Earlier this week, the Canadian province of Ontario announced it would be conducting a pilot program for 4,000 of its residents, guaranteeing each person minimum income even if they did not work. While the idea of giving away “free money” may draw criticism from some, this is not a new concept. In fact, programs similar to this have been around for nearly 50 years, with the ultimate goal of eventually replacing the welfare system as we know it.

Read on further to find out more about guaranteed basic income (otherwise known as universal basic income or basic income), its purpose, the history behind it, and how it might impact the future of welfare programs worldwide.

Guaranteed Basic Income?

So what is guaranteed basic income (GBI)? According to the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), this type of payment has five key characteristics: it is paid in intervals instead of all at once, the medium used allows the recipient to use it any way they want (it is not a Food Stamp card, for example), it is paid on an individual basis only, it is paid without a means test, and those that receive it are not required to work.

Everything else, such as the amount of money in each payment or longevity of payments varies based on the proposal. (In the Ontario test case it does have an income threshold and is paid to only the 4,000 included in the program; the rest of the principles still apply.)

The Purpose of GBI

Guaranteed basic income is not really “free money,” as some may claim; it does serve a few important purposes. An article from Law Streeter Eric Essagof already does a great job of explaining the GBI’s use in fighting poverty. Namely, the income encourages people to keep working, while also ensuring that if their income rises, they won’t automatically lose the benefits they rely on (also known as the “poverty trap”). In addition, in the United States at least, it could streamline a complicated system where someone who needs benefits has to sign up for five different programs that all fall under one welfare system.

There are other potential benefits associated with a guaranteed basic income. If people were assured of at least some income, they might be more likely to go to school for more education or training or even take a chance and start their own business. They could also pursue passions (such as writing, for example) that they are harder to take on when their time is dictated by the necessity to make money. For individual workers, a guaranteed income would also enable them to bargain more effectively with their employers and force employers to agree to concessions in order to keep their workers.

History of GBI

The Ontario GBI pilot program is certainly not the first of its kind; in fact, it is not even the first in Canada. The first program was conducted in the province of Manitoba in the 1970s, and led to societal health improvements while simultaneously not discouraging work participation. The idea for a universal basic income can be traced even further back than that–much further, in fact. In 1797 Thomas Paine, a pamphleteer famous for his work “Common Sense” in support of the American Revolution, stated that in exchange for social consensus among the people, the government should offer yearly payments to its citizens.

Since then there have been numerous debates between thinkers on all sides of the political spectrum, but generally basic income has been viewed as a positive. The accompanying video looks at the evolution of the basic income idea:

This type of program and the philosophy behind it have been embraced outside of Canada as well. The most recent effort was in Finland: earlier this year, the Finnish government selected 2,000 unemployed people at random to begin receiving a guaranteed basic income of €560 for two years instead of the unemployment benefits they had been receiving. The major advantage to this for the participants would be that if they found jobs they would still get to keep their basic income, as opposed to losing unemployment benefits.

Through the Finnish trial, which is still ongoing, the government wants to see whether this type of program can help the country’s ailing economy by encouraging part-time work. In addition to this trial, other similar programs worldwide have proven successful, such as one in Brazil in 2004 and another in Namibia in 2007. There was also a similar cash transfer pilot program in India from 2011 to 2012 that led to increased test scores and improved health in participating villages.

Despite the success of many of these programs, there seems to be a perception that they can only be successful in poorer countries and would never work in an “affluent” country like the United States. However, even the United States has some history with the guaranteed basic income. One of the earliest efforts, the Negative Income Tax Experiments, took place between 1968 and 1990 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington state, and Colorado. Although these experiments had successful outcomes, they were not politically popular and they lost their momentum. Arguably the most successful experiment so far concerning guaranteed basic income in the U.S. is currently ongoing, and can be found in Alaska.

In 1976, a permanent fund was set up in Alaska to preserve profits made by the oil industry to ensure that the wealth would benefit future populations in the state. This fund was allocated for a basic income program in 1982, and ever since then anyone living in the state for at least six months is eligible to receive a dividend from the state. At its peak in 2008, the fund annually paid out more than $2,000 per resident.

The following video looks at how the program is playing out in Finland and other places:

Future of GBI

With more and more places willing to at least launch guaranteed basic income pilot programs, the future of the measure seems bright. This is especially true given the benefits that it so far has offered, along with the fact that automation is increasingly making many jobs obsolete. Currently, along with Finland, there are also ongoing guaranteed basic income trials occurring in Italy and the Netherlands, with Scotland considering a trial of its own as well.

While a basic income has been advocated by some philosophers, researchers, and other individuals, overall there has not been a tremendous groundswell of support. Even in places where pilot programs have been launched, these are usually only reserved for a few thousand people in countries with tens if not hundreds of millions of citizens. So, if this program has repeatedly proven so successful and could replace faulty welfare programs, why are countries not more willing to try them?

The answer starts with cost. In 2016, Swiss voters rejected a basic income for the country’s citizens, and while Scotland is considering adopting such program, the rest of the UK in general is resistant. This opposition comes even when polls show that up to 64 percent of Europeans approve of a basic income. Part of that, however, might be attributed to how the survey questions were worded, in that they do not mention tax increases necessary to provide that income.

Aside from cost, there are other considerations, such as the fear of automation. Although some fear this trend could lead to a dearth of jobs, some economists are quick to point out this same thesis has been made before with regard to past trends, and has been proven wrong by new innovations that, in fact, created more jobs. Additionally, while some want to use basic income to replace existing safety nets, there is no proof yet that exchanging one for the other is actually superior. Even some of the protections basic income is supposed to offer can be turned on their head, with a basic income convincing some employers they can pay lower wages. There’s also the argument that basic income will lead to people choosing simply not to work. The video below looks at basic income, highlighting some pros and cons:

Conclusion

Guaranteed or universal basic income as an idea has been around for hundreds of years. As an idea put into practice, it has been around for at least around half a century. Moreover, in seemingly every case, pilot programs incorporating basic income guarantees have been successful in a number of measures, from raising GDP and improving test scores to ensuring nutrition. Furthermore, these types of programs have been lauded by leaders on all parts of the political spectrum as everything from a panacea for solving the broken welfare system to necessary in a world that is increasingly automated.

However, for all its success stories, guaranteed income has never become widespread nor long-lasting. The reasons for this apparent contradiction are manifold and run the gamut from high costs to exaggerated benefits. Additionally, for every country that has adopted and embraced the idea there are others that have rejected it.

What is basic income’s outlook then? In a world that is increasingly feeling budget cuts and squeezes, it seems unlikely a major initiative to expand the program is possible, especially given the ascendance of more conservative leaders who rose to power partially on attacks of the social welfare system. Basic income, then, is unlikely to be guaranteed or universal anytime soon, yet continued successful trials indicate that when conditions are more favorable, it could become the norm.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Right to Life, Liberty and a Basic Income?: The History of Guaranteed Basic Income appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s new budget proposal includes huge cuts to many agencies and organizations that do great things, such as the EPA, the UN, and the World Bank. But the budget would also make significant cuts to social welfare programs, including Meals on Wheels, which delivers food to senior citizens who are unable to shop or cook themselves. Cuts would also apply to after-school programs that feed poor children.

In a press conference on Thursday, budget chief Mick Mulvaney defended the budget outline. He said that Meals on Wheels “sounds great” but that it’s unfair to taxpayers to use their money for something that doesn’t have a proven effect. He even called the decision to cut Meals on Wheels “one of the most compassionate things we can do.”

Trying to explain his viewpoint, Mulvaney told reporters that they are focusing only on the recipients of the money, while they should be focusing on the poor people that give their hard earned money. “And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore… unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually going to be used in a proper function,” he said. Per the budget draft those “proper functions” mostly involve national security.

Mulvaney’s comments led to some angry comments on social media.

@ParaComedian09 People living is the god damn result

— Erin M Barlow (@ErinMBarlow) March 16, 2017

Mick Mulvaney says Meals on Wheels “not showing any results.” Actual peer-reviewed research says otherwise. https://t.co/B6ZRxtWIAf pic.twitter.com/YI6jiAgMBk

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) March 16, 2017

The Mick Mulvaney presser right now has made it clear that Republicans have become the party of cruelty. Sad for America.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) March 16, 2017

Mulvaney also implied that he doesn’t see any proof that a well-fed child does better in school than a hungry one. The new budget would cut after-school programs, which often provide food for poor kids so that they can perform better in school. “They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually doing that,” he said.

That Mulvaney wants to deprive children who might not get enough food at home from a meal at school was just too much for some.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney is shameless: “No evidence free meals to kids improves performance” https://t.co/yzDerB7tb0

— Aaron Vallely (@Vallmeister) March 17, 2017

you, a hungry child: “please sir, can i have breakfast”

me, a mick mulvaney: “that’s not efficient”

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 16, 2017

If Mulvaney needs some proof for why Meals on Wheels is a good idea, the nonprofit group itself can provide it. The group’s workers provide food for more than 2.4 million seniors every year. A 2013 study showed that the home-delivered meals “significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life.” Also, by making sure these citizens get fed, Meals on Wheels makes sure that they don’t need to move into a nursing home just yet. That’s a pretty good way to save money on healthcare.

And it comes to those after-school programs, it’s important to note that as many as 21 percent of kids in the U.S. live in poverty, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. Many kids even get the majority of their meals at school. “Recent studies have demonstrated that nutrition affects students’ thinking skills, behavior, and health, all factors that impact academic performance,” a 2014 study from Wilder Research stated, which makes sense to anyone who has ever tried to work on an empty stomach.

These kids are the people that will make up the workforce in a couple of years. Insufficient nutrition will definitely not help them excel academically, or physically for that matter. If this kind of thinking doesn’t change soon, the future of this country doesn’t look very bright.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mick Mulvaney: No Evidence After-School Meals or Meals on Wheels Work appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia marked the week following International Women’s Day with a historic event–the country’s first ever girls’ council, convened in the province of Qassim. The council is a small part of the sweeping Vision 2030 plan, a set of goals for the kingdom that includes creating a more tolerant and inclusive atmosphere for women. Yet the council has now become a viral joke rather than an important turning point for the country, after photos from the convening of the council revealed that it was entirely comprised of men.

Some women apparently do sit on the council, but the gender segregation codes of Saudi Arabia meant that they had to sit in a separate room, connected to the main conference by video link. In a country where women quite literally cannot get a seat at the table, what can the girls’ council accomplish?

Qassim Governor Prince Faisal bin Mishal bin Saud, who hosted the conference, framed the council as important because “we look at women as sisters to men.” This is far from a rallying cry for gender parity, but it may be the best we can expect from Saudi Arabia. Life for girls and women in the Kingdom is dictated entirely by their male guardians, who are able to control where they go, who they see, and what they do with virtually every moment of their day. Women are not treated as legal adults, which means even as progress slowly trickles into the country, they are still denied basic legal rights and protections.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is always wise to temper expectations and remember that the Vision 2030 goals may not actually be reached by 2030. Women’s rights are not the only issue on the table–poverty, youth unemployment, a lack of affordable housing and a clearly defined racial hierarchy that has been reinforced over the years by the wealthiest Saudi families preserving the status quo.

These civil rights issues are inextricably linked to the oil economy, which has concentrated wealth in certain pockets and has left the rest of the country out in the cold. Vision 2030’s mission requires an overhaul of every part of Saudi life–and it may be impossible to successfully implement the changes that must be made unless the government is willing to relax the ties between its extreme interpretation of religion and rule of law.

The Qassim girls’ council has already been turned into a meme, being compared to the photo of an all male Trump Administration team reinstating the Mexico City Policy (also known as the global gag rule) by executive order this year. Western news outlets picked up the images from Qassim, pointing out the absurdity of a girls’ council without any women present. Still, the criticism has not moved the Saudi organizers to change the make-up of the council or let the female advisers participate alongside their male counterparts.

I sincerely hope that the girls’ council does not fade into the background, and that it does receive the necessary funding and attention to advance gender equality. Yet, at this moment, it seems like a mere publicity stunt gone wrong: an attempt to showcase the Vision 2030 goals that revealed exactly how far Saudi Arabia still has to go.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Saudi Arabia Isn’t Going to Hit its 2030 Goal appeared first on Law Street.

As Venezuelans take to the streets to protest a government that is failing to feed them, an investigation by the Associated Press found that the military has profited while the people starve. The military in Venezuela has controlled food distribution since last summer. In dozens of interviews, and in reviewing pertinent documents, the AP found that members of the Food Ministry and the military are involved in a graft scheme that enriches their coffers while boosting food prices past the point of affordability for many people.

The graft scheme, according to the AP, is conducted through various means. For instance, officials demand millions of dollars in kickbacks on import contracts. Officials demand bribes at highway checkpoints and at the port, sometimes keeping ships docked until a payment is made. One food vendor told the AP that he paid millions of dollars in bribes to government officials in exchange for contracts. He was able to afford the bribes by charging the state more than what the market price dictates.

“It’s an unbroken chain of bribery from when your ship comes in until the food is driven out in trucks,” said Luis Pena, director of Premier Foods, a company that imports food. At Puerto Cabello, a bustling port west of Caracas, customs officials are paid off when cargo is unloaded. Truck drivers delivering imported food to markets are sometimes forced to pay bribes at military checkpoints on the highway

One grocer told the AP that when he ran out of food, he went to an illegal military-run market, where corn flour was sold for 100 times its government-marked price. “The military would be watching over whole bags of money,” the grocer said.

In 2004, Hugo Chavez, the socialist president who passed away in 2013, created the Food Ministry, nationalizing Venezuela’s farms and factories, effectively handing food distribution to the state. Oil prices crashed in 2014, bankrupting the government, and forcing President Nicolas Maduro to import almost all of the country’s food supply. Now, nearly 90 percent of Venezuelans can’t afford enough food, and people are dying of starvation. Hospitals lack basic supplies, and some people are fleeing the country or foraging for food in empty lots and jungles.

U.S. prosecutors have taken notice of the graft, and some have launched investigations into Venezuelan officials who have been profiting off the country’s food crises. In addition, the world’s top three food export companies, all based in the U.S., have stopped doing business with the Venezuelan government. But parents continue to lose children who are driven to extreme measures to fill their stomachs, and the military’s graft scheme only deepens the suffering. Cliver Alcala, a retired general who helped oversee border security, told the AP: “food is a better business than drugs.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AP Investigation: In Venezuela, the Military Profits as People Starve appeared first on Law Street.

After years of debate, California Governor Jerry Brown has finally given in to liberal legislators and advocates of the poor by eliminating a California welfare rule that many believe inordinately targets poor mothers of color. The rule goes by many names–the “Welfare Queen” rule, the family cap, and formally in California as the Maximum Family Grant Policy–and prevents families from receiving more benefits if they have additional children while receiving benefits.

California’s revocation of the policy is projected to cost the state a projected $220 million each year, and will eventually be funded by an account for inflationary increases to welfare benefits. With Brown’s decision, California joins a list of seven other states to repeal the rule, which once existed in some form or another in nearly half of U.S. states.

The rule is a byproduct of the criminalization of welfare recipients that began in part with Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign rhetoric:

Reagan ran a campaign largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a few criminals who defrauded the U.S. welfare system, with the conclusion that welfare fraud was a pervasive plague in the U.S. that could only be eliminated by cracking down on the “welfare state.”

The stereotype of the “welfare queen” has persisted as a woman, usually black, on welfare who persistently has children, does not work, and lies to receive greater handouts.

“Welfare queen” rules emerged in the early 1990’s as a solution, with the belief that if women were to not receive additional benefits for additional children, that they would stop having additional children. Not only have studies found that the rules have no distinguishable impact on birth rates among mothers who receive benefits and are subject to a family cap, but the rules have been criticized as degrading and dehumanizing to poor mothers.

Opponents have long held that children shouldn’t be penalized just because they were born into a poor family, while advocates of the policy claim that the estimated additional $130 families will be receiving will not be enough to lift families out of poverty. But ultimately, California legislators decided that the policy was ineffective in its goals, perpetuated unfair stereotypes, and punished children in deep poverty for elements out of their control.

However, this is just a first step to de-constructing the “welfare queen” image, which is unfairly projected on poor mothers.

There are still many other states with family cap rules. Additionally, public perception of mothers and families on welfare is often flawed. For example, pervasive myths such as welfare recipients buying alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food with SNAP benefits are simply untrue. SNAP benefits only apply to non-ready-to-eat food items with small exceptions for eligible disabled, homeless, or elderly recipients who can purchase select restaurant items in a few states.

Similarly, one of the most common welfare recipient stereotypes is the lazy non-working adult who is on welfare for years without ever working. Contrarily, 20 states have work requirements for TANF (the program for cash welfare assistance) recipients, including California.

The myth that most people using welfare stay on it for years also isn’t true. Many areas only allow single adults to receive SNAP for three months while unemployed, and many places have a lifetime limit on how long an individual can receive welfare benefits–California’s is 48 months.

California and many other states have a long way to go in deconstructing the harmful stereotypes of poor mothers and families they have perpetuated. But California has shown that the first step is possible, and that strong legislatures and citizens prioritize the livelihood, dignity, and opportunity of poor communities.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California appeared first on Law Street.

