Feb 16

Weblebrity Fundraising – Do Famous Faces Help Campaigns?

Weblebrities are the new thing. They’re created when online fundraising campaigns use celebrities to enhance their image and monetary intake.  Weblebrity: a celebrity on the web. You might have seen something like this before, notably in a campaign called NoH8, which was created in 2008 to fight Proposition 8 in California. For a while Facebook was covered with pictures of celebrities with duct tape covering their mouths and “NoH8” (No hate) written on their faces. You might remember seeing pictures of the Kardashian sisters or Steve-o from Jackass, for example.

Ashton Kutcher and Kanye West are a couple of other celebrities you might remember noticing online at some point. By simply keeping an eye open or searching the web a little, it’s easy to see that countless celebrities take part in social media fundraising campaigns all the time.

What I am here to question is whether or not these organizations are really benefiting from celebrity presence. I’m not suggesting that their efforts are wasted, but could nonprofits and campaigns possibly be taking more strategic approaches, in turn seeing increases in funding?

Last year Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber helped out at an event that raised $100,000 to go toward helping children in Africa. At first glance, this seems like a great feat. However, when considering the fact that the two celebrities have millions of online fans and followers, researchers found that Gaga and Bieber actually rose well under a penny per fan that they have. Moreover, Kanye West, as mentioned above, actually raised zero dollars in a campaign he recently took part in.

The online payment website, PayPal, decided to do a study to figure out how beneficial celebrities actually are in campaigns. The results were pretty interesting. What they found was that using lesser or unknown people that had personal ties to the cause they were raising for saw much better results than using a celebrity whom had no association with the issue at hand. For example, Ashton Kutcher attempted to raise money for a children’s hospital, but did not fare nearly as well as a young boy who was actually treated at the hospital he was raising money for. People want to see connections to the causes they are donating to; they want to know that their support is going into the right hands.

Who would you rather donate to- a celebrity who sings or raps about having careless sex with countless women, but claims to support breast cancer research, or a father and three children who lost their wife and mother to breast cancer and are now raising money to prevent the tragedy from happening to another family? The choice seems pretty clear to me.

Organizations and campaigns should seriously start considering and re-evaluating their approaches to fundraising. Whether the campaign is for gay rights, women’s rights, education, or protecting the environment, nonprofits should focus on connecting with the public on a personal level rather than simply throwing someone famous at them. The NoH8 campaign used numerous celebrities to gain popularity, but if I had my guess, you probably wouldn’t be able to name ten or even five of the famous faces within the campaign. What you might be able to remember are true, touching stories told by real people.

My hope is that campaign leaders realize the solid facts surrounding this topic and pursue more advantageous routes in the future. Why try to gain publicity by siding with fame when organizations could achieve more support, financially and emotionally, by joining those whom are truly dedicated to the cause? Celebrities are generally in the business to strengthen their image, while those with personal connections to issues simply wish to contribute to what really matters. By resisting the urge to jump on the bandwagon and using regular, everyday people to tackle fundraising instead, I think that organizations would greatly benefit in their campaigning efforts.

Share

Feb 16

Hitting Close to Home

Last fall, I was having lunch with family friends during a stay in Fort Worth, Texas.  Per usual, we were discussing, family, friends, and our projects at work.  Our one friend began discussing her work for an energy company that was beginning to drill for natural gas.  As she explained the drilling process and her role in the project I listened politely, but it wasn’t until she revealed the project was taking place in Somerset County, PA did I really start to listen.  My interest was perked because Somerset County and western Pennsylvania in general is were my entire extended family lives.  The topic of drilling, which I had previously paid little attention to, suddenly hit close to home, literally.

Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Formation has become the hot new spot for natural gas drilling.  Energy companies from across the nation, including Texas, are now looking to the former steel land for their huge drilling projects.  The Marcellus Shale has lain beneath almost half of Pennsylvania for centuries, but in recent years 52 operators and 1,608 wells have taken claim to the northeast to southwest regions of the state.  An industry funded study conducted at Penn State University projected that the Marcellus Shale Formation could generate $20 billion for the state by 2020.

