans living in poverty could have been as few as 39 million or as many as almost 53 million. Under the official calculation, the census estimated that about 44 million were subsisting on incomes below the poverty line of about $21,750 for a family of four. The alternatives generally set the poverty threshold higher, as much as $29,600 for a couple with two children.

In September, the census estimated the nation's poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent. Under the alternatives, it could have been as low as 12.8 percent or as high as 17.1 percent.

For the time being, the government will continue to use the original poverty definition to determine eligibility for federal programs. The alternatives are experimental and will be revised every year, eventually winnowing them to one.

The bureau's move is expected to reignite a debate over whether to replace the current measurement, as was recommended in 1995 by a blue-ribbon panel from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The alternatives are offspring of the NAS report.

"Our interest was in getting a better measurement," said Robert Michael, a University of Chicago dean who chaired the panel. "That's politically difficult to do because of the entrenched benefits to those that are currently getting them. Our interest was in understanding how our nation is doing in terms of serving the need."

The current formula was devised by Mollie Orshansky, a civil servant in the Social Security Administration who took the cost of a "thrifty food basket" for a family of four and multiplied it by three. Her formula has been updated for inflation. It continues to harbor a number of quirks traceable to attitudes of a half-century ago, such as a $1,000 reduction in the poverty line for people older than 65, largely because Orshansky, an economist and statistician, believed older people eat less.

Video: Daniel Yohannes of the Millennium Development Corporation

From CNN, a profile on the head of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Daniel Yohannes is the leader of the U.S. global development aid program.

Catholic anti-poverty program under fire

The US Catholic Bishops will meet next week in Baltimore. One of the items on the agenda is the anti-poverty program called the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Some bishops say the program is funding projects that are not in line with Catholic doctrine and have stopped taking collections for the program.

From this Religion News Service article that we found at the Huffington Post, writer Daniel Burke tells us what the controversy is about.

As the U.S. bishops' flagship anti-poverty program, the CCHD is funded through a special collection taken up each year on the Sunday before Thanksgiving. Since 1970, the program has disbursed $290 million in grants, according to CCHD officials.

But the program's practices and guiding philosophy have been sharply attacked by conservatives armed with Internet-enhanced research, a sharp nose for malfeasance, and a deep apprehension for anything that sniffs of socialism.

At the bishops' meeting in Baltimore, CCHD officials will present a 15-page report that details reforms they say will bolster the program's Catholic identity. The new policies will also ensure that groups whose activities conflict with the church's stance on social issues do not receive funding, they said.

Last June, a coalition called Reform the CCHD Now sent a report to bishops in all 195 dioceses detailing accusations against nearly 50 groups that it says engaged in pursuits "antithetical to church teaching."

The CCHD acknowledged such errors at five of the 270 groups that received funding in 2009; a sixth group's contract was not renewed for the same reason, said John Carr, executive director of the bishops' social justice office. The other allegations were unfounded, he said.
...

The vast majority of CCHD grants went to programs such as one in San Antonio that has attracted more than $1 billion for public projects in low-income neighborhoods, according to the report. Such projects, the report implies, are endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote in 2009 that the "institutional path" of charity is "no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly."

One instance where buying local doesn't work

Since President Obama is working on revamping the foreign aid structure, we hope that he includes a change in how the US purchases food aid. Instead of buying grain from an area close to the hungry nation, the US buys from American grain warehouses only. This hurts the economy of the hungry nation even further, and wastes a lot of time and money shipping the food over there.

The prior administration under George Bush tried to change this policy, but it was stopped by Congress. The members of Congress were probably concerned about how American farmers would react to the change. Changing policy to buy foreign products doesn't sit well with American voters and we are sure that some agriculture lobbyists has some things to say about it as well.

This opinion peace that we found at the Pasadena Star News sums up the problem with this policy. Writer Yifat Susskind works for MADRE: Rights, Resources and Results for Women Worldwide.

Meet Khalida Mahmoud, a 29-year-old woman whose farming family was driven into worsening poverty, after U.S. food aid poured into her home region of eastern Sudan. That's not how food aid is supposed to work, but just look at the policy: your tax dollars are used to buy grain from U.S. factory farms, the same giant corporations that already receive $26 billion in tax subsidies. Then the grain is transported halfway around the world, using thousands of gallons of fossil fuel and releasing tons of harmful carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The transport typically takes months while hungry people grow more desperate.

