Poverty

Left, or right, one thing that every politician- at least rhetorically- can agree upon is that we should improve our schools. America used to have the best primary school system in the world; unfortunately, this is no longer the case. While both sides of the aisle can agree that we should strive to re-capture our status as number one in the world, there is broad disagreement over how to accomplish this large and incredibly important, task.

Much of the debate has focused on issues such as charter schools, school vouchers, teacher performance pay, and standardized tests, but I feel that missing from the debate is the central issue that divides good schools from bad. There are schools in this state where students are not only expected to go to college, but are expected to graduate from high school with extra-curricular activities and numerous AP credits, and there are schools in this state where students aren’t even expected to graduate. Why do we have such disparities? Why do we have so many schools and school systems failing to live up to the promise of free, equitable schooling for the good of our nation? At the crux of it, the answer is money (and I’m not talking about in the schools, but, rather, in the homes).

This is not to suggest that I am against charter schools. In fact, I believe they can play pivotal roles in improving our public school system by serving as incubators for innovation in the classroom. However, they are not an answer in and of themselves. Simply turning public schools into private schools, may benefit certain entrepreneurs, but, unfortunately, will not solve our nation’s education woes. Similarly I think that improving testing standards (particularly to include survey data on things such as student happiness and motivation) can have positive impacts on education and that teacher performance pay is an idea, at least, worth exploring. However, one key variable (that every education study for the past 40 years has demonstrated to be highly correlated to student achievement) is missing from this equation: household income.

Should we continue to fiddle at the edges of reform? Absolutely, improving education is never finished. But, we, as a nation, need to recognize and address the role poverty has on student performance. If a student’s development is stunted by a lack of nutritional health because the parent(s) can’t afford healthy food, this has a negative impact in the classroom. If a parent has to decide between keeping the lights on and going to the doctors office, the stress of this decision will have a negative impact on school performance. If a lack of money causes a mom to leave a child with his alcoholic uncle instead of enrolling him in a pre-school with a positive learning environment, this will have a negative impact on student achievement. If a child has to traverse dangerous streets to go to the library in order to access the internet, instead of going to her bedroom- this will have a negative impact on education outcomes. I could go on, but I think the point is clear: poverty hurts educational development. If we want to see America regain its status as having the best classrooms in the world, we need to focus on reducing poverty.

Before I lay out my vision for addressing poverty, let me add why it is important that our education system improves. This may seem obvious, but beyond education being an end in and of itself, an investment in education is an investment in our nation’s future. This is particularly true as our nation has moved away from a natural resource dependent (i.e., manufacturing) economy and toward a human capital (i.e., service industry) economy. If we have a more educated workforce, we will have a stronger economy.

So, what is the best way to address poverty (thus, ensuring a more educated populace and stronger economy)? In my estimation, there are two main ways. One is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. This makes each paycheck more valuable by adding additional value through an annual tax refund. To expand it, we can increase the means test and raise the credit limit. Second, we can invest in holistic community development programs that aim to increase the health of entire communities. President Obama deserves plaudits for beginning down this road with his Promise Neighborhoods initiative; however, a few million dollars is not nearly enough to uplift every impoverished community in America. If we are to truly address poverty, we need to be willing to take bold steps. Thirdly, I would like to add that there are myriad other ways to address poverty and I would encourage input on the subject from experts and interested parties from all sides of the political spectrum, but that first we- as a society- have to agree that, to address our faltering education system, we need to invest in poverty alleviation.

I feel obligated to point out that following my recommendations (particularly regarding increasing and expanding the EITC) would likely result in significant positive effects for our economy. Getting more money into the hands of our most needy citizens has a multiplying effect. Because poor people spend higher percentages of their incomes, such a policy initiative would have a stimulatory effect on economic growth.

There will be those that say such a task is too big and too impractical. Other may say that only a naive idealist would suggest such an outlandish step to improve our school system. They may suggest that if we just abolished teachers unions, or we just ended standardized testing, or we just made this small tweak here, or that one there, that everything would come together, our school systems would improve, and all would be right in the world of education. Personally, I think short-sighted approaches to education reform show true naivety. I care too much about this country’s economic health, and too much about equal opportunity, to watch another generation of kids raised without the opportunity to gain a quality education. My personal philosophy of governance is that every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. To turn this vision into reality, let’s end poverty.