The emergence of these drilling sights has not occurred without significant press-back and disapproval from environmental activist groups.  Individual municipalities and boroughs have hosted numerous town meetings to discuss and protest the presence of drilling in their town.  Larger scale movements, including significant investigations from the Environmental Protection Agency, have also voiced meaningful concerns.  The complaints of these various groups largely revolve around the danger natural gas drilling poses to drinking water and air quality.  The pollution is caused by hydraulic fracturing which is a technology that releases gas trapped in shale rock by injecting sand, water, and chemicals thousands of feet below the Earth’s surface.  Residents of particular counties have complained about methane and chemicals in their drinking water.

Until February 14th, Pennsylvania was the only state that did not tax natural gas drilling companies.  Growing pressure from individual towns and activist groups influenced the PA state government to seriously consider and ultimately pass the tax on energy companies.  The bill passed through the state congressional process and was just signed by Governor Tom Corbett.  The law will impose an impact fee on drilling companies.   Local municipalities have the choice of whether to enact the impact fee on the specific drill sites within their area.  If they would approve the tax, the impact fee the municipalities themselves would receive is 60% of the tax collected by the state government.  In this way, the municipalities being most affected by the drilling would have funds at their discretion to potentially apply to environmental or clean-up projects.

Although this tax does affect drilling companies in a negative way, the PA tax is the last of its kind to be applied to drilling companies in any state.  Nearly three years of untaxed drilling occurred in the state.  With the tax, municipalities will receive some of the fee, but individual areas will still lack control over which company drills, when they drill, and where they drill (energy companies are allowed to establish sites in residential areas).  Lacking political power to stop drilling companies, local governments and communities fall at the will of the state, who sees the Marcellus Shale as a huge market for statewide economic growth.

Although my curiosity and concern was particularly sparked because of the nearness to home, these same issues can be relevant to people across the country.  In reality, our community and our local governments can at times lack the control over things that affect our every day life and health.  The families in PA are potentially being exposed to harmful chemicals from this drilling project, but they lack the political power to end the drilling.  This is often a trend in environmental pollution issues, where those making the policies are not those being affected by the negative results.  The solution is continued education and advocacy, because, as seen with the “impact fee”, small steps can be made to reduce the negative environmental externalities of economically positive projects.

Share

Feb 15

Lights Out

Green, green, green. It’s the new black. It’s everywhere we turn. From LEED certified buildings to electric vehicles, efforts to be more environmentally friendly and energy efficient seem to be sprouting up everywhere. “Going green” has become so popular that it’s now trendy. Celebrities cruise around in their hybrid vehicles, supermarket shoppers carry around their reusable bags, even my very own Duke Blue Devils were adorned in Nike’s new sustainable jerseys this past Saturday.

Reading Tracey Shipman’s article “Who’s Leading on LEED?” got me thinking.  She discusses LEED certified buildings with all this new, green technology. However, many of the buildings’ designers are forgetting simple elements (such as easily accessible stairs) that would do as much, if not more, for the environment than many of the “sexy” green elements. I started thinking about how this idea could be applied to humans rather than buildings.

New technology makes it easier than ever for someone to effortlessly “go green.” Purchase a hybrid vehicle or better yet an electric vehicle, switch out your old refrigerator for a new ENERGY STAR qualified one, change out your incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).  Speaking of light bulbs, why not just shut them off?

As a society, we have become entrenched in finding the newest technological advancements to help our goal of environmental friendliness. I think that our desire to improve our technology is wonderful. Bettering our creations in order to help our environment is fantastic, and will hopefully continue for many years to come. However, I fear that we often forget to make simple behavioral adjustments that could also go a long way for our environment. In particular, turning off the lights once we leave a room.

I must admit that I often run out of a room without thinking to switch the lights off. I usually have a hundred things on my mind and don’t think to turn off the lights. This is very common for most people. I’m sure if you were to walk around your house right now you would find at least one light on that does not need to be. The potential for energy savings, if people remembered to shut off their lights, is huge.

An example of the potential energy savings that can result from the reduction of light bulb usage is Earth Hour. Earth Hour takes place once a year for only one hour. During this hour the WWF asks that all people across the globe shut off all non-essential lights in order to raise awareness for taking action against climate change. Last year, Earth Hour saved 34.92 megawatts of electricity worldwide. 90,000,000 Americans participated in Earth Hour. Now while Earth Hour is an extreme example of saving energy via lights, it does clearly show that shutting off lights is an effective and easy way to save energy.

