SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
204 posts categorized "Inequality"
Ana Zamora was a guest of the First Lady at the 2015 State of the Union Address. Zamora is a 20-year old immigrant who lives in Dallas, TX. She was brought to the United States at the age of 1.
Words are powerful, but sometimes what’s left unsaid truly tells the tale. That was the case during President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, where despite the fact that he barely mentioned immigration, his message was clear: It’s time to move on from past immigration debates and enact comprehensive reform.
In addition, the Republican English-language response delivered by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) was silent on immigration. However, the Spanish-language response delivered by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL.) called for immigration reform.
The chances of a major Congressional overhaul of immigration policy during 2015 are slim, but there will be major action next month as the administration begins implementation of President Obama’s 2014 executive action. The action will provide relief from deportation for about 4 million undocumented immigrants.
This implementation is expected to move forward despite the fact that House Republicans continue to challenge the action in Congress and in the courts. The Congressional challenge has little chance of success as President Obama has already indicated that he will veto any bill seeking to roll back the action, known as the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program.
But the court challenge by 25 states, led by Texas, could create a fearful atmosphere locally for undocumented immigrants eligible for the program. That will be the true challenge to the DAPA program.
Bread for the World supports the president’s action because it will provide more opportunity for low-income people to move out of poverty. The action will allow some undocumented immigrants the ability to seek further education, job training, find new jobs, and start their own or enhance an existing small business.
Research finds that deferred action can lead to an average wage increase of 8.5 percent for immigrant workers and that it also can have benefits for the U.S.-born and the overall economy.
The very few words devoted to this issue by the president and the Republican’s rebuttal may be an acknowledgement that in spite of the continuing Congressional rhetoric, both sides know that the debate of words on DAPA is winding down and that the action of implementation is about to begin.
Photo: Official White House photo by Pete Souza
President Obama announced a series of executive actions to extend paid leave to the American workforce—the only modern workforce in the world that still lacks it. The announcement marks another essential step recently taken by the federal government toward helping working families escape hunger and poverty.
The president’s actions include:
- Signing a memorandum to guarantee all executive branch federal employees six weeks of paid family leave to care for a new child or ill family member.
- Calling Congress to pass legislation that grants millions of American workers up to seven days of paid sick time per year.
- Committing money to help states develop their own family and medical leave programs—$2 billion in the president’s 2016 budget proposal and $1 million from the 2015 budget to fund state- and local-level feasibility studies.
The memorandum will immediately improve the work quality and flexibility for nearly 3 million executive branch employees, fully securing them a minimum six weeks of paid family leave. It is now up to Congress to do the same for the rest of the federal workforce, and carry out the president’s other actions to extend paid sick and family leave to the 43 million private sector workers who still don’t have it.
The executive action reflects key recommendations in the Institute’s 2014 Hunger Report, Ending Hunger in America. The report points out that changing dynamics in the U.S. family and economy have left working families more vulnerable to hunger. Between 1980 and 2010, mothers in the workforce with children under age 18 increased by 14 percent; mothers with children under age 6 by 19 percent, and mothers with infants by 25 percent. In survey after survey, parents, regardless of their income level, report that they are exhausted and under stress from juggling work and family commitments. This imbalance hinders a parent's ability to adequetly care for and nourish his or her children. Poor nutrition, particularly in the 1,000 Days between pregnancy and age 2, can hurt a child's phyiscal and cognitive growth and keep her from reaching full potential.
Children in low-income families are more likely to have chronic health problems. One reason families become poor is that when a parent is forced to choose between keeping a job and caring for a sick child, she or he generally opts to take care of the child. Federal standards that require paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave will go a long way toward helping parents—and all workers—balance work and care responsibilities, leaving them less vulnerable to hunger and poverty.
The president’s announcement on paid leave is the latest in a series of recent executive actions which address key recommendations from the 2014 Hunger Report. Other recent actions include: free community college for most students, greater home affordability, access to high-speed broadband, and an executive order that relieves four million undocumented immigrants of the threat of deportation.
