Avenge Hunger

avenge hunger

This insert came in my last month’s cable bill from Armstrong, our local cable provider.  The insert alerts Armstrong’s customers about a food drive, benefiting local food banks and soup kitchens.  They are sponsoring this food drive during the month of September as part of Feeding America’s Hunger Action Month.  The nonprofit organization, Feeding America, started Hunger Action Month in 2008, in an effort to increase involvement nationwide in the fight against food insecurity in the United States.  On their website, Feeding America urges Americans to stand up and Pass the Plate, by pledging to take some action to end hunger and then sharing that pledge with friends and family.  The web page has a drop down menu of actions from which you can choose–donate, volunteer, contact legislators–or you can write in your own actions.

I like the idea, evoked by my cable company’s flyer, of inflicting harm on hunger on behalf of those who are hungry, and that this campaign will help individuals locally.  I also support the call to action encouraged by Feeding America, and that they provide more than one suggestion for how the general population can fight hunger.  One person may volunteer because he lacks the extra money to donate.  Another may donate money to an organization like Feeding America or items to a food drive, because she lacks the time to volunteer.  Charitable organizations who work tirelessly to assist those who are food insecure need both of these people and the resources they bring to bear in the fight against hunger.  But the one action we all must must take is the third option provided in the drop down menu–contact our legislators.

The reason all those participating in this Pass the Plate campaign must engage their legislators, at all levels, is because non-profit organizations, all of them combined, can not feed all of the hungry in America.  Nor can a cable company avenge hunger.  Hunger and food insecurity in the United States is as formidable a foe as any of the Avengers has ever faced.  As I have written before, charitable organizations alone can not solve this problem.  At best they can provide stop gap measures which only serve as a band-aid on the problem.  To really tackle hunger in America requires a strong social safety net and legislation which addresses the root causes of poverty in our country.  So continue to volunteer and donate, as what you give enables charitable organizations to provide the stop gap measures those who are hungry need immediately, but also take the time to contact your legislators to insist that the programs which strengthened our social safety net be enacted and that steps be taken to address the root causes of poverty in America.  Only then can we truly avenge hunger.

avengers

Advertisements

#Giving Tuesday or Friday or Any Day

donateTuesday was Giving Tuesday and if I had been on the ball I would have written a post urging you to consider giving to your local food bank, pantry or cupboard.  As it was, I took some time off for Thanksgiving and neglected to look ahead.  Thinking I had missed a perfect opportunity I was a bit down when I realized Giving Tuesday was going to pass by without me being able to write a post about it.  As I thought about my missed opportunity I became frustrated that giving was allotted one day out of 365 days in a year.  Consequently, I decided that instead of throwing up my hands because I missed the opportunity to highlight Giving Tuesday, I would urge you to give on a Wednesday or Friday or whatever day works for you and to consider giving at other times of the year as well!

I understand the reasoning behind Giving Tuesday and support the effort wholeheartedly.  People are in the giving spirit at this time of year.  Additionally, for charitable organizations aiding the poor, demand for assistance is particularly high at this time of year.  For food pantries the months of November and December contain two big food holidays.  Christmas means presents and many churches and neighborhood and civic christmas-okorganizations work to provide items for families in poverty to give to loved ones on Christmas morning.  Finally, the cold weather necessitates added clothing, like winter coats, snow boots and hats and mittens, which are often well out of the monthly budget of families living near or below the poverty line.

While the main focus of this blog is food insecurity, I urge you to consider giving to any charity or cause you support.  Making a donation to a charitable organization supported by someone on your Christmas list is a thoughtful gift for them.  Coming together as a family to pool your money for a sizable donation to an agreed upon charity is also a great way to celebrate the season.  If you are able to, spread your donation out over the year by making a regular a monthly donation, allowing your charitable organization to better budget over the year and prevent periods of limited resources.  Finally, if you do not already, I urge you to consider making giving a regular part of your life, giving throughout the year and expanding your definition of giving.  Many organizations in every community do wonderful work, but need volunteers just as much as donations to make their goals possible.  Consider touching someone else’s life by giving of your time.  I guarantee that you will receive a gift in return!

Here is a link to an article by Consumer Reports about ratings for charitable organizations if you are uncertain about giving to a particular organization.