I’m sure, that if most of you are like me, you turn on your lights long before they need to be on. I propose to you a challenge. Look to see at what time you usually start turning on most of the lights in your house. Now, try to keep the lights off for an extra hour. This is an easy way to join the green movement without emptying your wallet for a new piece of technology. In fact, you’ll save money.

I believe that as a whole, our society uses much more energy than we need to in order to power our lights. This problem has an incredibly easy fix. The solution requires no money and no research. All that is required is for people to make a slight change to their everyday behavior and remember to turn off all unnecessary lights. I don’t think that the issue is the lack of education on the issue. Most people realize that turning off lights will save energy. The issue, in my opinion, is reminding people to do so.

Therefore, I think public service announcements should be created in order to remind people of the benefits to them, as well as society as a whole, from turning off unnecessary lights. What better time to remind someone to shut off the lights than when they are sitting down to watch television? They are most likely already in their home and can easily take one minute to flip the switch. Besides, who doesn’t like enjoying their favorite movies in the dark?

Businesses love to show their customers that they are environmentally friendly. An easy way for television companies to do so is to place a small text at the bottom of the screen during the credits of all television shows that reads something similar to, “Please remember to turn off the lights.” This would serve as a friendly reminder for all viewers, and would also show the television company’s commitment to energy efficiency.

While all of these new green technologies are great advancements, I feel that we need to remember some simple green techniques that often are forgotten, one being to turn off lights. So, continue to take part in the green movement. Buy the newest CFLs on the market, but please, remember to turn them off.

Share

Feb 15

Deadly Voyage Home

The Hardanis family, made up of Mohammad, his wife and two young girls were among the approximately 250 people on board a people-smuggling boat headed to Australia. The vessel carrying the migrants sank during the journey. Only 47 people survived.  One of his daughters was rescued by a fishing boat that was in close proximity.  Mohammad, a welder from Iran, survived but his other daughter and wife did not.

Migrants from Guatemala and Honduras cross through treacherous and deadly terrain in Mexico on their way to the United States. Men and women from various African nations try to navigate from the border of North African states through the Mediterranean Sea to the closest ports to start a new life in Europe.  Many reach their destination where they will find a wide range of different attitudes towards them and varying degrees of opportunities to make it.

Others will not survive the journey. The Hardanis story is not unique. People searching for a new life abroad, due to a wide number of reasons, meet an unfortunate fate. Overcrowding, poorly built vessels and unpredictable weather conditions commonly prevent them from reaching their destination.

What makes these scenarios staggering is the sheer numbers. The majority of 2011 arrivals in Europe by sea landed in Italy 56,000; of those 28,000 were Tunisians. Neighboring Malta received 1,574 while 1,030 arrived in Greece.  Most were migrants, not asylum seekers. The actual journey took place on dilapidated vessels with refugee and migrants passengers often forced into having to skipper the boats themselves. Many reported that fellow passengers beat and tortured them. They also report that more than 1,500 African migrants died while attempting to cross that year.

Spain reported that 340 migrants reached the Canary Islands by sea in 2011. The Guardia Civil, Spanish authorities, reported that 29 migrants are known to have drowned in 2011, but some NGOs in the field report that the numbers of deaths are greater.

So whose responsibility is it to provide protections? What is the government’s role? The country of origin or destination?

A case study we could examine is that of recently arrived Cubans in the United States. During the Clinton administration both governments reached an agreement that the United States would stop admitting people found at sea. This legislation commonly known as the “wet foot, dry foot” policy, states that a Cuban found on the waters between the two nations (wet feet) would be sent home or to a third country. One who makes it to the U.S shore (dry feet) gets a chance to remain in the United States. In 2011, U.S. Coast Guard interdictions at sea were 1,000, while landings on U.S. shores were almost 700.

Since the mid-1990s immigration patterns have changed. Many Cuban immigrants are now crossing through the Texas-Mexico border; this is now known as the “dusty foot” phenomenon.  Last year, the number of people processed at the border was approximately 6,000.

