Interview with Anna Lappe for the Goldman School of Public Policy's journal, Policy Matters.
will byers stan first human second
Game of Thrones Daily
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
cherry valley forever
Show & Tell

Kiana Khansmith
Cosimo Galluzzi
hello vonnie

Janaina Medeiros
Keni

tannertan36
wallacepolsom
KIROKAZE

JBB: An Artblog!

Love Begins

blake kathryn

titsay

Kaledo Art
RMH
trying on a metaphor

seen from Malaysia
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
@mirandaeveritt-blog
Interview with Anna Lappe for the Goldman School of Public Policy's journal, Policy Matters.
[BLOG] This hamburger is brought to you by the cycle of poverty
This blog post originally appeared in Civil Eats on Nov. 28, 2013. It was co-written with Nora Gilbert and William Haar. “Please donate food items here so Associates in Need can enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner.” That’s the text of a sign hanging over a bin at a Walmart in Canton, Ohio. A photo of the food drive surfaced earlier this month, sparking new attention to the connection between hunger and working conditions in America. This comes close on the heels of revelations that McDonald’s “McResource” help line is encouraging employees to meet basic needs by visiting food pantries, applying for food stamps and enrolling in Medicaid. Last week, activists made headlines by revealing that the McResource line advises workers to return or sell unopened holiday gifts to save money and “bring in some quick cash.” Here’s a radical thought: If you’re working, you shouldn’t have to rely on donations or returned presents to feed your family a holiday dinner. You shouldn’t need government assistance to purchase groceries or get health insurance. Employers should pay working Americans enough to give to food pantries, not collect from them. Despite the fact that the majority of households receiving food stamps include one or more working adults, pundits often decry those who receive government benefits as “takers.” Even well-meaning people sometimes think of charity beneficiaries as “misfortunate.” But misfortune implies one has fallen on hard times. Working at America’s most profitable companies isn’t supposed to be a misfortune. The truth is that these employers aren’t just creating poverty. They’re profiting from it through a complex cycle of low wages and low prices propped up by taxpayer subsidies, many then spent at the same businesses. First, companies create poverty by keeping wages low. Median pay at McDonald’s for front-line workers is $8.69 an hour. Walmart, the country’s largest private employer, pays an average of $8.81 an hour (despite the fact that this family-owned company took home $17 billion in profit last year). Their sheer size forces others in the industry to cut costs to remain competitive, often by lowering wages. Next, the companies make tremendous profits targeting products to low-wage workers. The Dollar Menu and Walmart’s “Always Low Prices” become immensely attractive on a poverty budget. The bitter irony is that the only way these companies can remain enormously profitable selling products that underpaid workers can afford is by underpaying their own workers. Instead, taxpayers and charities step in to fill the gap between wages and the cost of living. This unsustainable system’s cost to the taxpayer is profound. Experts estimate that nearly 90 percent of fast-food employees work without benefits. While 25 percent of the American workforce is enrolled in one or more public assistance programs, the number is twice as high for the families of front-line fast-food workers. This translates into an annual billion dollars in food stamp benefits and $1.9 billion in Earned Income Tax Credits for employees (EITC is chiefly targeted at families with children, upending the common misconception that fast food workers are teenagers working for pocket money). In effect, the safety net is a subsidy for companies that refuse to provide benefits or a living wage. Yet the exploitation of poverty does not end there. That same safety net is big business for these companies. While exact data on food stamp use is unavailable to researchers and the public, a report by public interest lawyer Michele Simon found that Walmart is a major beneficiary of the program. Half of Oklahomans’ food stamp benefits are spent at Walmart. Just nine Walmart Supercenters in Massachusetts receive four times as much cash from food stamps as every farmers market in the country combined. America’s food giants are exploiting their workers, taxpayers, and charities. And it’s not because they have no other choice. Compare Walmart’s $8.81 average hourly wage to companies like Costco, where the average worker makes $21.96 an hour. Costco’s commitment to good wages and benefits hasn’t hurt their bottom line; earlier this year, they reported a 19 percent increase in profits, while boasting higher revenues and profits per employee than Walmart. If companies like Walmart and McDonald’s won’t do the right thing, we must step up and demand reform. President Obama recently indicated his support for boosting the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. States and municipalities have already moved ahead. California just raised its minimum wage to $10 an hour, the highest of the 50 states. SeaTac, Washington, voted to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour. Momentum is building. Remember the classic plea of the down-and-out? “Will work for food.” At Walmart, McDonald’s and elsewhere, millions in our community are working for less than that. The status quo is unjust and unsustainable — but together, we can change it. This holiday season, as we give thanks for food and family, let’s bring the conversation about fair wages and fair food to our own dinner tables. Let’s stand with the workers striking to demand better labor conditions on Black Friday, and with the workers across the food chain fighting for fair wages every day. The time to act is now.