It is no large secret that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has had a tumultuous relationship with the issues of poverty and welfare: referring to the “culture problem” of “inner cities,” claiming America is divided into “makers” and “takers,” and making more controversial statements within the last few years.

But following a speech in March 2016 where he apologized for the hateful rhetoric, poverty has become one of his premier issues, especially as he revealed the first part of the House Republican policy brief A Better Way on Tuesday.

The 35-page brief has a simple and not particularly harmful premise; by embracing community-oriented solutions, encouraging work, and customizing welfare services, more individuals in poverty will be able to achieve social mobility. However, in these 35 pages, Ryan offers few policy solutions, poor research, and repackages Republican cut-back proposals under the guise of being “good” for impoverished people in America.

While the proposal includes what is expected of a House Republican brief on poverty–cutting and consolidating welfare programs, blocking grants to states, and tightening work requirements for welfare recipients–the sheer lack of quality research and policy proposals is underwhelming.

Though Ryan has no problem citing sources and statistics on such imperative topics as whether or not Americans believe welfare recipients should have to work, the brief states–without statistics or sources–that “recent data suggests many (SNAP recipients) are not working or preparing for work” and that “recent reports from independent government watchdogs reveal that welfare benefits are often paid to people who are not eligible.”

Poor research aside, let us not forget that House Republicans abhor bureaucracy, but only when it’s inconvenient to their goals. The brief relies heavily on the Work Participation Rate (WPR) as the measurement of TANF success. This is innately unsuccessful because it doesn’t differentiate between states with low WPRs and states where social service workers do not accurately and attentively track WPR. Thus, Ryan’s recommendation to require states to “engage TANF recipients in work” is largely a move to better document and regulate work involvement, despite persistent anti-bureaucracy sentiments throughout the brief.  

While this may be one of the most jarring contradictions Ryan offers, rest assured that it is not the only one. In a paragraph on strengthening higher education, he criticizes the strict academic-year timeline Pell Grant recipients are forced to take and proceeds to call the Pell Grant program unsustainable due to expansion.

Despite Ryan’s vague language, his attempts to criticize efforts such as the fiduciary rule–a Department of Labor proposal which would require retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ best interests over profit–as well as the CFPB’s regulation of payday loans which have historically placed impoverished people in long-term debt traps, are quickly revealed as partisan interests snuck into a brief on “opportunity” for impoverished people in America.

In a more holistic way, the entirety of this brief is contradictory. Ryan espouses at one point that “this ‘spend more’ approach invests taxpayer dollars in bureaucratic programs without addressing the root cause of poverty.” However, in the brief, Ryan never assesses the root cause of poverty; to do so would invalidate his proposals to cut programs that help vulnerable people receive food and housing, and meet other basic human needs.

Ryan does seem to acknowledge that poverty extends beyond income poverty–that poverty is a culmination of societal forces suppressing social mobility. He is misled, though, in suggesting that services and work requirements can replace financial assistance. Strong community services and work enforcements alone do not feed people, do not pay the rent for their apartments, and to deny cash assistance is to be in denial of what poverty comes down to: not having the money and bargaining power in society to protect and empower oneself.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Ode to Paul Ryan’s Anti-Poverty Brief Mishap appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill moving through the legislature in Mississippi would require teachers in certain school districts to not only grade their students, but the parents of the students as well. House Bill 4, more formally known as “Parent Involvement and Accountability Act,” just passed the Mississippi House and the bill is now heading to the state Senate for consideration.

If the bill becomes law, it would add another section to students’ report cards that measures parental involvement in their children’s education. It would only apply to teachers and parents in school districts that have been rated as a “C” or lower by the Mississippi Department of Education–as of right now 88 of the 151 school districts in Mississippi fall below this marker. The teachers would rate the parents’ involvement as “satisfactory,” “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.” How the teachers decide what grade to give the parents will be based on a number of factors–as Alex Holloway of The Dispatch sums up, it would measure:

Parental response to requests for conferences or communication, the student’s completion of homework and preparation for tests, the frequency of the student’s absence and tardiness, and the student’s overall grade per a nine-week assessment

There are of course, both critics and supporters of the bill. Those who support it say that in schools that are successful (both in Mississippi and in other states) there’s a high level of parental involvement. The bill would increase communication between parents and teachers to help up that level of involvement, and ensure that parents are working to prepare their children as best they can.

Critics claim that it’s not about parents “trying harder” it’s about cyclical poverty, and that placing additional pressure on the parents won’t necessarily help. Some critics also worry it will lead to strange social dynamics as students compare their parents’ grades, or read too much into what grade their parents received.

The bill doesn’t just add a provision about grading parents to the Mississippi education system. According to MississippiWatchdog.org it also will:

Assign each child mandatory homework; require all children be taught proper manuscript and cursive handwriting; require all children to have a daily reading and a separate writing assignment; require all children to read at least one book per month and write a book report on it; mandate participation for parents in at least one supportive function for the school, such as assisting at the bus stop, working a concession stand at an athletic event or serving in the Parent Teacher Association; establish dress codes for teachers; mandate school uniforms; initiate two parent-teacher conferences per nine-week term for students not performing up to grade level requirements at mid-term.

Mississippi’s public education system has not ranked well when compared to other states–for example, Education Week ranked Mississippi 51st in the nation last year (below the other 49 states and the District of Columbia). While it’s unclear whether or not House Bill 4 will pass, Mississippi is trying to take some steps to remedy that issue–it’s just unclear right now if these are the right steps.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Might Start Grading Parents on Report Cards appeared first on Law Street.

Like most topics in law school, child support is discussed first by talking about the theoretical reasoning behind it and then with a series of very dry formulas for how it actually works in practice. In theory, child support payments from the non-custodial parent are not meant for the other parent, rather it is money for the child. The custodial parent can’t bargain it away, he or she is supposed to be acting in the child’s best interest and spending the money to support the child. It is more like a responsibility that both the parents have to the child than a debt owed to the custodial parent.

Also, like most topics in law school, the real world application of the law has very little to do with supporting the rationales behind it. The goal of the collection of benefits we call “welfare” as well as child support is to provide basic necessities for children and help lift them out of poverty. But does the current system actually accomplish the goals that it is set up to accomplish?

Magical Thinking: Calculating and Collecting Child Support

For parents who want to receive welfare benefits, there may be a perverse incentive involved with seeking the child support that is owed to their children. Receiving child support, Social Security assistance, or having a job may leave you ineligible to receive welfare assistance. A recent feature story from the Washington Post about poverty, particularly in the deep South, illustrates the challenges faced by people who are in deep poverty but are unable to get help for their basic needs. The article’s main subject, Lauren Scott, is a single mother looking for work. Although she was not receiving child support from the father, she was deemed ineligible for welfare benefits. The other women featured, who were seeking benefits with Scott, were told not to apply for benefits if they were receiving child support payments for their children. In this particular county in Georgia, the eligibility criteria did not take into account the possibility that a person receiving child support could also still need welfare benefits–it’s one or the other.

A parent who needs benefits, typically the mother, may choose to not seek child support payments from the non-custodial parent, typically the father. If the parent thinks they are eligible for welfare benefits as long as they don’t receive child support payments they may actually be better off foregoing the child support, or they believe they would be.

If the non-custodial parent is able to be located, they may be “judgment proof,” which is the legal term for a situation where there is no income or property to pay off a judgment against you, regardless of how justified the creditor may be in trying to collect. If the parent lives in a state that garnishes wages for unpaid child support but doesn’t have a job in the first place, the custodial parent won’t be able to collect, even though the child is owed that support.

Many of the non-custodial parents who owe child support are, in effect, judgment proof. As of late 2015, unpaid child support in the United States was $113 billion. Most of that debt, about 76 percent of it in 2013, is owed by individuals who earn less than $10,000 a year. In her comments to NPR, Vicki Turetsky, the head of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, refers to the current structure for the calculation and attempted collection of child support payments as “magical thinking.” Even if a non-custodial parent declares no income when the child support order is being issued, the court will calculate what they owe based on a fictitious job–often full-time minimum wage work. Incarceration is also considered “voluntary employment” in terms of calculating child support.

Take a listen to the report here which explains how child support is calculated and some of its consequences.

Perverse Incentives

Calculating child support payments based on income that does not exist and then punishing individuals for non-payment doesn’t lead to an increase in collected payments. The way that child support payments are distributed to custodial parents who receive welfare benefits may also provide a perverse incentive to those beneficiaries to not seek child support. A perverse incentive is a policy that is meant to encourage a certain positive behavior but actually provides an incentive for a negative behavior, often the opposite of the original intention. In the case of child support payments, we want children to benefit from the support they are entitled to, and when that is not enough, to supplement that with the social safety net. But by not allowing custodial parents access to both–by eliminating welfare assistance when they receive child support–we cut potential revenue streams available to that child and even encourage parents not to try to collect child support.

Many states garnish wages for unpaid child support payments. In Illinois, the state can use some of the money from the garnished wages to offset the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) payments made to custodial parents. No more than $50 of the child support payments were actually given to the child if their parent was receiving welfare. States can use garnished wages to replenish their TANF funds, which are used for the custodial parents welfare assistance. This occurs even though, in theory, that child support is owed to that individual child from that individual parent.

The federal government allows states to pass on up to $200 dollars for two children through child support payments that are received from garnished wages, allowing that money to make it to the custodial parents. But it does not give them the discretion to give the entirety of the child support payment to a parent on welfare. So even if the state wanted to encourage a parent to seek child support while they were also receiving TANF payments, they are only able to collect some of what they are owed.

Reform Attempts

States have tried other ways to incentivize parents to make child support payments and to engage in other positive behaviors by dealing with the debt they find themselves in for missed payments. As NPR explains, Maryland is implementing programs to help forgive child support debt  and clarifying the difference between child support and state-owed child support. State-owed child support is a child support payment that will go back to the state to reimburse taxpayers for the welfare payments they made to the custodial parent.

For example, Maryland is trying to forgive 10 percent of the parent’s child support debt in exchange for the completion of a month-long employment training program and then getting a job. It’s a win-win for both the state and the parent because the state has no ability to collect the outstanding debt from an unemployed person. Put simply, forgiving the 10 percent is a smart way to make collecting the outstanding 90 percent possible. It also benefits the parents who finish the program because their debt burdens are lowered and they now have a job.

Completing a Responsible Fatherhood Programs will get you another 15 percent and you can then eliminate 50 percent of your outstanding debt if you keep up to date with payments for a year. So an unemployed father in Maryland who owes $10,000 in child support debt, which he is completely unable to pay, may be able to eliminate 75 percent of that debt by participating in an employment program, a parenting class, and by showing that he can, when employed, consistently be relied upon to pay what they owe. The state did lose that $7,500 that it forgave. But going forward, the child is now receiving the support to which they are entitled. If that parent had remained unemployed, the state would have still been owed $10,000 and the debt would continue to grow. These experiments in Maryland have yielded positive results, collecting twice as much as state forgave.

Conclusion

The idea that parents should be financially responsible for their children is deeply ingrained in the way that our child support system is set up. The policy is designed to make sure parents are held accountable for their children The image of the “dead-beat dad” also indicates that parents who don’t pay child support do so because they choose not to, not because they can’t afford it. However, the data indicates that individuals who owe child support are typically men who make less than $10,000 a year. These are men who are unable to make the payments as they are initially calculated, especially if they are currently or have previously been incarcerated.

The system also forces many people to choose not to seek child support. When forced to choose between a potential welfare payment and a potential child support payment, many parents would choose the welfare payment. A system that reduces payments, but does not eliminate them completely, would provide an incentive for parents to seek support. Moreover, the children can only benefit if the parent is able to pay the support in the first place.

States that have begun to experiment with debt relief measures have found that they can increase the payments they receive. Other states have sought to stop the accrual of child support debt for individuals while they are incarcerated. Both of these measures have had positive results because they allow parents who owe child support to at least pay part of their debt

The underlying goal should be to help raise children out of poverty and provide for their basic necessities. By structuring systems that incentivize parents to seek–and enable the other parent to make–payments, states can increase the amount of support that children receive and lift them out of poverty.

Resources

NY Times: Poverty and Perverse Incentives

The Washington Post: Lost Opportunity In the Deep South Part 4

Scientific American: Magical Thinking

NPR: Some States Are Cutting Dad’s A Deal On Unpaid Child Support

NPR: From Deadbeat To Dead-broke: The Why Behind Unpaid Child Support

NPR: How U.S. Parents Racked Up $113 Billion In Child Support Debt

Chicago Tribune: Welfare Law Formula Doesn’t Support The Family

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blood From A Stone: Child Support’s Perverse Incentives appeared first on Law Street.

In American culture, there is a deeply ingrained moral value placed on work. On having an “entrepreneurial spirit” and a strong work ethic. It is part of what makes America a great country. “Greed is good” may be the slogan we use to describe capitalism, but for those of us who get up in the morning to go to work, it isn’t greed that motivates us. It is the sense of purpose and dignity that we get from our jobs and from doing those jobs well. And, from needing to eat.

Most Americans agree that there is a standard of living that we should not allow our citizens to fall below, even if it means that we use some of our resources to help them. We don’t think it is morally right for fellow citizens to starve, especially children. Our policies on public assistance reflect that belief and try to provide the very basics of life to everyone.

These policies also reflect a tension between American generosity and the American ideal of the entrepreneurial spirit. In an effort to both prevent hunger and to protect the American work ethic we reformed assistance programs to eliminate cash benefits and to tie receiving benefits to work or the search for work. It has led many recipients of SNAP assistance, more commonly referred to as food stamps, to sell their benefits for cash rather than using them for food. This is a crime and may carry fines, jail time, and a loss of benefits. One that we spend a lot of time and effort trying to eradicate. But should we? Or should we be turning a blind eye to, or maybe even encouraging, the sale of food stamps for cash?

Say It With Cash

Take your net income per month and divide it by 30. For most of us, the amount is probably more than $2. Yet many Americans are living on $2 a day or less.

In the book “$2 A Day: Living on Almost Nothing In America,” authors Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer go into a detailed explanation of the history of welfare reform in recent decades and a series of interviews with Americans who live on $2 a day or less. In October 2015, PBS interviewed Edin who spoke about some of the book’s major themes:

The book’s central theme is that while food is the most important necessity for people in poverty, they also have other needs that can only be met with cash. Goods like electricity, clothing, and phones might be considered luxury items but are vital tools in looking for work. Because they have no other source of income they end up selling things to get cash–like plasma, sex, and food stamps. The cash that they get is able to be used for necessities that food stamps can’t pay for.

The beauty of cash is that it allows you to purchase whatever you need with it. If at that particular time your most pressing need is clothing, cash allows you to sacrifice your need for food in favor of clothing. It gives the person the choice of how to best allocate their resources. The downfall of course, from the point of view of the taxpayer, is that a recipient of cash may decide that drugs or alcohol, and not food, is their most pressing need and use the cash for that. It is partly this fear of misuse that encouraged the reformation of welfare from cash benefits to benefits like SNAP, where recipients are locked into only buying food with their EBT cards. It also drives the movements emerging in many states to prevent these benefits from being used for certain luxury food items or junk food items.

Contract Of Adhesion

For many, the main concern with the sale of food stamps is not that people are selling them but how much they are getting. Selling your food stamps is a terrible deal. The going rate for $100 worth of food stamps is between $50-60 dollars depending on what part of the country you are in. By selling your food stamps, you’re losing about half of your purchasing power. In some places, if the store owner is particularly friendly, it can be a little better, but generally, sellers take a loss.

The relationship between food stamp buyer and seller is an unorthodox example of the legal concept of a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is a legal phrase for “raw deal.” Essentially, when the bargaining power of the parties is very unbalanced, so much so that the weaker party really can’t meaningfully negotiate the terms of the contract, courts may take a look and invalidate the contract or provisions of the contract that are “unconscionable.” Typically, contracts of adhesion are things like insurance contracts, mortgages, and credit cards. The little guy versus the big guy. These contracts are often “boilerplate” meaning that they are pre-written and the same for everyone. The little guys here aren’t special and don’t really have a way to haggle with the big guy to get a better deal. So courts will give those contracts a closer reading in a light that favors the little guy.

Selling your food stamps is a lot like that. For one thing, if you need the cash you NEED the cash. Just like someone who is buying a house really does need a place to live and maybe can’t negotiate with the lender. Only perhaps more so because a home buyer doesn’t necessarily need that specific house. The cash buyer may not also have the luxury of shopping around for the best rate. Just as a home buyer may not have enough good options for a line of credit, the cash buyer may not have enough potential buyers they can go to–there may only be a few people willing to buy food stamps in a given area.

The illegal nature of the sale has the effect of making the contract even more unfair for the seller because the buyer is charging a fee to assume that risk. The greater the risk of a fine or jail time to the buyer, the more the money cost. So instead of getting $60 for your $100 worth of food stamps you might get $50. These are the same issues that prevent the seller from negotiating for a better price. Someone might be perfectly willing to give them $85 in cash for $100 in food stamps. But sellers may be reluctant to shop around because doing so increases the likelihood that they could be caught. Increasing sting operations, which are designed to stop the sale of food stamps, may only drive the price down and may not have diminished sales meaningfully.

This video from Democracy NOW! provides another account of how SNAP recipients are selling their food stamp benefits.

