Cynicism and our PE's

Antonina Entler

4-30-13

The last few weeks I have spoken with several fellow GPP 105 students and I have gotten the impression that the critical analysis of our PE orgs we have been undertaking has gotten some people down, even cynical. This is completely understandable since critical analysis breaks things down into so many pieces and finds so many faults that it is easy to feel like there is no approach we can take, nothing we can do to help, without failing in some aspect. However, when we fall into cynicism we risk becoming paralyzed by it and stuck within it-- as Professor Robert Reich said in his blog, “Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.” If we begin our PEs with a cynical attitude, we will not be able to see past the flaws and will be unable to learn and grow from the experience. As Reich also said, “the alternative to cynicism is to become more involved,” meaning that the only way for us to break through our doubts and fears is to wholly throw ourselves into this new experience-- aware of the flaws, but open to the possibilities.

            Identifying the problem is the first step toward making a change. Any recovering alcoholic can tell you that. What I mean is that because we have first identified the limitations of our PEs we will begin our practice experience already be aware of many of the flaws, and will be able to get right down to the business of understanding how those flaws could be/ are attempted to be mitigated. Because of this framework we have already built we may be able to give our orgs some really constructive feedback (or  maybe not). Either way, some of our experiences will be positive and some will be negative, but they will all be learning experiences. In a larger perspective, even this experience will be only one in a long process of learning and growing that will help us to become the people we want to be, taking the actions that we hope to take, but from a very grounded and realistic level. Our PE experience, combined with future endeavors, will help us to decide which forms of poverty alleviation we find the most intriguing and appropriate. Isn’t that what this all boils down to? Every approach can be critiqued to death, but in the end, for each of us, isn’t this about finding the approach that we personally are excited about-- even after knowing its flaws?

See: http://robertreich.org/post/34302125733

'Meducating' our children: is Adderall the magic bullet?

By Vivian Nguyen

I recently read a New York Times article published back in October of 2012 which discussed an alarming trend in some poor communities around America: physicians with low-income patients are prescribing elementary school kids powerful attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (A.D.H.D.) medicine in order to boost academic performance. 

Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, Georgia, is one such physician. He prescribes the pills not for A.D.H.D but rather to treat what he considers the children's true illness - poor academic performance in inadequate schools. According to the article, Dr. Anderson states that "I don't have a whole lot of choice. We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment. So we have to modify the kid." 

His statement got me thinking about something that we've discussed many times in GPP - the importance of how an issue is framed and how that framing produces certain solutions. If we believe that the education system is broken, then a structural remedy is called for. But if we believe that it is the children themselves who are broken, then the answer is to fix the kids. 

Given that the costs of implementing structural change are high, the cost-effective idea of fixing the issue at the individual level can be tempting. However, I personally disagree with Dr. Anderson's claim that we've decided as a society that "it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment." The issue isn't so much finance as it is convenience. We, as Americans, desire quick fixes. It is much easier for doctors to simply prescribe a child Adderall and see an immediate improvement in test results than it is to restructure our entire public education system. With just a flick of their pen, physicians have the power to significantly improve the education outcomes of America's poorest kids. The children have a better chance to succeed, their parents support the physician's decision (since the cost of Adderall is covered by Medicaid) and we as a society all benefit. Seems too good to be true?

That's because it is. Just because something is convenient in the short term doesn't mean that the long-term consequences won't be dire. In fact, as the article points out, many proponents of "meducation" have admitted to not knowing the potential hazards of prescribing these powerful and highly addictive pills to young kids. And because of that, this whole idea sounds like a huge gamble. We are essentially experimenting on poor kids from vulnerable communities and replicating the experiments just because we've seen some short term successes. This isn't science - it's exploitation. We are naive if we, as a society, have truly decided that that adderall is the "magic bullet" to fixing our education system.    

Although the battle over how to improve education in America will continue on for many years, one this is clear to me now - meducating our children is not the answer. 

You can find the original NYT article here.

