Developing strategies to end hunger
 

129 posts categorized "U.S. Hunger"

Raising the Minimum Wage Can Help When Work Ends

We’ve talked before about how workers can benefit from an increased minimum wage, but the advantages continue even after health problems keep people from employment.  A higher minimum wage allows people to pay more into the Social Security system, therefore qualifying for increased disability and retirement benefits. 

Poster describing Social Security
1956 poster (via SSA.gov)

We can compare the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to what would happen if Congress passed the minimum wage bill it’s currently considering.  To make the numbers simple, assume that any wage changes would occur on January 1 each year.  The minimum wage would be $8.20 an hour in 2016, $9.15 an hour in 2017, and $10.10 in 2018.  After that, it would increase based on the Consumer Price Index; let’s assume an increase of 2.76%, which was the average increase over the past 25 years (1989-2013).  After rounding to the nearest nickel as the law dictates, that would be $10.40 in 2019, $10.70 in 2020, and $11 in 2021.

What would this really mean for someone who becomes disabled? Imagine a woman named Anne.  She started a minimum wage job on her 19th birthday, which was January 1, 2014, and works an average of 30 hours a week.  That’s not uncommon; in 2013, there were over 1.6 million people aged 16-24 in minimum wage jobs.

By the end of 2021, Anne would earn a total of $25,038 more if the minimum wage were increased as described above than she would if her salary stayed at $7.25 an hour.  From this additional income, she would contribute $1552 more than she otherwise would have into Social Security’s disability and retirement insurance system, if the withholding rate for those programs stays at its current level of 6.2%.

That extra investment in Social Security could pay off for Anne.  At the end of December 2021, Anne experiences a severe health problem that keeps her from working, she will qualify for higher Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits.  Nobody likes to think about becoming too sick to work, but over 224,000 people aged 30 and under get SSDI; some of the most common reasons include injuries, mental illness, intellectual disabilities, and neurological disorders like epilepsy.  Experiencing medical problems is challenging enough without adding hunger and extreme poverty to the equation.

Using the detailed Social Security benefits calculator we can see what a difference a change in the minimum wage would make to Anne.  If the minimum wage increased as described above, she’d receive $1091 a month in disability benefits in 2022.  If the minimum wage stays at $7.25 an hour, she’d get just $1010 a month.  It might not sound like a big difference, and it will be a challenge to live on either amount in 2022, but raising the minimum wage will increase Anne’s disability benefits by more than 8%.  From the time Anne starts receiving SSDI (there is a five-month wait after becoming disabled) to the end of 2027, assuming annual cost-of-living adjustments of 2.76%, raising the minimum wage would provide her an extra $5859.  That’s money for housing, for transportation to the doctor’s office, for retraining in a new career.  It could be money for food. 

Raising the minimum wage would help people like Anne while she works, and also allows them to pay more money into the Social Security system.  This helps strengthen the system for current retirees and people with disabilities, and provides a stronger safety net if their working lives do end.

Stacy Cloyd

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Minimum Wage: Two Sides of the Same Coin

What can $1247 a month buy you?  Imagine paying for housing, food, utilities, transportation, and other essentials on that amount, which is full-time work at the federal minimum wage.  Factor in little things that can bust a tight budget: a Christmas present for your mom, an occasional haircut, some tissues and medicine when you get a bad cold.  Could you afford to put aside anything for a medical emergency, a car repair, or retirement? Would you feel motivated and prepared to go back to school, or to get married and start a family?

coins falling into a person's cupped hands
Illustration by taxcredits.net

In this situation, don’t count on public benefits.  A single, childless person with this income would earn $2 too much for SNAP benefits and be $52 a month over income for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  In many states, this minimum wage worker would also fall into a coverage gap, earning too much for Medicaid and not enough to receive a subsidy for private medical insurance. 

There are two big ways to help low-wage workers in this situation: raise the minimum wage, or expand the EITC.  They each have pros and cons, but the good news is we don’t have to choose. 