Once the food finally arrives, it floods agricultural markets, destabilizing fragile local economies. Small farmers are the first to go bankrupt. Most of them are women like Khalida, who work small plots of land hoping to sell enough at market to buy cooking oil, flour, a bar of soap and a pair of shoes so a child can stay in school.

These women are more than the backbones of their families: they grow most of Africa's food. Unlike giant grain corporations, these women farm without fossil fuels and harmful chemicals. Fortunately, there is a straightforward solution: the U.S. should buy food aid crops directly from local farmers in Africa. When the U.N. World Food Program did this, they were able to obtain 75 percent more corn to feed hungry families than when they purchased grain from factory farms in the U.S. Buying specifically from women farmers has an enormous added benefit. Studies consistently show that when poor women gain access to money, they use it to provide food, healthcare and education for their children.

Read more: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_16307280#ixzz129M7g9L2

US poverty spreads to the suburbs

The recent increase of poverty in the United States has seen it's greatest effects in the country's suburban areas. With the big loss of jobs and foreclosures seen during the global economic recession, the people who needed help were those who used to be comfortable.

From MSNBC, Associated Press writer Hope Yen explores the spread of poverty in the US.

A pair of analyses by the nonprofit Brookings Institution paint a bleak economic picture for the 100 largest metropolitan areas over the past decade and in the coming years, when the U.S. poverty rate is projected to edge toward 15 percent.

They also come weeks before the Nov. 2 congressional elections in which voters anxious over the slumping economy will decide whether to keep Democrats in power. Made up of both cities and surrounding suburbs, the large metro areas represent two-thirds of the U.S. population and are home to key battlegrounds that helped lift Democrat Barack Obama to victory in 2008.

The analyses of census data released Thursday show that since 2000, the number of poor people in the suburbs jumped by 37.4 percent to 13.7 million. That's faster than the national growth rate of 26.5 percent and more than double the city rate of 16.7 percent.

After the recession began in 2007, the suburbs continued to post larger increases in the number of poor — adding 1.8 million, compared to 1.4 million in the cities. Suburbs are now home to roughly one-third of the nation's poor.

At the same time, social service providers are spread thin in many suburban areas, according to a detailed Brookings survey of groups in representative metropolitan areas of Chicago, Los Angeles and the District of Columbia. That has forced providers to turn away many poor people due to increasingly scarce government and private-sector aid that is typically given to cities first.

"Millions of Americans at all income levels moved to the suburbs looking for better schools, better jobs, affordable housing, and a sense of security, but in recent years, as incomes have fallen, people had a harder and harder time making ends meet," said Scott Allard, a University of Chicago professor who co-wrote one of the reports.

The gap in Global Fund pledges

A couple of days ago the United States announced an increased pledge to the Global Fund on AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. Several other governments have also increased their pledges, while Italy and Sweden have so far pledged no new contributions. In all $12 billion dollars have been pledged to the Global Fund, but the fund and many activists were hoping for 20 billion.

From this transcript from the Australian Broadcasting Company, reporter Sarah Hawke gives an Australian perspective on the pledge gap for the Global Fund.

SARAH HAWKE: The Director of the HIV-AIDS Project at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Bill Botell says the fund has also had longer term impacts.

BILL BOTELL: Levels of HIV infection have started to stabilise and in many countries have started to fall quite dramatically as people have got access to treatments. We've seen very encouraging progress on malaria and tuberculosis as well.

SARAH HAWKE: Bill Botell has been in New York this week for the UN discussions on the next three years of funding.

Forty countries committed $11.7 billion. The UN was hoping for $13 billion. Poverty and disease advocacy groups wanted $20 billion. Mr Botell says it appeared the Global Financial Crisis dented many commitments.

BILL BOTELL: From some of the donors yes there's been a real problem in their capacity to pay. Italy and Sweden for example have not contributed at all. I'm very glad to say though that some of the other donors, including Australia, have really stepped up to the mark and tried to fill that gap. But it was one of a very small number of countries that actually did step up to the mark.

SARAH HAWKE: What do you think it does actually mean on the ground? Are there going to be certain programs that will be looked at, or various strategies?

BILL BOTELL: That shortfall, of a couple of billion dollars means that funds to take more people on to HIV treatments, for malaria bed nets and for tuberculosis treatments won't be able to be paid for and that will translate into hundreds of thousands if not millions of people dying untimely deaths.