It Takes Two Feet

fall-woodsRecently I was reading through a Facebook conversation about whether someone who paid his or her fair share of federal income tax was less intelligent than someone who was able, through aggressive use of loopholes in the tax code, to avoid paying any federal income tax.  (Don’t worry we aren’t going there.)  One of the responders asked the original poster if he thought it would be better to keep as much of his money as possible so that he could personally give to organizations and causes he wanted to support, instead of having the Federal Government spend his money for him.  The implication in his query is that our current Federal Government it too large and operates in an inefficient, even corrupt manner, wasting our hard earned money.  The questioner believes the solution to this perceived problem is a smaller Federal Government, which can operate more efficiently, with less waste and corruption.  This smaller Federal Government is able to exist because much of the services provided by the larger Federal Government have been delegated to the states, private sector or charities.  Shrinking the size of the Federal Government is exactly what Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is trying to do when he advocates using charity as the solution to poverty.  Using charities alone to solve a problem as large and as complex as poverty, is fraught with complications, however, and will never succeed in bringing about the desired result of lowering poverty rates.

The first reason charities alone will be unable to eradicate poverty is that charities often focus on the symptoms of the problem, not the causes.  In the case of poverty, charities address the symptoms of poverty by providing those in need with food, affordable housing, clothing and utility assistance to name a few areas of assistance.  This assistance provides the recipient with immediate relief from the problem at hand, which is beneficial, however, the charity has only provided a temporary fix for the person in poverty.  In all likelihood the person in need will be back the next month to get another shopping cart full of food or utility assistance.  The act of charitable giving has done nothing to address the reasons the person in poverty is in the situation s/he is in and in a way has encouraged that individual to remain dependent on the temporary aid provided.

Another complication with relying on charities to solve the problem of poverty concernspumpkins the inequities that inevitably arise from using this approach to solving a complex problem.  These inequities are, for the most part not intentional, but nonetheless, exist and are very problematic.  Donations will vary from geographic location to geographic location or for that matter from season to season.  Consequently charitable organizations in one part of the country may be much better able to assist those in poverty than organizations located in other areas.  Additionally, the amount of aid a charity can provide may vary throughout the year as giving fluxuates.  Furthermore, donors elect to donate to causes that interest them, often times giving to the organization that has the more effective advertising campaign or hook, but that is not always assisting the greatest need.  What results from relying on charities to solve the problem of poverty is an approach that is unequal on many levels and may even serve to exacerbate the problem in certain locations.

Part of the reason for the inequality created by relying on charities to address the problem of poverty is the reduction in accountability and public review that results from moving from a governmental approach to a charitable one.  When any government spends funds it is accountable for where and how the money is spent.  Furthermore, the funds are distributed nationwide, better ensuring pockets of extreme need, caused by lack of charitable resources, do not exist.  These agencies have to keep administrative costs low and make sure the funds they use benefit the most people.  With charities, sometimes the proportion of a donation that is used for assisting someone in need versus the amount used for administrative or fundraising costs is unclear.  Additionally, charities are beholden to their donors for the necessary funds to operate.  Consequently, to ensure a steady stream of donations, charities must be aware of their donors’ expectations for the desired results of their donation.  This desire to please donors may cause charities to inadvertently tailor their operations to gain the approval of their donors rather than address the needs of their recipients.

wine-leafThe final and perhaps most important reason it is ill-advised to use charities to solve a problem as large and complex as poverty is that charities hinder or delay the social change and justice that must happen before any real progress in diminishing poverty can be seen.  Donating to a charity fighting poverty distracts donors from fighting the inequities in society that cause poverty in the first place.  The donor feels good, like s/he is making a difference in the overall problem, when really all s/he is doing is providing temporary relief.  Furthermore, the act of providing temporary assistance often masks the true depth of these inequities.  Those in need receive just enough to allow them to become complacent with their situation and to lessen the outrage they as well as the rest of society might otherwise feel.  When you couple the complacency of the person in need with the sense of having helped of the donor, society fails to realize the true depth of the problem, and therefore, does not demand action to correct the inequities that allow the injustice to continue to exist.

Lest anyone be confused, I am not building a case against charity.  I volunteer with a charitable organization and they do wonderful, necessary work, as do most charities.  The point I am making is that charitable anti poverty organizations can not be expected to do the heavy lifting needed to solve or even lower poverty alone.  Charities working alone to lower poverty present an unworkable solution that is unfair to both the needy and the charities which seek to help them.  Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishopsgourds understands that charity alone will not solve the problem of poverty.  The bishops have created “The Two Feet of Love in Action”, stating one needs two feet to walk the path of love.  In the flyer explaining their philosophy, they discuss what the two feet represent:  one assisting with charitable organizations to help meet immediate basic needs and the other to work for social justice which will serve to remove the causes of poverty and strengthen societal structures.  Charities are extremely adept at alleviating individuals’ immediate needs, but to grapple with the enormity of social injustice requires the broad, impartial reach of the Federal Government.  The struggle also requires you to help propel BOTH feet of love, charity AND social justice, forward.