The EITC arrives once a year.  A lump sum can help pay off debt or create savings accounts for retirement or emergencies, but if it’s November and your car breaks down or your day care bill is due, it doesn’t do much good to have a bunch of money heading your way in April.  Researchers have studied the best way to have EITC payments arrive throughout the year and various forms of this “periodic EITC” are part of Rep. Paul Ryan’s and Sen. Marco Rubio’s anti-poverty plans, but this could be a lot more complicated, inaccurate, and burdensome for employers to calculate than a simple change in the minimum wage would be.

Another difference is while everyone earning the minimum wage would benefit from its increase (so would  many of those earning slightly more, who would get raises to keep their salaries above less senior workers) the EITC is highly targeted.  It’s more generous to married couples and people with children, it is only available to people aged 25-64.  Also, you have to file a tax return to get it.  This might be a good way to encourage people to file tax returns, which helps the government keep track of people’s earnings so they get the right amount of Social Security benefits later on.  The EITC also rewards people who get married and helps ease the financial burden of having kids; that’s good for them but not for younger, older, or childless workers.  There’s bipartisan support for expanding the program, but disagreement on how to pay for that. 

“How to pay for that” is the final difference between raising the minimum wage and expanding the EITC—but it’s not as big a difference as some might think.  Wages are paid by employers, some of whom may cut their profits or raise their prices if they are required to pay their workers more.  This means shareholders and consumers ultimately pay the price.  The EITC is paid by the government, from taxes and other revenues.  Either way, the costs get spread around quite widely.  So does the cost of inaction, of keeping wages and tax subsidies low.  When full-time workers qualify for SNAP or go to the emergency room without insurance, the public pays.

The EITC and the minimum wage are not opponents; they are two roads to the same place.  If the minimum wage goes up, fewer people will need the EITC.  And by increasing the number of people served by the EITC and the benefit they receive from it, we can help people attain the stability they need to train and apply for higher-wage jobs.  The minimum wage and the EITC are different, but they can both make a big difference.

Stacy Cloyd

What are Block Grants? Can They Help End Poverty?

Block grants are big news these days, since they form the centerpiece of Rep. Paul Ryan’s anti-poverty proposal. The plan suggests taking all the money the federal government currently spends on 11 different programs for low-income people (including SNAP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and several housing programs) and giving it directly to the states in the form of “Opportunity Grants.” 

Girl holding toy blocks
Photo by Miki Yoshihito

That’s all a block grant is: money given straight from the federal government to the states with a fair amount of leeway to use as they see fit.  In the Ryan plan, states would have to demonstrate that they actually used the money to help poor people, and they would have to follow several other guidelines, but they could each create their own anti-poverty programs.

Block grants have pros and cons. Some of the disadvantages cannot be avoided, while others can be mitigated by careful design and implementation of the grants. Here are three broad ideas about block grants in general and the proposed Opportunity Grants in particular:

They need enough funding. Imagine that you’ve been offered a job getting all the kids in your neighborhood to school. Your new boss says, “You get a choice in how you’re paid. Would you like $1,000 a month, or the cost of a bus pass for each kid?” Those are, respectively, a block grant and an entitlement program. You can see that in some situations, the flat amount might be great -- if transportation is cheap and there are only a few kids in the neighborhood, for example. But what if the bus company raises fares or dozens of new kids move into town? 

The same situations can arise with block grants for anti-poverty programs. When there’s a natural disaster, a recession, or inflation, there’s no additional money to respond. In policy terms, that means that block grants are not “countercyclical”: they don’t work to counter changes in economic cycles. Making block grants more responsive to dire circumstances and emergencies requires setting money aside in a contingency fund—and, of course, that money needs to come from somewhere. 

Also, let’s say you choose the flat rate, and you don’t get a raise for a decade or two. Worse yet, your boss shows up and says, “Next year, we’ve budgeted $850 a month instead of $1,000.”  That’s what has happened to many federal block grant programs — their budgets are cut and/or they fail to keep up with inflation.

What if $1,000 didn’t meet the costs of getting all the kids to school in the first place? This is the situation for some of the federal programs that would be folded into an Opportunity Grant: they are already insufficient to meet current needs. SNAP doesn’t last the whole month, TANF only serves a fraction of poor families, and there are long waitlists for other types of assistance (New York City alone has nearly a quarter-million residents on the waitlist for public housing). Keeping the same level of funding is better than making cuts, but it does not solve problems that are there at the outset.