In order to address this issue we need to look at the main three different views on the subject. One believes that we should change our immigration policies to allow for the safe resettlement of this population. But will this provide for the resources necessary to not only rescue these groups, but also provide them protection and assistance to take care of their short-term and long term needs? Does it discriminate against populations who are working through legal channels to arrive in the United States?

A second perspective is that we should address the root causes of migrants at sea as many search for new opportunities because of poverty, political instability and persecution back home. Addressing those might stop some of the migration issues and the unfortunate deaths. A third possibility is to not admit anyone who does not come through legal means and invest in that money in border protection. What do you think?

All three perspectives offer different options with varying outcomes. The only thing that one can not deny is that there is a rising number of people trying by every means to make it to the United States. The cost for some is with their lives and these situations are unfortunately and probably preventable.

Share

Feb 15

Violence Without a Source

The high level of violence that Central Americans live everyday can be attributed to a million different factors, including one of the major problems, which is the poor infrastructure of their governments.  However, it is not only the government intervention (or lack of) that has facilitated an extraordinary level of violence, but also the obscure definition of what is within government control.  Throughout years of civil war in these countries, it has been paramilitaries (privatized military-like entities) that have caused terror in the streets of these countries; fifteen years later, Guatemala is still affected by it.  Paramilitaries are created out of the military but are not responsible to the government and operate their force in an unconventional way, which have given way to violence that would be otherwise unacceptable in the military sector of the government.  In fact, I think that one of the greatest downfalls of the creation of these paramilitaries is the direct effect that it has on the citizens of the country.  In a way, the loss of confidence in the government can be attributed by this blurred definition of what is part of the government and what is not, and whether the government has the best interest of the people in allowing the existence of these paramilitaries.

 

One great example of the resounding effects of these paramilitaries is Guatemala.  Guatemala has had a turbulent government structure even in the past two decades.  In 1996, the Guatemalan government signed a peace treaty with the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) after 36 years of civil war.  It was then that the civil patrol system, which was a paramilitary entity, was dissolved.  There are years of history and a convolution of mixed sentiments regarding the civil patrol system.  In theory, it was a good idea created by the Guatemalan government in order to combat the insurgency created by the URNG.  However, in practical terms, the civil patrol system created a level of violence in the state that was not seen as legitimate by the people.  In fact, it wasn’t legitimate since it was not within the boundaries of the government.  One of the objectives of the government in creating the civil patrol system, as its name illustrates, was to involve the Guatemalan community in the counter-insurgency so that the insurgency would not spread further.  One of the main questions that attribute extreme violence to this paramilitary is whether the participation of the people, who were mostly indigenous (mostly Mayan) countrymen, was voluntary or not.  More than a simple answer, there are specific experiences that Guatemalans have live through that directly associate extreme violence to these paramilitaries.  When most of the citizens of this country Continue reading

Share

Feb 15

Why We Need to Rehabilitate Former Child Soldiers

Recently I read an article that told the story of a former child soldier who fought in the civil war in Burundi.  The story recounted his tale and brushed on his use of narcotics as a means to escape his memories of the war.  As I read this I could not help thinking; this man has no support, no psychologists and no training for anything other than guerrilla war.  This man’s only option is to abuse illegal drugs and pray he never has to kill again.  This man has no hope for a future.

We hear a lot in the news about child soldiers but I personally never hear much about their rehabilitation.  It is certainly important to end the practice but even if there were no more child soldiers when I wake up tomorrow the problem will not have been solved.  Thousands of men and women living in the world today carry the memories of war seen through the eyes of a child.  These men and women are left adrift.  We say we hope that no more children have their lives ruined by this, but when will we start treating those who have already lived it?

There are some organizations that are trying to address this issue but they are not doing enough.  One organization provides free computer access to online training guides.  It is a good organization, but what about those who can’t read?  Even if there are videos in the language they speak online how can these young adults find them?  Not to mention the fact that even if they are trained and become productive and appreciated members of their societies they still must live with those terrible memories.  They still must look in the mirror and see a killer.  The only way a person can get through that kind of self-guilt is to justify it, and the best way to justify it is to say that it was right.  To say they did what they had to.  And while this is probably true it opens the door to more justification, such as when the next war starts and they have to do what they have to do again.