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

I just wanted to pass on a few good reads about the Haiti situation -- not so much the news, but some commentary on how elites, such as the media and organizational leadership (the UN), model institutional racism and classism.

First, Campus Progress published an interesting interview with Dr. Kathleen Tierney, professor of sociology and behavioral science and director of the Natural Hazard Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Tierney had some interesting things to say about the behavior of media outlets when reporting on large scale disasters.

And what did the early research discover?

If you go back to the 1950s and you look at some of those writings, a lot of it’s about disaster myths—what people say happens in disasters versus what really happens. What these researchers discovered was that the media—even way back in the 1950s and 1960s—approached huge disasters with certain frames. When the media reports on disasters, they’re inevitably going to focus on the dramatic and antisocial, even if it’s one percent of the population committing these acts. And even back then, the looting myth always came to the fore of media reports.

As it has in Haiti.

Yes. For example, the day after this earthquake in Haiti, it was reported that a prison had collapsed and prisoners had gotten away—the presumption being that they had escaped to go and loot. The prisoners didn’t go to check on their mothers or their sisters, they went to loot. And we presumably know this, because they’re bad people, they’re criminals. The bad people frame reached its nadir with Katrina.

It's really rare to gain exposure to a media outlet not run by a multimillion dollar corporation. Consequently, it's even more challenging these days to trust a media outlet's reporting on these larger events. With powerful corporations running these outlets, it's not hard to see how ratings and advertising drive sensationalism in our media. If the story's made more juicy, the idea is that more people tune in. But "juicy" apparently doesn't mean accurate. Tierney explains the looting fallacy the media reported in its coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

Do you think that because the victims of both Haiti and Katrina were poor and black, the media approached the stories with a certain perspective?

Definitely. There is an institutionalized racism in the way these poor black disaster victims are treated. The victims of Katrina were treated with so much presumption, as if you could assume they were going to loot, because they were black. Just like we know that the people in Haiti are bad because they’re black. Black men especially are demonized. During Katrina, the media picked up on every rumor—whether it was raped four-year-olds in the Superdome or people shooting each other. Actually, for a paper me and a couple of my graduate students wrote called “Metaphors Matter,” we found some transcripts of TV programs in which members of the media expressed regret. They were saying, “We really blew it during Katrina; we acted on all of these rumors.” I myself was on Jim Lehrer’s show, where they were asking about the looting [in Katrina], and I got into it with a police officer, and he ended up agreeing with me that it was a myth. It’s not real...

This institutionalized fear is also at play in the Haiti earthquake rescue efforts, only it might be a bit less based on race than class. To CNN's credit, it does a good job of shining a light on the questionable behavior of the UN leadership. Last night, a Haitian resident assisting those critically injured in the attack told CNN's Sanjay Gupta that the UN medical personnel had fled, ordered out by UN officials because of safety concerns. A retired Army Lt. General explained what was going on:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, who led relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said the evacuation of the clinic's medical staff was unforgivable.

"We can't be leaning so much toward security that we allow people to die," he said Saturday.

"Search and rescue must trump security," Honoré said Friday night. "I've never seen anything like this before in my life. They need to man up and get back in there."

Honoré drew parallels between the tragedy in New Orleans and in Port-au-Prince. But even in the chaos of Katrina, he said, he had never seen medical staff walk away.

"I find this astonishing these doctors left," he said. "People are scared of the poor."

It's very interesting to me that there's constant talk of the world uniting together to support Haiti, yet the very people charged with the responsibility of assisting the Haitian people bail when they stereotype the poor and imagine the bad things that might happen. In fairness, the rescue teams did return to Haiti this morning as the article noted, but the time they were gone last night is telling. As Dr. Tierney points out in her interview, it invalidates the "We're all Haitians" sentiment. Even though it sounds nice, realism tells us we're not. This fear of the impoverished and subsequent withdrawal from the area by UN forces is a display of cultural ignorance. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something that should be recognized. The reality is that the wide majority of non-Haitians has no clue what it's like to be Haitian, to live in such deplorable conditions.