In 2012, the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General, which is in charge of prosecuting SNAP fraud, devoted half of its resources to combating SNAP fraud and abuse. This includes both fraud in collecting benefits when you shouldn’t as well as “trafficking,” the official term for selling food stamps. That year it investigated 15,000 stores and did 4,500 sting operations. Out of the 15,000 stores, 2,100 of were either shut down or sanctioned, meaning that 14 percent of the stores were punished. The 4,500 undercover investigations resulted in 342 convictions, about 0.75 percent.

The problem with the selling of food stamps is that we aren’t sure what the sellers will be buying with their cash. Most of us are sympathetic when we hear about a woman who sells her food stamps to buy diapers, which you can’t buy with food stamps. Even if that activity is illegal, many of us do not find it to be quite so immoral. But because the sale of food stamps is a contract of adhesion that mother, and many like her, is able to buy a lot fewer diapers than she normally would be able to after selling her food stamps. And we fear that she won’t be using it to buy diapers at all but to buy alcohol or drugs.

This is a legitimate fear. Changing the program to one that is purely cash assistance would allow recipients to use the money on anything they want to. That is both the benefit and the drawback of that change. They may choose to buy diapers or electricity, or they may buy vodka. There would be no way to effectively control their spending if the benefit was pure cash.

The Parable of The Talents

There was one story in “$2 A Day” of a SNAP recipient spending her benefits on junk food. Rather than buying healthy foods, she chose to spend it partly on transportation (through an illegal conversion from food stamps to cash) and partly on cups and Kool-Aid. She was able to make popsicles and then sell them for a dollar each–increasing her income with that initial investment. Rather than taking the 50 percent value of her food stamps in cash and buying her other necessities, she took that cash and turned it into more cash.

She’s a criminal and an entrepreneur. The cash from the food stamps was a greater benefit to her than the food stamps themselves. So how do we craft a policy that will protect the taxpayer interest in keeping that money from being spent in inappropriate ways while still promoting the core American value of the entrepreneurial spirit?

Proposed Reforms

Reformers from all points on the political spectrum have advocated amending welfare benefits such as SNAP and TANF (Temporary Aid To Needy Families) in an attempt to help those programs combat poverty in a more meaningful way. Many of these reforms focus on trying to change the incentives for beneficiaries by encouraging behaviors that are thought to alleviate poverty and provide social benefits, particularly marriage, in addition to encouraging work. Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush proposed eliminating the various programs that we call “welfare” (TANF, SNAP, etc.) and instead provide states with block grants so that they can choose how to provide benefits. Currently, states have a lot of leeway in how they structure their benefits–which leads to a lot of differences in the support people can receive in various states–but they are all within the framework of meeting federal government criteria to get funding. That usually means work requirements. Eliminating the need to satisfy federal requirements would allow states to experiment further.

One positive aspect of that approach is to use federalism to our advantage and allow states to each try a slightly different method of delivering benefits to low-income individuals. But it does not change the need that many poor individuals have for cash benefits who qualify for SNAP but not TANF. States are unlikely to adopt less stringent work requirements for aid, in fact, the trend has been in the opposite direction. In Maine work requirements were tied to food stamp benefits in 2015, which resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits.

Other Possible Solutions 

One solution might be to develop a hybrid system for benefits. Like most of the changes proposed it would require more of an investment in the program. But we could set up a system where the SNAP benefits are primarily for food, with a small portion of the benefits made available in cash as well. That cash might be used for bad purposes, but if only a portion of the benefits was available in cash then not all of the benefits would be “wasted.” Some would still need to be used for food though they could still be sold on the black market. The initial investment would be in determining the correct ratio of cash to food stamps but it wouldn’t require as much monitoring as other options.

There is a government program already in existence, TANF, which does provide cash assistance to families that qualify. This program was designed as a replacement to Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) and sought to tie cash assistance to work requirements. To get funding for the program from the federal government, states must maintain certain percentages of working recipients. The goal of tying work requirements to the receipt of assistance is to encourage people to seek work and to make sure that families do not develop a cyclical dependence on TANF. There are also time limits placed on the benefits for that same reason.

The problem is that for many people, particularly after the Great Recession, they are unable to find employment that can satisfy these work requirements. This has cut the amount of people receiving cash assistance drastically since 1996. In 1996, 68 out of 100 families in poverty received TANF. In 2013, only 26 out of 100 families in poverty received it. Cutting the number of people who are eligible makes it so fewer people receive benefits, but that does not actually reduce the number of people in need. Even if TANF was an effective program to assist the working poor it does nothing for families who have fallen out of the mainstream economy almost completely.

Another option is to increase the number of vendors of legitimate products that we want people to purchase who accept food stamps. Instead of making food stamps into cash just make them more like cash. Encourage, or require, utility companies and clothing stores to accept EBT cards as payment. That way recipients can use an EBT card to pay for electricity or clothing without having to take the loss of purchasing power that accompanies turning it into cash on the black market.

There are some programs that attempt to deal with the needs for a phone and for utility subsidies for low-income Americans. For example LIHEAP (Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program) provides federal funding to states to assist families with their utility costs. However, each state can set its own eligibility standards, which is true of the other programs as well. As a result, the rate of people receiving benefits ranges widely across states. In states where you need to receive TANF in order to qualify for LIHEAP, the non-working are once again left out.

A final option would require more manpower to distribute aid but might do the most to both encourage personal responsibility on the part of the benefits recipients as well as eliminate potential fraud: working with beneficiaries to help figure out what their greatest needs are and then tailoring their benefits accordingly. The poor are not a monolithic group. Those in rural areas may be able to supplement their diet with home-grown food and so may need less in food stamps but more in their transportation budget. Someone who is poor in an urban area might be able to travel on foot while they hunt for work but because they live at a shelter they need a cell phone to be able to contact potential employers. Matching the benefits more closely to the individual needs satisfies our core value of encouraging personal responsibility while also protecting our interest in only spending our tax dollars on items we approve of.

Conclusion

SNAP recipients selling their benefits for cash is a growing phenomenon that is unlikely to go away even with more vigorous efforts to combat it. The types of needs that the poor have here in America almost require the use of cash rather than food stamps alone. Even so, Americans struggle with how to balance our values: concern for the poor and the promotion of the entrepreneurial spirit.

Resources

Goodreads: $2.00 A Day: Living On Almost Nothing In America

Fox News: State Food Stamp Purchases

The New York Times: Food Stamp Fraud, Rare But Troubling

Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute: Contract of Adhesion

CBS: Food Stamp Recipients Selling Benefits For Cash

United States Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Service: Fraud

The Weekly Standard: Food Stamp Trafficking Up 30 percent From 2008-2011

The American Prospect: Stop Worrying About Food Stamp “Fraud”

Government Accountability Institute, Profits From Poverty: How Food Stamps Benefit Corporations

SNAP to Health: The History of SNAP

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF

Journalist’s Resource: Inequalities In U.S. “Safety Net” Programs For The Poor

CNN Politics: Jeb Bush Releases Welfare Reform Proposals

International Business Times: Which US States Have The Most Welfare Program Benefits?

The National Review: Getting Welfare Right

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Entrepreneurial Spirit?: Behind the Sale of Food Stamps appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the term gentrification before–the process in which college-educated, higher-income individuals move into low-income parts of a city in order to live closer to cultural centers. While most people argue that this process leads to new development and better government services, they also highlight how it can displace the existing residents of these communities.

While that narrative is pretty straightforward and easy to grasp, it is important to ask whether gentrification is responsible for many of America’s urban problems. Read on to see what the arguments for and against gentrification are and what studies actually say about the process. Is gentrification as bad as people make it out to be or are other developments just as problematic?

What is Gentrification?

Like any word, gentrification has a simple definition, but in practice the process tends to be much more complicated. The formal definition of gentrification is: “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.”

History

Prior to gentrification, there was white flight–the phrase used to describe the mass migration of whites out of inner cities and into suburbs. White flight started in the mid-20th century and continued for decades to create the many suburbs that we have today. In the wake of this migration, cities like Washington, D.C. took on a majority-minority character as minorities moved downtown and white people left for the suburbs. Gentrification is typically used to describe the reverse of this process, with affluent people, often white, trickling back into inner cities.

While dilapidated or unused properties have always been refurbished and repurposed over time, the term gentrification itself traces its roots back to 1960s London. In 1964, a British sociologist named Ruth Glass coined the term to describe what was happening in a run-down neighborhood of London. Working-class immigrants were being replaced by professional types, who wanted to be closer to the cultural centers of life. This follows the narrative of development associated with gentrification today as young, educated people seek affordable rent in new parts of a city.

According to the typical story of gentrification, this group is then followed by a second wave that is usually composed of young professional types who move in once a neighborhood becomes more established. After the second wave, the neighborhoods themselves also begin to improve aesthetically as more money pours in. New residents create a stronger tax base and increase investment incentives for companies. Infrastructure is repaired and rebuilt while new construction is started. All this new activity begins to raise the property value of everything from the corner store to the apartment complex down the street. As a result, the original low-income, typically minority residents are essentially priced out of their own communities and forced to leave for somewhere more affordable. The video below looks at several aspects of gentrification and how it is normally understood:

Who does gentrification affect?

The major criticism of gentrification is that the process boils down to affluent whites pushing poor minorities out of their own neighborhoods, in an effort to return to the inner city that their parents and grandparents abandoned years earlier. However, when you look at the evidence and research on gentrification, that narrative doesn’t always hold up.

According to several recent studies by economists and sociologists, the process of gentrification, as it is generally understood, is actually not always accurate. On average, there is little evidence to suggest that more gentrification leads to greater displacement among the original residents. This is not to say that no one ends up being displaced, but generally speaking, displacement is not a significant consequence of gentrification.

In fact, for those who stay in their neighborhoods, regardless of race, gentrification can actually have positive effects. While rents do rise as property taxes increase, residents also have more opportunities like better jobs. In fact, the whole narrative associated with gentrification is called into question as the studies also showed whites are not very likely to move into historically minority neighborhoods at all.

Regardless of whether gentrification is as bad as some people believe, a backlash against the perceived trend has already begun. There are examples in Brooklyn and Philadelphia, but arguably the most notorious backlash occurred against a store in London selling cheap cereal at high prices in a low-income neighborhood, which led to boycotts and protests. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, however, this backlash against gentrification has spawned a counter-backlash, with those accused of gentrification standing fast in the face of criticism.

What Does It All Mean?

While gentrification can affect poor communities, generally that is not the most significant problem. The new investment and diversity actually tends to improve a community. The real problem is that the process of gentrification might only affect certain communities, leaving others with extremely high rates of poverty.

In a study of Chicago’s poor neighborhoods, Harvard researchers found that gentrification only occurred or continued to occur in neighborhoods where the racial composition was at least 35 percent white. They found that the process would actually stop in places where 40 percent or more residents were black. In other words, affluent whites may not be forcing poor black people out of their neighborhoods, rather they are bypassing them completely. This is not to say that the influx of wealthy whites simply improves poor neighborhoods, rather historically black neighborhoods tend to be neglected when it comes to new investment and development. Not only does this challenge the conventional perception of gentrification, it also reinforces an older and more sinister problem in the United States: segregation.

The continuation of segregation is not being perpetuated only by whites returning to the inner city, but also in black migration out of cities. Recent evidence suggests that minority populations are increasingly moving to the suburbs. While individual neighborhoods may be integrating, new suburban trends are actually increasing segregation. On the suburban and town level within metropolitan areas, racial divisions are actually increasing. The following video gives a look at segregation in the US and the problems it leads to:

While the continuation of segregation is bad enough, it has yet another negative aspect associated it. Since gentrification or any other process of development are slow, if not completely non-existent in historically poor neighborhoods, those neighborhoods remain poor and disadvantaged. For all its own potential evils, gentrification may simply expose the familiar problems of segregation and perpetual poverty that are still going unaddressed.

The Government’s Role in Gentrification

The idea of outsiders coming into an inner city neighborhood with cash and plans for improvement is not a new idea and had a name before gentrification: urban renewal. Urban renewal, unlike gentrification, was a product of government policy, which was intended to revitalize various sections of cities. Housing reform movements began as early as 1901 but really gained momentum in the 1930s when zoning ordinances were passed separating housing and industrial areas.

The movement was crystallized in Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949: the Urban Renewable Program, which promised to eliminate slums, replace them with adequate housing, and invigorate local economies. The act failed, however, in one of its other main goals: addressing segregation. Developers’ decisions to build high-income housing, large development projects, and highways that physically divided cities ensured the practice would continue. This disproportionately affected minority residents. Many were forced to move, often to other more crowded and/or expensive areas.

The government took another try at housing with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was meant to stop segregation in neighborhoods at all levels. Additional measures were put in place over the years such as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which replaced the emphasis on the demolition of decaying urban areas with rehabilitation.

As these problems persist, and with the racial strife continuing to plague the United States, President Obama sought to create legislation to address housing once again. In his plan, which was announced in July, data would be compiled then given to local authorities who could use it to more accurately distribute Housing and Urban Development funds. These efforts are intended to end the negative aspects that gentrification perpetuates, including poverty concentration and segregation. The accompanying video below details Obama’s plan to address segregation:

Conclusion

Gentrification is a well-known issue in the United States, but when you take a closer look at what is going on the trend becomes much more complicated. While displacement and housing costs are significant problems for local governments, gentrification might not always be at fault. The traditional gentrification narrative says that as wealthy people move to poor urban areas housing prices and live costs rise, displacing low-income residents. Emerging research challenges that narrative but notes that many low-income communities still face significant challenges. While people are starting to question the traditional understanding of gentrification, backlashes against inner city development and its perceived effects continue.

Studies show that gentrification does not cause displacement at the rates that most people may think, but it does highlight new trends in segregation. While inner-city communities are becoming more diverse, urban housing prices in general are going up. As a result, many low-income residents are moving to suburbs, which face further racial division. Historic segregation and displacement from urban renewal has created areas of concentrated poverty, which have grown consistently over the past decade. This poverty also tends to disproportionately affect minorities. According to CityLab, “One in four black Americans and one in six Hispanic Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to just one in thirteen of their white counterparts.” While most people think of the inner city when they think of poor neighborhoods, poverty and segregation are actually growing in many U.S. suburbs. Overall, the face of many American cities and towns are significantly changing.

Resources

Regional Science and Urban Academics: How Low Income Neighborhoods Change

US2010 Project: Separate and Unequal in Suburbia

Slate: The Myth of Gentrification

The Atlantic: White Flight Never Ended

City Lab: The Backlash to Gentrification and Urban Development has Inspired its Own Backlash

Harvard Gazette: A New View of Gentrification

The Hill: New Obama housing rules target segregated neighborhoods

Curbed: As ‘Gentrification’ Turns 50, Tracing its Nebulous History

Encyclopedia.com: Urban Renewal

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gentrification: What is it Doing to Our Urban Centers? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

According to UNICEF, 140 million children around the globe have lost one or both parents. These children are classified as “orphans.” While there are many reasons that children can become orphans, it is a global problem that affects a wide range of nations. Read on for a spotlight on some of the particular nations and regions that have the most orphans, and what is being done to help those children in need.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to many orphans. Although sub-Saharan Africa is a large region, its nations share some of the same problems. The onset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa began in the 1970s, and continued at high levels in the 1980s. In addition to HIV/AIDS, other diseases such as malaria and TB, and war and conflict in some states have left some 52 million of sub-Saharan Africa’s children without one or both parents.

In 2015 in sub-Saharan Africa, it was estimated by UNICEF that about 11 percent of children under 18 were orphans. Many of those children became orphans as a result of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the region. According to Nancy E. Lindborg, assistant administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, 15 million children in sub-Saharan Africa have lost their parents specifically to the disease in 2014. However, as frequent as it is that children are orphaned because their parents die of HIV/AIDS, there are also other factors that leave them in non-parental care. For instance, high poverty rates can lead to the abandonment of children, particularly in rural areas or if the parents are migrant workers and unable to take their children to different locations with ease. Other diseases, such as malaria, can also play a role. While sub-Saharan Africa is a huge region and not all the issues faced by one country would be faced by another, these are common threads that many sub-Saharan nations experience.

Spotlight: Ethiopia 

Ethiopia, located in the horn of Africa, has a population of more than 90 million people. According to UNICEF, over four million of that population is made up of orphaned children. Just under one million are children who have been orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS.

Addressing those health concerns is paramount to stopping the rising orphan levels in Ethiopia. Health care should be provided to ill parents to prevent mother to child transmission and to ensure that they can care for their children as long as possible. Children should benefit from access to quality health care, especially if they are HIV positive themselves.

A focus on community and capacity building ensures that healthcare facilities will be functioning institutions now and in the future. Healthcare professionals need to be trained within the country, and healthcare centers need to be available in villages and local communities. Recently, there has been a focus on a cycle of health care that can sustain itself. As Worldwide Orphans, the first group to bring HIV/AIDS drugs to orphans in Ethiopia, explained about its process:

Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals needed to be trained and mentored by experts in the treatment and ongoing care of children with HIV/AIDS. And so, WWO recruited an extraordinary team of pediatric AIDS specialists from Columbia University to work side by side with in-country professionals, examine and test each child, decide upon treatment, and consult on follow-up care. Seminars were held, with all materials translated into the country’s language. As a result, more than 400 healthcare professionals have been trained and taken their learning back to villages, towns, and cities across their countries.