This is why it is vital to get these people help.  It is not just a humanitarian issue; it is a global security issue.  By leaving these people, who literally grew up in war, out there on their own with no help and no hope we invite violence upon ourselves.  If these people become warlords themselves, and those of us in the developed world did nothing to help them when they needed it, I think the blood will be on our hands.  As long as we allow our apathy to enable violence are we not as guilty?  Are we guiltier?

I do not mean to sound sanctimonious.  I have been as guilty of apathy as anyone.  But now is the time to end this.  Now is the time to start fixing the problem and stop fixing the blame.  We can prosecute the monsters who are guilty of this to the tune of millions of dollars in legal fees or we can try to educate and rehabilitate those who would become those monsters.  If we keep cutting these weeds at the stem

Continue reading

Share

Feb 14

MDG’S and the development of the new SDG’s

20 years ago, the Rio Earth Summit took place down in Brazil. Coming up on its anniversary in June, there will be another meting of nations where commitments will be renewed and progress will be evaluated. Two new focuses will be addressed: developing a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and further promoting institutions for sustainable development.

As the buildup to this conference begins, a re-examination of what has been accomplished over the last 20 years in development aid is taking place. The Rio summit in 1992 resulted in the Rio Declaration, laying out 27 principles for sustainable development and environmental preservation. Now the Rio +20 will look deeper into these issues and evaluate which need to be further addressed or worked towards.

Building from this Declaration, the UN Millennium Summit held in 2000 addressed these similar issues in a more concise and applicable manner, laying out exactly what would be done on behalf of the UN to eradicate poverty. From this meeting the Millennium Development Goals  (MDG’s) were established and have since been the driving force in development. In a nutshell, by 2015 the UN hopes to eradicate extreme poverty, promote gender equality and maternal health, combat disease, and promote environmental sustainability, among others.

To backtrack a bit, on Friday of last week I attended a Members Day Conference at the UN where Jeffrey Sachs spoke about the MDG’s. The majority of the conference spoke about the meeting Rio+20, where a revisiting of these goals is needed. While not having been established at the time of the first Rio Earth Conference, these MDG’s have nonetheless played an important role in the ultimate goals we have since seen.  Essentially the man behind the movement, Sachs spoke of what the goals are addressing in the buildup to Rio +20 and how end goals might be changing.

Calling this new project the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), the new principles he discussed fell into 4 categories. First and foremost, they will continue to work towards ending extreme poverty and finish the projects of the MDG’s. Next, greater attention needs to be paid towards addressing environmental challenges, along the lines of agriculture, pollution, acidification and others.  The third principle is based on inclusion. As Sachs described it, he argued, “We can no longer live in democracies run by money”. I am taking this to mean that the UN wishes to further promote and insist inclusion of democratic nations as well as other types of regimes, and also promote more just and democratic systems. The final principle being promoted in the SDG’s will be governance. In promoting governance, the UN will be promoting honest, participatory, and transparent interaction and policies.

These 4 goals will fit in with the overall Rio +20 themes of green sustainability and poverty eradication. I believe that these new SDG’s will work towards keeping the discussion surrounding the MDG’s going though the 2015 deadline, and promote further work into the future.

However, fundamentally, I still have issues with the application of the MDG’s. I still am unsure about how effective top down interventions have been shown to work. I still tend to be more of a proponent for bottom up interventions (as often discussed by Bill Easterly), where small and effective interventions are then scaled up for efficacy. However, I must say that Sachs has done an excellent job in bringing the attention of the UN and a more broad audience towards the needs of international development.

For the readers who are not already familiar with this debate, the method of best implementation lay at the core of development aid. The two scholars discussed above, Sachs and Easterly, argue for opposite methods as practices for implementing aid. One blog contributor Rebecca outlines the methods put forth by Sachs and the UN in her blog here, where she supports the “top down method”. This essentially is when foreign companies and institutions, such as the UN and IMF, come into a country and rearrange economic structure and decide large-scale implementations. On the opposite end of this argument, Easterly proposes the notion that we need small interventions that prove effective on ground levels, before scaling up can begin. These two sides will inherently Continue reading

Share

Feb 14

Voting and political campaigns

How do political campaigns influence voting turnout?