Building relations between Sinhalese and Tamil people

            The organization I will be working with this summer, Sarvodaya, has been doing a lot of relief and rehabilitation work in the war-torn northern regions of Sri Lanka. For some context, the war was fought between the Tamil liberation fighters (the LTTE) and the Sri Lankan army. The Tamil people were fighting for their own independent state within Sri Lanka. The civil war in Sri Lanka was above all an ethnic conflict. The Sinhalese and Tamil cultures are vastly different. The two groups speak different languages and practice different religions; most Sinhalese people are Buddhist, while most Tamil people are Hindu. Although the war ended in 2010, there is still much hostility between the two groups, as well as a certain distrust.

            Sarvodaya does a lot of work in the regions affected by the war. Part of their work deals with physical infrastructure projects, such as building homes and clean-water wells. Other projects deal with community building and empowerment. Sarvodaya also runs meditation and spiritual programs based on Buddhist practices. I found this interesting because many regions in northern Sri Lanka are primarily Tamil. From what I know about the organization’s work, their religious programs do not involve the Hindu religion. They do not have any cultural programs that cater to the Tamil demographic. Because Sarvodaya does a lot of work in the conflict-affected area, I think it is important for them to think about the people who are receiving their services, and tailor their programs to that demographic.

            I believe it is important to integrate the Tamil people into the Sri Lankan community. The war began because of the ethnic difference between the two groups, and these differences of language and religion still exist. They must be addressed in order to prevent any future conflict or alienation. There is a lot of deep-seated mistrust and sometimes dislike between the Sinhalese and Tamil peoples, a result of decades of fighting. In order to effectively rebuild the country, rebuilding the physical and health infrastructure is not enough. Sarvodaya can implement different social and education programs to bridge the gap between the two groups. Sarvodaya runs its programs in over half the villages in Sri Lanka, so it reaches a very large population. Sarvodaya could also focus on bringing Sri Lankan and Tamil children together as a way to change the mindset of the future generation. Sarvodaya has the resources to run these programs as well. Social integration programs can help rebuild the relationships between the Sri Lankan and Tamil people in the conflict-affected areas and help build a sense of community between these groups. I think Sarvodaya is doing good work in rebuilding the war-torn areas, but they could be doing more to build solid relationships between the Sri Lankan and Tamil people. 

My PE: CAEPA Cameron (Julie Scrivner)

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Julie Scrivner and I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley studying Society and Environment. This summer I will be the first GPP student to go to Cameroon. I will be working with a small Cameroonian research body called CAEPA (Community Agriculture and Environmental Protection Association) Cameroon for two months as an Environmental Educator. I will be staying right outside of Bamenda, which is located in the Northwestern English-speaking region. My personal blog for this summer is www.cameroonquest.wordpress.com, which I would love for you all to follow! 

Throughout my stay I will be traveling, with the help of my supervisor, to different communities, conducting surveys of family households on environmental challenges they face, their responses to these challenges, and how their livelihoods have been impacted. My supervisor and I will analyze these responses, and ultimately, present our findings and our suggestions for mitigation to stakeholders, which include the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, a city council delegate, and organizations working on environmental protection

I was drawn to CAEPA because I have had the wonderful opportunity to work with Cameroonians before and experience their vibrant culture and enthusiastic attitude about life. In addition, I was attracted to the idea of doing research rather than working with an organization that addresses a symptom of poverty, not the cause. CAEPA has a special place in the world of aid and governmental support because it advises both local NGOs and the Ministry of Environment in Cameroon. 

CAEPA Cameroon is the 2012 country winner for the Pan African Award for
Entrepreneurship in Education. You can follow this link to learn more about the prize and the winners: 
http://teachamantofish.org.uk/pan-african-awards-2012-winners

CAEPA was born in 2007 and legally registered in 2009 so this award is a great accomplishment for them!

This will be my first time traveling to Africa and fully traveling alone. I would greatly appreciate all of your support, so please feel free to comment on my blog and facebook me during the summer if you want to start up a chat about our experiences!

ANewAmerica - molding the community entrepreneur

What makes an entrepreneur a SOCIAL entrepreneur? According to Sarah Clark, its about social responsibility or “the responsibility of individuals to give back to their communities”. Entrepreneurs from low-income communities “[pull] whole communities out of poverty” by creating more job opportunities for others in their area (S. Clark, personal communication, August 5, 2011).