To read more about the 2014 Hunger Report and the elements of its four part plan for ending hunger in America, download the report and view infographics on top issues at hungerreport.org.
Congress has more than 100 women for the first time in U.S. history.
An ongoing string of news articles has been triumphantly proclaiming this news ever since the November elections. People like the number 100 because they’re thinking of 100 percent and the ideas associated with it -- completeness, sufficiency, even perfection. Years of chasing after 100 on countless school exams have ensured that I will always look on it favorably. But when it comes to women in Congress, 100 is hardly a number to celebrate.
Compared to other high-income countries, the United States has a much lower percentage of women elected to government office, and November’s elections did not change that. Among the 10 most developed countries (according to the United Nations Development Program), the United States ranks last on female representation in national elected offices. See the chart above. Women in the 114th Congress hold 19.4 percent of seats, up less than one percentage point from last year. And this is the highest percentage in history. Other high-income countries now average 25 percent women in national parliaments, with Nordic countries closest to equal representation with consistent shares of one-third or more. Currently 95 countries have larger shares of women in national parliaments than the United States.
The evidence shows that women who are elected to office have different priorities and achieve results that are different from those of their male counterparts. Women legislators introduce many more bills on health care, education, and child care than men do. Women also tend to work harder than their male counterparts to keep legislation they’ve sponsored alive, and they are more collaborative, seeking consensus so the bills will pass. In a study of the U.S. House of Representatives, these factors made female legislators more effective than males at getting their legislation advanced and passed.
Although we can’t stereotype and pigeonhole all women as more “nurturing,” female members of Congress have proven to be more collaborative and more focused on social issues. It makes sense that electing more women could help reduce political polarization and potentially advance an agenda of ending hunger and poverty in the United States.
You can read more about the historical impact of women in the U.S. Congress in Chapter 4 of the 2015 Hunger Report: When Women Flourish … We Can End Hunger.
As we mentioned in our earlier post on incarceration as a hunger issue, one result of sending people to prison is that they lose their jobs, and therefore any ability to help support their children and other family members.
Many inmates do, however, work while serving their sentences. In fact, prison labor is big business. UNICOR (also known as Federal Prison Industries, Inc.) has an annual net profit of more than $600 million and employs 8 percent of medically-eligible federal inmates. The company has said its goal is to employ 25 percent of the federal prison workforce. Other prisoners manufacture everything from airplane components and furniture to artisanal goat cheese and wooden canoes.
Working while incarcerated allows people to keep busy and perhaps learn a skill, but it is not a path to financial stability. Federal inmates earn between $0.23 and $1.15 an hour. From this, they must pay for phone calls, stamps, many of the toiletries they use, and more. There is little if any money left over to pay child support or save for their release date.
When they are released after serving their sentences, therefore, people have little money of their own. The prison system does not give them much either -- a maximum of $500 for federal prisoners and even less “gate money” from most state prisons. It takes time to find a job and start getting paid, even in the best-case scenarios. And for many, the situation is further worsened not only by employers’ reluctance to hire people with prison records, but also by government policies.
Formerly incarcerated people may qualify for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps) in some states. But in others, a felony drug conviction can mean that a person is never again eligible for SNAP benefits. In Georgia, for example, one can be convicted of felony drug possession if caught with one ounce of marijuana -- and forever barred from receiving SNAP benefits.
SNAP could be a bridge for people returning to the community at a stressful time in their lives. Instead, many former inmates add hunger to their list of problems. Without SNAP benefits, they are forced to rely on support from family, friends, or charities—and if they do not have that safety net, stealing or another crime may appear to be the best of their few options. The United States has a high rate of recidivism – repeat offenses. In fact, more than 28 percent of former state prison inmates are re-arrested within six months of their release. Of course, hunger is not the only cause of recidivism. But it is one of the easiest to solve.
Our country's high rates of incarceration carry consequences beyond the fate of individual inmates and their families. In the final piece of our short series on incarceration, we will examine its impact on hunger in the wider society -- and for prospects for change through advocacy.