[BLOG] Sugary cereals get free speech, too
This blog post originally appeared in PMJ Wire on Oct. 31, 2013. It was coauthored with Suzanne Merkelson. On Oct. 17, UC Berkeley’s Grad Food group hosted public-interest lawyers Michele Simon and Ted Mermin, who spoke about the First Amendment. Simon and Mermin opened their discussion with a single question: Why should people who care about food care about the First Amendment? Because the companies who create food products engage in a significant amount of advertising to get us to buy their products -- and that advertising currently is considered a constitutionally-protected form of free speech. Since the ’70s, the Supreme Court has grappled with whether “commercial speakers” are protected under the First Amendment. Activists in this realm are especially concerned about inherently misleading advertising to people who don’t know what advertising is -- that is, kids under 12. While it would seem that the First Amendment shouldn’t protect this type of fundamentally deceptive commercial speech, nobody’s really sure if that’s the case. It has remained untested in the courts. This has left a lot of regulation in the hands of industry itself, which Simon deemed a “charade.” Food manufacturers have essentially created their own guidelines, tailored to the products they try to sell to kids. Corporations historically haven’t been entitled to free speech protections -- but much of that is changing with cases such as Citizens United. “We have this precious thing -- free speech,” Mermin said. “More and more is considered speech and the level at which [corporations] can be regulated is being driven back and back and back.” He noted that today’s application of the First Amendment to corporations is reminiscent of the controversial Lochner Era of the Supreme Court a century ago, where laws that were said to infringe on economic liberties were struck down. “[The justices] are not sufficiently appalled, in my mind.” In some cases, industry has asked to be regulated at the federal level. Why? Federal laws displace state laws, which invalidate local ones, a legal hierarchy known as “preemption.” Simply by shifting the policy venue, industry actually can have a lot to gain. Grassroots movements nearly always begin at the local level, where individuals better able to identify problems and are closer to the levers of power for solutions. Local governments like San Francisco have passed laws which would have no chance in many other cities. (Requiring employers to offer health insurance, setting health standards for Happy Meals that include toys, or requiring menu labeling for calories, fat, carbohydrates and sodium for starters.) By moving to the state or federal level, those who oppose regulation move the fight geographically farther from activists (In most places, City Hall is around the corner, but DC is a plane ride away). Industry groups also have much more familiarity with and access to federal legislators and agencies than to 50 separate state legislatures or many thousands of city councils. Industries can also use preemption to their advantage by working for regulations that are “ceilings” (localities can’t be stricter) rather than “floors” (localities must be at least this strict). One case which makes these trends clear is menu labeling. The Affordable Care Act (2010) mandates that chain businesses that sell prepared or packaged food post calorie counts for each item. Of course, the devil is in the details. It has been three years and the Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue rules. Lobbyists fought hard for exemptions for a variety of reasons. Pizza parlors argued that offering topping choices make adding up calories a mess. (A coalition of pizza chains claims there are 34 million pie permutations). Movie theaters, airlines and bowling alleys asked to be exempted because they don’t primarily sell food. Grocery stores said that the costs of implementation -- sending prepared food items like cut fruit out for testing and printing new labels -- would have to be passed onto consumers. Bars were exempted from labeling alcohol. All of the rules are now a ceiling -- no locality can choose to put more on menu labels than calories (which means San Francisco can no longer require restaurants to post fat, carbs and sodium information.) To some advocates, these bargains are worth it. While they lose the chance to use states and cities as “policy laboratories,” they do gain something. The looser requirements which apply in places that may have taken much longer to get on board. As regulations are chipped away and corporations gain more and more free speech protections, Mermin and Simon stressed that consumer action on food issues is especially promising. In Washington state, for example, a private lawsuit by a group of concerned parents, Moms for Labeling, prompted the state attorney general to sue the Grocery Manufacturers Association, alleging that the association of food corporations illegally raised and spent over $7 million to oppose a measure requiring labeling of genetically modified food.