This kind of community building can also be applied to education and development activities.

Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe’s experience at the end of the twentieth century was characterized by war, turmoil, and poverty. Even Eastern European nations that had rather advanced and progressive social services practices–such as the former Yugoslavia–were devastated by the infighting after the breakup of the Soviet Union and forced to revert back to a reliance on orphanages. As those institutions were often underfunded, overcrowded, and lacking appropriate resources, they didn’t help children to grow and thrive. While many Eastern European countries are moving toward shutting down these institutions, there is still much work to be done to ensure that children in these nations receive adequate support.

Spotlight: Bulgaria 

Bulgaria’s orphan population is high, at an estimated 94,000 in 2009. While the vast majority of these children are “social orphans,” meaning their parents are alive but unable to care for them or have abandoned them, they still require the same support and resources as children who have lost one or both parents.

For a long time, Bulgaria’s many orphans were kept in orphanages, which by their nature often are only able to provide a few staff members to care for large groups of children. For young children, this can be particularly damaging, as they don’t get the attention and nurture that they need. Studies show that for every three months in institutionalized care, infants and toddlers lose about one month of developmental growth. As a result of these concerns about orphanages, Bulgaria announced in 2010 that it would be moving toward de-institutionalization. The country hopes to close all orphanages by 2025. The Bulgarian government is looking to implement a model similar to what we see in the United States, where the focus is on placing children in foster families, kinship care, or small group homes. Dr. Jane Aronson, founder of Worldwide Orphans, described this process in 2011:

They have already done the first level of developmental screening of the most complex children and now they will go deeper into the psycho-social and family issues of these children. Their goals are reuniting the children with their families, closing large institutions, group home assignments and foster care.

This strategic plan will then be used for the orphanages for healthy children.

Many orphans in Bulgaria, and other parts of Eastern Europe, are Roma. Traditionally the Roma, or Romani people, have been oppressed and discriminated against throughout Europe. Due to that cycle, many Roma children become “social orphans” and are left in institutions. Recent estimates indicate that approximately 60-80 percent of children in orphanages are from the Roma minority who represent only four percent of the Bulgarian population. In addition, a 2011 study by the Helsinki Committee found that up to 50 percent of Bulgaria’s orphans are of Roma descent. Empowering this community and providing educational resources to these vulnerable children will help break the cycle of poverty and abandonment.

Latin America and the Caribbean

The country facing a large-scale orphan crisis in the Caribbean and Latin America is Haiti, particularly in light of the devastating earthquake that happened in January 2010. Nevertheless, there are a significant number of orphans in the region. While UNICEF reports 340,000 orphans in Haiti alone, there are many others in the region who have their own unique obstacles to overcome. UNICEF in 2013 put the number in the region at just over 8.4 million.

Spotlight: Haiti

Most estimates prior to the 2010 earthquake, including those from Worldwide Orphans, put the number of orphans in Haiti at over 400,000. While those numbers are now around 340,000, Haiti sees many of the issues similar to those in Ethiopia and Bulgaria, including intergenerational poverty and HIV/AIDS infection. UNICEF estimates the number of children orphaned in Haiti due specifically to HIV/AIDS at 100,000.

Due to the 2010 earthquake and the subsequent destruction of significant portions of the infrastructure, addressing the orphan issue effectively and efficiently in Haiti has been very challenging. Furthermore, even before the disaster, educational opportunities and jobs were hard to come by. Providing orphaned young people with skills and opportunity will help them to be resilient, by extension improve their communities, and hopefully break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. As Worldwide Orphans explains about its “Haitians Helping Haitians” program,

The youth training model has been replicated in a hospital in Port-au-Prince, where young adults are trained to work with babies and infants who have been abandoned at the hospital. This model provides them with much needed income, job skills and a chance to build self-esteem and positively contribute to their own community. Whether playing with infants and toddlers in the WWO Toy Library, or serving up arts and crafts, nature, performing arts, life skills, education, teambuilding activities at camp and in after-school programming, WWO’s youth corps of trainees are not only providing valuable enrichment to children suffering from chronic disease and the emotional scars of abandonment, they are building their own skills in child development which will serve them in future employment and in their own journeys into parenthood.

By providing children with resources to help themselves and their communities, Haiti will be better positioned to rebuild a nation that is still feeling the effects of such a devastating natural disaster.

Conclusion

Currently there are 140 million orphans worldwide. Most orphans are “social orphans” and likely have identifiable families–if there is the social infrastructure to find them. Unfortunately, in developing nations, there are so many orphans and very limited financial resources to reintegrate and reunite families.  Nations like Ethiopia, Bulgaria, and Haiti each demonstrate how issues of poverty, disease and conflict impact children in different cultures. However, it is important to remember that these problems are not necessarily unique. Virtually all across the world, children lose parents to disease (HIV, Malaria, etc) conflict and war, poverty, natural disasters and experience trauma that impacts their development. There’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to preventing orphaning. Instead, a combination of approaches, including early intervention, community capacity building, de-institutionalization, establishment of group homes and foster care, and other critical psychosocial support programming, like the work that Worldwide Orphans undertakes, needs to be implemented to ensure that every child grows up safe, independent, and healthy.

Resources

Primary

UNICEF: Ethiopia

UNICEF: Bulgaria

UNICEF: Haiti

UNICEF: State of the World’s Children 2015

Additional

Food, Nutrition and Agriculture: Orphans and the Impact of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa 

Borgen Magazine: House Subcommittee Discusses African Orphans

Worldwide Orphans: Ethiopia

Worldwide Orphans: Capacity/Community Building

Medwire: Bulgaria Special Report: Children Continue to be Neglected Due to ‘False Reforms’

NIH: Neurodevelopmental Effects of Early Deprivation in Post-Institutionalized Children

Worldwide Orphans: Bulgaria 

Huffington Post: Bulgaria: Changing Orphans’ Lives

EU Business: Abandoned Roma Children Fill Europe’s Orphanages

Children and Youth in History: UNICEF Data on Orphans by Region

Worldwide Orphans: Haiti

SOS Children’s Villages: Children’s Statistics

Worldwide Orphans

Worldwide Orphans is dedicated to transforming the lives of orphaned children to help them become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world, by addressing their physical and mental health, education, and ability to achieve. WWO was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Worldwide Orphans is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.wwo.org

The post State of the World’s Orphans appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

According to UNICEF, there are 153 million children across the globe who are defined as orphans. These children, and others, are at risk for poverty, health concerns, neglect, and abuse. They are the world’s orphans. Read on to learn about how children can become orphans, what it means to be an orphan, and how underlying social problems lead to children being orphaned.

No Easy Definition

The definition of an orphan is not just a child who has lost both parents–instead, many international bodies recognize as orphans children who have lost one or both parents. Moreover, orphans aren’t necessarily children who are in need of homes. Many orphans live with grandparents, aunts or uncles, or other family members.

The expansive definition was created out of a desire to recognize that a child who does not have one or both parents may be vulnerable in some way, whether that is a lack of support, resources, or opportunity. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) explains the move to the broader definition of orphan as follows:

This definition contrasts with concepts of orphan in many industrialized countries, where a child must have lost both parents to qualify as an orphan. UNICEF and numerous international organizations adopted the broader definition of orphan in the mid-1990s as the AIDS pandemic began leading to the death of millions of parents worldwide, leaving an ever increasing number of children growing up without one or more parents. So the terminology of a ‘single orphan’ – the loss of one parent – and a ‘double orphan’ – the loss of both parents – was born to convey this growing crisis.

There are also many children whose parents may be alive, but live far away or are otherwise unable to care for their children. Overall, the global definition of orphan as followed by many aid and advocacy organizations focuses on aiding children who lack in support, protection, and/or caregiving.

How do children become orphaned?

There are countless ways that children can lose one or both parents, or be put in a position where they don’t have support. It’s almost impossible to make a full list, but some of the most pressing and prevalent include children in refugee camps from war and conflict, poverty or abandonment, family turmoil, or social isolation. Each of these problems comes with its own challenges and requires unique resources and approaches, and many orphans can face more than one of these challenges.

Refugee Camps, War, and Conflict

There are a few different ways that children can end up in refugee camps. The two most common are natural disasters and conflicts that force children and families from their homes. Often those disasters or conflicts kill one or both of a child’s parents, or leads to the child being separated from them. Internationally, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), approximately half of the world’s refugees in 2013 were under the age of 18. That proportion is borne out by statistics of people living in refugee camps, as children also amount to half of the overall refugee population in camp-type accommodations.

Children in refugee camps face unique challenges. Malnutrition is prevalent in refugee camps, particularly among very young children. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that in South Sudanese refugee camps in Ethiopia, malnutrition rates for children under the age of five ranged from approximately 25-30 percent.

Refugee camps are also fertile ground for preventable diseases, both because of the crowding that occurs at camps, as well as a lack of access to hygiene materials or proper sanitation. Take the camps set up in Syria in light of the recent civil conflict there, for example. Those Syrian camps are seeing cases of measles and even polio.

Refugee camps create an obviously unusual environment for a child to grow up in. Institutions that provide support and education for children, such as schools, are not necessarily found in refugee camps. For refugees who are constantly on the move, children may not have the ability to work with one school or one teacher consistently enough to build strong educational skills, and schools may be open only once a week for certain age groups.

Children who are refugees, whether in camps or in less structured situations, also have to become the breadwinners for themselves, and possibly for younger children in their families as well. This leads to an influx of child labor. In Syria, UNICEF estimates that one in ten of the refugee children there are engaging in labor in an attempt to support themselves.

While there are many difficulties that children, particularly those who have lost one or both parents, in refugee camps have to contend with, these are some of the most prevalent.

Poverty

Many children who are at risk and are considered “orphans” grow up under conditions of extreme poverty. Poverty is often cyclical–a child born into poverty may lose his parent to illness or a number of other causes. Then, he doesn’t have the resources to provide for himself and will likely fall victim to malnutrition and illness, and will not be able to pursue an education. Subsequent children are then born into poverty as well, and the cycle continues.

Poverty can also lead to “social orphans.” Those are children who haven’t necessarily lost one or both parents, but whose parents can’t take care of them. According to Worldwide Orphans CEO & President Dr. Jane Aronson, children in institutions such as orphanages in Bulgaria are mostly those who do have surviving parents; only two percent are “full orphans”–meaning both parents are deceased. It’s difficult to estimate how many children are social orphans, but in some nations the problem is clearly profound. For example, UNICEF estimates that 70 percent of Moldova’s children in residential care are social orphans.

HIV/AIDS Crisis

With the rise of the HIV/AIDs crisis, more and more children are orphaned every day. In addition, many children who become orphans because of HIV/AIDS are stigmatized in their communities because they may also suffer from the disease. According to UNICEF, 17.9 million children have become orphans because one or both parents died from AIDS. Most are located in Africa, although there are other nations worldwide that have been hit particularly hard by the AIDS crisis.

Children whose parents have HIV/AIDS may be affected well before their parent passes away, as the sickness may make it difficult to adequately carry out caregiving responsibilities. A situation like this can lead to children becoming the de facto head of their household, dropping out of school, and engaging in labor that could become risky–such as commercial agriculture or sex work.

Studies have shown that children whose parents die of HIV/AIDS suffer higher rates of psychological stress than children who are orphaned in other situations. A Swedish study from Lund University conducted in rural Uganda found that “12 percent of children orphaned by AIDS affirmed that they wished they were dead, compared to three percent of other children interviewed.”

Part of this stress may come from the fact that in many places, HIV/AIDS is still deeply feared and stigmatized. Children whose parents have died of HIV/AIDS may be turned away from schools or other public places out of fear that they also have the disease, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how HIV/AIDS is spread.

In addition, children who have HIV/AIDS are victims of discrimination and abandonment as well, leading to orphan status. Dr. Aronson explains the challenges that children with HIV/AIDS face in nations such as Ethiopia:

The task of reuniting orphans living with HIV with their family was daunting from so many angles. These children were abandoned because of their HIV status and to have their families take them back into their hearts is a gargantuan achievement. Learning a new way of thinking is one of the hardest challenges for all human beings… and this step is breathtaking. Just go back to the 1980s and 90s in the U.S. when Ryan White, an American boy with HIV, wasn’t allowed to go to school; when hospital staff donned spacesuits to serve meals to patients with HIV; and when people feared friends with HIV/AIDS. And finally all over the world, disclosure of HIV status takes years of hard work and rarely seems to occur.

What issues do orphans face?

When children are vulnerable, there are many concerning fates that can befall them. The most prevalent include conscription into forces as child soldiers, child trafficking, child prostitution, and early marriage. These challenges are not mutually exclusive, and in some cases more than one can be present in a vulnerable child’s life.

Child Soldiers

UNICEF estimates that 300,000 children are involved in armed conflict worldwide. These include children who are involved with both state and non-state actors. A child soldier is defined by the organization Plan as “anyone under the age of 18 who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity.” Children don’t just act as combatants, but also provide support to armies or groups as messengers, through work in camps, or they are used for forced sexual services. There are a number of reasons why children may take on these roles; they may be forcibly recruited or join because of poverty or abuse. They may turn to the armed group as a way to provide an income or because of societal pressures. Children in vulnerable situations–including those who are without their families or homes–are more likely to become child combatants.

Child Trafficking and Child Prostitution 

Vulnerable children may fall victim to human trafficking. Human trafficking is defined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as “the recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person by such means as threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation.” According to a 2014 UNODC report, children now make up one third of all trafficking victims worldwide. Those numbers do vary by region: in Africa and the Middle East children make up 62 percent of trafficking victims; in the Americas they account for 31 percent; in South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific children are 36 percent of trafficking victims; and in Europe and Central Asia they are 18 percent of those trafficked. The most common reasons why children may be trafficked include sexual exploitation, forced labor, warfare, and organ removal.

Child prostitution can occur after a child is trafficked, or in a child’s home country, and it is defined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) as “the use of a child in sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration.” The exact number of children who have been sexually exploited is difficult to quantify, but UNICEF puts the number at approximately two million.

Child Marriage

Another concern for vulnerable children, particularly young girls, is the risk of early marriage, which can include when a child is forced to marry before the age of 18, or when she is cohabiting, but not necessarily married, before that age. According to UNICEF, one in four women between the ages of 20-24 was married before she was 18. The highest rates are in South Asia, where UNICEF reports that nearly 50 percent of all women were married before the age of 18, and more than 15 percent were married before 15. This issue doesn’t just affect girls, however. Certain nations see a high rate of child marriage for boys as well–in the Central African Republic 28 percent of men ages 20-24 were married before 18. Madagascar, Laos, Honduras, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, Nepal, and Comoros also all see rates of child marriage for young boys above ten percent.

Conclusion

The status of orphans across the world is caused by a daunting mix of many endemic issues–war, natural disasters, abandonment, poverty, disease, and social stigma, among many others. Given that even the definition of an “orphan” is difficult to pinpoint, it’s clear that no two orphaned children’s stories could ever be the same. That being said, one goal rings true for all those trying to help these vulnerable children–the ability to provide them with support, education, love, and protection.

Resources

Primary

WWO: Dr. Aronson’s Journals

WWO: Our Mission

UNICEF: Orphans

UNHCR: Statistical Yearbook 2013: Demographic and Location Data

UNHCR: Are Refugee Camps Good for Children? 

UNICEF: Factsheet: Child Soldiers

UNODC: Human Trafficking FAQs

UNODC: 2014 Global Report on Trafficking in Persons

UNICEF: Child Marriage

Additional

Huffington Post: Reunifying Ethiopian HIV Orphans with Extended Family

SOS Children’s Villages: Children’s Statistics

World Vision: War in Syria, Children, and the Refugee Crisis

Telegraph: Thousands of Syrian Children Left to Survive Alone, Says UN

RNW: Orphaned by Poverty, But Not Orphans

AVERT: Children Orphaned by HIV and AIDS

Worldwide Orphans

Worldwide Orphans is dedicated to transforming the lives of orphaned children to help them become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world, by addressing their physical and mental health, education, and ability to achieve. WWO was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Worldwide Orphans is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.wwo.org

The post Defining Orphans: The World’s Most Vulnerable Children appeared first on Law Street.

Never before has a sitting president been defeated in a Nigerian election–until now. General Muhammadu Buhari ousted President Goodluck Jonathan in a decisive victory in the country’s latest election, and it is an incredibly momentous event in Nigeria’s history.

Courtesy of Chatham House via Flickr.

Buhari’s All Progressives Congress (APC) won 15,424,921 votes against President Goodluck Jonathan’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which won 12,853,162. Since independence from Britain in 1960, there have been numerous coups and many contrived elections–even this election has observers wondering.

President-Elect Buhari, a 72-year-old Muslim from northern Nigeria, won the presidency on his fourth attempt. Previously he ruled the country from January 1984 through August 1985 after taking control through a military coup.

Buhari lead the northwestern states, which have suffered the most by Islamist militant group Boko Haram. In Borno state, one of the worst affected by Islamist violence, Buhari won 94 percent of the vote.

For 16 years, PDP had been in power. This year Nigerians decided that the Opposition should have a go at sorting things out. Nigerians are accustomed to the incumbent fulfilling a second term; something rather big made them change their minds. The keyword is change.