States are not magicians. Giving states money and hoping they have better ideas than the federal government about how to use it may or may not be a good idea, depending on the state and the situation. But it is certain that block grants aren’t a panacea for poverty.  They don’t do anything specific to get community groups more involved. Paul Ryan’s plan refers to the wonderful work of Catholic Charities and other groups, but the reality is that such organizations are already receiving a significant amount of federal funding. States will need oversight to make sure they use their money well. And what happens when a state chooses to focus assistance on people it deems “deserving,” leaving others hungry and destitute?

As our recent experience with  Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act shows, allowing states to set up their own systems can create a confusing patchwork of programs, and some states might even choose to reject the money altogether. States already get a fair amount of leeway in how they administer programs; here, for example, are the state options for SNAP. By creating a menu of possibilities for states to choose from, the federal government is able to evaluate what works—and to expand the best practices nationwide.

One of these things is not like the other.  Some of the programs that Paul Ryan wants to fold into the Opportunity Grant are already block grants – for example, the Community Development Block Grant. Other programs focus on particular groups of people or provide very specific forms of assistance. Rep. Ryan says his goal is to allow states maximum flexibility, so that families who need child care but not rental assistance—or vice versa—can be better served.  But one thing absolutely everyone, rich or poor, needs to do is eat.  As Bread for the World has pointed out, block-granting SNAP would make it harder for the program to handle spikes in need. And people can wait longer for almost anything else than for food.

Another reason that including SNAP in an Opportunity Grant is a bad idea: it would enable states to cut off people’s nutrition assistance more easily. This includes children, who are 44.5% of all SNAP participants but have no role in setting or meeting their families’ goals. States would also be allowed to use block- grant funds for things other than nutrition assistance. While transportation passes and job training are wonderful, they can’t replace food. 

 Bread for the World has welcomed Paul Ryan’s proposal, calling it “an important contribution to a serious bipartisan dialogue about ending hunger and poverty.” But it’s far from perfect, especially in its Opportunity Grants provisions. Block grants aren’t a new idea, and they aren’t an inherently good or bad idea. Whether they are effective in reducing poverty depends on how they are funded and structured, on how states use them, and on whether they are accompanied by policies that create more jobs and ensure that those jobs pay a decent wage. Any legislation that comes from Rep. Ryan’s plan would need to be carefully crafted to take advantage of the benefits of block grants while avoiding their many problems.

Stacy Cloyd

Stretching SNAP to Give Families More Nutrients

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP (known as food stamps until 2008), is the country’s first line of defense against hunger. Anyone who meets the eligibility requirements is able to participate. This legal “entitlement” – meaning that the program expands to serve all those eligible – explains why, when unemployment and poverty rates soared during the Great Recession, hunger rates did not rise dramatically.

So there’s no doubt that SNAP helps tens of millions of Americans afford groceries in tough economic times. Poverty does not automatically mean hunger in our country, because SNAP is a reliable safety net. In recent years, Bread for the World members have been spending significant time and energy defending SNAP from policy changes that increase hunger – largely successfully.  Recently on Institute Notes, we explained how states can grow their economies by using a SNAP policy option called Heat and Eat, even as the 2014 farm bill made it more expensive for them to do so.

But in the midst of our focus on playing defense, it is important to remember that improvements in SNAP would serve its participants better. The fact is, even the max baby being fed with a spoonimum monthly SNAP benefit is often not enough for a family to afford sufficient amounts of healthy food.

Here are two ways to help ensure that all SNAP participants can afford a healthy diet.

First, USDA could more accurately consider the burden of the high housing costs borne by many low-income people. The USDA formula allows households that would otherwise get less than the maximum benefit to get more SNAP benefits when they have “excess” housing and utility expenses. But these expenses are only considered “excess” when they are greater than 50 percent of a household’s net income, even though the federal government has long recognized that housing is only affordable when it costs less than 30 percent of income. It would be better to start SNAP’s excess shelter cost deduction when a household is paying more than 30 percent of its net income for housing, instead of the current 50 percent. In addition, all households could be allowed to deduct their full utility and excess housing expenses; there is currently a cap that applies to households without elderly or disabled members. 