[OP-ED] The season for empty plates
[OP-ED] Oh, SNAP: The real costs of food stamp cuts
This article first appeared on Civil Eats. It was co-written with colleagues Nora Gilbert and William Haar. On October 16, Congress ended the government shutdown, bringing to a close a two-week distraction from critical issues facing the country. During this period of partisan politicking, some may have forgotten about the House Republicans’ plan to gut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), often referred to as food stamps, by $39 billion over the next 10 years. The four million Americans who are set to lose their benefits certainly didn’t forget and neither should we. On top of congressional hostility, the 2009 stimulus package’s modest 5.5 percent SNAP boost will end November 1 for those who are allowed to remain on the program. That’s a loss of $11 per month for an individual and $36 for a family of four. Does this sound like a program that can stand to lose nearly $40 billion? We don’t think so either. California’s poor are hit doubly hard by poverty and hunger. Not only does California have the highest poverty rate in the country, but it ranks dead last among states when it comes to enrolling eligible families in SNAP. That means that 1.4 million households in California are missing benefits to which they are entitled and that would measurably improve their lives. This underutilization has crippling human and economic impacts. In Alameda County alone (including the city of Oakland) California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA) found an estimated annual loss of more than $180 million in benefits for residents who qualify for food assistance. Because every dollar spent on SNAP generates $1.79 in stimulative economic activity, much of it in the local economy, this costs the county more than $325 million per year. We’ll make what has become a bold claim: In a world with more than enough food for all, no one should go hungry. No drought or famine explains why 1 in 7 Americans are hungry. This is a purely political disaster. Yet some policymakers insist that SNAP offers a lavish lifestyle to the undeserving poor, despite the fact that the average daily benefit per person in California is less than $5. It’s a sad day when our leaders claim that we can’t afford to help feed the hungry, while spending billions in the same bill on insurance subsidies for well-connected corporate agriculture interests to grow corn and soy. Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, the elderly, or people with disabilities. Four out of five households that receive SNAP include someone earning a low wage (which helps many large employers get away with paying poverty wages). Who is really undeserving in this equation? The now-perennial fight over benefits distracts policymakers and advocates from innovations that could make SNAP more effective. Congress should invest in promising local initiatives, like summer benefit increases to families with children, when hungry kids no longer get school meals, or “double-up” programs, which allow SNAP dollars to go twice as far when spent on fresh fruits or vegetables. Additionally, retailers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture must release more information about where and how SNAP funds are spent, which would give researchers and advocates the tools they need to confront the relationship between hunger and obesity. Small municipalities should be given the latitude to pilot programs that limit SNAP spending on sodas so we can better understand how such changes impact health and enrollment rates. Rather than booting hungry people off SNAP, we should be working to ensure that all those who are eligible for assistance can get it. States like California create their own rules, which can in turn make getting help more difficult than it should be. State and local lawmakers must act to ensure that all Californians have a genuine opportunity to receive the food assistance for which they are eligible. That means streamlining the enrollment process and harnessing technology to link participation in other assistance programs like MediCal to SNAP enrollment. We hear over and again that budgets mean tough choices. Through our work in communities, we know tough choices are already distressingly common for the most vulnerable among us. An elderly person chooses to make a can of chicken soup stretch for three days so she can afford a pair of eyeglasses. A mother chooses to tell her children, “I’m just not hungry tonight,” so that they will eat. Even an $11 cut means those tough choices multiply, with lasting effects on their health and on our community. Imagine that times $39 billion. Or, we can imagine something better. Children who aren’t hungry perform better in school, get sick less often, and are at lower risk for unhealthy weight. SNAP makes that possible. SNAP means our community doesn’t feel the pain of an empty stomach. We can make a better choice, one that multiplies immediately for our neighbors, our economy, and our future.
[BLOG] Changing labor-law incentives to protect undocumented workers
[BLOG] Tweaking Obamacare to make 'bad jobs' better
This post originally appeared in PMJ Wire, the blog of Goldman School of Public Policy's policy journal.