As part of a Social Welfare class 2 years ago, I had the opportunity to interview Sarah Clark - the Director of Development and Communication at ANewAmerica. This non-profit organization in Berkeley (just a few blocks off campus) assists new immigrants and refugees in America to develop small businesses through a 3-year training program so that they could better integrate themselves into American life. They also opened offices in other communities with a large immigrant population living in poverty such as Oakland, San Jose, and Richmond.This organization's intervention model is very similar to the social entrepreneurship program of my PE org, Gawad Kalinga, that aims to mold entrepreneurs from low income communities in the Philippines.

One of the main differences between the two programs is their target clients. When asked why this organization chose to focus on helping immigrants and “new Americans”, Clark answered by saying, “the barriers for immigrant entrepreneurs are unique”. These barriers such as educational, language and cultural barriers are all examples of problems that “new Americans” face in their efforts to adjust to a new society (S. Clark, personal communication, August 5, 2011). Although their immigrant clients have successfully entered the "land of opportunity," many of them slip into poverty because they are unable to navigate the job market with their unrecognized background experience or lack of knowledge on American culture, financial practices and business skills. This lack of income also translates into their inability to attain assets that help them live a comfortable life in American society such as proper housing and access to technology. These are problems that face the whole community. Although ANewAmerica is only able to train a handful of these community members who sign-up for the program, the impact of these businesses are able to ripple out to the rest of the community.   

ANewAmerica uses a Virtual Business Incubator model of development. This model points out three different aspects where immigrants could work on improving their lives and the lives of people around them. These aspects are known as the “ABCs of AnewAmerica”: Asset Building, Business Incubation and Social Responsibility (AnewAmerica Community Corporation, 2010). This model translates into a three year program which consists of a six month planning period and two and a half years of implementation alongside the mentorship of staff and volunteers that facilitate workshops which focuses on specific business skills. Similarly to Gawad Kalinga's model, this program also trains their clients to be not just entrepreneurs, but "social entrepreneurs" by addressing social issues through the business models they develop. In the case of ANewAmerica, most of their enterprises receive credibility as a “Certified Green Business.” 

Entrepreneurship training is often seen as a form of "empowerment" - a way for the poor to pick themselves up and out of poverty, but is it also a way to prove ones nationalism? It is interesting to note that both ANewAmerica and Gawad Kalinga tie entrepreneurship to being a good productive citizen of their respective countries. It seems like the social aspect of being a social entrepreneur isn't only that these businesses give back to society, but that they assimilate themselves further into society and the capitalist behaviors it follows. 

--Dominique Martinez

------------------

AnewAmerica Community Corporation. (2010). AnewAmerica. Retrieved August 8, 2011 from http://www.anewamerica.org/. 

Clark, S. (2011, August 5). Personal interview.

Hunger and Food Waste in America

My practice experience is with BareAbundance, a student-run nonprofit working to alleviate hunger through recovering and redistributing excess food to low-income and vulnerable populations in Berkeley and Oakland. Consequently, my literature review focuses on hunger and food waste in America, especially the food supply chain that links the two.  

As I was conducting my literature review, I realized that much debate around hunger and food waste in America involves linguistics. The language used to describe both these two terms largely frame and influence the way the government and general public responds. In terms of hunger, USDA developed the US Food Security Measurement Project in 1990 which formed three basic categories to measure severity: food secure, food insecure without hunger, and food insecure with hunger. Food security is defined by the ability to access nutritionally adequate and safe foods and in an acceptable way (not stealing or scavenging). Food insecurity means uncertainty in where the next meal will come and inability to acquire food in an acceptable way. Hunger is the severest degree of uneasiness or pain caused by a lack of food and lack of access to it (Norwood). These categories largely influence not only who receives aid, but also how urgent the issue is portrayed. As of today, it is estimated that one in seven households in America is food insecure. This statistic is based on questionnaires from annual census reports from the Food Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey. However, there are ongoing debates around the underlying concepts, methodology, and use of these surveys. Over or under estimating these results could change the government and general public’s concern over hunger. It could also change the amount of funding going into programs addressing hunger. In addition, the criteria for these three divisions can make it more complicated and difficult for the general public to understand the issue.  

