Art and Poverty Action

A few months ago, I read an article in The New Yorker about Theaster Gates, an artist from Chicago who has recently garnered a lot of attention by art critics. Gates has degrees in fine arts, religious studies, and urban studies. He has traveled all over the world but seems to be especially interested in working in—and, as the article puts it, “reshaping”—some of the poorest parts of Chicago. He has become famous for “projects aimed at reviving a part of the city—plagued by unemployment and gang violence, its streets pocked with abandoned buildings—that he says has been ‘left to rot’ since the sixties…he has been buying dilapidated houses and turning them into small cultural centers and meeting spaces: ‘places where moments of beauty can happen.’”

What seems especially interesting is that Gates’ work is not simply art for people to look at—he creates space for people to come together and talk: “he encouraged visitors to talk and argue about race and spirituality, and at times brought them to a West Side shoe-shine stand called the Shine King…Gates shined shoes and pressed gallery patrons to do so, too…He brought all of these new people to the Shine King…and gave them a new way of looking at the neighborhood.”

For me, Gates provides an example of how art can be used as a part of poverty action. His work in Chicago seems especially relevant given the recent economic recession followed by huge numbers of home foreclosures. His art not only creates beauty where it seemed to have been lost, but also encourages discussion among some of the most affluent members of society about how to make the poorest spaces feel different—and better.

Here’s a link to Gates’ website: http://theastergates.com/section/29120.html. There are pictures and descriptions of several of his projects in Chicago. I find his work really inspiring and exciting.

Bill de Blasio and Pubic Education

            Ever since I learned about New York City’s new Mayor Bill de Blasio, I’ve been really excited to watch his administration. I especially love his plan to provide universal pre-k education for all four year olds in the city. (His proposal includes increased taxes on the very wealthy in city.) I’m interested in how this program can be understood as one of poverty alleviation. In the United States today, pre-k education is often too expensive for parents to pay for. Moreover, pre-k education is known to have effects on the future success of children.

            But Mayor de Blasio’s ideas about education have recently become controversial. In the past few weeks, he has come under fire for criticizing charter schools. Here’s a link to a New York Times article that explains the most recent developments in the debates between De Blasio’s administration and advocates of charter schools: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/nyregion/de-blasio-strikes-conciliatory-tone-on-charter-schools.html?ref=billdeblasio&_r=0

            Charter schools are “publicly financed but privately run, and are typically not unionized.” They are often thought of as better alternatives to failing public schools, especially in poor areas, but have limited space and cannot accept every child. (Movies like Waiting for Superman depict low-income families who are desperate to send their children to charter schools.) New York’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg “gave charter schools free space in public school buildings, a policy Mr. de Blasio has criticized as squeezing out traditional schools.” The article also explains that de Blasio’s popularity has fallen as a result of a “$3.6 million advertising blitz” by charter school movements. But one reason De Blasio has criticized charter schools is that they are often financed by very wealthy donors (the same people who are financing the ad campaign), and thus may not represent the interests of the poor. De Blasio says that pubic schools should be publicly funded and available to all children, not a select few.

            I wonder whether de Blasio will face trouble because of all the money in the charter school movement. Could his falling popularity make it more difficult for him to change policy effectively? Should be try to be conciliatory with people from the charter school movement? Or should he stand firm in his original stance?

To Hell with Good Intentions

I would like to share an excerpt from a reading that has influenced me exceptionally during various volunteer experiences that I have had. I first read this article during training with an organization called AMIGOS, a youth empowerment organization that sends high school volunteers to Latin America for 6-8 weeks. This article always inspired a long discussion, where some people maintained that AMIGOS was different from the type of volunteering that this organization describes, while others like myself were far more critical. I think it is important to reread this any time I find myself engaging in volunteer work abroad, and in this case in the context of my practice experience in Chiapas Mexico this summer. Below is an excerpt from the end of the reading. You can also find the whole article here: http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm

“If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at home. Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you speak. And you will know when you fail. If you insist on working with the poor, if this is your vocation, then at least work among the poor who can tell you to go to hell. It is incredibly unfair for you to impose yourselves on a village where you are so linguistically deaf and dumb that you don't even understand what you are doing, or what people think of you. And it is profoundly damaging to yourselves when you define something that you want to do as "good," a "sacrifice" and "help."