[OP-ED] Record clear: State and nation surrendered War on Poverty
This op-ed first appeared in the Oakland Tribune on July 10, 2013, signed by the executive director of Alameda County Community Food Bank. Here's the good news: Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed our state's budget — officially passing it on time for two years running. The bad news? It does little to address our state's most painful and embarrassing problem: mounting poverty. The Supplemental Poverty Measure — a more accurate measure of poverty rates developed by the Census Bureau — shows that California's poverty rate is 23.5 percent. That's the worst in the nation; no other state comes close. What's worse? California is responsible for almost the entire increase in the nation's poverty rate with this new measure. Some may agree with Ronald Reagan when he proclaimed that we declared war on poverty — and poverty won. But a cursory look at our budget history reveals the truth: We surrendered. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of our governor and legislators. The recession hit Californians hard — and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature passed that pain onto our most vulnerable. CalWORKS, which helps families with children, has been decimated. Today, a family of three receives an average of $460 a month — a fraction of the poverty level, and just 8 percent of California's median income. Supplemental Security Income for seniors and people with disabilities, once among the most generous because our high cost of living, is now the minimum the federal government allows. Our safety net has been shredded to the point that nearly 7 million Californians can't meet their most basic need: food. Brown has continued this trend. With two years left in his term, he has a chance to rebuild, but says we can't afford it. Meanwhile, he has refused to put revenue options on the table to balance our budget. That is the state of our state. In nearly two decades at California food banks, I've heard countless heartbreaking stories from people desperate for food. They were voices of fear and shame. But lately, the voices have taken a new tone: outrage. Outrage that a job is no guarantee against hunger. Outrage that a state boasting the 12th-largest economy in the world views meager safety net benefits as "too much." Outrage that those elected to represent their hopes and fears are failing them again and again. Make no mistake: balancing the budget with safety-net cuts is nothing more than an easy way out for legislators. Low-income children can't afford high-powered lobbyists. Clearly, our legislators don't hear the voices of those in poverty -- nearly a quarter of our state's population. That's why we need to amplify their voices. Previous legislatures and governors failed our state, but today's still have the opportunity to rebuild something we can take pride in again. Our new budget offers glimmers of hope. While basic dental care for low-income residents is a welcome first step, it's far from the comprehensive solution we need. Progressive revenue options must be part of the discussion. Fully restoring cuts to programs like CalWORKS and SSI, and improving access to nutrition for low-income would put our state back on the right path — if our legislators have the will. So let's give them the will. The ink still may be wet on this budget, but it's never too early to voice our concerns. Remember, the government works for us. Call our governor and legislators. Demand that they restore, rebuild and reinvest in our safety net.
Policy agenda for California Hunger Action Coalition's Hunger Action Day 2013, a lobby day for California anti-hunger and anti-poverty organizations and community advocates.
Alameda County Community Food Bank employee James talks about his personal connection to a bill anti-hunger advocates are lobbying for at Hunger Action Day. SB 283 would end the lifetime ban on CalFresh and CalWORKs for people who have committed drug felonies and served their time.
San Francisco Chief Adult Probation Officer Wendy Still talks about the connections between access to CalFresh/CalWORKs and successful reentry.
Alameda County Supervisor Richard Valle talks about the connections between food, health, and successful reentry.
Fact sheet with legislative priorities for Alameda County Community Food Bank shared with federal legislative staff. East and south county versions were also created.