I'm not writing this because I'm pissed off that this is going on. I simply think it's important that as many people as possible dig deeper than the glossy, convenient stories today's newscasts offer us. There's some compelling sociology and anthropology existing underneath the reporting. Once we become aware of that, I believe we can improve our responses -- both in the rescue work and reporting work -- to similar disasters in the future.

On Thursday, October 29, over 20 organizations (including my employer, Advocates for Youth) that work across the spectrum of global health advocacy and practice came together on Capitol Hill in partnership with the Congressional Global Health Caucus to offer support and recommendations for Members of Congress and the Obama Administration on how to best realize the goals of President Obama’s Global Health Initiative, announced last May with the release of his Fiscal Year 2010 budget request.

During the briefing, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4-MN) (Appropriator and Founding Chairman of the Congressional Global Health Caucus), Rep. Diane Watson (D-33-CA) (Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Democratic Chair of the Congressional Women’s Caucus) spoke to their commitment to the United States’ engagement with the rest of the world through investments in global health.

Rep. Watson put this messaging in context when she noted that throughout the war in Iraq, the United States has spent approximately $15 billion per month. “You do the math,” she said, emphasizing the disparity between our expenditures on military engagement overseas and our expenditures on global health (which are by no means small, but in comparison to the military, are quite meager). Rep. Watson stressed the need for the United States to engage with the world not with a gun but with a supportive hand, noting especially the need to “train and educate young people,” while Rep. McCollum noted the need to offer young women access to education and health care services so they can make responsible decisions for their future.

These points could not be more important to note in the entire reshuffling process that’s occurring right now in U.S. foreign assistance—from the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) at the State Department, to the President’s Study on Development (PSD) and the President’s Global Health Initiative (GHI) at the White House, to the re-write of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 being ambitiously undertaken in the House and Senate. With so many moving parts, all with the intent of ensuring that U.S. engagement with low and middle income countries is responding to so-called “21st-century challenges,” policy makers must seize this opportunity to engage the world’s three billion young people under the age of 25 in their efforts to make the United States’ foreign assistance have a sustainable and deeply-seeded positive impact for the long term.

The engagement of Millennials in the United States in the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and global health policy is crucial. Young people in the United States, especially students, many of whom have taken to degrees or minors in international affairs and/or global health, have been a driving force in raising the profile of global health policy and programs among fellow Americans in recent years. (See organizations such as the Student Global AIDS Campaign, Global Justice, University Coalitions for Global Health, Globe Med, among many others.)

In addition to those studying the subjects, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the number of American students studying abroad increased 150 percent from 1996 to 2006, and the number remains on the rise (though it has been constrained by a decreasing dollar value and increased higher education costs). Further, others fortunate to secure financial means to do so have participated in international volunteer trips and have contributed to development of healthcare infrastructure and provision of services in their volunteer work. Having been privileged enough to study abroad myself, this experience can transform one’s notion of what is “foreign,” making it clear that no matter where one was born, without health, it is very difficult to fully realize one’s dreams or one’s rights.

For many Millennials, it should be noted, these opportunities—both to study international affairs/global health and/or participate in study/volunteer/work abroad programs—are out of reach, due to any number of obstacles. And for many young people, the challenges faced by their local community—ranging from lack of access to education, healthcare, and civic engagement, among others—can be more pressing than anything beyond our country’s borders.

However, even these Millennials constitute part of the majority of young people who are making an indelible mark on the legal and philosophical and civic fabric of the U.S. approach to health policy through a strong belief in access to health care as a human right, not as a luxury good. According to a 2008 American National Election Study (ANES), “60 percent of 18- to 29-year olds support universal health care, compared to 48 percent of all other eligible voters.” In this sense, they are joining the leagues of young people around the world for whom healthcare is not perceived as a privilege, but as a right. This marks a sea change in American political thought and represents the emerging vision of the world that Millennials are building.

That vision for universal access to quality, affordable health care is the basis of the recommendations laid out by the civil society organizations at Thursday’s briefing. (The details of the briefing panel and the full report and recommendations made by the civil society group are available at The Global Health Initiative.) To date, U.S. financial contributions to global health have been larger than any other country on earth in absolute terms. Through U.S. leadership, our country has helped turn the tide in access to healthcare services, information, and education in many places on the planet.