For example, let’s consider a parent and child living in Washington, DC. This family is lucky: DC’s minimum wage just went up to $9.50 an hour, so a full-time minimum-wage job would pay about $1,634 a month. Let’s say they’re luckier still— they have no child care expenses and no disabilities, and they are able to find an apartment for $735 a month (that’s 45 percent of their gross income, but still far less than the Fair Market Rent for a one-bedroom apartment in DC).  Such a family would qualify for $138 a month in SNAP benefits, well under the two-person maximum of $347 a month. But if SNAP rules changed to consider the full impact of the family’s high housing costs, this parent and child would receive more than $50 in additional SNAP benefits every month. 

A second idea: SNAP benefit levels could be based on the USDA Low-Cost Food Plan, instead of the more restrictive Thrifty Food Plan. The Thrifty Food Plan was designed for short-term emergency use, as the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) notes, and SNAP is generally the only place where the government uses it as a basis for people’s longer-term diets. Basing benefits on the Low-Cost Food Plan would give households more money, enabling SNAP benefits to be stretched to cover the full month and enabling people to purchase  healthier foods, which are often more expensive.

SNAP’s Heat and Eat provision is an important part of the nation’s nutrition safety net, but there is more that states and the federal government can do to make SNAP as effective as possible in allowing everyone to afford a healthy diet. Making these two policy changes would be a good start.

Stacy Cloyd

A Shameful Anniversary: Five Years, No Minimum Wage Increase

The Minimum Wage Leaves Families in Poverty
This Thursday is the five-year anniversary of the last time Congress raised the federal minimum wage. Despite growing worker productivity and ever-rising living costs, the minimum wage has been immobile at $7.25 an hour since July 2009. If the minimum wage had kept up with U.S. productivity growth since 1950, it would be $18.67 today.

Minimum wage workers and their families know that $7.25 an hour means life is little more than a daily struggle just to survive. A full-time, year-round minimum wage worker earns only $15,080 annually. This is well below the poverty line for a family of four ($23,850 in 2014), and only a fraction of what an American family of four actually needs to support even a modest standard of living (see the graphic above). Monthly costs for family of 4 in Topeka, Kansas

It’s simply not possible for one or even two adults working full-time for minimum wage to provide for their families’ basic needs. The graphic to the right provides a breakdown of what the Economic Policy Institute has calculated a worker living in a part of the country with average living costs (Topeka, Kansas in this example) needs to sustain a secure living for a family of four. 

In 2012, 10 million full-time workers in our country were paid poverty-level wages -- 28 percent of all full-time workers. Low-wage workers and their families are, by and large, the face of American poverty. If these 10 million workers had earned enough to put them over the poverty line – that is, the $23,850 figure, not the $63,364 to meet basic needs – there would have been 58 percent fewer families living in poverty.

Every American who works 40 hours each week should earn enough to keep her or his family out of poverty. There have been times in U.S. history when that principle was upheld. This week’s anniversary is nothing to celebrate. Instead, it reminds us once again that the time to resume honoring our country’s values of fairness and the work ethic is long ov
erdue.

Some Americans are raising awareness for the five-year anniversary by taking the Live the Wage Challenge--attempting to live on a minimum wage income for just one week. After housing costs and taxes, that's just $77 per week. You can read stories and find instructions for how to take the challenge at livethewage.com

Read the 2014 Hunger Report to learn more about the key role of the minimum wage in ending hunger in America. Also, check out Todd Post’s reflection on minimum wage myths and realities. Derek Schwabe

Visiting the Heartland's Hunger-Fighters

woman holding Bread for the World t-shirt and smiling
Women's Fund of Omaha Executive Director Michelle Zych shows support for Bread

In late June I traveled to Omaha, Nebraska, to do interviews and site visits for the 2015 Hunger Report.  The most direct reason for choosing Omaha was so that I could attend a session of Ready to Run, a nationwide bipartisan campaign training program for women. The training was fantastic—dozens of women from various parts of the state and of different political orientations, all of whom care deeply about our government and believe in political engagement as a way of getting things done. There were state legislators, school board members, political consultants, press secretaries, and women who weren’t necessarily planning to run for office soon but were becoming more educated about the political process.  They will be campaign managers, donors, voters, and recruiters of candidates—all critical members of the political process. 