Buhari now has to prove he really can change things. Boko Haram, the economy, and the unceasing cry of corruption are at the forefront of the list.

Boko Haram

Islamist militant group Boko Haram  has instilled so much fear in the Nigerian government that the Presidential elections were delayed for six weeks to allow time for the security situation to improve. Its existence is one of the biggest reasons that only 17 percent of Nigerians turned out to vote.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Boko Haram has been launching military operations since 2009 with the goal of creating an Islamic state in Nigeria. The group is responsible for the death of more than 20,000 Nigerians, and it’s terrorized Northern Nigeria, taken over cities, and infamously kidnapped 200 school girls in April 2014. Many people question the strategy of the Nigerian military, and criticize Jonathan for not challenging this threat.

The Economy

Nigeria is Africa’s leading oil producer, yet more than half of its people live in poverty. The market for stolen oil has increased violence and corruption in the Niger Delta–the home of the industry. Few Nigerians, including those in oil-producing areas, have benefited from the oil wealth.

Read More: The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices

Nigeria was badly hit by the fall in the oil price. Oil represents 90 percent of Nigerian exports and 70 percent of its government revenues; it’s hard to recover from a fall in the oil price. Additionally, the U.S. is no longer importing Nigerian oil because it has had such success in the shale revolution.

Corruption

The contentious issue of corruption undermines the trust in Nigeria’s government. Allegations of deception, fraud, and bribery include security funding, the legality of government officials, and enforcement of policies and elections. Past elections have been tarnished by serious suspicions of rigging. In 2007, observers said the presidential poll was not “credible.” In 2011 the vote was considered better, but fraud still took place.

This time the electoral commission took more steps to prevent rigging, including new biometric voters cards.

These are the changes the Nigerian people–and international community–call for and will be looking at closely. If there are significant advances toward counterterrorism strategy, economic schemes, and financial circulation, as well as more serious crackdowns on corruption, then we could look forward to long-term positive outcomes not only in Nigeria, but globally as well.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a big, often unrecognized problem for our nation’s poor. Many do not have access to the legal resources they need to complete processes like divorce or custody battles. Legal help is extremely expensive, and unlike in criminal cases, anyone who is a party to a lawsuit is not automatically granted an attorney. So, Washington is trying to help with that, by introducing a Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT) rule.

The LLLT program will allow candidates to take a year-long series of courses at community and state schools. Those classes particularly focus on things like legal research, civil procedure, and contracts. Then they’ll complete a sort of apprenticeship with a practicing attorney. After those steps are completed, the students can become licensed to advise on certain aspects of law, particularly family law issues. Right now, the Washington LLLT program focuses on family law, but if successful, it could probably end up being expanded. The biggest new power granted to these LLLTs is the ability to give legal advice, which is currently prohibited for paralegals or legal assistants.

As Steve Crossman, who heads up the LLLT board, stated:

One of the unique things about this is they can practice on their own; (unlike paralegals) they don’t need to practice under the supervision of lawyers. They can practice in conjunction with practicing lawyers so they work out of the same office. We’re thinking they also could work for a government-funded or volunteer legal-services agency.

The program has its beginnings in 2012, when the Washington Supreme Court adopted a rule allowing LLLTs. Since then, the program has been developed and refined a few times, and the first class of future LLLTs began in 2014.

Overall, the LLLT program is focused on cost on a few different levels. First of all, the program is much cheaper for students. It’s no secret that law degrees are incredibly expensive. In 2013, private law schools cost an average of nearly $42,000 a year, public law schools for residents cost nearly $25,000, and public law schools for non-residents cost almost $37,000. In comparison, an LLLT program costs only about $10,000.

These lower costs will translate to the clients. An extensive 2009 study from the Legal Services Corporation showed that somewhere between 80-90 percent of low-income Americans don’t have access to legal aid for their civil legal issues. The cost is pretty prohibitive, and because law school is so expensive, new lawyers can’t always lower their prices to provide low-cost aid. Empowering LLLTs will allow low-cost services. While there are legal aid programs, many are underfunded and understaffed.

Some have been comparing the work of LLLTs to nurse practitioners, or other medical professionals who aren’t doctors but can still perform some medical services. Given that the first group of LLLTs began classes last year, some will be ready to work as early as this Spring.

This is an innovative program that may solve a lot of problems, both for aspiring legal professionals and those who require legal help. If it’s successful, hopefully other states will create similar programs.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paralegals Will Soon Be Able to Give Legal Advice in Washington appeared first on Law Street.

People starving or going hungry seems like something out of the past in the United States. After all, aren’t we always telling ourselves how we are the wealthiest and greatest nation on the planet? Although those are certainly debatable points, we are definitely one of the fattest at least, right? Well while the United States is home to immense wealth, happiness, and large waist lines, hunger is still a very real problem here. In fact, one in six people in this country faces hunger every day. That number increases to one in five for children, one in three if the child is black or Latino. The point is that even in the United States, the lone remaining superpower, hunger is still a major issue. Furthermore, if it is a problem here then it is likely a problem everywhere. The question then, is how to solve the crisis? How do we make it, to quote Gone From the Wind, so that, we “never go hungry again?”

Why is there a food shortage?

Production

In looking for the culprit for hunger, naturally it seems wise to look for the root of the problem. However, while it may seem like a no-brainer that hunger is caused by a shortage of food or lack of production, this is actually false. In fact today we already produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet and the amount of food being produced each year actually outpaces population growth as well. Although it is as of yet unclear whether production can keep up with growth indefinitely, right now the amount of food is not the major issue concerning hunger. If the amount of food isn’t the issue, then what is it?

Cost

The answer to that question is several-fold. First as always, cost plays a major role. After all nothing in life is free, especially not lunch. Truthfully though it is not so much a matter of cost as it is a matter of poverty. In fact when it comes to hunger, poverty is inextricably intertwined. Poverty is akin to a disease that weakens the immune system and cost is what is then allowed to spread. While there is clearly enough food to feed the world’s population, it is not equally and appropriately distributed because many groups throughout the world simply cannot afford it.

Along this same vein is the cost of production. While this is certainly less of a problem in the United States with its advanced transportation structure the simple act of harvesting food and transporting it to a market for sale can price out needy people in other regions of the globe.

As a result this can lead to hunger. It can also cause malnutrition, as those unable to afford healthy–or any–food turn to cheaper and less nutritious substitutes. This can further serve as a catch 22 of sorts, as the inferior food makes a person weaker and less healthy and thus less able to find an occupation that could provide nutritious food that would then lead to better health.

Waste

Another major problem is the amount of food wasted. According to the World Food Program, every year one-third of the food that is produced is never consumed and is instead wasted. In addition along with the wasted food are all the wasted resources such as fertilizers and water that go into food production. Thus while enough food is produced to feed seven billion people, it is unlikely there is enough to feed those same seven billion and throw away another third.  The video below provides a more detailed breakdown on yearly waste.

Regional Instability

While waste may be a less apparent reason for hunger, perhaps the most obvious is conflict. Indeed in areas of prolonged and expansive war, hunger is a very serious problem. Not only does the physical destruction from battle destroy valuable farmland, the conflict also forces people off their lands and often into other areas that are already struggling to feed their own people. A real-time example of this is what is currently going on in Syria. With refugees trying to flee the conflict, the means to adequately feed the ever-growing displaced population are fewer and fewer to come by.

Climate Change

Along with cost, waste, and conflict is another growing concern related to hunger–the impact of climate change. According to Worldwatch Institute, climate change could affect many of the agricultural areas that can least afford it such as South and Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. While it may improve the conditions for other needy areas such as East Asia and Latin America, this still greatly increases the chances of malnutrition for the world’s poor. Furthermore it also puts the question of adequate production further into doubt. According to the study, by 2050 there will actually be less food being produced than in 2000. This is especially concerning in that the population by 2050 is expected to grow from approximately seven billion today to nine billion then.  The video below details the dangers of climate change on food production.

Ways to Fix the Problem

Although hunger is an age-old problem and new challenges are rising that exacerbate it, there is still room for hope. That hope comes in the forms of a number of programs aimed at addressing the root causes of hunger and its resulting side effects.

At the grassroots level are programs such as the one initiated by the organization Stop Hunger Now. The approach of this organization is two-fold: first is the actual feeding of hungry children around the world via healthy food packets that are high in nutrition and can improve development, and second are programs aimed at combating poverty, one of the major causes of hunger globally. This includes teaching skills to break the cycle of poverty and educating people on better health practices, which reduces the risk of malnutrition.

Along with private programs are government efforts. In the immediate are programs that address hunger directly, such as those that assist in buying food like SNAP, also commonly known as food stamps. In 2013, one in five households was on food stamps–an all-time high. To help feed all these people the government spent approximately $80 billion in 2013.

There are also government efforts on the global scale as well. One such program conducted by the United States is known as Feed the Future. How this program works is first the federal government selects a number of countries. The next step is the planning phase where the government then tailors programs for each country. Once the planning step is completed, a large investment is made aimed at empowering women, growing high-yield and diverse crops, creating an adequate infrastructure for moving the product once is has grown, and above all else providing an occupation that can help lift people out of poverty.  The video below explains the Feed the Future program in greater detail.

These programs and countless other similar programs are providing a means both to fight hunger at the present and the overall issues underlying it specifically poverty.

Conclusion

In 2000 the United Nations released a set of eight goals it wished to achieve by 2015 known as the Millennial Goals. Number one on the list, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. This goal was very ambitious, even bordering on unrealistic. Thus by next year hunger and extreme poverty are not likely to be completely done away with.

Nonetheless, the rates of both are greatly reduced. Extreme poverty for example has been cut in half, which as has been alluded to, is essential to ending hunger. Reducing hunger directly has also met with great success, in 2012 and 2013 for instance, 173 million fewer people faced continuous hunger compared with 1990 to 1992. The number of children whose growth has been stunted by poor nutrition has also decreased markedly as well from 40 percent to 25 percent today.

Indeed significant gains have been made in the fight against hunger. While there is still no panacea to end it, all these steps and programs have made more than a dent. Continued efforts to address the main causes will only go further in reducing it; however, to ever completely eradicate it, seismic shifts need to be made in ending problems like inequality, war, and waste. Hunger therefore is not likely to ever be eradicated overnight, instead it will take a continued effort, one hungry mouth at a time.

Resources

Primary 

World Food Program: What Causes Hunger?

United Nations Development Program: Millennial Development Goals

Additional

Do Something: 11 Facts About Hunger in the United States

Freedom from Hunger: World Hunger Facts

Worldwatch Institute: Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger 

Guardian: World Food Day: 10 Myths About Hunger

CBS News; War and Hunger

Stop Hunger Now: Mission and History

CNS News: Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

Feed the Future: Approach

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hunger: An Intractable Problem With a Myriad of Causes appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one thing most Americans can agree on it’s that our education system is in dismal shape. A big chunk of that comes from the fact that our public schools have not, in some places, been able to provide students who come from low-income families with the resources that they so desperately need to be successful. One proposed way to fix this for at least some students is to institute a system of school vouchers. The idea of such programs has been heavily debated and discussed for decades. Read on to learn about school voucher programs and both sides of the debate.

What are school vouchers?

Vouchers parents to send their children schools outside of those assigned to them by location. These schools are often described as more innovative charter schools than are found in the traditional public system or private schools. Use of school vouchers varies throughout the United States, with some programs run at the state level, and others at the city level. Some notable long-lasting programs include those launched in Milwaukee in 1990, and Cleveland in 1995.

What is the argument in favor of school vouchers?

Providing families with more choices about how to raise their children is a staple of the American way and the voucher system would give control to parents to select the school that is best for their child. Vouchers would also allow children in low-income areas to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and go to a higher quality school so that they can get a better education. Additionally, private school vouchers would create direct competition between private schools and public schools and the competition will force all institutions to better themselves in an effort to attract students.

What is the argument against school vouchers?

For all the potential benefits that could come if state and local governments provided school vouchers, the policy also has notable flaws.  Opponents argue first and foremost that private school vouchers compromise the integrity of the entire public school system. The government operates public schools, yet it also incentivizes families to avoid them.  The conflicts of interest in this scenario makes it seem ineffective. Any public funding that goes to school vouchers is money that could have been spent improving the public school system, which cannot improve without support and investments from the government. Opponents also argue that many private schools are religiously affiliated and school vouchers provided by the government is essentially taxpayer funding of religious institutions.

How do school vouchers hold up in court?

The constitutionality of school vouchers has been heard in several court cases. Cleveland launched its program in 1995 in response to the city’s dismal public schools; however, because Cleveland’s program allowed students to use the vouchers to attend private schools with religious affiliations, the program was almost immediately the subject of lawsuits. Eventually, the question made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the 2002 case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the plaintiffs argued that the case violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which provides for the separation of religion and state. The court ruled that the vouchers could remain, because even though the religious schools were receiving government funding, the purpose of the vouchers was compelling and there were non-religious options possible. In addition, the program didn’t go to the religiously-based schools, but rather the parents and students who needed the aid, and the program didn’t proselytize or advocate for the religiously-run schools.

Case Study: Milwaukee Public Schools

Vouchers have been an option for students since the early 1990s, but whether or not the implementation has been effective is still up for debate. Thousands of students in Milwaukee take advantage of the voucher program, and like in Cleveland, many do end up in religiously-run institutions. The main question is whether or not it has worked.

The consensus seems to be: sort of. Evidence from the 2012-2013 school year shows that students in Milwaukee’s voucher program are not outscoring their public school peers as a whole on state tests. That sounds disheartening, and would seem to indicate that vouchers have been a failure, but there’s some evidence to suggest that the picture requires more digging than that. The voucher students have, in fact, scored better than their low-income public school peers. Also, test scores in the Milwaukee voucher program have on the rise, perhaps indicating that the program is on the right track.

Conclusion

The voucher system is a creative solution to a debilitating problem in the American education system — particularly in some of our low-income public schools. The argument for vouchers includes the ability for parents and students to inject more choice into their education — hopefully creating more competitive school systems. In practice, however, it hasn’t necessarily worked out to that way. They’re also expensive, and could lead to public schools receiving less funding in the name of creating stronger charter schools. While some students may receive a better education, students as a whole population are left in a worse position. What’s indubitable is that we’re really not sure about the ultimate effects of vouchers yet as there’s no nationwide system to study.

Resources

Primary

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: School Choice Programs

Cornell University Law School: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Additional

World Bank: How Do School Vouchers Help Improve Education Systems?

PBS: The Case For Vouchers

NJ.com: Christie Tours Pro-Vouchers, Anti-Union Message in Philadelphia

Washington Post: Are School Vouchers Losing Steam?

Carnegie Mellon University: Estimating the Effects of Private School Vouchers in Multidistrict Economies

Education Next: The Impact of School Vouchers on College Enrollment

WRAL.com: Voucher Bill Provides Public Money For Private School

Anti-Defamation League: School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice For Public Education

Americans United For Separation of Church and State: 10 Reasons Why Private School Vouchers Should Be Rejected

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Vouchers: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

The vast majority of public school classrooms in the United States are composed of students of both genders. While some private schools do occasionally embark on single-sex education, public schools focus on a blend of genders. However, there is growing debate about the effectiveness of each method of education. Read on to learn about single-sex education, its benefits, its problems, and its future.

History of Single-Sex Education

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, single-sex classrooms in public schools were the norm and a product of cultural views on women and their roles in society. In the latter half of the twentieth century, however, single-sex education was only found in elite private schools and reserved for students whose parents could afford to send their children to expensive preparatory programs. Recently, however, there has been a push to offer single-sex classrooms in the American public school system.

In the mid 1990s, there were only two public schools in the United States that offered single-sex classrooms; today there are more than 500. As education professionals search for innovative ways to improve the education system, many have looked toward single-sex education as a way to capitalize on boys’ and girls’ different learning styles. While various studies and reports proclaiming the merits of a single-sex education, many claim just the opposite.

What are the Arguments for Single-Sex Education?

Advocates claim single-sex education offers students a learning environment that is directed toward their gender’s natural learning style. Research has shown that boys and girls learn differently; where boys often learn better in an environment that emphasizes physical activity and more structure, girls often learn best in a classroom that emphasizes verbal communication and empathy. In a single-sex classroom, a teacher would be better able to focus on those learning styles to enhance the experiences of each gender.

Advocates also argue that a single-sex classroom would help to remove existing gender biases, which some professionals say are pushing girls away from computer technology careers and boys away from the arts. Traditionally, boys excel in math and sciences while girls succeed more in the arts and English. Some argue that single-sex classrooms would allow students to explore all of these areas unhindered by any gender biases that may exist.

Many people point out that removing the distraction of trying to impress the other gender, especially for middle and high school students, would improve student performance. Experts say girls tend to “dumb themselves down” for boys, while boys will often act out or goof off in order to catch the attention of girls. Without the distraction of the opposite gender, some experts say that students will be more focused and serious about their schoolwork.

What are the Arguments Against Single-Sex education?

Opponents of single-sex classrooms point out the similarities between separating genders in education and the “separate but equal” doctrine aimed at African Americans in public schools in the 1950s. They argue that separate but equal education is “inherently unequal.”

To some, single-sex classrooms violate Title IX, a federal educational amendment that requires females to be included in any educational program or activity. Opponents feel that single-sex classrooms would actually reinforce the same gender stereotypes advocates hope to eliminate. The kind of learning environments proposed by advocates of single-sex classrooms cater to existing stereotypes about males and females, and would present problems for students such as, for instance, a sensitive boy or an assertive girl.

