Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts

Thursday, October 30, 2014

7 Practical Ideas for Compassionate Communities, From Free College to Debt Relief

by Shannan Stoll


Kerry Morrison interviews homeless veteran John Watkins in the Hollywood Hills. Hollywood was one of the first communities to join the 100,000 Homes Campaign. Watkins has been provided with housing. Photo by Rudy Salinas at Path.

1. 100,000 homes so far

Teams of volunteers across the country hit the streets early in the morning to put a name and a face to the long-term homeless in their communities. The volunteers started canvassing at 4 a.m., combing the streets to gather names, photographs, and stories of the people sleeping there. They searched for the people at the highest risk of dying from being on the streets. Once they identified the most vulnerable people, they offered them a home.

That was the 100,000 Homes campaign’s approach to eliminating homelessness in communities across the country for the past four years, and it worked. In June, one month before their deadline, campaign organizer Community Solutions announced that its more than 230 partnering cities, counties, and states had surpassed the goal of placing 100,000 people in homes in just four years. It was a bold goal. In the traditional housing placement system, it often takes more than a year to work through the multiple agencies, treatments, and counseling requirements to secure a home. The process is intended to ensure that government subsidies for housing go to the people best prepared to receive them. The 100,000 Homes campaign flipped this paradigm by offering housing first. Once housed, people received supportive services to deal with substance abuse, mental illness, and joblessness. The housing first method is quicker, and it’s successful. Studies show that two years after receiving supportive housing for free, more than 80 percent of people were still living in a home instead of on the street.

Community Solutions isn’t stopping with 100,000 homes. Next January, the organization will launch Zero: 2016. This new national campaign will target the elimination of all chronic and military veteran homelessness, one home at a time. It’s another bold goal, and they just might do it.

Photo by the All-Nite Images.

2. Suddenly debt free

When 80-year-old Shirley Logsdon went into the hospital for a back injury, she came out with nearly $1,000 in debt that she would never be able to pay. For a year and a half, she received persistent phone calls from debt collectors. Then Logsdon received a letter from Rolling Jubilee. “You no longer owe the balance of this debt,” it read. “It is gone, a gift with no strings attached.”
Letters like the one Logsdon received were sent to 2,693 people last November, when Rolling Jubilee bought and forgave $13.5 million in personal debt. A newly released study by the Urban Institute says about 77 million people in the United States have debt that is subject to collections—often debt that was incurred to pay for basic needs. That’s one of the reasons the Occupy Wall Street group Strike Debt formed the Rolling Jubilee project. “We believe that no one should have to go into debt for the basic things in our lives, like healthcare, housing, and education,” the group says. Since forming in November 2012, Rolling Jubilee has bought nearly $15 million of debt for just $400,000 on the secondary debt market, where lenders sell unpaid bills to collectors for just pennies on the dollar. Thousands of individual donations averaging just $40 have paid for these debt buys. It’s a bailout for the people, funded by the people.


3. Stuff of good neighbors

Freecycle and Craigslist give new life to old stuff by facilitating porch pickups for everything from free lamps and scrap wood to cans of food close to their expiration dates. That kind of stuff is posted on Buy Nothing’s local Facebook pages too, but the group is about a lot more than just stuff. It’s about the people and stories behind the stuff and the porch meetings between neighbors.

One year after it began, the Buy Nothing Project has grown into a social media movement with more than 225 local groups across the country and the world. Rebecca Rockefeller cofounded the first Buy Nothing group on Bainbridge Island, Wash., and says the project is helping communities discover their abundance. “There’s enough stuff to go around,” she says, “and the way we learn that is by getting to know our neighbors, asking for what we need, and giving what we have. Everyone has something to give.” People give away their dusty household goods, but they also give childcare, cooking classes, and garden produce. People ask for what they need, too: One neighbor asks for a piece of land to bury a beloved pet, another for a late-night store run to pick up medicine.
Photo by Mark Peterson / Redux.