But Ready to Run wasn’t the only great part of the trip. I met with women—and a couple of men!—who work at the Women’s Fund of Omaha (which organizes Nebraska’s Ready to Run program), Coalition for a Strong Nebraska, Heartland Workers Center, Hunger-Free Heartland, OneWorld Community Health Centers, and RedBasket.  All are amazing organizations navigating their own political engagement while encouraging others to take action in their communities. Whether I was talking to a kid enjoying lunch from a mobile summer feeding truck, a member of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, or a doctor who treats low-income patients, they all had ideas and experiences related to hunger and poverty—and how the federal government, with the help and involvement of states and localities, nonprofit groups, and motivated individuals—can help create a world where everyone has enough good food to eat.

I’m looking forward to the 2015 Hunger Report so we can tell lots of stories like the ones I gathered in Omaha, from the United States and around the world, about women’s ideas, energy, and efforts to create change. Women are becoming more empowered in government and every other facet of life, and that makes a big difference in the struggle to end hunger and poverty.

Stacy Cloyd

Heat and Eat: Lighting a Fire Under State Economies

Would you spend a dollar if you knew you’d get almost $23 in return?  That’s the question facing states because of the February 2014 farm bill, which changed the rules of a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) policy called Heat and Eat. 

older man pays for groceries using a keypad
Don't make him choose between these groceries and his heating bill (photo: USDA)

Here’s how Heat and Eat works: utility costs are one of the factors used to determine how much SNAP a household is entitled to. States have a choice between using their participating households’ actual utility costs, or applying standard utility allowances (SUAs). Most states have opted for SUAs, which vary depending on which utility bills a household pays. Households that receive state assistance to help pay their utility bills automatically get the highest SUA available.  Sixteen states and the District of Columbia gave at least $1 in utility assistance to every household participating in SNAP. This cut states’ administrative expenses, since they didn’t need to verify individual household utility bills, and increased the benefits some households received.   

Under the new farm bill, however, households only qualify for the highest SUA if they get at least $20 a year in state utility assistance. This meant that some households would face cuts to their SNAP benefits unless their states gave them additional utility assistance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the benefits of 850,000 households would be reduced by an average of $90 a month. But they didn’t break these numbers down by state. We apportioned those 850,000 households according to state-level Congressional Research Service data on how many households got the highest SUA because of energy assistance. (Remember, some households can qualify for the highest SUA by submitting their utility bills). We then adjusted the results to reflect more current data (December 2013) than SNAP caseloads from the year the Congressional Research Service used.

State

Affected households (estimate)

California

22,288

Connecticut

22,381

Delaware

1,989

District of Columbia

5,475

Maine

11,331

Massachusetts

44,984

Michigan

118,541

Montana

2,642

New Hampshire

6,971

New Jersey

77,616

New York

192,679

Oregon

16,450

Pennsylvania

140,280

Rhode Island

13,273

Vermont

6,178

Washington

91,388

Wisconsin

75,534

 To maintain Heat and Eat under the 2014 farm bill, some states will have to pay more per household than others. It depends on whether they give $20 in utility assistance to all households (thus simplifying the application and recertification process) or if they only give $20 to households that cannot otherwise prove that they qualify for the highest level of SUA. Changes in SNAP caseloads and the administrative costs of changing state SNAP policies will also affect costs, of course.

Our calculations show that the weighted average cost per household would be $69.76 a year, based on the costs announced by state leaders and the number of households we estimate would continue to receive help with their utility bills. This comes out to a $59.3 million cost for states to increase support to each of the estimated 850,000 households affected. But the CBO estimates that such an investment would maintain $800 million in SNAP benefits. Thus, for every dollar a state spends, it will receive $13.49 in federal SNAP benefits for its low-income families. The real impact is even better: because every dollar of SNAP generates about $1.70 of economic activity (one reason is that these funds are used right away in the local area), every dollar a state spends brings a return of $22.93! 