Opponents argue that students are not cookie cutter molds of the traits commonly associated with their gender; rather their character varies along a spectrum ranging from loud and physically active to quiet and empathetic. Single-sex classrooms would trap students in rigid stereotypes, failing to allow students who fall anywhere else on the spectrum the chance to grow individually and academically.

Additionally, opponents say the true failure of a single-sex education is that it does not provide opportunities for boys and girls to work together, thus failing to prepare them for a co-educational world. As women anchor their places in American industry and business, today’s students will need to learn how to function with both genders, without being distracted simply because of the presence of the opposite sex.

Case Studies: Examples of Single-Sex Education Across the U.S.

Urban Prep

Located in Chicago, Illinois, Urban Prep Academies is a collection of single-sex all-male public charter schools. They are currently the only all-male public schools in the state of Illinois. The curriculum includes a heavy focus on community and public service, and working toward either college admittance or a professional field. Urban Prep has made reaching out to young men, and teaching in ways that correspond to the way in which young men learn, one of its primary goals.

The success of Urban Prep has been well documented — it certainly has had a higher graduation rate than many of its peers in other public schools in the area. However, there are questions as to whether that comes from the single-sex aspect of education, or the other benefits offered by a charter school like Urban Prep. There’s also the question of whether the model that Urban Prep employs would be sustainable on a wider scale.

William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity

The William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity (WALIPP), located in Houston, Texas, is an all-male public school. One interesting aspect of WALIPP is that in addition to an all-male student population, the teaching staff is also all men. The reasoning behind such specific hiring is that the teachers act as strong male role models for the young men who are in their classrooms. Many of the young men at WALIPP were raised primarily by their mothers, in single-family households, and benefit from having successful older men to look to for guidance. Audrey Lawson, the founder of WALIPP, explained that: “inner city boys started out not being thought of as good students. In elementary school, they have had mostly women teachers, and girls respond better to them.” 

Conclusion

Whether or not we’ll start to move more convincingly toward single-sex classrooms is uncertain; although it is important to note that as more charter schools try unconventional methods, it is certainly a possibility. The benefits have yet to be proven, but as American students constantly struggle in meeting educational benchmarks, the experiment of single-sex learning may be valuable enough for some schools to consider worth the risk.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and Sex Discrimination

Additional

Washington Post: Boys and Girls Learn Separately at Prince George’s School

National Association for Single Sex Public Education: What Have Researchers Found When They Compare Single-Sex Education With Co-Education?

Denver Post: Genders Split Up At More Schools

CRC Health Group: The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

ASCD: Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls

Synonym: The Disadvantages of Single Gender Education Schools

Al Jazeera America: Study: Single-Sex Education Offers No Benefits

Atlantic: The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools

American Psychological Association: Single-Sex Education Unlikely to Offer Advantage Over Coed Schools, Research Finds

The New York Times: Single-Sex Education is Assailed in Report

Washington Post: More Schools Trying Separation of the Sexes

Huffington Post: Arlington High School in Indianapolis Separating Boys and Girls in Classes

Great Schools: Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons

Atlantic: The Never-Ending Controversy Over All Girls Education

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Public Schools are Experimenting With Single-Sex Education appeared first on Law Street.

The recent Ebola outbreak is plaguing thousands across West Africa with illness and even death. In the modern age of science, it seems incomprehensible that there is not yet a vaccine for Ebola. Though the virus is an urgent health concern, pharmaceutical companies have few incentives to develop drugs to combat the disease. Read on to learn what happens when economic incentives do not align with public health needs, and what better solutions may exist for drug development.

What is the status of the Ebola outbreak and vaccine?

Ebola virus disease is characterized by fever, intense weakness, and muscle pain, leading to more severe symptoms. Ebola was initially transmitted by animals and is now spreading between humans through contact with bodily fluids. The outbreak was first detected in Guinea, by which time it had already spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Nigeria. A separate outbreak occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is believed to be unrelated to the outbreak in West Africa. The virus has primarily infected villages where there is extreme poverty and insufficient medical care to combat the spread of the virus.

Statistics

Mortality rates for the Ebola virus are well over 50 percent. Since March, Ebola has killed more than 1,500 people, making it the deadliest outbreak of the virus in human history. The World Health Organization estimates that the Ebola outbreak could affect 20,000 within the next nine months, and that roughly half a billion dollars is needed to stop the spread. Watch the video below for more information on the outbreak:

Vaccines

Ebola first appeared in 1976, yet nearly 40 years later no approved vaccination exists. In part this is due to the nature of the virus. Since incidents of Ebola are rare and occur in remote villages, it is difficult for scientists to effectively obtain samples and study the disease. Scientists cannot predict when an Ebola outbreak will occur, and even during a typical outbreak there are rarely enough people for a vaccine trial.

Since the outbreak, scientists are furiously working on an Ebola vaccine, and requests for approval are being fast-tracked. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health partnered with GlaxoSmithKline to develop a vaccine. The potential vaccine tested very well on primates, but the trial on humans only began on September 1. Initial data from the trial will not be available until late 2014. A number of other prototype vaccines are being worked on across the world.

Other Treatments

ZMapp was the experimental drug given to two Americans who contracted Ebola this year. While vaccines are designed to prevent future infections, ZMapp was designed to treat an existing Ebola infection. Both Americans who took the drug recovered, but the company that manufactured ZMapp has exhausted its supply.

What is the drug development process like?

Developing a new drug or vaccine is an extremely long process due to stringent regulation. Candidates for a new drug to treat a disease range anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 chemical compounds. Of these compounds, roughly 250 will show promise enough to warrant further tests on mice or other animals. On average, ten of these will then qualify for tests on humans. Since certain outbreaks, such as Ebola, do not lend themselves to have vaccines ethically tested on humans, the United States does provide a way for the drugs to be approved on animal tests alone.

Pre-clinical and clinical development for a new drug takes between 12 to 15 years, though the Ebola vaccine should come much sooner. Pre-clinical development includes testing the various chemical entities and meeting all regulations for use. Three sets of clinical trials are then conducted on humans. Clinical phases include trials on healthy humans to test for the safety of the drug. Testing then moves to those who are ill to see if the treatment is successful. If successful, the drug is submitted for further approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Other countries have similar regulatory bodies to the FDA. Internationally, the World Health Organization oversees which drugs can be used to combat a crisis like Ebola. Learn more details about the development process by watching the video below:

The problem is not that scientists lack the capability to create an Ebola vaccine, but rather that the economics of drug development do not entice companies to develop such a vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies estimate the cost of the entire process of developing a new drug to range from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Many times the drugs are not successful, in which case the companies have spent a huge amount of money and have no profit-making product. A Forbes analysis estimates that 95 percent of experimental drugs tested ultimately fail. Only one in five that reach the clinical trial phase are approved.

Given the low rate of success for potential drugs and the huge amounts of money that can be spent on research and development of drugs, cost plays a huge factor. In the United States, basic discovery research is funded primarily by government and philanthropic organizations. Development in later stages is funded mostly by pharmaceutical companies or venture capitalists.

Why do some see funding as a problem?

Funding for areas that support public health is a tricky issue. Since pharmaceutical companies are looking to make a profit, they have an incentive to make drugs that a large number of people will take and be on for a long time. Most research and development for these companies target diseases that affect wealthy people in primarily Western countries.

Targeting wealthier clients leads to a severe underinvestment in certain kinds of drugs. Diseases of poverty cannot compete for investment from financial companies looking for big return. Ebola infects relatively few and primarily affects the poor. Ebola is similar to diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, which kill two million people each year but still receive little attention from pharmaceutical companies. Watch the video below for more on the economics of drug development:

Neglected Tropical Diseases, a set of 17 diseases including Dengue Fever and Chagas Disease, affect more than one billion people each year and kill half a million. Most of these diseases could be completely eradicated, but the drugs are not widely available. One study found that of the more than 1,500 drugs that came to market between 1975 and 2004, only ten were aimed at these diseases.

Even though developing countries may experience an outbreak of a disease, the demand for new drugs is limited. In rural villages in Africa, many reject clinical drugs for diseases such as Malaria and Tuberculosis. Instead, they favor spiritual healers and herbal remedies.

What is being done to promote drug research of neglected diseases?

The Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) in the FDA was designed to advance development of products that could be used to diagnose or treat rare diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people. Orphan diseases do not traditionally receive much attention from pharmaceutical companies. The program provides a tax credit of up to 50 percent for research and development of drugs for rare diseases. When these drugs do become available, however, there is still no guarantee that patients will be able to afford them.

Since 1983 the OOPD program successfully enabled the development and marketing of more than 400 drugs and products. In the ten years prior, only ten of these products came to the market. Learn more about the OOPD with the video below:

Additionally, in 2007 the FDA created a voucher program to encourage research for neglected diseases. If a company receives approval for a drug for neglected diseases, it will receive a priority review voucher to speed up the review time for another application. Only four of these vouchers have been awarded so far.

Are there better ways to fund drug research?

Some argue that researching very rare diseases is not worth the time, and that instead research should be focused on more prevalent diseases. Companies will naturally invest in research for the most pressing concerns that offer the greatest opportunity for profit. Drug development for rare diseases should not be encouraged since the diseases occur so infrequently. Others argue research for rare diseases is essential to public health. The case of Ebola shows that even rare diseases can have a disastrous world impact.

Bioterrorism

Beyond public health, knowledge about the workings of any serious virus or disease is important to combat threats of bioterrorism. Concerns of bioterrorism are what led to Ebola research in the past. Serious threats of bioterrorism force the government to partner with research institutions to learn more about rare diseases. In March, the University of Texas and three other organizations received $26 million from the National Institutes of Health to find a cure for Ebola and the Marburg virus in case they were ever used for a bioterrorist attack. Other groups partnered with the Department of Defense to find an injectable drug treatment for Ebola.

Prizes

Prizes and grants are seen as ways to incentivize companies to develop drugs for diseases they might otherwise ignore. Financial incentives would encourage speedy development for an Ebola vaccine. The World Health Organization has looked into building a prize fund, where a centralized fund would reward drug manufacturers for reaching certain research goals. These tactics are more cost effective for the government, since they only have to pay if the product actually works. By creating grants for specific drugs, the government can pull research into neglected areas. Most prizes and grants, however, are not offered until a severe outbreak occurs, by which time many people are already in need of drugs.

Partnerships

Others point to room for greater partnerships between various entities for drug development. The greatest area for partnerships is between development groups and pharmaceutical companies. For instance, if a company pays to research and develop a product, the government could pay the company for the right to the product and could then promote the product itself without worrying about profit. In another case, GlaxoSmithKline and Save the Children arranged for someone from the charity to be on GSK’s research and development board, so the groups can share expertise and resources.

The Ebola outbreak indicates areas in which our current drug development model is lacking. People are dying because no Ebola vaccine exists. When pharmaceutical companies search only for profits, drugs for rare diseases go neglected. By expanding partnerships and offering greater prizes and financial incentives, the government can encourage drug research for these otherwise neglected diseases.

Resources

Primary

WHO: Ebola Virus Disease

FDA: Developing Products for Rare Diseases

CDC: Experimental Treatments and Vaccines for Ebola

Additional 

CNN: Ebola Outbreak: Is it Time to Test Experimental Vaccines?

Vector: De-risking Drug Development

Guardian: Funding Drug Development for Diseases of Poverty

Reuters: Scant Funds, Rare Outbreaks Leave Ebola Drug Pipeline Slim

Explorable: Research Grant Funding

Vox: We Have the Science to Build an Ebola Vaccine

American Society for Microbiology: Ebola Virus Pathogenesis

NBC: No Market: Scientists Struggle to Make Ebola Vaccines

Wall Street Journal: Two Start-Ups Aim to Change Economics of Vaccine Production

NPR: Would a Prize Help Speed Up Development of Ebola Treatments?

Harvard Global Health Review: Funding Orphan Drugs

LA Times: U.S. Speeds Up Human Clinical Trials

Washington Post: Why the Drug Industry Hasn’t Come Up with an Ebola Cure

New Yorker: Ebolanomics

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incentives for Drug Development: The Case of Ebola appeared first on Law Street.

For a long time, a dominant narrative in the United States has been that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and that it just takes a little hard work to make it work. I’ve heard the argument more times than I can count that people on welfare are lazy, or that the minimum wage is fine the way it is. Based on just my personal experiences alone, I truly think that there are many Americans who believe that it’s easy to succeed here if you simply try hard enough.

That idea needs to be put to bed. Because for many people, that picture-perfect American life of prosperity really isn’t possible, even if you work incredibly hard.

Take the recently released story of Maria Fernandes, for example. The 32 year old from Newark, New Jersey, was recently found dead in her car. The woman was working four part-time jobs. She would go straight from job to job, so she would often nap in between shifts. She had pulled over for a nap on the side of the road early Monday, and left her car on. The fumes from her exhaust, combined with those from a gas tank that had spilled in the back of her car unfortunately led to her death.

Fernandes’s story is beyond tragic, and it’s certainly a dramatic example, but to me, it was unsurprising. Nearly half of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. According to a study published in April 2014, more than 25 million American families that are considered middle class fall under the paycheck-to-paycheck distinction. The middle class families included in this category have a median income of $41,000, yet still struggle to make ends meet. Many of them have very small rainy day funds, if at all. They’re not working four part-time jobs, sure, but the work they are doing is barely enough. There’s also the fact that the American dream also emphasizes the need for a college education, which now costs the average student more than it ever has.

And that’s just the middle class. Those who aren’t so fortunate have it even worse.  According to the Brookings Institution, roughly 12 million Americans live on $2 a day or less.

Then there’s the minimum wage debacle. It would be close to impossible to live on a minimum wage job in pretty much every state. Check out this amazing infographic from USA Today. It’s based on the question, “How many hours must minimum wage earners work to afford rent?” The answer ranges from state to state, but they’re all equally unreasonable. In Texas, you’d need 93 hours. California clocks in at 130 hours. New York is slightly lower at 124 hours. In order to survive on minimum wage in Hawaii, you’d need to work 174 hours a week, which is a bit difficult, given that there are only 168 hours total. But never fear, guys, in Arkansas and Montana you can get by on working a measly 69 hours of minimum wage work a week!

Of course, the argument can be made that minimum wage work isn’t intended to be a career, rather a stepping stone. But that’s pretty much a crock of bullshit at this point. When education is so expensive, families are living hand to mouth, and the unemployment level is only slowly getting better, it can be hard for people without educational opportunities to raise above minimum wage. In that environment, four jobs isn’t ridiculous, it’s pretty much understandable. It’s pretty hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when the boots are so old that the straps are falling off.

Finally, let’s juxtapose all this uplifting news with how Americans feel about minimum wage jobs. More than three quarters of conservative Americans believe that the poor “have it easy.” Overall, when surveying all Americans, 44 percent think that the poor “have it easy.” When asked the question, “Why are people poor?” a majority of conservatives responded that people are poor because of a lack of effort on their part. And in case I haven’t made you too depressed yet on this beautiful Friday, check out these tweets that sum up how some truly spectacular idiots feel about minimum wage jobs:

Thanks PublicShaming

Thanks, PublicShaming

Ms. Fernandes, I’m so very sorry that your life had to end the way it did. You were just trying to provide for yourself, and we all know how truly hard that can be. You were not alone, but I do hope that someday we get to the point where stories like yours are a thing of the past.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Bootstraps are Broken appeared first on Law Street.

Trying to get by without a reliable place to stay is difficult. But it becomes nearly impossible when trying to live in a city where it is illegal to sleep in parks, to store belongings, or to stand outside buildings. This is exactly what homeless people are up against in many cities across America. Cities are increasingly turning to laws that criminalize homeless populations by outlawing fundamental human behaviors. With laws banning sleeping and camping in public, where should the homeless turn?

What are the statistics on homelessness?

Homelessness has been a problem for decades, but the root causes of the issue are complex. Homelessness is incredibly difficult to measure, especially since many people are forced into homelessness for only a temporary period of time. According to a one-night head count by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than 610,000 Americans were homeless in January 2013. Sixty-five percent of the nation’s homeless were staying in shelters that night. This means more than one-third were living in unsheltered locations — under bridges, in cars, parks, or abandoned buildings. Nearly a quarter of the homeless were children under the age of 18.

What have cities been doing?

Cities are increasingly passing laws that essentially make it illegal to be homeless. Most of these laws are designed for safety reasons rather than to put more homeless people in jail, but the effects can still be harmful. Numerous U.S. cities have public designs hostile to the homeless, such as benches with a mysterious third bar in the middle to prevent lying down and sleeping. Most cities have unevenly enforced loitering laws as well as laws prohibiting begging.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty released a report on July 16, 2014, tracking the laws of 187 American. Some of its findings:

• 57 percent of cities prohibit camping in particular public places — “camping” encompasses a wide array of living arrangements
• 27 percent of cities prohibit sleeping in particular public places and 18 percent of cities impose a city-wide ban on sleeping in public
• 76 percent of cities prohibit begging in particular public places
• 65 percent of cities prohibit loitering in specific public places
• 9 percent of cities prohibit sharing food with homeless people
• 74 percent of homeless people do not know a place where it is safe and legal for them to sleep

The problem is that these laws have increased in recent years. Since 2011,

• Citywide bans on camping in public have increased by 60 percent.
• Citywide bans on loitering, loafing, and vagrancy have increased by 35 percent.
• Citywide bans on sitting or lying down in particular public places have increased by 43 percent.
• Bans on sleeping in vehicles have increased by 119 percent.