4. The city that pays for college

In 2005, residents of the declining rust-belt city of Kalamazoo, Mich., received some unbelievably good news: A new program supported by private donors would fund Kalamazoo kids’ college tuition up to 100 percent at any of Michigan’s public colleges and universities. The Kalamazoo Promise would be available to any student enrolled in a Kalamazoo public school since the ninth grade. It was the most comprehensive scholarship program in the entire country.

Nearly a decade later, the place-based scholarship program has inspired more than 30 similar programs across the United States. While not all communities have donors with pockets deep enough to fund a program like the Kalamazoo Promise, the program is demonstrating how radical investment in youth can transform a struggling community and have a huge impact on its most vulnerable populations. Since 2005, young families have returned to the city, and enrollment in the school district has increased 24 percent. The number of minority students taking AP courses has increased 300 percent. The city has spent more money on the district than ever before—a lot more. Test scores have improved, and GPAs have increased, most notably among black students. The list of achievements goes on, and just this June, the program announced its expansion to include tuition coverage at 15 of Michigan’s private liberal arts colleges. “There is no wholly literate urban community in the United States,” says district superintendent Michael Rice. “We aim to be the first.”

Photo by O+.

5. Medical care for a song

Without a steady paycheck, retirement package, or health care, independent artists and musicians often have to sacrifice health and security for their art. In Kingston, N.Y., a unique arts festival is helping change that by bringing neighbors together to care for one another.

At the O+ Festival, art and music are exchanged for fillings, physical therapy, routine physician’s exams, and other health services. The festival began when a Kingston dentist wondered aloud to his artist friend if he could get a band he liked from Brooklyn to play for free dental care. He could, it turned out, and with the help of a few friends in the arts, his idea grew into the first O+ Festival in 2010. At the fourth annual O+ last year, providers at the festival pop-up clinic offered 99 dental appointments and 350 hours of health services for the 80 artists and musicians who performed and presented during the three-day festival. “Building a community around O+ speaks to the simple idea of compassion and being part of a community,” says Joe Concra, a painter who co-founded the festival. “Because we’ve become accustomed to huge companies providing everything we need, we forget to look to our neighbors to see what they can offer.”

Photo by Masbia Photo.

6. The finest dining

Masbia serves up dignity with dinner to hundreds of hungry New Yorkers every day. Instead of long lines and a tedious intake process, diners at this soup kitchen are greeted by a friendly host and ushered to a private table for a delicious three-course kosher meal. No questions, just healthy food. Original artwork decorates the walls, the atmosphere is cozy, and the menu is prepared using fresh ingredients donated by farmers markets and CSAs. Nearly all the kitchen and wait staff are volunteers.

“It’s a restaurant with no cash register,” says executive director Alexander Rapaport. When Rapaport began Masbia, his goal was to provide kosher food in a comfortable, welcoming atmosphere. “Doing it with dignity means people will come,” he says, and he’s right. Every day, more than 500 people come to Masbia’s three locations. This year alone, the growing organization expects to serve more than 1 million meals.
Photo by IMAS.

7. Immigrant Mutual Aid

Before state-funded programs and large insurance companies, many people turned to community networks for services like health care, unemployment aid, and education. In mutual aid societies, people pooled resources to pay the salary of a community doctor, outfit a schoolhouse, or give financial and emotional support to members who were sick or out of work. Today, mutual aid remains an important alternative for people with limited or no access to state-funded services. Cooperatively run pre-K schools, lending circles for low-income groups, and even some housing associations fill in the gaps left by state services. Mutual aid societies are still particularly relevant among immigrant communities.

In Chicago, home to some 3,000 Iraqi refugees, the Iraqi Mutual Aid Society is Iraqi immigrants helping each other adjust to American society. Language and vocational classes provide practical skills while social and cultural events like poetry contests and concerts help refugees remain connected to their unique culture and community. Resources include free and reduced-cost child care, and the group’s Immigration Legal Services Program provides help with naturalization petitions. According to iraqimutualaid.org, the region expects at least 800 more refugees annually over the next several years.