It’s not surprising that with this rate of return, leaders of several states and the District of Columbia announced plans to provide additional utility assistance to prevent cuts in benefits. (Not all have been passed by state legislatures yet). Below, we’ve created a downloadable table of states and their Heat and Eat plans. 

Download Heat and Eat Table

Even though paying for additional utility assistance is a good investment for states, it would be better if all households—regardless of the status of Heat and Eat policies or whether states choose to offer the program—received enough SNAP benefits to afford a healthy diet. 

Stacy Cloyd

Bright(er) Beginnings for America’s Homeless Children

Together with Hunger Report senior editor Todd Post, I recently visited Bright Beginnings, a childcare center for homeless families in Washington, DC. Our goal was to learn about how Bright Beginnings supports poor families as they strive for economic stability and about how federal government programs such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), WIC, and Head Start help make that possible. 

woman in the produce section of grocery store
Photo: Todd Post for Bread for the World

Our visit started in Bright Beginnings’ class for 3- and 4-year-olds, which receives educational funds from both the federal and District of Columbia governments. After some singing and dancing time, we watched as the children washed their hands and served themselves a family-style CACFP-funded lunch of fish sticks, coleslaw (“I found a carrot in my salad!” one girl exclaimed happily), whole-wheat bread, sliced apples, and milk. After more hand-washing, tooth-brushing, and plenty of soothing music, the children were tucked in for naps and we moved on to talk with some grownups. We met with several members of Bright Beginnings’ administrative staff and later accompanied a group of parents from Bright Beginnings’ WIC club on an educational shopping trip to a local supermarket. 

Our experiences will help inform the Institute’s 2015 Hunger Report, which focuses on women’s empowerment as a necessity to end hunger and poverty. Access to high-quality affordable child care is critical for parents—especially mothers—who want to enter or stay in the workforce while their kids are young. Bright Beginnings will also help us with our work on U.S. federal child nutrition programs, many of which will be reauthorized in 2015.

I’m excited for you to hear more about Bright Beginnings. It’s an organization that provides a tremendous level of services to families facing a lot of obstacles. It’s also an example of how nonprofit organizations can accomplish a great deal—but they work a lot better and can reach a lot more people when they participate in well-designed and well-funded government programs.

Stacy Cloyd

Data to End Hunger: Hacking for Women’s Empowerment

Data Do-Gooders Heading Photo

Bread for the World Institute is excited to announce our first live HelpMeViz Hunger Report hackathon event. On Saturday, June 28, the Institute, in partnership with the website HelpMeViz, will bring together coders, data scientists, and data visualizers in Washington, DC, as we tackle two data visualization challenges for our upcoming 2015 Hunger Report. The report, currently being drafted, explores why women’s empowerment is essential to ending global hunger. We hope to feature the visualizations developed at the event in the report, either in print or online at hungerreport.org.

HelpMeViz is a website open to anyone who is searching for feedback on visualization designs, from seasoned designers and data visualization specialists to individuals seeking to improve their graphic displays.  It offers an online community where all types of visualizations are welcome, including simple bar or single-line charts, full-blown infographics, and interactive visualizations.

Here are the visualization challenges that we will tackle:

Exposing Gaps in Data on Women’s Empowerment

Over the past few decades, we have learned a lot about the marginalization of women around the world and its costs to human development. Data authorities such as the World Bank and the United Nations have set out to develop holistic ways of measuring women’s empowerment and gender equality across countries, defining a minimum set of 52 indicators for doing so. But even the most advanced women’s empowerment indexes available today still miss critical elements of what it means for women to be empowered in the developing world. Far too many of the indicators that compose women’s empowerment indexes depend on largely unreliable, old, or inconsistent data for far too many countries. This significantly compromises the accuracy and integrity of the index and makes it much less reliable for policy makers who base decisions on it.