Watch the video below for more information on the measures taken against the homeless in Clearwater, Florida:

Are these laws constitutional?

City bans targeting the homeless population raise a number of legal questions. While the laws are often ruled unconstitutional, they still thrive in most U.S. cities. Most people take issue with the fact that these laws are discriminatory in targeting the homeless population. Some argue that an activity like begging should be protected as free speech. A similar argument is made that the homeless should be afforded freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and should have the right to due process of law. The U.N. Human Rights Committee found criminalization of homelessness violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other significant rulings:

• In April 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that criminalizing behaviors and acts integral to being homeless was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments; however, the opinion was vacated when the two parties settled out of court.
• In August 2012, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that laws that prohibited serving food outside to the homeless were unconstitutional.
• On June 19, 2014, a federal appeals court cited issues of discrimination in striking down a Los Angeles law that banned people from living out of their cars.

What are the effects of these laws?

Typically the homeless are encouraged to stay in shelters until they can find affordable housing of their own, but oftentimes it is not that easy. Consider a city like Santa Cruz, California, where 83 percent of homeless people are without housing and shelter options, yet the homeless cannot lie down in public or sleep in vehicles. Or consider El Cajon, California, where 52 percent of homeless people have no access to a shelter, but sleeping in public, camping in public, and begging are criminalized.

Watch the video below to learn more about a law banning homelessness in Columbia, North Carolina:

Incarceration

Violators of these rules face fines or incarceration. As many homeless people cannot afford fines, they end up spending time in jail. With no permanent address, no regular transportation access, no place to store personal records, and few to no financial resources, the homeless targeted for criminal behavior have difficulty paying fines. If they can’t pay fines they often cannot get probation. This means they are incarcerated more often and for longer periods of time. For the homeless, getting into shelters and finding affordable housing is already difficult. But doing so after a previous arrest becomes nearly impossible.

Suspended Benefits

The homeless are typically eligible for a variety of beneficial federal programs, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD), and SNAP (food stamps). Many homeless people are unaware of these programs. Since most of the homeless lack an address and application documentation, they have difficulty applying. SNAP has special procedures that give greater assistance to the homeless, such as providing the, with a representative and mailing benefits to homeless shelters. Most cities recognize the obstacles the homeless face in applying for federal benefits and employ outreach teams to connect homeless people to benefits and services. For example, Denver’s “Road Home” plan began in 2005 with the goal of helping homeless people with disabilities. Denver organized all the existing outreach programs in the city and added 20 more outreach workers as well as a program coordinator. In the first 3 years, the program helped 2,000 people in Denver access public benefits and services. Another program in Portland set up training to teach all homeless case workers what major benefit programs are available and how the homeless can apply.

One big problem is that having a criminal record makes people ineligible for certain benefits, such as federal housing subsidies. When disabled individuals are incarcerated, their SSI is suspended. If they are incarcerated for more than a year, SSI benefits are terminated and the person must then submit a new application. The process could take months or even years, meaning an increased chance for homelessness in the meantime.

High Cost

Recent studies show that laws targeting the homeless are not always cost-effective. The Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the annual cost of emergency room visits and jail stays for the average homeless person was $16,670. Providing someone an apartment and social worker would only cost $11,000.

A 2013 analysis by the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Social Research examined the costs of providing immediate, permanent, supportive housing to the homeless rather than the more typical transitional housing. Albuquerque’s “Heading Home” Initiative made extensive use of community partnerships to coordinate housing and services. Overall, the study found that housing the homeless is 31 percent cheaper than keeping them homeless, mainly because housed individuals use emergency services less frequently. Their research showed that simply by providing permanent housing, Albuquerque reduced spending on homeless-related jail costs by 64 percent. The costs of emergency room visits also declined 13 percent, while spending on mental health visits increased 34 percent.

Do these laws help protect the homeless?

Very rarely are cities explicitly aiming to make the lives of the homeless even harder by instituting these laws. Many cities see these laws as a way to ensure public safety as well as the safety of the homeless. For instance, laws prohibiting sharing food with the homeless are aimed at protecting the homeless from bad food. Food given illegally could be made with questionable food safety practices or could come from someone with more nefarious intent like poisoning the food. Other cities worry about the effects of public feedings. For instance, a church group may set up in a park next to a school, which would leave many parents upset over the safety of their children. Watch for rationale behind feeding laws below:

Laws outlawing public camping are often a way for the city to push the homeless to stay in safer shelters, especially in dangerously cold weather. Staying in a shelter generally keeps the homeless safe from people who may otherwise harm them on the streets. Shelters can also help cities connect the homeless to other beneficial social service programs. Officials also say these laws help to encourage better pubic hygiene and safety. Other laws target panhandling. Police object to panhandling since it is often done in high-volume, potentially dangerous areas, such as a highway median.

So why can’t the homeless find a place to stay?

More than 12.8 percent of the nation’s supply of low income housing has been permanently lost since 2001. This is largely due to a steady decrease in funding for federal subsidies for standardized housing since the 1970s. There are fewer emergency shelter beds than there are homeless people. The number of shelters in the United States rises each year, but the increased supply of beds does not always correspond to the areas of highest demand. In certain areas where there is a lack of affordable housing, the shelters still do not provide enough beds. Further, waiting lists for subsidized housing in most areas are incredibly long. The city of Los Angeles has only 11,933 shelter beds for a homeless population of 53,798. If cities cannot provide adequate shelter beds, there is no place for the homeless to go but the streets.

Typically shelters are run by non-profit organizations associated with church groups or the federal or state government. Numerous national organizations, such as Salvation Army, United Way, and the National Alliance to End Homelessness, aid in the upkeep of homeless shelters. Most shelters require residents to exit in the morning and go somewhere else for the day before returning at night for a meal and to sleep. Shelters try to offer a variety of services, including job training and rehabilitation programs, but some are criticized for being nothing more than holding facilities. One shelter in Washington, D.C. in particular has dealt with corrupt workers preying on the homeless residents as well as a decaying building, contagious infections, and hazardous bug infestations.

Another significant obstacle is how to find housing for vulnerable populations like the previously incarcerated, the recently hospitalized, and veterans. Once released from jail or prison, many have no place to turn and no money to pay for housing. Those released from hospitals are also more likely to suffer from homelessness and even mental illness.

Housing First models have grown in popularity in recent years as part of the movement to find new ways to help the homeless. One of the first Housing First models was launched in Los Angeles in 1998 by the non-profit PATH Beyond Shelter. The success of the policy led to its spread to a number of U.S. cities. Rather than moving the homeless through different levels of housing, Housing First models move the homeless immediately from the streets or a shelter into their own apartment. The idea is that once housing is obtained, other issues like mental health or addiction can more effectively be addressed. By using a Housing First model, Phoenix became the first city to successfully house all of its chronically homeless veterans.

Watch the video below for more information on the Housing First program:

Libraries and the Homeless

With the homeless finding it increasingly difficult to find someplace to sit outside, libraries are a prime spot to spend their days. As social safety nets shrink, libraries have become more vital than ever to homeless populations. Libraries are free, centrally located, provide numerous books and computers, and allow the homeless to escape from snow or scorching temperatures. Increasingly, libraries have added homeless outreach to their array of programs.

Being a de facto gathering place for homeless populations can often deter use by other patrons. Striking the balance between making the homeless feel welcome and making other visitors feel comfortable is tricky. Naturally libraries deal with complaints regarding homeless people being loud, unclean, mentally ill, monopolizing computer time, and bathing in restrooms. Some libraries institute their own rules to mitigate these problems. For example, rules in Washington, D.C. prohibit alcohol, bare feet, carrying more than two bags, sleeping, or an odor that can be detected six feet away.

Watch the video below to see how a library in Burlington, Vermont, deals with the homeless:

Libraries have not turned a blind eye to the needs of the homeless. In response to problems with the homeless population, the city of San Francisco hired a social worker for its main library. The social worker is aided by five peer counselors, all of whom are formerly homeless. The library even implemented a 12-week “vocational rehabilitation” program. Graduates of the program are then hired to work in the system. Other libraries in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia have since followed suit to hire social workers.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, libraries offer meals, haircuts, blood pressure screening, and job counseling. Libraries in San Jose, California bring library programs, such as computer classes, to homeless shelters. The central library in Philadelphia even features a cafe staffed by the homeless, who then use the job skills gained to secure other employment. The American Library Association calls for even more programming targeting the homeless, recognizing that libraries should provide training to staff and coordinate programs and activities to benefit that population.

Cities need more affordable housing to help the homeless. Ideally they should seek to confront problems of homelessness and provide solutions rather than criminalize homeless behavior. Naturally many communities do not want to have to deal with the homeless in public areas, but criminalization of homeless behavior is costly, unconstitutional, and hinders a person’s future ability to secure a permanent place to stay.

Resources

Primary

HUD: 2013 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress

 Additional

No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities

Reuters: U.S. Libraries Become Front Line in Fight Against Homelessness

Huffington Post: More Cities are Basically Making it Illegal to be Homeless

The New York Times: Shunting the Homeless from Sight

USA Today: More Cities Pass Laws that Hurt the Homeless

Wall Street Journal: A Crowdfunding App for the Homeless

Blaze: Top 10 Anti-Homeless Measures Used in the United States

American Library Association: Reducing Homelessness Through Library Engagement

NPR: Urban Libraries Become De Facto Homeless Shelters

MSN: Court Overturns Los Angeles Ban on Living in Cars

ALA Library: Services for the Poor

Arizona Central: Success in Housing for Homeless Veterans in Phoenix

Harvard Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Law Review: Jones v. City of Los Angeles: A Moral Response

NPR: With A Series of Small Bans, Cities Turn Homelessness into a Crime

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Costs of Criminalizing Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

Currently on view at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, “Energy That is All Around: Mission School,” features a group of subversive San Francisco street artists from the late-1990s. Emanating from San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI), the Mission School was a direct reaction to gentrification in the Bay Area spurred by the dot-com boom that brought an influx of young professionals, upscale boutiques, restaurants, inflated rents, and threats of eviction to the primarily working-class Latino families of San Francisco’s Mission District.

“A lot of people were displaced,” said artist Chris Johnson, “everybody got fucked over.” The art of the Mission School focused on the social, political, cultural and economic aspects of everyday life in the Bay Area during this period, embodying a radical activism railing against gentrification and rampant consumerism. “They were part of a community that responded acidly to the social and aesthetic values associated with ’80s consumer culture and corporate hegemony in the dawning of the age of the internet,” said Natasha Boas, a San Francisco-based independent curator. “With their raw, immediate, and gritty street and studio practices, these post-punk, key artists of the Mission School would soon [become] international icons for new generations of art students and makers.”

The artists — Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, Ruby Neri — share a similar aesthetic, described by McCarthy as “urban decay,” “graffiti-based,” and “Do-it-yourself.” The art is informed by lowbrow visual culture including cartoons, billboard advertisements, graffiti, and folk art. According to Lynn Gumpert, director of NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, the artworks critique society “literally standing our culture’s notion of ‘high art’ on its head.” Often employing found objects and dumpster diving for materials, their art is bound by an “anti-establishment” and “anti-capitalist” ethos, according to art critic and curator Dian Pugh whose essay ”Off The Tracks: Ethics and Aesthetics of Recent San Francisco Art” is featured in the exhibit catalogue. “Juxtaposed against the dot-com boom culture, these artists represented the moral and political voice of our cultural community — a community that was being threatened by gentrification.”

Like a modern-day John Sloan or George Bellows, Chris Johanson refers to his art as “documentary painting;” streetscapes chronicling everyday life at the dawn of the digital age. The Survivalists (1999) is a jarring installation among the pieces in the show. Flimsy wooden beams painted yellow protrude from panels on the wall, forming catwalks on which lonely consumers push shopping carts toward the viewer, perhaps conveying the alienation of labor in capitalist society. Speech bubbles from multiple figures in the panels read: “Get out of the Mission,” “Yuppies Out Now,” “Turn the building into condos,” “For Sale: Cozy One Bedroom Basement Condo, $300,000,” “Theres [sic.] no place to stay…keep on moving.”  As a whole, the scene is too much to take in at once; only after reading each panel does the larger picture come into focus. “When people see this piece, they see the social anxiety,” said Chris Johanson. “I wanted to share the complexities of the socio-economic situation that everyone just had to deal with.” Voices are illustrated in a cacophonous and vexing exchange. It’s a “celebration of multiplicity,” said Dina Pugh, “that earnestly comments on existential issues of human identity comprised by consumer culture.”

Graffiti is a galvanizing force in each piece of this show. Barry McGee, also known by his tag “Twist,” presents a more cartoon-inspired aesthetic than Johansen, which is nonetheless political. “Growing up I used to see a group of activists, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who would spray-paint aggressive statements on Bank of America, government buildings, and freeway underpasses,” McGee recalled in a 2004 interview. “They shed light on atrocities being committed by the Reagan Administration’s policies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba and so on. I like that — the rawness of it.” McGee’s squat, droopy-eyed cartoon and seemingly depressed cartoon figures reflect the underside of inequitable urban change; not only the exasperated slaving masses, but also perhaps homeless, downtrodden vagabonds.

At Grey Art Gallery, the first East Coast venue to showcase the Mission School, this show is not only historically significant; it’s also relevant, according to Hi-Fructose citing “siliconvalleyization” of the Bay Area. Yet what is so striking is that the same process is currently taking place in New York City; rapid gentrification, from the city center to the periphery. Looking at the Mission District of the late-1990s, one cannot help but think of Bushwick, Brooklyn today. Both neighborhoods were inhabited by primarily working-class Latino families who, over time, have been priced out of their homes; factory buildings have been converted into artists’ lofts, and bodegas have become high-end boutiques. Public art can exacerbate the rate of gentrification, transforming working-class communities into trendy neighborhoods to which hipsters flock. But it has the potential to counter this affect as well, as Art Practical mentioned in its review of the NYU show, “there are still lessons to be learned here.”

According to Barry McGee, the landscape of contemporary public art is politically benign. “The stuff people do now doesn’t antagonize anyone at all. It has become like the mural art, which is fine in its own right but doesn’t anger people when they see it…[T]here was a time in graffiti when it was fun to do images. In hindsight, it opened the floodgates to tons of terrible art school graffiti and non-abrasive images.” McGee now advocates illicit “fundamental graffiti acts” such as tags and throw-ups, which, precisely because of their illegality, have the potential to affect social change. In such a way, the Mission School teaches us to produce graffiti as a “social practice” based on “radical pessimism” about the social environment.

The takeaway message from “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” is that art not only documents, but also has the potential it change society. And that power is open to the people.

You can see the exhibit “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” featuring artwork by Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, and Ruby Neri at the Grey Art Gallery, New York University, 100 Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003. The exhibit is open until July 13, 2014.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [victorgrigas via wikipedia] 

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subversive San Francisco Street Art on Display at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery appeared first on Law Street.

“According to the mural, soccer is the opium of the masses, the bread and circuses of today’s Brazil: let them eat football!”
-The Guardian

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 police clad in riot gear and wielding clubs fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and noise bombs into crowds of protesters in São Paulo, about 10 km away from the Corinthians arena where the first game of the 2014 FIFA World Cup took place. Six people were injured, and three protesters arrested. This is only a sample of the protests surrounding the soccer tournament over the past year. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the country’s first female leader of the so-called Workers’ Party, has subsequently deployed 100,000 police and 57,000 military to guard stadiums, teams’ hotels, and training grounds for the duration of the World Cup.

Such incendiary scenes of social protest in Brazil might conjure images of France in 1789 at the eve of revolution. Parallels abound: the people demand basic services in a grossly unequal society, and their government responds flippantly with gestures of added luxury for the wealthy; ‘Let them Eat Football.’ Brazil hosts the FIFA World Cup at an estimated cost of $11.5 billion in preparations, dolled out from public coffers, not to mention the lives of eight workers who died while constructing grandiose stadiums across the country. The expenditures for the most expensive World Cup in history are well documented (here, here and here) as are the nefarious practices of FIFA (here and here); an additional $12 billion is being spent on projects to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio De Janeiro. Meanwhile, the Brazilian people lack basic healthcare services, affordable public transportation and education, adequate housing and security, while suffering from trenchant institutionalized racial and economic discrimination.

According to President Rousseff, anti-FIFA demonstrations across the county are part of a “systemic campaign” against the Brazilian government, yet protesters do not see their plight as one isolated to the country. “The crisis is worldwide,” an anonymous member of the Brazilian anarchist Black Bloc group told the Global Post. “People are seeing that representative democracy doesn’t represent anyone — here in Brazil, in London, in Greece or anywhere.” And political graffiti is the undercurrent of this global cacophony of dissent.