For the last 15 years, the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have formed the bedrock of global development efforts -- goals on hunger, gender equality, and child and maternal mortality, among others. Bread for the World's recent analysis of the value of the MDGs refers to the goals as "an uprecedented global effort to achieve development goals that are identified collectively, achievable, and measurable."
Now, the MDG clock is ticking. When the goals were adopted in 2000, a 2015 deadline was set. They are to be replaced by a new set of goals-- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) -- starting in September 2015. Unlike with the MDGs, the process of determining what might follow them, a "post-2015" development agenda, has featured an active international debate. The U.N. High Level Panel on Post-2015 (HLP) -- the official process through which the post-MDG global development agenda is being shaped -- met four times for consultations that aired the views reported by a wide range of other groups.These meetings were held in New York in September 2012; London in November 2012; Monrovia, Liberia, in January 2013; and Bali, Indonesia, in March 2013. In May 2013, panel members presented a report outlining their vision and priorities for post-2015 development to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, while in July, Ki-moon outlined his response to the HLP in his own report.
The process of negotiating the SDGs continued in 2014. In September, a special event on the MDGs and the post-2015 agenda was held during the 69th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. The theme was "Delivering On and Implementing a Transformative Post-2015 Development Agenda."
Earlier this month, on December 4, the Secretary General released an advance version of his synthesis report on the post-2015 development agenda, The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. The synthesis report aims to support U.N. member states’ post-2015 negotiations based on the world's experiences with the MDGs. The report proposes a set of six essential elements as well as a means of implementing the goals. The six elements are:
Dignity -- eradicating poverty as the agenda's overarching objective, and addressing challenges related to inequality and the rights of women, youth, and minorities;
People -- addressing education; health; violence against women and girls; and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH);
Prosperity-- calling for inclusive growth that ensures all people have employment, social protection, and access to financial services;
Planet-- equitably addressing climate change; halting biodiversity loss and addressing desertification and unsustainable land use; protecting forests, mountains, oceans, and wildlife; and reducing disaster risks;
Justice-- issues including governance, reconciliation, peacebuilding, and state-building; and
Partnership-- elements of transformative partnerships that place people, planet, and mutual accountability at the center.
According to the Secretary General's report, implementation of the post-2015 agenda should focus on:
- Committing to a universal approach with solutions that address all countries and groups;
- Integrating sustainability in all activities;
- Addressing inequalities in all areas;
- Ensuring that all actions advance and respect human rights;
- Addressing climate change drivers and consequences;
- Basing analysis in credible data and evidence;
- Expanding a global partnership for means of implementation; and
- Anchoring the new compact in a renewed commitment to international solidarity.
Today — unlike in 2000 when the MDG era began — 72 percent of the world’s poor people live in middle-income countries. Others live in developed countries -- in the United States, for example, 15 percent of the population was living in poverty during the Great Recession, and nearly a quarter of all children lived in households that had trouble putting food on the table. Both of these factors mean that the next set of goals must apply to all countries if the SDGs are to end extreme poverty by their deadline of 2030. The post-2015 development agenda provides an opportunity to promote equity and equitable growth in a way that is truly universal.
Posted by Faustine Wabwire on December 16, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Inequality, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, U.S. Hunger | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Improvements in the status of women drove about half of the dramatic reduction in child malnutrition that the developing world has achieved in recent decades. This and many more pieces of evidence brought together in the 2015 Hunger Report affirm that ending discrimination against women and girls–besides being the right thing to do–is crucial to ending hunger. Here are three compelling charts that show how this plays out across an array of important empowerment measures:
The three charts above compare rates of child stunting (a key measure of chronic malnutrition) in low- and middle-income countries against three sample empowerment indicators: rates of secondary school completion for females; rates of death from complications of pregnancy or childbirth; and rates of child marriage. Each dot represents one country.