Likewise, the lax term used to describe food waste changes the way food waste is understood and recognized. The general public’s first impression of food waste is post-consumer waste, food thrown away at the end of the food chain by consumers. However, in defining food waste in this manner, food waste from retailers and pre-consumer food waste, or arguably “food loss”, is neglected. Especially since a large amount of food is discarded during processing or at the retailer level due to a demand for perfection, food waste is not even visible to the consumer. According to the FAO, food loss is the loss of edible food from production to processing, which includes transportation and storage. Because there has been no agreed upon term for “food waste”, there are also no concrete statistics on how much food waste is being generated. Most of the current work to determine the amount of food waste is through NGOs and environmental groups such as the NRCD. Not only is it difficult for the government to define food waste, but also to address food waste given that it exists on such a wide spectrum. Based on EPA’s 2010 study of solid waste, EPA estimates that 34 million tons of food waste is produced, contributing to 14% of the total municipal solid waste stream, only second to paper. Of this amount, less than 3% is recovered and recycled, making food waste the largest solid waste discarded. In spite of these efforts to quantify the wide occurrence of food waste, these numbers fail to account for the food waste produced pre-consumer and fail to consider the criteria for food waste. As a result, there are huge discrepancies around the enormity of the issue. In addition, the government is slow in implementing change because this would involve changing consumption, something our government has yet the tools to address and enforce.

Informal Economy and Legal Enforcement

The research process for my literature review focused primarily on child labor laws applicable to the formal economy. Much of the scholarship addressed the plight of those children unable to attend school because they were working in workshops or factories or whatever other establishment. The argument followed that it was a travesty these children were deprived of their basic right to an education. However, there was little mention of the children who were not attending school and not employed in the formal sector. For whatever reason, their condition was neither startling nor troubling enough to warrant being counted in the same statistic as the others.

            In her article “Crusading for Children in India’s Informal Economy,” Neera Burra draws attention to these children—to the children left out of the government’s protective arms. Many of these children were either working in the informal agricultural sector or if the children were not “directly working on production related work, they are engaged in supporting the ‘care economy’ so that their mothers can be freed up for wage employment” (Burra, 5201). For this latter group of children, a formal education was never an option because someone needed to stay home to take care of the younger children while the parents were working during the day. In their specific condition, these children would not be considered child laborers because they are working in their homes, in what is called ‘family work.’ As such, there would be no law prohibiting such household work, and no law compelling them to abandon that housework to attend school. Should these children too then be considered child laborers? Should the international community expand the definition of the child laborer?

            Which leads me to the second gap in the research for the literature review: enforcement of child labor laws and compulsory education requirements. Much of the child labor occurs outside the reach of the state apparatus in the most rural corners of the country. How would the state be able to force those children engaged in ‘family work’ to attend school? If the state does not consider the children laborers, then how would one ensure that their rights are respected?

            Furthermore, the state already faces enough trouble enforcing the labor laws in the formal economy. Burra notes that “wherever there are raids, either the employer has some advance information or if caught, out-of-court settlements between parents and employers takes place” (Burra, 5204). Conditions such as these reveal that parents are easily co-opted into the system by employers and often become part of the problem. If the problem and the proposed solutions are so bleak in the formal economy, how does one propose to make a more effective solution in the informal economy? Perhaps further research should examine not only the introduction of child labor laws, but also the subsequent enforcement of these laws. It’s not enough to simply say that children should not work and are entitled to a basic education. Both states and NGOs should work toward that end.

Burra, Neera. "Crusading for Children in India's Informal Economy." Economic and 
     Political Weekly 40, no. 49 (December 3, 2005): 5199-208. 