Graffiti that reads “FIFA go home” or “Fuck the World Cup” have appeared on walls from São Paul to Rio De Janeiro, distilling the disdain of the Brazilian people into iconic slogans that they repeat during protests. Murals that celebrate the World Cup have been vandalized; a mural in Rio de Janeiro depicting Neymar da Silva Santos was painted over so the figure wore a hood used iconically by the anarchist Black Bloc. The most pervasive political graffiti, however, are murals that explicitly illustrate the concerns of protesters: One piece by Brazilian artist Cranio depicts a man flushing money down the toilet bowl; in another, the 2014 World Cup mascot points a rifle at a message that reads, ‘We Want Education’ and ‘Not Repression’. Protests iterated at demonstrations physically are thus represented on walls throughout the country.

“People already have the feeling and that image condensed this feeling,” São Paulo-based graffiti artist Paulo Ito told Slate in May when photos of his mural in Rio de Janeiro began circulating through social media. The piece shows a weeping, emaciated Brazilian boy, fork and knife in hand, being served a football on a silver plate. “The message of this painting is powerful,” the Guardian interpreted. “Amid the sporting hysteria, poverty not only goes on, but the lives of the marginalized have arguably been made worse.” The image has since gone viral accumulating 3,310 likes and 4,749 shares on Ito’s Facebook account alone; on the popular Facebook page TV Revolta it has been shared and liked more than 40,000 times. Graffiti is a “good way to expose the country’s problems,” Paulo Ito explained. “If the government doesn’t want to expose these things it’s because they feel ashamed. If they feel ashamed by this they might take it more seriously – at least, that’s our intention.”

Artists B. Shanti and A. Signl of Captain Broderline, an international graffiti collective that was outlawed in Egypt last year, share this aim, producing their own political art in Brazil. “We just want to support the people on the street and give them like a voice that when all the people come here and look at the nice World Cup they also see the resistance movement.” Their mural, organized with Amnesty International Brazil, stands across from a police headquarters in Rio de Janeiro, displaying construction shovels attached to a giant soccer ball demolishing favelas along a regal red carpet — it is dedicated to all Brazilians evicted during the preparations of the World Cup.

But can such graffiti be harbingers of revolution? “Look at these images from far enough back – from the point of view of world television, with its cameras aimed at the football pitch – and they become a sideshow to the spectacle in the stadiums,” said Jonathon Jones in the Guardian. “But perhaps this is one of those moments when the images break open, the dreams and nightmares of society spill from fantasy into reality, and the hungry kid gets fed. In that case, these paintings will become icons of a revolution started by sport. It is, however, more likely they are simply adding a bit of a sting to the usual, overfamiliar opiate.” In the case of Brazil, we cannot hold up graffiti’s illegality as an indication of its political effectiveness. Graffiti has been legal in Rio de Janeiro since 2009, when the Brazilian government passed Law 706/07; today, artists can mark public buildings, including columns, walls, and construction siding, as well as private property if done with the consent of the owners. As compared to Egypt, where the government has banned political graffiti, Brazil has a relatively liberal policy regarding street art, and why not? — public art has been statistically proven to increase the value of real estate.

There is, however, definite political meaning in the graffiti critiquing the government and the World Cup; and what is more significant, in my opinion, is the solidarity that this graffiti has given to the disparate protests in Brazil. All voices rally behind the slogans echoed by the graffiti in the street — eg, “FIFA go home.” The inclusion of international graffiti collectives like Captain Borderline, moreover, aligns Brazilian dissidents with those around the world. Allusions to the French Revolution are not overstated. “When people go on the street and create pressure they become political actors,” said an anonymous Brazilian anarchist, this “new generation is very radical.” And graffiti plays a fundamental role in making it so.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Jordi Bernabeu Farrus via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Cup Brazil: ‘Let Them Eat Football!’ appeared first on Law Street.

One out of every five cases of violent victimization in America is domestic violence. You read that correctly — one out of five, according to the latest National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Published in April, this report illustrates a disturbing yet unsurprising state of affairs.

Just over half of all domestic violence cases involving intimate partners or immediate family members during this period were reported to police (56 percent), while just under half of cases of victimization by other family members were reported (49 percent). In addition to the 23 percent of domestic violence victimizations, another 32 percent were perpetrated by “well-known/casual acquaintances.” More than half of all violent victimizations, then, are committed by offenders known by the victim. In general, violence is not random.

Violence Against Women 

When all violent crimes are considered, men are slightly more likely to be victimized than women. However, in terms of domestic violence women are more often the victims, making up 76 percent of all such incidents. This is especially the case in intimate partner violence (IPV), which shows an even larger gap: an 82-18 percent disparity between women and men, respectively. IPV is also the most prevalent and injurious form of domestic violence.

The recent campaign “Bring Back Our Girls” has been powerful in that it created rallying cry, worldwide, against the discrimination of women. While the energy behind it is purely positive, I think that America forgets about its own issues too often. We take pride when scolding other nations for their de jure systems of oppression. As a recent World Bank report illustrates, it is not a crime to restrict women in many countries. Rather, their restriction is a part of the legal system. Active government constraint of the freedoms that women deserve is not (as) prevalent in the United States. But it remains shameful, or criminal, that our government can ignore domestic violence to the extent that it does.

Action For Women

IPV can be associated with poverty. As the World Bank report states, “Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more frequent and severe among poorer groups across such diverse countries as India, Nicaragua, and the United States.” Our lawmakers can do something by restructuring the tax code and revitalizing government programs. Getting rid of loopholes while lowering all brackets’ rates could actually increase revenue and make room for stronger assistance programs. Of course this means that reforming welfare and SNAP will have to be taken seriously.

Undocumented citizen status may also exacerbate IPV. As SafeHouse Denver describes, there are a host of methods used by aggressors against immigrant women to keep them from reporting domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by reforming immigration laws, reducing harsh enforcement, and making the path to citizenship more accessible. In turn, that would make it more difficult for abusers to discourage immigrant women from seeking help.

IPV can turn into homicide when firearms are involved. The annual “When Men Murder Women” report by the Violence Policy Center shows the relationship between firearm homicide and domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by mandating tougher restrictions on guns, which may reduce the number of domestic violence cases that become fatal. Because fatal domestic violence cases go unrecorded by the NCVS, this issue is even greater than the recent report may suggest.

Ending the Trend

Cultural change has the power to reshape the way we raise our children, it has the power to reshape the way partners treat each other, and it has the power to reshape how students behave on college campuses. However, we cannot rely solely on social movements. The political structure and our government’s actions must reflect, and catalyze, the social shifts on the ground. Yes, we need to advocate for cultural change. Yes, all women. Yes, all men. But it would be remiss to not demand policies that can diminish IPV. If we are to truly champion the end of domestic violence, the end of sexual assault, and the end of a system that leaves so many women battered, it will be necessary to call on our government to make changes. Especially when solutions would be beneficial in so many other policy areas, it is criminal that our politicians are not doing more to combat domestic violence.

___

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [US Military via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Domestic Violence: Ending the Trend appeared first on Law Street.

Happy April Fool’s Day, folks! Guess what happened last night while you were sleeping?

The Affordable Care Act’s first open enrollment period ended, and the government reached its goal metrics. Signups on Healthcare.gov and 14 state-based exchanges cleared the 7 million mark — the minimum enrollment goal — and will continue to grow over the next few weeks as last-minute signups clear the system.

This is pretty exciting. Why? Because Obamacare is officially too big to easily dismantle. The Republicans, with all their blathering on about bullshit death panels and anti-Americanism, have lost this fight. Healthcare reform is a thing that happened. And it’s not un-happening anytime soon.

And that’s a huge deal. Medical care is insanely expensive in the U.S., as is quality health insurance. Those high price tags have locked tons of low-income Americans out of quality healthcare, leaving them with lower standards of living and shorter life expectancies.

Basically, the high cost of healthcare has turned a basic human need into a luxury for the rich. It’s established that some lives (ahem, rich folks) are more important than others. And that’s super fucked up.

So thanks, Obamacare, for taking a first step toward fixing that problem.

But! Let’s not get too excited. Obamacare is still full of problems. The ACA is NOT universal healthcare — not by a long shot, and it shows. Let’s investigate, shall we?

Sarah, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy, is a recent beneficiary of the Affordable Care Act. She signed up for the Empire Catastrophic Guided Access Plan back in February. Under this plan, Sarah pays nearly $200.00 a month for the most basic of health insurance — her copays and deductible are high, making her policy little more than a guarantee that she won’t go completely bankrupt if she gets cancer tomorrow. (So we hope.)

Unsurprisingly, Sarah’s not super pumped about the state of her healthcare coverage. As a 20-something-year-old with mountains of student loan debt and a low-paying, entry-level job, she’s on a tight budget. And every month, $200 of that budget goes toward her health insurance — and that’s if she doesn’t actually try to use it.

So, why, if this plan was so lackluster, did Sarah choose it? Aside from the obvious factor of affordability (this plan is about as cheap as they come), Sarah wanted to make sure she could access birth control and STI screenings through her insurance.

“I signed up for this plan because, on the Planned Parenthood website, it listed Empire as an accepted insurer,” Sarah said. “But it turns out, for my plan, they are out of network, even though when I called they said I was covered.”

“Turns out STI screenings are not covered at all, so I have to not get tested ever, and I have to try to find a gynecologist who takes my insurance. I also no longer qualify for state assisted birth control at Planned Parenthood because I have health insurance that isn’t actually health insurance. I am literally worse off than when I was uninsured.”

So, thanks to Obamacare, Sarah is essentially paying more money for less access to the healthcare she needs. And that’s really not cool.

There have been a lot of GOP horror stories about the Affordable Care Act. This video is one of them.

Largely, these tales are vague, exaggerated, or entirely untrue. They’re pure propaganda for conservaturds who want to keep the healthcare industry as privatized and profitable as possible.

But then there are real people, like Sarah, who really aren’t making out too well under Obamacare. Stories like hers aren’t to denounce the ACA as a complete failure — even she conceded that the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction.

But Sarah is living proof that there are a lot more steps that need to be taken in that direction. Quality healthcare still isn’t truly accessible to countless American citizens. Obamacare is not universal healthcare. And that’s really what we need.

So, now that Obamacare has reached its enrollment goals, let’s keep pushing, shall we? Let’s make healthcare a thing that we can actually use.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks! You’re almost there. Breathe with me. Friday’s coming.

In the meantime, let’s get to our biweekly session of bitching about the GOP, shall we? Today, we’re talking about school lunches. And poor kids. And how Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia is a gigantic asshole.

Here’s what happened. Across the nation, kids from families whose income levels are below 130 percent of the poverty line can receive free school lunches. Kids from families with income levels between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for reduced lunch prices. This is news to no one.

Trust me on this. My awesome wife teaches in Newark, one of the poorest cities in New Jersey. Literally all of the kids at her school get free lunch. Free lunch for low income kids is nothing new.

Said no one.

Anyway! Rep. Kingston decided to make news out of something that’s not new — a common talent for many GOP rainmakers. This week, he went on the record saying that poor kids should NOT get free lunch — oh no! The blasphemy!

Instead, he made the following suggestions:

“Why don’t we have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria — and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people — getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch.”

Oh my gosh I CAN’T. I cannot. What are you doing, Rep. Kingston? Really.

Friends is on my level today.

Let’s start with the first and most obvious issue with your solution to a non-problem: children are not possessors of money. They don’t work. That’s what being a child means. So, really, they all get free lunches. Every single one of them. Even the richest of rich kids are getting a free lunch. Because it’s not their money that paid for it. It’s their parents’ money.

Take me for example. I was a solidly middle-class child. My parents, being the health nuts that they are, were not big fans of the idea of me eating mystery meat in my elementary school cafeteria. So, every day, they dutifully packed me a brown bag lunch. I got a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread and a handful of cookies, virtually every single day. For me, that lunch was free.

I didn’t pay for it. I didn’t even know that food cost money. Or that when my parents went to work, they were paid in money. I kind of just thought working was a thing that grownups had to do — the same way kids had to go to school — and all of the other stuff like food and housing was just magically bestowed upon people who followed the rules.

Baby me did not understand how much this leather jacket probably cost my big sister.

Clearly, I was a naïve child.

But! There was a kernel of truth in my naivety. For me, food really didn’t cost money. It just appeared in my brown bag every day, as if by magic. Nowadays, as a precariously middle-class adult who has to purchase food before it lands in my brown bag (I’m still packing a whole wheat PB&J for work, I’ll admit it), I’m fully aware that food was free when I was a kid.

I’m even more aware of it when my now gray-haired parents take me out for lunch.

My reaction whenever my parents invite me out to dinner.

Anyway! All children get free lunch. They aren’t working the night-shift to pay for their sandwiches. So, your argument is already inherently flawed, Rep. Kingston.

Moving right along. What is this obsession with punishing poor people for being poor? Seriously. The GOP is fixated on it. When you suggest forcing children to sweep the floors in order to earn their lunch, you’re talking about child labor. That’s bad enough, but when you’re only suggesting the poor kids participate, you’re talking about a caste system.

You’re talking about a world where rich kids learn early on that only certain people sweep floors. Namely, not them. You’re teaching them that someone else will always clean up after them. Someone else will always have to beg for their scraps.

Then, you wind up with kids like this boy, who killed 4 people because of pathological rich kid syndrome.

And, you’re teaching the poor kids that they’re the ones who need to beg for those scraps. Because of the social standing of their family — which they have zero control over — poor kids will understand themselves to be inherently less than. That’s a traumatic and debilitating lesson to learn at such a formative age.

Finally, there’s the looming issue at hand — the solution that Rep. Kingston is obviously hinting at, but isn’t explicitly articulating.

He’s saying that it would be better if these kids didn’t get a free school lunch at all. If we HAVE to give it to them, at least make them work for it, he’s saying. But really, his best case scenario is equally expensive lunches for all.

Folks, this is a classic case of a Republican who lacks empathy. It’s an alarmingly common quality among headline-making GOP’ers.

Where my wife teaches, all of the students qualify for free lunch. Every single one of them. These kids are poor. They don’t have the luxury to grow up naïve like I did. They know food costs money because they don’t have any of it. As in, neither food nor money.

For many of her kids, lunch is the only meal they eat. They hardly eat at all on weekends. Why? Because they’re poor. They can’t afford food. And the little food they do have at home, they give to their baby brothers and sisters.

My wife’s students are good kids. They’re smart and loving and talented, and hysterically funny. And they deserve to fucking eat.

So, Rep. Kingston? Shut the fuck up.

Stop talking about child labor, and a (not really) new caste system, and the idea that poor kids shouldn’t be fed lunch on the school’s dime. Stop talking out of your ass, and start feeding some children.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Philippe Put via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP to Hungry Kids: You Don’t Work Hard Enough appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few weeks here at Law Street Media as we launched our crime rankings last week and are continuing our efforts to provide content that is both useful and interesting. I now have the opportunity to casually peruse the section like any other reader, and I’ve been checking it out a lot recently.

Law Street’s Crime in America presents statistics gathered from around the country, including the safest places to live, using data gathered by the FBI.

Reading up on all of this crime has forced me to think about its prevalence, the unnecessary danger of certain areas, and what it says about our society. In recent years, there has been much coverage of the huge disparity in prosperity between segments of the population, with the Occupy Wall Street movement providing a notorious example. When I say “forced me to think about,” I mean I’m reflecting on the overabundance of first world problems I have, and how little they matter in a world full of very real conflicts.

I could complain for hours about how tough it is to be six months out of law school, but I have it easy compared to many: I have a job(s) and live in a major city with tons of personal and professional opportunities. There are many people who are still searching for work, and under much more dire circumstances.

In addition, reading Crime in America serves as a reminder that there are people who are under such hardship that they view crime as the only way out of their current situations.  Every time I complained to someone about law school, I often got “there are thousands of people who would kill to be able to go to law school” in response. After an exaggerated eye roll, I would steadfastly refuse to believe this statement was fact. Then I read Crime in America, which begs the question: “Why else are people committing violent crimes?” If you read about America’s ten most dangerous cities, then you’ll see that people are facing severe unemployment and increasing poverty. There is a strong correlation between financial uncertainty and criminal activity.

When I say severe unemployment, I’m not talking about being unable to find a job in a struggling legal economy.  These people can’t get jobs in any economy, for a variety of reasons.  All of the possible reasons lead them to believe that all hope is lost, and hopelessness can lead to criminal levels of desperation.

Many people think being a lawyer is the key to some degree of success, and to an extent they are correct. That success isn’t necessarily in the juris doctorate degree, but in the education that the degree represents. You learn unparalleled skills of analysis, critical thinking, writing, interpretation, oral advocacy, and time management.  You spend three years having your brain broken down and reassembled like some modern-day Frankenstein. It’s a daunting experience, but you emerge ready to face the world with conversational legalese and a leather briefcase.

There are literally thousands of people who cannot even imagine what it’s like to earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a J.D.  There are people who, in America in 2013, do not even have the option of finishing high school.  These people are neither lazy nor stupid.  Instead, they haven’t been given the tools necessary for educational advancement. I would go so far as to guess that they have never been presented with the idea of academic success as a realistic option. It’s hard to want more from life if you have never experienced what “more” could be.

Law Street’s Crime in America puts problems into perspective, and beyond that it’s just interesting. So go read it! I’ll still complain about law school, but, you know…less.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Department of Homeland Security) via Wikipedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Crime Blog Really Makes You Think appeared first on Law Street.