Measuring gender discrimination is complicated because it is pervasive. It cuts across all aspects of human life. This is why the United Nations named a minimum list of 52 gender indicators that are essential to gauging progress. (Yes – these 52 items are the minimum list). The indicators encompass five areas: health, education, human rights, public life, and economic participation.
We can see that stunting rates are lower in countries where women are more empowered – i.e., where they do better on these indicators. This is an issue that merits a more robust research agenda because it shows us an important way forward on hunger.
A note on stunting: stunting means that a child has suffered chronic malnutrition before her/his second birthday. We can “tell by looking” because stunted children are far too short for their age, but the most significant effects can’t be seen: damage to health and cognitive development. Stunting undermines how well a child does in school and even her lifetime earnings. At the national level, stunting can cost several percentage points in GDP growth. Globally, one in four children is stunted.
Visit an interactive tool on the 2015 Hunger Report website to compare global stunting rates with any of 15 important women’s empowerment indicators, view trends by region, and see where individual countries fall. Read this to learn the story of how the tool was created.
This post is part of Institute Notes’ ongoing series on data to end hunger.
Posted by Bread on December 15, 2014 in Africa, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Andrea James discusses the rise in incarceration of women at the 2015 Hunger Report launch. Photo: Joe Molieri/Bread for the World.
About 1 in every 35 residents of the United States is either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. The U.S. rate of incarceration is more than five times the average of other developed nations in the OECD -- and more than five times the global average as well. Incarceration rates in this country began to rise several decades ago, more than tripling between 1980 and 2000. This is the first of three posts about incarceration as a hunger issue.
Much of the rising rate of incarceration stems from harsher prosecution and long mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for more than half of all federal prison inmates, a nonviolent drug-related offense is their most serious crime.
Aggressive prosecution of nonviolent crimes such as possession of a small quantity of marijuana contributes directly to hunger and poverty in our country. This is because incarceration removes people from their families, jobs, and communities — often spelling poverty for both inmates and their families, particularly their children.
The damage is worse in low-income neighborhoods and areas where more people of color live, since these communities are already at higher risk. Yet at every stage of law enforcement and the criminal justice system -- from where police patrol and who they arrest, to who is convicted and the length of their sentence – people of color and people from poorer neighborhoods are treated more harshly. Further, lower-income people who are arrested may be hard-pressed to pay for legal counsel or to enroll in treatment programs that are sometimes allowed as an alternative to prison.
It may surprise many people that decisions about where to concentrate law enforcement efforts are often not based on where the highest crime rates are. For example, richer teenagers are actually more likely to use and sell drugs, but drug enforcement focuses on low-income communities.
Deterrence is often cited as an important reason for incarceration. A major weakness of this strategy is that people in prison have startlingly high rates of substance addictions and/or psychiatric disorders. Prisons provide limited health care or substance abuse treatment. People who are released with active addictions or mental illnesses are far less likely to be deterred from re-offending.
Incarceration is very tough on families. Children are separated from their parents and raised by relatives or the state. In 2009, more than 14,000 children entered foster care because of parental incarceration. At the very least, families often must travel long distances and pay high phone bills to stay in contact with incarcerated relatives.
Women are a minority of prison inmates in the United States, but their rate of incarceration is rising faster than that of men. Bread for the World Institute’s 2015 Hunger Report, When Women Flourish…We Can End Hunger, takes a closer look at the impact of the rising number of female inmates on children and communities. Andrea James, head of Families for Justice as Healing, spoke at the Hunger Report launch last week of her organization’s efforts to bring attention to these issues.
In the 20 years since the first International Conference on Nutrition (ICN), global awareness of the critical role of nutrition in human development has grown to record levels. Today, the dual problems of malnutrition -- undernutrition and obesity – are the focus of efforts by both governments and private companies. Undernutrition rates have dropped in the intervening years, but obesity has grown to the point where it now kills more than three times as many people as undernutrition.
The first ICN was seen as an opportunity to bring leading nutrition scientists together with governments to address a growing problem. ICN2, being held this week in Rome, goes further by finalizing the wording of a Declaration on Nutrition, as well as details of its implementation, and seeking the signatures of the governments in attendance.