I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce exercising the power which being an American gives you. I am here to entreat you to freely, consciously and humbly give up the legal right you have to impose your benevolence on Mexico. I am here to challenge you to recognize your inability, your powerlessness and your incapacity to do the "good" which you intended to do.

I am here to entreat you to use your money, your status and your education to travel in Latin America. Come to look, come to climb our mountains, to enjoy our flowers. Come to study. But do not come to help.”

This powerful message brings up many significant points to consider when American volunteers,  many of whom know little about the context in which they work, go abroad with a mentality of superiority, or claim that they are “giving up” their summers to do something good.  In my case, I will be going to Mexico this summer to work with Fundacion Cantaro Azul, which works to provide access to water for communities around Chiapas. I think that it is very important for me to remember my impact and really consider my ability to “make a difference”, when I am not educated extensively on issues of water quality, and did not grow up in the communities that I seek to serve. I think this article ties greatly with Talwalker’s article, “What Kind of Global Citizen is the Student Volunteer”. Despite all of our efforts and intentions, we must realize that this is coming from a very privileged background, and that realistically our small stay will not have a profound impact on the larger issues at stake.

At the same time, with the passion that many of us have to changing the problems of inequality in the world today, I think that few would be comfortable being told to stay at home learning about poverty, but never actually going anywhere because we are only going to make it worse. And this is why I continue to volunteer abroad, despite being told and realizing through my own experiences that I am not making a dent on issues of global poverty and inequality. I think that rather than giving up all together, we can continue to learn—through classes at Berkeley and experiences abroad—what our impact really can be. While must be aware of the challenges, and be sure not to come in with a mentality of “helping others” or making people look just like us, I do believe that there is a space for the educated and humble American volunteer. This is not to say that any American has the right to show up in a rural community abroad to build a school or teach about the environment. However, if volunteers like myself go abroad with the mindset of learning and exchanging, and continue to discuss these ideas throughout my academic career, I only hope that at some point I can be more than a hopeless American do-gooder.

The American Welfare State

There has been long standing criticism over the American welfare state-especially from fiscally conservative Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/05/denmarks-work-life-balance/when-welfare-undermines-work-ethic). The basic argument is that the American welfare system encourages people not to work by giving people too much aid. For example, a jobless, single mother of two would receive approximately $49,175 worth of benefits in Hawaii, the most generous state. A study conducted by Tanner and Hughes of the CATO institute (libertarian think tank) claim that welfare is much too generous—in 39 states, welfare would give this hypothetical mother more benefits in aid than an average secretary does from a year of work (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21585010-americas-welfare-state-not-working-nearly-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans). However, that same hypothetical mother would only receive $16,984 if she lived in Mississippi. Thus, the welfare state is too complicated to have universal reductions or increases.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that because Congress is so starkly divided on welfare there has been little discussion on the possibility of completely changing the system. Generally, Republicans want to cut programs and Democrats want to expand them (a simplification for discussion’s sake). Other countries, such as Britain and Germany, have changed the welfare structure in their countries. Britain has combined benefits and placed a cap on the total amount an individual can receive, to increase efficiency, and Germany has combined welfare with job trainings and has had considerable success bringing down the unemployment rate as a result. Because Congress has been so polarized, America’s welfare state has become stagnant, and as a result, there may be considerably better options that are overlooked.

Alternatives to welfare that have been suggested have been large increases to the minimum wage, bringing it up to 15 dollars per hour (Robert Reich had previously suggested this). This would encourage those on welfare to work as the benefits of welfare would, in most places, not exceed the benefit of working (remember aid through welfare is not taxed, whereas income from working is). Other ideas have included providing more job training programs and more aid for education programs.

Regardless of what the alternative is, I believe alternatives should at least be discussed. Accepting the welfare state, as is, will encourage static solutions that may not be the best suited for the time. As many of our practice experiences work in communities that are dependent on welfare, this is not only an extremely pressing issue, but a very relevant one as well.

SNAP cuts

            September 19^th, 2013 under pressure from the Tea Party, a mostly Republican voted pushed a bill through the house to eliminate loopholes, ensure work requirements, and put “us on a fiscally responsible path.” The program cost almost $80 billion last year, and is projected with the $40 billion cut to cost $700 billion in the next decade. Following the precedent set by PROWRA, adult beneficiaries would still be required to work or be in a job-training program, but also now there will exist a 3-month maximum and a requirement to pass drug tests for benefits. The bill also designates recipients of other social welfare assistance ineligible.