Source: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-end-of-poverty/7-practical-ideas-for-compassionate-communities

Shannan Stoll wrote this article for The End of Poverty, the Fall 2014 issue of YES! Magazine. Shannan is a freelance writer.
Read more:

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor

Poor people living in slums are at particularly high risk from the impacts of climate change and natural hazards. They live on the most vulnerable lands within cities, typically areas that are deemed undesirable by others and are thus affordable.
Residents are exposed to the impacts of landslides, sea-level rise, flooding, and other hazards. Exposure to risk is exacerbated by overcrowding living conditions, lack of adequate infrastructure and services, unsafe housing, inadequate nutrition, and poor health. These conditions can turn a natural hazard or change in climate into a disaster, and result in the loss of basic services, damage or destruction to homes, loss of livelihoods, malnutrition, disease, disability, and loss of life.
This study examines the interlinkages between climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor, underscoring four key messages:
  • The urban poor are on the front line. The poor are particularly vulnerable to climate change and natural hazards due to where they live within cities, and the lack of reliable basic services.
  • City governments are the drivers for addressing risks through ensuring basic services. Local governments play a vital role in financing and managing basic infrastructure and service delivery for all urban residents. Basic services are the first line of defense against the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.
  • City officials build resilience by mainstreaming risk reduction into urban management. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction can be best addressed and sustained over time through integration with existing urban planning and management practices. Good practice examples exist and can be replicated in cities around the world.
  • Significant financial support is needed. Local governments need to leverage existing and new resources to meet the shortfalls in service delivery and basic infrastructure adaptation.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation

by Garry Peterson
Ecosystem services for poverty alleviation (ESPA) is an exciting new research programme funded by a consortium of development and science agencies in the UK. I’m on ESPA’s international advisory board and they asked me for some thoughts on the ecosystem service science. Below is what I wrote:
The concept of “Ecosystem services” is a powerful idea that bridges the conceptual separation of the ecological and the social, to connect ecosystems to human well-being. The success of this idea has lead to many “payment for ecosystem service” schemes, which are now being implemented or are being discussed. These plans have the potential to channel substantial amounts of money into the enhancement of the natural capital, which produces ecosystem services, in ways that improve the livelihoods of the world’s poorest.
The challenge of ecosystem service research is that the policy success of the idea of ecosystem services has rapidly outstripped its scientific basis. This situation presents many risks that efforts may be wasted on activities that actively damage natural capital or reduce the livelihoods of the poor. More specifically in terms of poverty alleviation, ecosystem service research has sometimes merely  biological research coated with a veneer of social relevance, rather than using social needs to focus ecological research. Achieving positive outcomes, and avoiding negative ones requires a much richer understanding of ecosystem services than now exists. Below I suggest some ecosystem service research challenges that it would be useful for ESPA research to address.
Research ChallengesEffective ecosystem services assessment: Scientists and practitioners need to develop faster, cheaper ways of assessing the state of multiple ecosystem services, especially in data sparse regions. A better understanding of the following points would help design more effective assessments.
Bundles of ecosystem services: We need to better understand how multiple ecosystem services interact with one another over time. Are they tightly or weakly integrated? Over what scales? What are the social and ecological processes that connect them? In particular what are the trade-offs or synergisms between multiple ecosystem services? This issue is particularly import if we are to avoid situations where investment in specific ecosystem services (e.g. food production or carbon sequestration) results in reducing in other ecosystem services whose losses outweighs the benefits obtained for the increases. This is particularly important to ensure that increases in agricultural production actually increase human well-being.
Dynamics of ecosystem services: Most analyses of ecosystems services have been static, and there has been too much focus on species role in producing ecosystem services and too little on either social or spatial processes shape the supply of ecosystem services. We need to develop better ways to assess how multiple ecosystem services vary and change over time, and understand what are the key social, ecological and geographic factors that drive these changes. In particular it is important to understand what internal and external social and ecological dynamics can produce abrupt changes in ecosystem services (or alternatively what processes can produce resilience). Understanding these factors is important to know when are where abrupt changes are likely to occur, what can be done to avoid unwanted abrupt changes, or alternatively what can be done to promote desired abrupt changes.
Enhancing ecosystem services: Poverty reduction requires enhancing the supply of ecosystem services in degraded ecosystems, but other than agricultural research on provisioning services there has been relatively little work on how to effectively increase ecosystem services. Much environmental research assumes people have a negative impact on ecosystems, but people can improve ecosystem functioning (e.g. Terra Preta – the high productivity soil produced by pre-Columbian Amazonian civilizations). Social, ecological and technological processes can be used separately or in combination to improve ecosystem services, but while there has been a lot of research on the built environment, there has been little research on how ecological infrastructures can be built, enhanced and maintained. We need to better understand how to do enhance ecosystem services, especially how poor people can do it in degraded ecosystems, in wild and human dominated ecosystems, as well as in rural and urban locations.
Governing ecosystem services: It is currently unclear what are effective ways to govern ecosystem services. Today there is often a haphazard assignment of property rights to ecosystem services without analysis or research on the ecological and social consequences, or resilience of these strategies. Ecosystem services present multiple challenges in that their consumption, production and management occur at different scales making it difficult to connect ecosystem system services to existing property or land management. Furthermore, research has shown that not only can payment for ecosystem service schemes have negative impacts on other ecosystem services, but also that payments can erode the social norms and practices that are producing ecosystem services. These problems suggest that institutional innovation and experimentation is needed to develop effective institutions to govern ecosystem services – especially to enhance the wellbeing of the poor, and that the design of such programmes should not be done from a narrow economic perspective.
Human well-being and ecosystem services: How do changes in the supply of ecosystem services alter human wellbeing? People depend on ecosystem services, but we know little about how much benefit different people receive from different ecosystem services. What we do know is largely about either multiple benefits of food production or the economic benefits of tourism. We know little about how either regulating ecosystem services relate to human wellbeing, or how ecosystem services contribute to multiple aspects of human wellbeing. Addressing this issue in multiple ways is critical to understanding the connection between ecosystem services and poverty reduction. In particular better understanding how to develop agricultural landscapes that provide a diverse set of ecosystem services to the poor. Contributing to clarifying these relationships would be a major benefit of ESPA. In particular a richer understanding of how ecosystem services contribute to diverse aspects of human wellbeing, such as health, security, and good social relations, is important to be able to accurately value ecosystem services.
The above research challenges are written in a telegraphic form that is relatively unsupported. Some of these issues are raised and discussed in greater length in three recent papers I co-authored:

Thursday, February 24, 2011

New Report: UNEP Links Economic Growth to Sustainability


Submitted by Jonna McKone on February 22, 2011
City growth patterns. Image from UNEP report, "Towards A Green Economy."
City growth patterns. Image from UNEP report, "Towards A Green Economy."
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) today launched a new report that makes the case for investing 2 percent of global GDP into 10 key sectors to propel a transition towards a “low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy ” and catalyze growth and poverty reduction in developing countries. In some cases, “close to 90 per cent of the GDP of the poor is linked to nature or natural capital such as forests and freshwaters,” making a compelling case that the perceived trade-off between economic growth and environmental investment just isn’t there. Instead, environmental degradation drains capital from developing countries.
UNEP makes the case for capital resources and development directed at low emissions projects. These activities generate comparable economic gains as the “business as usual” model, but they also reduce the risk and crises inherent in the existing model.
An integrated and multi-tiered effort is needed to increase modal shifts towards sustainable mobility. Graph from the UNEP report, "Towards a Green Economy."
An integrated and multi-tiered effort is needed to increase modal shifts towards sustainable mobility. Graph from the UNEP report, "Towards a Green Economy."
Such a transition can catalyse economic activity of at least a comparable size to business as usual, but with a reduced risk of
the crises and shocks increasingly inherent in the existing model
What were the major messages for transportation?
  1. Present patterns of mobility and transportation based mostly on fossil fuels generate serious social, environmental and economic damage, which can amount to more than 10 percent of a country’s GDP. Specifically the report states that transport uses nearly half of global liquid fossil fuels and causes lost GDP due to air quality emissions. (Transportation accounts for 8o percent of city emissions). Additional economic externalities include 1.27 million fatal traffic accidents and crippling urban traffic congestion.
  2. Vehicle fleet size, if it continues on the current path, will grow from 800 million to between 2 and 3 billion by 2050. Much of this growth will take place in the developing world. Rising wealth will also increase aviation and emissions in shipping.
  3. Promoting access to public transportation, shifting to less energy intensive modes of transport and improving vehicles is necessary to transform the transportation sector.Nothing less than “A fundamental shift in investment patterns is needed,” states the report. The avoid-shift-improve principles include reducing trips through integrated land‑use, transport planning and localised production and consumption; shifting to more efficient modes of transport like public and non‑motorized modes and improving vehicles and fuels to reduce urban air pollution and emissions.
  4. Investment in public transit and greener vehicles generates significant economic returns. States the report, studies show that a sustainable transport sector would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The “reallocation of just 0.16 per cent of global GDP in support of public transport infrastructure and efficiency improvements to road vehicles would reduce the volume of road vehicles” by around 0ne-third by 2050. Such changes could also decrease the use of fossil fuels by up to one‑third. Plus investment in public transit and non-motorized infrastructure generate opportunities for jobs. Additionally, sustainable mobility adds values to regional and national economies.
  5. The growth of green transit must be multi-disciplinary and encompass wide-ranging policy in order to be effective. Policies should promote land-use planning compact cities, ordered around sustainable transport. Other elements to incorporate include the regulation of fuel and vehicle use, financial incentives and priorities for sustainable transport,  information for consumer and industry professionals, wider use of technology as well as building institutional capacity.
Experts from EMBARQ, the producer of this blog, contributed to the transportation chapter in the report. Aileen CarriganDario HidalgoPrajna Rao,Madhav Pai and Clayton Lane contributed to the report.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

ICLEI Case Studies - Locally-based projects that support sustainability

ICLEI Case Studies profile locally-based projects that support sustainability. Each study documents:

  • the local context of the project
  • the anatomy of the project
  • results
  • lessons learned
  • the project's replication potential
  • budgeting and financial issues


Please note: Case Studies 1 - 55 will be available soon.
 