[OP-ED] Can't let leaders ignore the needy in this manufactured crisis
This op-ed first appeared in the Oakland Tribune on Dec. 21, 2012, signed by the executive director of Alameda County Community Food Bank. As part of the budget deal in 2011, Republicans and Democrats agreed to set up a crisis -- with deep cuts to domestic programs and tax increases for nearly everyone on Dec. 31. Too many families are in crisis already. And too many more are threatened by proposed solutions. Among them: cuts to nutrition assistance for our most vulnerable. Congress has put deep cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- commonly known as "food stamps" -- on the table again and again. It's easy to see why: Children don't vote. Some people are surprised to learn that children are more vulnerable to hunger than anyone else. It's no surprise to us. In Alameda County, more than 70 percent of households receiving SNAP benefits are home to a child. Nearly 90 percent of SNAP households are home to a child, a senior or someone with a disability. And SNAP does more than any food bank like ours can do alone. A prolonged recession and cuts to our safety net have redefined our missions beyond emergency food. Too many households -- many of them working families -- rely on soup kitchens and food pantries month after month because after rent and utilities, transportation to and from work and some warm clothes for their children, there simply isn't enough left over to put a healthy meal on the table. The rapid growth of SNAP rolls tell us that there is a problem. But the problem of poverty is bigger than anything private nonprofits can solve alone. Cuts to SNAP won't make hunger go away. And our food banks, loved though they are, do not have the magic to fill another gap. This is not about "cost savings" or "fiscal responsibility." This affects real people. A construction worker, whose hours were cut down to nothing, facing a rent bill and a hungry family. A child too young to know her parents skip meals so she can eat. A senior who stretches a single can of soup for three days to afford a doctor's visit. This should be about ensuring that our neighbors -- our friends, our family, our co-workers -- have the food they need to survive and thrive. Our community simply can't afford to let our children, seniors and working families go hungry in the name of deficit reduction. Surely a country as great as ours can agree: Food should not be a luxury. Let's remind the people we elected of that.
[Q&A] A food banker explains how food banks work
This Q&A was published in personal finance site The Billfold on Dec. 10, 2012. I work for the Alameda County Community Food Bank in Oakland, California. When I tell people this, they have a lot of questions! Turns out that although many people have donated food, time, or money to a food bank, they’re not quite sure how they work. Here are some questions I hear pretty often—answered! How common is hunger in America, really? A lot more common than many people think. About 1 in 5 Americans are “food insecure,” meaning they’re not sure where their next meal will come from. Most of them are children. My county neighbors San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The cost of living here is high, but low-wage jobs don’t pay much more than they do anywhere else in the country. We hear from people who were laid off or had their hours cut, whose pension disappeared, who spent down their savings on medical bills, or who had a child or grandchild (or both) move in needing support. Their dollars are stretched, but their rent payment, utilities and transportation costs don’t shrink to match. For people without any wriggle room in their budget, food is the first place to cut back. So, if I needed food, could I come down and get some? We make it even easier than that! Food banks purchase, collect and then distribute money and food to “agencies” –food pantries, soup kitchens, senior and child care centers, etc.—that then distribute it to people in need. One of the leading causes of food insecurity is lack of access. Some people live in neighborhoods without grocery stores. Others have limited mobility or access to transportation. We make sure people can get the food they need, as close to home as possible. That said, if someone comes straight to us, they will leave with a bag of food and the address of a pantry or soup kitchen near them for next time. What are the different ways to get food assistance if you’re hungry? Which are state-sponsored versus private? Do the private ones get government money? One thing I’d love to make clear is that Food Banks aren’t government agencies—we’re private organizations that get most of our funding from individuals like you and me. That said, public and private partnerships are making real progress toward ending hunger. Government assistance programs are the first line of defense against hunger. Congress has created programs over the years to ensure a basic level of nutrition for all people (and sometimes, to deal with market failures in agriculture, which is why food stamps are a part of the Farm Bill). This safety-net has expanded to include programs for more vulnerable populations like children and seniors. It’s kind of an alphabet soup—SNAP, WIC, TEFAP—and school lunches are among the biggest and most well-known. SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as “food stamps”) is the most important. Depending on your circumstances and the rules in your state, you can get a modest amount (less than $4 per meal at its most generous) put on a debit card that you can only spend on groceries. It should be the first tool to fight hunger. With SNAP, you can shop for groceries at a time and place convenient for you, and get exactly the types of food you want. Lately, however, cuts to SNAP benefits and limits on eligibility have meant more people need to rely on