But we have also faltered in a few ways as our global health policies and programs have evolved:

1. our policies regarding that immense funding have, in certain instances, fallen prey to petty battles for political capital usually stemming from politically controversial issues within U.S. politics—notably resulting in policies which limit provision of sexual and reproductive health care and which limit comprehensive sex education for young people;
2. global health programs are appropriated by Congress according to different issue sets and conditions such as maternal and child health, reproductive health and family planning, HIV and AIDS, neglected tropical diseases, healthcare workforce, etc. While all of these issue areas and specific conditions need particular attention, people’s lives, just like ours here, do not revolve around one health condition—and therefore we have to ensure U.S. global health programs are linked on the ground to provide integrated service delivery;
3. given the amount of money we spend engaging with low- and middle-income countries, the proportion of our funding spent on global health is but a miniscule fraction of what we spend on other efforts to engage with the world, especially the military. This does not mean military spending is not important, but that investments in global health aimed at the reduction of despair and empowerment of local individuals and communities may support and actually reduce the need for military interventions over the long term through constructing environments where people are not driven to violence for survival.

These faults are not unfixable. And in fact, a high-profile Senator from Maine said it well in reference to her vote on the proposed healthcare reform legislation in the Senate, “the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of action.” Millennials get this. And we get that if we want our world to be more equitable, more secure, and more empowered when we’re no longer 18-29 year-olds, we have to act now to improve our policies and seriously invest in what works.

Originally posted on Amplify

Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius announced the release of a new report this week about overall health disparities in the United States.

"A Case for Closing the Gap highlights some of the glaring disparities that exist in the current health system. Under the status quo:

• Forty-eight percent of all African Americans adults suffer from a chronic disease compared to 39 percent of the general population.
• Eight percent of white Americans develop diabetes while 15 percent of African Americans, 14 percent of Hispanics, and 18 percent of American Indians develop diabetes.
• Hispanics were one-third less likely to be counseled on obesity than were whites -- only 44 percent of Hispanics received counseling.
• African Americans are 15 percent more likely to be obese than whites."

What the report doesn't mention is the staggering number of young people who are dropped from their parents' insurance or don't have it once they age out of the Children's Health Insurance Program. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation research (PDF), young adults age 19-29 have the highest uninsured rate of any age group - nearly one-third. Approximately 1.7 million college youth, 18-23 didn't have health insurance in 2006, according to the Roosevelt Institute's report on youth and health care.

HHS Says:

"The disparities in health care highlighted in this report demonstrate the need for reform. Meaningful reform must invest in prevention and wellness and ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable care. We can no longer afford to tolerate disparities in health."

I would also call on a need for reform in the way we handle young people and their health. In Febuary, the New York Times did a piece calling youth the Invincible Generation claiming that we didn't think we needed health insurance. Mike Connery responded in a piece saying Invincible? Try Broke...

Health care is expensive, and entry level jobs in combination with over $22,000 in average student loan debt in addition to the $4,000 in credit card debt from predatory lenders on campus, it isn't that young people don't want health care, its honestly that they can't pay for it. Additionally, the unemployment rate for you is more than double the national average, so many youth aren't in jobs that provide it, and the ones that are in jobs are sometimes in positions that don't provide it because they don't have the seniority. Its an impossible vicious circle, and, I believe, one of the greatest misunderstood about youth and health care.

I plug our 80 Million Strong conference frequently on here, but we've recently invited Secretary Sebelius to attend our health care discussion to address some of these important issues in addition to the unacceptable disparity gap between people of color and low income groups.

Katie Andrews is a Field Organizer, based in Columbus, OH, for the ONE Campaign. I invited her to tell us a bit about the One Campaign and what they're up to.
--Alex

So, you may have seen the ONE white wristbands or ONE shirts in the community but do you know what ONE really is? Well, I am a Field Organizer for the ONE Campaign (www.one.org) and cover the region of Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, Kansas and Missouri. I am here to give you the gist of what ONE does and how you can help locally if you choose. Basically, ONE's goal is to build a constituency of Americans in the U.S. that are concerned and take action on global issues to ultimately eradicate extreme poverty (people living on less than $1USD/Day) and global disease. The take action part is really the key--we need to make sure that not only are people knowledgeable about global issues such as clean water & sanitation, education, trade justice and global disease but people need to call, write and meet with their legislators to make sure that a real change can take place in U.S. policy to have a positive impact in the world.