ICLEI Case Study list
2010

2009

 2007

2006

 2005

2001

2000
  •   70 - Enviromental Restoration of the Goreangab Dam Area - Windhoek, Namibia
  •   69 - South Zone Ravine Restoration - Quito, Ecuador
  •   68 - Believe in Belem Novo, It Can Do More - Porto Alegre, Brazil
  •   67 - Pilot Project Preventorio 21 - Niteroi, Brazil 
  •   66 - Water Kiosk Project - Nakuru, Kenya
  •   65 - Paper Recycling and Composting Project - Mutare, Zimbabwe
  •   64 - Development of the Biocomuna Olivares - Manizales, Colombia
  •   63 - Jinja Incentive Grants Project - Jinja, Uganda  
  •   62 - New Goiabinha Project - Betim, Brazil
  •   61 - NeighborSpace - Chicago, USA
  •   60 - Waste Management Through Community Partnerships - Belo Horizonte, Brazil
  •   59 - Renewal of a Sustainable Dev. Action Plan - Hamilton, Canada
  •   58 - Freshwater Management: Revitalizing the Fu and Nan Rivers - Chengdu, China
  •   57 - Comprehensive Fossil Fuel Reduction Program - Växjö, Sweden
  •   56 - Energy Management and CO2 Reduction - Regional Municipality of Sudbury, Canada
  •   55 - Partnerships with Residents and Businesses - Seattle, USA
  •   54 - Environmental Management Systems for Local Government - Manningham, Australia
  •   53 - Sustainable Tourism through Local Agenda 21 Planning - Calvià, Spain
  •   52 - Participatory Budget - Porto Alegre, Brazil
  •   51 - Maplewood Jitney Program - Maplewood, USA
  •   50 - Community Reforestation Project - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  •   49 - Community Participation in Open Space Protection - Ottawa, Canada
  •   48 - Strategic Management Planning - Cape Town, South Africa
  •   47 - Comprehensive Water Conservation Strategies - Tucson, USA  
  •   46 - Ecological Waste Management - Manila, Philippines
  •   45 - Participatory Solid Waste Management - Dakar, Senegal
  •   44 - Driver Education Fuel Savings Incentive Program - Edmonton, Canada
  •   43 - Telecommuting Promotion Program - Chula Vista, USA
  •   42 - Police Bicycle Patrol - Dayton, USA
  •   41 - Promoting Energy Efficiency in Municipal Fleets - Denver USA
  •   40 - Altering the Commuting Behavior of Municipal Employees - Los Angeles, USA
  •   39 - Wind Energy Development - Tamil Nadu, India
  •   38 - Limiting Automobile Use - Singapore
  •   37 - Greening the City - Chicago, USA
  •   36 - Integration of Transportation and Land Use Policies - Portland, USA
  •   35 - Solid Waste Management and Methane Reduction - Copenhagen, Denmark
  •   34 - Urban Infrastructure Development - Surabaya, Indonesia
  •   33 - Comprehensive Solar Energy Initiative - Saarbrücken, Germany
  •   32 - Connecting Land Use and Energy - Victoria, Australia
  •   31 - Sustainable Development Indicators - Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada
  •   30 - Participatory Regional Development Planning - Cajamarca, Peru
  •   29 - Participatory Priority Setting - Troyan, Bulgaria 
  •   28 - Action Planning - Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan  
  •   27 - Multi-Functional Park Design and Management - Durban, South Africa
  •   26 - Promoting Sustainable Business Practices - Portland, USA
  •   25 - Partnerships for Environmental/Economic Regeneration - Blackburn, UK
  •   24 - Profiting from Pollution Prevention - Graz, Austria
  •   23 - Linking Environmental Policy/Economic Development - Newark USA
  •   22 - Green Product Development - Gothenburg, Sweden
  •   21 - Community Based Service Delivery - Quito, Ecuador
  •   20 - Rainwater Management - Sumida City, Japan
  •   19 - Local Water Pollution Control - Muncie, USA
  •   18 - Solid Waste Management Through Micro Enterprise - La Paz, Bolivia
  •   17 - Strategic Services Planning - Los Angeles, USA
  •   16 - Waste Water Control - Santos, Brazil
  •   15 - Citizens Participation in the Siting of Waste Facilities - Linz, Austria
  •   14 - Community Based Environmental Management - New York, USA
  •   13 - Housing Rehabilitation - Beijing, China
  •   12 - Water Conservation - Santa Monica USA
  •   11 - Electronic Conferencing - Public Technology Inc., USA
  •   10 - Environmental Management - Ottawa, Canada
  •     9 - Waste Water Management - Stockholm, Sweden  
  •     8 - Transportation Management - São Paulo, Brazil
  •     7 - Species Conservation - Johnstone Shire, Australia
  •     6 - Environmental Auditing - Lancashire County, UK
  •     5 - Housing Construction - Austin, USA
  •     4 - Energy Conservation-Finance - Saarbrücken, Germany
  •     3 - Solid Waste Management - Bandung, Indonesia
  •     2 - Land Use-Transport - Curitiba, Brazil
  •     1 - Hazardous Waste - Ventura County, USA