            In April 2013, 15.2% of Americans received SNAP (30% of which were working and 72% to households with children). Two weeks prior to the vote the Agriculture Department reported that in fact 17.6% households did not have enough to eat in 2012 due to lack of resources to provide food. Two days prior to the vote the Census Bureau reported that 46.5 million people live in Poverty in America (15%). These numbers beg further questioning to the claim that the program had “grown out of control.”

            Furthermore, none of these numbers take into account the many new trends, such as boomerang-kids and doubling-up on housing to share costs. Almost 4 million recipients will be cut from the rolls in two months, disproportionately youth. Although the economy may be improving, a strikingly high percentage of Americans live well under the poverty line. It is difficult to measure how much of an impact in-kind benefits as SNAP make on the quality of lives. Nonetheless, I feel that the social welfare network is called a safety net for the reason to catch individuals in moments as these- not only during a recession, but for the years following. While overall things may be looking up, things have not improved at all for most hard-working, yet underemployed American families.

            At The Suitcase Clinic, we don’t get many requests for assistance from families with youth, unless already placed in a shelter. Many parents are afraid of asking for help when suffering extreme poverty due to the fear CPS will take their children. I really wonder how we will be able to evaluate the tremendous impact of this drastic cut as it plays out this coming year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html 

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err155/report-summary.aspx#.UnM_zRaDd8s

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/opinion/another-insult-to-the-poor.html?hp&_r=0

The Gates Foundation: Goliath of Poverty Alleviation

In late July of 2013, I frantically wrote and rewrote sections of an influence study I was conducting with two of my colleagues at Digital Green. Stress ran high-not only was the deadline for our paper in a couple of days, but a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation report was due as well.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Gates Foundation, they are the largest transparently operated foundation in the world, focused on reducing poverty through four divisions: global development, global health, United States education policy, and policy and advocacy (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do).

Digital Green, my practice organization, is currently funded by a multimillion dollar grant from the Gates Foundation to run a massive randomized control trial (reaching 10,000 new villages and 1,000,000 new farmers) to obtain the causal impact of Digital Green on agricultural production and adoptions of proven, sustainable practices. Thus, they are held accountable by the Gates Foundation and must submit quarterly reports on progress.

I watched my colleagues rapidly put together a presentation for representatives of the foundation. There was a lot of talk about how the Gates Foundation only saw numbers, how this was taking time they did not have, to make the presentation aesthetically pleasing, to make sure they were kept happy, etc. I could not help but feel as if the Gates Foundation was akin to a rich relative that one did not necessarily like or agree with, but who commanded obedience, if only to stay on their will.

I don't have a problem with philanthropy, and I believe it's great that one of the world's wealthiest families has decided to give back. However, partnerships with Monsanto and Cargil, two of the world's largest agribusinesses whom are notorious for destroying livelihoods of small farmers everywhere, makes my faith waver. They have invested over 23 million dollars in Monsanto and make profits from the company (http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html). Again, there is nothing wrong with a foundation investing in private stocks-in fact, if it leads foundations and NGOs to become sustainable, it would be great. But when the investments are made in companies that keep people in poverty in the first place, it seems a tad hypocritical.

Further criticisms revolve around the Gates Foundation's obsessive need for numbers and increases in performance. Understandably, they want accountability for the large amounts of capital they invest in programs. However, this can produce one dimensional measures of progress, limited by decontextualized results, leading to well meaning, but perhaps uninformed policy.

The question, then, is whether or not "meaning well" is enough. There is no doubt that the Gates Foundation has made a substantial impact on global poverty. They have mobilized influential and wealthy figures around the world, required metrics of accountability to mainstream development work, and invested billions of dollars in programs working to alleviate poverty. However, they are a single foundation, yielding a massive amount of power in international and domestic development, with a single perspective-they're not at all a participatory organization. They often implement western metrics to evaluate programs, and have partnerships with some of the very organizations that are causing millions of people to struggle. The good may outweigh the bad, but when you're this powerful, that isn't enough.

I don't believe the Gates Foundation is evil, but perhaps misguided. An internal restructuring would go a long way to improve the long term impact it has the potential to have on global poverty. Though undeniably difficult, it would be irresponsible not to try.