food pantries and soup kitchens longer than they have in the past. My food bank has a team of 10 who help people find out if they’re eligible for SNAP and help them apply. It’s great for us, because that means people have more reliable sources of food, and we can serve more people who make just a bit too much money to qualify for food stamps, who are having a short-term emergency, and so on. In most places, you can call 2-1-1 to find out more about SNAP and emergency food. Whether or not someone qualifies for government assistance, there are also those emergency food agencies I mentioned, like food pantries and soup kitchens. At most of them, showing up to wait in line is proof that you need food—they won’t ask for income documentation or make you fill out any forms. They may ask for identification of some kind to prove that you live in the ZIP code, city or county they serve. At other agencies like after-school programs, you may have to be enrolled in the program. Calling a central helpline ahead of time is a good bet if you’re unsure; they’ll know all the rules and tell you how to prepare if you need to. I have a lot of cans of creamed corn I don’t want anymore. Where did this come from. Why do I have this. Do you want it? I can’t tell you where the creamed corn came from. Maybe you were going to make cornbread? But if you don’t want it, someone else definitely will! We will take it. Then, a volunteer will double-check the quality of the packaging and expiration date, and if it’s still good we’ll pack it in a box for a family to take home. Find a big food donation barrel —you’ll see they’re all over the place these days (especially in grocery stores)—and put them in those. But donating to a food drive should be more than a chance to clean out your pantry—it’s also a chance to consider what you’d like to receive if you ever had to visit a food pantry. Shelf-stable protein (peanut butter, canned tuna, canned chicken, and beans) are high on our most-wanted list because they’re filling and nutritious, but expensive. You can also donate all the items you’d use for one of your favorite meals; there’s a good chance someone else will appreciate it, too. One of my favorite combinations as a kid was macaroni and cheese, peas and tuna—that, along with some of the Food Bank’s fresh lettuce and carrots in a salad, would be a pretty great meal for a family we serve. Canned food drives at grocery stores—are they legit?! They are legit! I went on a ride-along with our delivery drivers once and we picked up a lot of very full barrels at grocery stores and took them straight to the Food Bank. In fact, grocery stores are one of the best places to host a food drive barrel, because people are walking around in a building that is literally stacked floor-to-ceiling with food! That means you don’t need to remember to stick a can of tuna in your purse for later—you can buy two cans while you’re shopping, keep one for yourself, and throw one in the barrel for someone else. Couldn’t be easier! Often, grocery stores will host food-drive barrels 365 days of the year, which is great for us. Although many people think of food banks during the winter months, we distribute food year-round. Why do you have those food donation barrels at all when donating money to a food bank is more cost-efficient in the long run? Food banks can typically buy more with $20 than I could with $20. That is totally true! My food bank provides $4 worth of food with every $1 donated. Monetary donations are very important because we buy 62% of the food we distribute. But we like food drives because they’re an easy way for people to get actively involved in our mission. Fact is, when you put a can in a barrel, that same exact can will be in cupboard of someone who needs it—often within a couple days. Many kids first learn about hunger and poverty through a food drive at their school. We also hear all the time about parents giving their child a lesson about hunger while in the grocery store. Food drives are also a source of variety for our clients—we may not ever purchase nori (seaweed), for example, because we need to buy staples that thousands of people need, know how to prepare, and enjoy. Many of our agencies come pick up food specifically for certain clients based on their diet, medical needs, ethnic preferences, etc. So if you put that nori in a food-drive barrel, it very likely would end up in the hands of someone who loves nori! Another reason we like the barrels: they’re billboards! Sometimes, someone will see a barrel out in the world, and even if they don’t donate rice and beans just then, they’ll look us up online later and donate money. Volunteers! Do you need them? Yes! Always. Our staff is about 80 people, but if you add up all the hours our volunteers share, that’s 34 more. So volunteers are really crucial to the work we do. They do more than sort foodthey also work on our Emergency Food Helpline, conduct nutrition trainings, stuff envelopes, and travel to Sacramento to talk to legislators about hunger and poverty. One thing I’ll note is that lots of nonprofits like ours have lots and lots of volunteers lined up in November and Decemer, but when the new year rolls around, it’s hard to find helpers. And without the hands, that means all the great food donated to us during the winter is sitting in our warehouse, where it’s not helping people. So if you’ve been thinking of giving back, take a minute to find out when your local food bank needs you most. You might be surprised! Miranda Everitt is the communications coordinator at the Alameda County Community Food Bank in Oakland, Calif. She runs their Facebook page, which you should like for near-daily photos of adorable children, happy volunteers and advocacy actions that help protect hungry families.
[OP-ED] Exie could be your neighbor. She's mine.
This op-ed was published in September 2012 in Oakland North.