In our upcoming 2015 Hunger Report, Bread for the World Institute will identify key missing data in current women’s empowerment indexes and explain why better data are essential to continued progress. We’ll need help from hackathon volunteers to visualize where those gaping holes in the data lie.  

Women’s Empowerment and Stunting

Childhood stunting (far below average height for one’s age) is a condition that indicates long-term malnutrition. It currently affects one in four of the world's children. When a child is stunted, she is prevented from growing, learning, and later earning to her full potential. As we begin to explore years of data on women's empowerment from the World Bank and United Nations, we want to ask the question: Do countries that significantly improve the status of women also eventually see lower rates of stunting? Research from countries around the world has shown that when women are empowered to earn more and have a greater say in home finances, they are more likely than men to invest additional income in promoting the welfare of their children -- through nutritious food, for example. Are there data that support a relationship between women’s empowerment and improvements in stunting?

HelpMeViz Hunger Report Hackaton

Up to 25 guests will be invited to the HelpMeViz Hunger Report Hackathon. We will provide participants with the datasets, work space at Bread for the World’s offices, and breakfast and lunch during the event. Participants will also receive a printed copy of the 2015 Hunger Report when it is released, and an invitation to the report’s launch at the National Press Club in November, 2014.

The event will be blogged live on HelpMeViz. We hope that interested people all over the world will want to lend their voices and skills to these challenges. Data will be made available when the event begins, and visualizations, conversations, and comments will be posted to the site in real time.

If you would like to attend the event in Washington, DC, email HelpMeViz with a short paragraph that describes your interest and your skillset (statistics, programming, design, etc.) with the phrase “Bread for the World” in the subject line.

You can check out the most recent 2014 Hunger Report, complete with interactive stories and data, infographics, and featured stories online at hungerreport.org. Derek Schwabe

Highlights: “Hunger in the Age of Climate Change”

Bill Hohenstein and Katharine Hayhoe listen to Lewis Ziska's presentation
Photo: Joe Molieri/Bread for the World

The cost, availability, and nutritional content of foods are factors that affect hungry and poor people more than anyone else – and climate change is already changing these for the worse. That was the message of a May 14 panel hosted by Bread for the World Institute and the Alliance to End Hunger.

As we said earlier this month in Institute Notes, the new National Climate Assessment details the impacts of climate change in the United States. 

At the panel discussion, one of the report’s lead authors, climate scientist and evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe, explained the science of climate change briefly and noted that the world’s poorest countries and people, who are already suffering the most, will continue to be most vulnerable even as climate change begins to affect everyone.

Two scientists from USDA presented their findings. William Hohenstein (whose father John was a Bread for the World board member in the 1980s!) explained that food availability, access, utilization, and stability are all challenged by rising temperatures and by more frequent droughts and other extreme weather. Lewis Ziska described how rising C02 levels could lead to more food spoilage and contamination; for example, he said, pesticides could become less effective. However, both scientists expressed some hope for the future, with Hohenstein describing new agricultural technologies and Ziska emphasizing the potential benefits of better educating and empowering women and girls (the focus of the Institute’s next Hunger Report, to be released in November 2014). 

Sam Myers of Harvard University discussed his research team’s findings that many crops have less protein, zinc, and iron when they are grown in air with higher CO2 concentrations. This may mean that as CO2 rises in Earth’s atmosphere, people will need different amounts and types of food to maintain good health. Finally, Margaret Wilder of the University of Arizona described her work discussing climate change with low-income people in Arizona. Climate change is already making life harder for many Americans struggling to pay higher utility bills, facing a greater risk of asthma and heat-related illness, and noticing that farmers are donating less of their surplus crops to food pantries. As one person interviewed put it, “If it's a matter of feeding my kids and my health, then climate becomes a real issue instead of being an abstract, out-there concept.”

 You can listen to the whole discussion and see the slides online here. Bread for the World continues to work to draw attention to the disproportionate effect of climate change on hungry and poor people. This very well-attended event is a gauge of advocates’ increasing awareness that as the global community seeks ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change, we must ensure that the special needs of developing countries and low-income Americans are kept high on the agenda.

 

Stacy Cloyd

Stay Connected

Bread for the World