The proposed declaration is a pivotal document that, after reaffirming commitments made at the 1994 ICN and at World Food Summits, sets out specific plans of action and international targets that will lead to the eradication of all forms of malnutrition. Action items include reshaping food systems through public policy; improving nutrition by strengthening institutional capacity and encouraging collaboration among all stakeholders; promoting initiatives for healthy diets before pregnancy, through the 1,000 days period of early childhood, and in schools; and ensuring that a framework with actions and objectives is integrated into the 2030 global development agenda that will be finalized in the coming year.
Advocates are concerned about the very small role of nutrition thus far in this Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) process: there are more than a dozen goals and nearly 200 targets, but nutrition is mentioned only once. The declaration also asks the United Nations General Assembly for its endorsement and declares a “Decade of Action on Nutrition.”
Proposing such aspirational goals for ICN2 has led to wide-ranging discussions. Some have criticized the declaration’s lack of accountability and spending targets. Others have criticized its lack of emphasis on nutrition-sensitive issues such as water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and a lack of recognition that nutrition directly impacts health interventions. Another point raised is that in order to make advances in nutrition, there must be economic solutions as well. Critics have also pointed out that in some countries, “donor interest in nutrition is waning.” It is in fact true that scaling up successful nutrition outcomes in a district, region, or country requires multiple-year planning and adequate funding.
One bright spot of ICN2 was Pope Francis adding his voice to the fight against hunger and malnutrition.
In his apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (Joy of the Gospel), Francis said, “We are scandalized” by not having enough food for everyone and the resulting hunger. In his remarks at ICN2 on November 20, Francis said that food, nutrition, and the environment must be viewed as global public issues at a time when nations are more tightly linked with each other than ever before. He admonished global leaders to make sure their pledges to assure food security for all citizens are put into concrete practice, saying that the right to a healthy diet is about dignity, not charitable handouts.
The U.S. government’s commitment to improved nutrition increased when it began to fund the Global Health Initiative (GHI), which is now complemented by nutrition components of the Feed the Future initiative. Recognizing nutrition as a concern that crosses traditional development sectors, USAID adopted and has begun to implement a Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy. Other government agencies and offices have begun working on a Global Nutrition Coordination Plan that will encourage collaboration and hopefully add value to the efforts of individual programs to improve nutrition. Finally, the House of Representatives has introduced H.R. 5656, the Global Food Security Act, which has a primary objective of reinforcing programs that “accelerat[e] inclusive agricultural-led economic growth that reduces global poverty, hunger and malnutrition, particularly among women and children….”
The objectives of ICN2, the policy goals of U.S. government nutrition strategies, and passage of H.R. 5656 are all reachable if we are, in the words of Roger Thurow, “outraged and inspired” to take action on global hunger, poverty, and malnutrition.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on November 21, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Religion and Hunger, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Policy discussions of U.S. development assistance that promote women’s empowerment tend to head in two directions: improving women’s ability to participate in the economy and increasing girls’ enrollment in school.
There’s no question that policymakers should indeed be talking about these dimensions of empowerment. But I wish they’d also talk about what I’ll describe as a “third way”: increasing the share of women leaders in government. Here we scarcely hear a word.
The eight Millennium Development Goals include a goal to promote gender equality and empower women. One of the targets is to increase the percentage of women in national parliaments to 33 percent. Globally, women currently hold about 25 percent of seats in national parliaments. Given that women are half the population, I think it’s fair to say that they are still grossly underrepresented in government leadership. In addition to the obvious injustice here, there are implications for efforts to end hunger and poverty. Experience worldwide shows that when women gain a larger share of political power, governments enact more policies that reduce gender inequalities and promote women’s empowerment.