The idea of Poverty just fills me with unsettling questions

One of Ananya Roy’s stories in lecture recently struck me, in which a boy asked her why in America there are homeless; rather, why do we not allow informal housing of the extremely impoverished in America. Of course, I realize there do exist "encampments" hidden underneath seams of the urban fabric, such as in the brush at the Albany Bulb or under bridges, however there are still so many trying to sleep on the concrete around my warm, secure home. Often in the Bay I have witnessed despicable verbal and physical violence toward bodies trying to rest on the streets. I wonder how, after being exposed to all the noxious elements of life on the streets throughout the day, these individuals also manage to survive sleeping on the cold concrete unable to lock out the dangerous, bad, or drunk people out that scare us all. I feel like the reason we don’t allow informal housing, is that cities feel compelled to be able to say the individuals without homes on their streets are just transients, and thus not reflective of the city, nor responsibility of the community. Do we not allow informal housing because we think the homeless are easier to regulate and police when they have no privacy? No running water, no mirror, no place to store their things, no toilet, no refrigerator or stove? Do we refuse to allocate space for makeshift dwellings, because it is easier to pretend like the problem doesn’t exist? Is it that we fear a built environment exposing the raw and inhumane conditions of Americas most poor would render the problem visible? I know many individuals who would build themselves a makeshift house in a dangerous slum on the outskirts of town and feel blessed to have walls surrounding them, as temporary, fragile, and illegal as they may be. I understand that slums pose many unimaginable dangers, but I wonder if they could possibly be worse than what we already have in America. How can we have so many people in this country of abundance wealth living in a culture of conspicuous consumption yet suffering from such extreme poverty that they cannot even afford a place to call home? My best guess is that we don’t allow anyone access to free land, due to the fear that it would be unfairly taken advantage of. Nonetheless I can’t help but wonder sometimes if "third world" slum establishments in fact might serve society better than how the poorest are forced to live in Berkeley.

http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/the-barrios-of-bogota/

What Is The Highest Degree of Participation Your Organization Can Have?

In class last week Professor Talwalker assigned Duraiappah et al.’s article, “Have Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities?” as one of our readings relevant to the general theme of participatory development. I contributed during the class’s share-out on Class Exercise 1, pertaining to Duraiappah et al.’s article. I explained how I believed that my organization, Breakthrough Collaborative, could be seen as engaging largely within the 7^th degree of participation, “interactive participation,” although not fully. Professor Talwalker then posed a very interesting question, one that I would like to further address now: What is the highest degree of participation your organization can have? That is to say, is it possible for an organization like Breakthrough to ever achieve full interactive participation, and under what conditions?

Leaving class that day I thought over what Professor Talwalker had asked. It is an interesting question because I think that it is one that many of my peers in GPP 105 can identify with. We are all in the GPP minor because we want to make a meaningful impact in the world of poverty action/alleviation, but it is difficult to find an organization that is fully participatory and will address the needs of the poor head on. The only way to do this is for the organization to operate based on the desires and input of the poor themselves, by creating an equal space for decision-making and risk-sharing between the target population and the organization workers. This in turn will increase the capabilities of the poor in the development process, just as Duraiappah et al. suggested.

As optimistic as I am about the difference that one person, or one organization can make, I do think it is idealist to think that an organization can be 100% participatory. The very fact that organization workers are trying to help the poor means that they come from a place of privilege, as one student pointed out in class (I think it was Shrey?). With this fact alone, it is almost unfathomable to think of how the poor can possibly have equal part in the decision-making process and risk-sharing as does the organization. The very fact that the target population is in need of something that the service workers are not, makes the type of risk involved with the poor inherently different than that of the service workers.

Upon further analysis, I think that my organization is less participatory than I had previously thought.     As I discussed in my class exercise, one major aspect that makes Breakthrough unable to fit neatly into one degree of participation, is the fact that it also engages in participation by consultation; the program directors, external agents, and donors involved have no obligation to implement the suggestions or information generated by the participants. In order for Breakthrough to be a truly democratic organization in the development process, it must find a way to ensure the implementation of its participant’s appropriate suggestions, just as it does for its more powerful stakeholders. In complete honesty, I highly doubt that it is even possible for Breakthrough to become a fully participatory organization, or even to reach full interactive participation. The basis of the very program itself is to teach our students four core academic classes over the summer. This means that the students have no control over what they are being taught, and I believe that is something that can’t be changed without fundamentally changing the program. This is simply because the students (6^th-9^th grade) do not have enough expertise to have involvement in the curriculum development.

But that is just my organization. GPP students have their practice experiences set in a wide range of varying areas and sectors. So I ask: What is the highest degree of participation your organization can have?