During electoral periods, the average citizen is encouraged to vote and make a political decision. Media and government encourage us all to vote. I claim that media and politicians should not be the ones responsible for encouraging voting because their encouragement is inherently biased. When politicians encourage voting, I fear that they often give the wrong incentives and arguments to vote in one or other direction. They want to maximize the votes they get; they will create many arguments in order to convince you to vote in one or other direction.

I think that the responsible citizen will very willingly vote according to the information he has, therefore he doesn’t need to be encouraged by media and politicians. However, the uninterested -and by consequence “ignorant” voter-, when encouraged to vote, will be easily persuaded to vote for one or other candidate but will not be able to make the decisions fully informed. He is more susceptible of being persuaded by the wrong arguments.

Of course, that is the very purpose of any political campaign, to change public opinion in order to win the electoral race. The purpose of political campaigns is to encourage and convince the “ignorant”, voter. Therefore, any political race is a race to win the undecided voter, the one who is still not informed enough. Without the “ignorant voters” democracy would not be possible. That is why campaigns are essential to create the “rule of the majority”.

If voters were well informed, campaigns would have little purpose (since voters already know who and why they’ll vote for a particular issue or candidate). If every voter was informed, it would be enough for the candidates to state their policies and agendas and the general population would be able to make an informed decision.

I think the voter should be encouraged to vote by personal incentives and motivations, not by media and political campaigns. Increasing civilian participation is the role of the civilians themselves. It is a task that should be executed by non-partisans NGO’s, schools and educational institutions. There are examples of detrimental political campaigns have, and how they can skew the outcome of the election at the expense of the voter. In some elections in Mexico for example, it’s sufficient for candidates to offer food (rice, beans, cans) in the poorest areas and they’ll likely get the vote of an important part of the population. Campaigns tend to distort opinions, rather than inform. They decrease the quality of the vote, since the voter is more likely to make decisions that don’t necessarily represent his/her interests.

Here in the US, campaigns are based on the distortion and manipulation of specific information. Therefore, we need to make sure that what we are hearing from campaigns and from the media is related to reality. When deciding for a potential candidate, I think that candidate’s websites are a really useful tool to gain the basic information. Every voter should carefully analyze these websites. It is essential to read their proposed policies and then ask the right questions. How will their policies impact the economy? Who will bear the costs? Is this what I want in the long run? Additionally, there are websites that provide useful insight into the electoral process (like opensecrets.org).

As voters and citizens, we have a responsibility to inform ourselves about the current issues. Because our vote does count, we should aim to be as informed as we can about the issues we have to vote on. The voter should be skeptical, curious and engaged. Even though becoming fully informed can be really hard for presidential campaigns since there is too much at stake, I think that as voters, it is our responsibility to inform us on the issues we are interested in.

 

Julia Naime (@julianasah) is a research intern at the SISGI Group. She is a senior at New York University majoring in Economics. During her internship, she is researching rural and international development and environmental policies. To learn more about the SISGI Group, please visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Feb 14