Earlier this year I was in Rwanda, the only country in the world where women hold a majority of the seats in the national parliament. Sixty-three percent of Rwandan parliamentarians are women. One way countries have increased the share of women in parliament is by reserving a fixed percentage of seats for women. These countries include Rwanda, which reserves 30 percent of seats for women. But in the last three election cycles, women’s share of parliamentary seats has increased from 49 percent to 56 percent to 63 percent. Clearly, it’s more than the reservation policy that has brought a majority female parliament to Rwanda.
I went to Rwanda because I wanted to see the effects on policy development of having a majority of women in parliament, and I guess I wanted also to test my own assumptions about women’s leadership. I tend to think that the fastest way to reduce gender inequality and promote women’s empowerment is to elect more women to office. I’m all for improving women’s ability to participate in the economy and increasing enrollment rates of girls in school, but those are part of the longer-term strategy. A reservation policy allows a society to put gender equity on the fast track by giving a jolt to the status quo.
Having a female parliamentary majority has made Rwanda a more equitable society. For example, all proposed legislation is reviewed to determine whether it perpetuates or reduces gender bias. No piece of legislation that moves through parliament escapes this scrutiny. That’s the kind of jolt I’m talking about.
In the 2015 Bread for the World Institute Hunger Report, When Women Flourish…We Can End Hunger, we recommend that all U.S. development assistance include similar gender analysis – aimed at ensuring that policies and programs do not perpetuate gender inequalities or discriminate against women and girls. In practice, this would mean, for instance, that agricultural development assistance must serve female and male farmers equitably.
A major change like this might even produce a great enough seismic effect to affect how the U.S. government conducts domestic policy. Here in the United States, women hold less than 20 percent of seats in Congress. In the 1970s, when Congress was debating the Equal Rights Amendment, policymakers considered congressional reservations as a way of giving women more political voice. This was not the sole reason the ERA failed to gain ratification, but an association with the ERA may be one reason we scarcely ever hear members of Congress -- including women -- talk about political reservations as a strategy to increase the share of women in Congress.
It is difficult to imagine what the impact on legislation of a female majority in Congress would be. Perhaps there would be no difference at all, although I doubt it. There is too much room for improvement. Just one example: the United States remains the only developed country in the world that does not offer paid maternity leave. I suspect that would change if there were a majority of women in Congress.
Posted by todd post on November 20, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, U.S. Hunger | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Gender equality may be one of those things that we will all recognize when we finally see it. Until then, though, we need to have data that show whether or not there’s been progress. In fact, gender equality is a perfect illustration of why it’s so important to collect data on development outcomes in general. But what indicators are most relevant to measuring progress on gender equality? Inequality manifests in so many forms that a group of indicators, not just one or two, is most likely to show what’s really happening.
UN Women has identified 52 separate indicators as essential to telling the story of women’s empowerment. They range from the most obvious -- such as reductions in gender-based violence -- to some that might not be as obvious on first glance. For example, the number of female police officers or judges in a country says a great deal about whether women feel they have the support of law enforcement or the courts when bringing charges against perpetrators of gender-based violence.
For the 2015 Hunger Report, When Women Flourish…We Can End Hunger, we decided on an unorthodox approach to using the 52 indicators. Instead of looking at the data presented, we looked for the data that is missing. Why? Because most developing countries, in virtually every part of the globe, have not collected much data at all on topics that are vital to gender equality. The amount of missing data is simply staggering: low-income countries are missing 78.5 percent of the data since 1990 on these 52 indicators.
Data can be used to tell a powerful story about almost anything, provided the storyteller has enough to work with. The lack of data is itself an outrageous story: we can have little or no understanding of how hundreds of millions of women in the developing world are faring because no one has been tracking the indicators that would give this information to governments, communities, and the entire global community.
We needed to figure out how to show what isn’t there. With the help of an incredibly talented group of volunteers, we came up with a compelling interactive visualization that will be available on the Hunger Report website on November 24.
This image is a snapshot of the online tool we’ve created to illustrate how much data on women are missing. If all the data were available, the woman’s photo above would be entirely visible. This example is for sub-Saharan Africa. The interactive tool will allow users to do the same for all developing regions, seeing how countries compare with one another in how much data they are collecting.
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.