I met her on a Saturday morning at Prescott-Joseph Center in West Oakland, one of the Alameda County Community Food Bank’s 275 member agencies – the soup kitchens, food pantries and other community organizations that distribute food to our clients. Exie lives nearby with her mother, who is disabled, and her 6-year-old daughter, Frances. Exie works as many hours as she can between caring for her family and taking classes at Laney College – just a few blocks from where I live. When rent, utilities, medical bills and transportation take all the money they earn, many families like Exie’s are forced to make tough choices. The only bill that can wait is groceries. To feed her mother and her child, Exie turns to the Food Bank. Increasing need, decreasing funding At the Food Bank, we haven’t seen signs of an economic recovery. In September 2008, I worked at a newspaper, where nearly every day we led with a picture of a worried trader and big, bold, fearful headlines about a dire economy. That month, the Food Bank referred 2,048 households to emergency food. Last September, it was 3,770. That was the third month in a row we set a record for calls. FY 2012 marked the first time we responded to more than 40,000 calls from people whose pantries were empty. People are lining up for food for three hours before their neighborhood pantry opens, rain or shine. More than 300 callers each month reach out to our Emergency Food Helpline for the very first time. As federal, state and local safety-net programs are slashed, the Food Bank is losing funding and commodities while more people need our help. Government funding is a relatively small part of our budget. More importantly, our most vulnerable clients are losing that government support. That means more people are turning to us, and more often. Nearly half of the households we serve have at least one working adult. The unemployment rate is in the double-digits. This doesn’t count people who work less than they want to, or who have officially given up hope after years of looking. Of course demand continues to climb. Our community has been stepping up with incredible amounts of volunteer time (equal to 34 full-time employees), food drives and donations. But there seems to be no end in sight to the tough choices many of the people we serve have to make—those who have always been our most vulnerable. What can you do? We can make a difference for the 1 in 6 people in our neighborhoods who depend on the Food Bank. We have studied the numbers, interviewed the people we serve, and created recommendations for policies that would create a culture in which hunger can be eradicated. Here’s just one example. The Food Bank is working to improve access to the CalFresh program (commonly known as food stamps), so that families can purchase healthy food of their choice. This takes strain off the Food Bank, allowing us to serve more people in need, and full enrollment could add $107 million to our local economy. After legislative visits, letter-writing and calls from our corps of anti-hunger advocates, Gov. Jerry Brown signed half a dozen bills to make feeding our community easier – eliminating costly and unnecessary fingerprinting requirements and providing tax credits to California growers who donate fresh produce. These are small steps, but so important to people for whom a healthy meal can break their budget. Together, we can do more than provide meals for people in need. We can end hunger. You and I can add our voices to those of our neighbors. Like LaTanya, who I met on the bus to Sacramento for Hunger Action Day in May. A cancer survivor and a pillar of her senior housing community, she understands the power of community “sticking together and speaking up.” Through her work with the Food Bank’s advocacy team, she’s led a rally against budget cuts, shared her story with legislators in Sacramento, and educated and inspired her neighbors to be forceful advocates for change. “I used to be hungry and homeless,” LaTanya told me. “I am an advocate so that no one else will have to go through what I’ve been through.” LaTanya is still working hard to make ends meet for herself, while sharing food, love and passion for change with her neighbors. Vote. Even if you can’t make it to Sacramento to stand with LaTanya and with the Food Bank, there’s a lot you can do from your desk with just a phone call or an email. Staffers report that when a legislator is unsure about an issue, personal visits and calls from constituents make more of a difference than those of paid lobbyists. The Farm Bill vote is coming up, and we will need you. Sign up for alerts here. And you can vote. Your vote is your voice, and we need it more than ever. If you live in Alameda County, you can check that your registration is up to date here. The choices we make in the next election have the power to change the lives of our neighbors. For people like Exie, who despite hard times still holds fast to her dream of opening a restaurant someday in Oakland. For people like LaTanya, who have struggled and never lost hope for a better future for her neighbors. And for people like you and I, who believe that access to healthy food is a basic human right. Together, we can end hunger. Join us. Miranda Everitt is communications coordinator at Alameda County Community Food Bank and a proud Oakland resident. She has gotten over her fear of the phone just so she can call legislators’ offices. September is Hunger Action Month, when the Food Bank asks everyone in America to take action to fight hunger in their community. Learn more about helping out locally on their website, accfb.org.
Diane is a teacher who knows first-hand how important healthy meals are to children learning and growing. That's why she's one of hundreds of Alameda County Community Food Bank volunteers who've stepped up to serve free summer lunches at 11 Oakland libraries this summer.