Femicidios: Tambien un problema Americano

Read this post in English

¿Cuánta gente sabe que significa la palabra femicidio o feminicidio? Si buscan en Google la palabra, no encontraran una definición formal, además de las que da Wikipedia.  Estas incluyen desde la perspectiva feministas, que describe el femicidio como asesinatos misóginos, hasta una definicion más amplios, como “todos los homicidios de mujeres, independientemente de su condición motivo o el autor”. Bueno, en realidad la mayoria de nosotros no usamos esta palabra poque no vivimos en el ambiento donde esta palabra es necesaria.  Pero, ¿qué ocurre con las personas que se ven obligados a vivir en un entorno en el que los feminicidios no sólo son comunes, pero tambien se ha convertido en parte de su entorno social? Sí, en realidad nadie sabe por la causa de la baja cobertura que estos crímenes reciben; para algunos de nosotros son tan extraños como las comunidades en las que estos crimines occuren.
Ciudad Juárez, México es una de las ciudades más peligrosas en el Hemisferio Occidental y la ciudad con el mayor número de feminicidios. Desde que el Tratado de Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) entró en afecto en el año 1994, Ciudad Juárez ha sufrido cerca de 600 feminicidios con al menos de 3.000 mujeres desaparecidas. Debido a que las mujeres son vistas como la fuerza de trabajo más débil en su comunidad, se han convertido en un objetivo mayor para los delitos como el acoso, violación y homicidio.  Y, debido al número creciente de empleos que se crearon después del TLCAN, el número de mujeres que trabajan en las maquiladoras aumentaron también. El concepto de las maquiladoras tiene una larga historia entre los EE.UU. y México, pero la manera más fácil de pensar en ellas son como fábricas que operan en el extranjero por compañías estadounidenses con el fin de conseguir mano de obra barata (como Ciudad Juárez se encuentra justo en la frontera en el lado mexicano , es fácil ver por qué se ha convertido en bombardeados de estas maquiladoras).  La conexión entre este acuerdo de libre comercio y el creciente número de feminicidios en México puede parecer inverosimil. La conexión entre las personas que vive en los suburbios de los Estados Unidos y estos casos pueden parecer aún más extraña.

Sin embargo, creo que las comunidades no sólo están entrelazadas dentro de su país, sino que también creo que las comunidades en diferentes países se afectan mutuamente. Ya sea directa o indirectamente, tenemos Continue reading

Share

Feb 13

Finding Formal Work: Homeless Youth

When we think of the homeless population, it is sometimes hard to understand all the differing circumstances of how these individuals lost their homes and also why they are unable to break the cycle of homelessness.  I’d like to highlight challenges faced by homeless youth and how their particular condition is in dire need of attention and assistance.

The economy can typically be separated into the formal and the informal sector.  The formal sector would include typical full- and part-time employment but also temporary or short-term labor such as construction, snow removal, childcare, or cleaning.  These positions are included in the formal sector because hours of labor are tracked, taxed and regulated.  Differing from this, the informal sector includes any form of labor that contributes to economic activity but is unregulated, untaxed, and untracked formally by the government.  The informal sector includes any job that is not regulated by the government and is paid through untaxed exchange including panhandling, drug sales, and other illegal activities.  The World Bank projects the informal sector in high-income countries to comprise around 10% of economic activity, while in low-income countries the informal sector could contribute to over 50% of economic activities.

The informal sector offers a financial back-up plan for when the formal sector fails to provide income to individuals.  With this being said, the informal sector grows considerably during economic downturns as more people find it difficult to gain jobs in the formal sector.  However, for some individuals, the informal sector is not necessarily a fallback, temporary circumstance.  For the homeless, and especially for homeless youth, the informal sector becomes a habitual place for survival, as the barriers to entry into the formal sector are too steep to overcome.  Considering this, we can understand the challenges youth face in breaking the cycle of homelessness and financial insecurity.

Homeless youth are individuals under the age of 18 who are not currently under parental, foster, or institutional care.  The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates from their most recent study in 2002 that there are 1,682,900 homeless and runaway youth.  These young people, mostly in their later teenage years, account for 1% of the homeless population in urban areas, and in any given year, the National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates 5-7% of American youths will become homeless at some point.  Homeless youth often find themselves in a pattern of disadvantage that persists from their adolescents.  Coming from homes that faced poverty, substance abuse, or trauma, homeless youth frequently come into their current position as a result of a lifelong struggle of instability.  This instability could have included previous homelessness or life in shelters or foster homes.  This background of struggle can generate a psychological pattern of inferiority, which perpetuates and compounds in these youths’ new life on the streets.  Sometimes youth flee to the street out of desperation, but sometimes because they see it as a viable, safer alternative to their former lifestyle.

The danger of youth homelessness is that these youth not only lack a safe stable living environment, but they also often lack the education and experience necessary to break into the formal work sector.  Homeless youth have difficulty attending school because of the need for legal guardianship, proof of residency, and reliable transportation. The cyclical pattern continues as homeless youth entangle themselves in risky and illegal activities out of necessity to find food, shelter, and defense against further isolation.  However, engaging in these activities Continue reading

Share