More information on Educational Disparities in the US

This summer I will be working with WEAP, an organization that hopes to train and empower women living in poverty. Aside from this, WEAP advocates for equal human rights and access to the constituents of Oakland. Building on the work the WEAP does and the knowledge that I have personally acquired, I strongly argue that pursuing a higher education is a great avenue to break to cycle of many impoverished communities like that of Oakland. Furthermore, I found an interesting article focusing on the decrease of acceptance rates for Universities of California due to budget cuts. In other words, it has become more competitive for students to attain acceptance to an institution of higher education because our economy’s lack of revenue. To help the UC system continue to financially function, UC regents have decided to increase the amount of out-of-state students instead of admitting California residents because they pay higher tuition (CA residents $28,000-$30,000 compared to out-of-state students $50,000-$55,000).

This is problematic and specifically affects communities with limited resources and little transparency to attaining a higher education. In other words, it greatly affects the students coming from communities like Oakland. I will use the example of UC Berkeley and its infamous promise of being a “diverse campus”. Statistics in the other hand, show that minorities in Berkeley are vastly underrepresented. Latinas/Latinos at Cal constitute about 7% of the population while only about 3% and Black. This is not taking into consideration that minorities are the majority in the state of California, but these students are not seen in the higher realm of education. Furthermore I argue that if admissions are reduced, this hurts the already small numbers of minority students at these universities. Because Oakland is compromised of mostly minorities, it affects the general rates of students acquiring a higher education and hence making it harder to break the cycle of poverty for many families.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-admissions-20130419,0,252956.story

In response to: Human Rights and Child Labor

            I am writing in response to Venna’s article and her organization for the advocacy of child labor laws. Because this topic is more sensitive as it concerns children rights and their protection of entering the workforce at an early age. Something that I find very effective at catering to children in India who are found working at an early age is the fact that they are tracked towards an education path. In essence, RIDE provides children with the tools to receive at least a basic education instead of having to going the workforce. This is proven to be more effective because encouraging education can help break the cycle of poverty within generations. I agree with RIDE and the idea that there should be regulated policy to ensure that children have adequate access to resources and are not exposed to extensive labor especially not at an early age.

            Furthermore Venna analyzes how effective letter writing can be to such a crucial issue. With that said, I argue that when dealing with human rights movements and demonstrations, letter writing is very limited and can be lost under the bureaucracy of a given institution. For example, sending letters or petitions for better child labor protection policies, can easily be ignored by delegates. Aside from being ignored, there are many transparency issues that can happen with simply writing a letter. As history shows, individuals must come together in solidarity for a common cause. It is through social cohesion and peaceful demonstrations that usually captivates the attentions of many leaders and will overall influence the development of protection policies for child laborers. I agree on Veena’s analyses of the article and the questions that arose like who effective the attempts to fighting this issue have been. Her organization and the fact that it tackles this issue by also providing children with the necessary agency to indulge in education is very important as a poverty alleviation strategy. 

the Invisible Wall; Social Constrains Prevent People from Accessing Healthy Food

The most interesting piece I came across while researching for my literature review was about an invisible wall that prevents people from low-income minorities’ neighborhoods to go to the grocery store in the rich neighborhood –minding that the store is very close from their neighborhood.[1] This point came back while I was reading Food politics by Marion Nestle, she states that society implements superficial classes and titles on people which end being used by all of the population to identify each other. That creates generation of stigmatized communities that believe in the identity the society gave them and their parents before them. Even when the debate[2] came to the fact access to healthy food is choice people make; it actually became unwilling participant that supports the point Nestle make. People don’t buy healthy food because of the endless planting of social differences and how each group should act.

The issue gets amplified when you apply economical and geographical constraints to the classified groups and that doubles the effect of social ruling. Especially when it comes to corporations that encourages consumption, in this case processed, junk food consumption. Being at the top with money, they advocate in low income neighborhoods for their products instead of the higher income neighborhoods. They actually add to the cycle of having food deserts and actually creating them at the same time. With more junk food in poor neighborhoods it becomes easier to buy it since it's cheap. since this started in the early mid 80's early 90's new wave of children grew up knowing only fast food and non healthy consumption -becoming socially acceptable and trade mark to low income. 

---

[1] I can’t remember the article. I couldn't include it since it's not scholarly resource.

[2] Counter debates to my main research where it says people actually have access and resources but they don’t want to take the healthy choice.