Christmas List 2010

1. BundleMe for Henry (so I can jog with him in the morning in the winter).
2. Tumbuk2 bag, like Christy's. (My research indicates their new bags are not so great; so here's a link to one of their old bags. I like the light blue/dark blue combination.)
3. Religious piano solos book. Any of the classics are great.
4. Fun (and plastic) Christmas plates! Like these, these, or these.
5. Babysitting so Matt and I can go to the temple. (Or even so I can go alone during the day...)
6. These bowls.
7. Scrapbook paper! I like the packs with lots of variety.
8. The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis.
9. A puzzle. 500 to 1000 pieces. Super cool picture. NOT crazy hard.

Christmas wishlist

1. Bummis bamboozle diaper (size infant, 5-18 lbs)
2. Ikea Billy bookcase
3. diaper changing pad (any contoured kind will do)
4. Reader's Digest Merry Christmas Songbook
5. Bob stroller handlebar console
6. thin white headband (or ribbon)
7. LLBean hearthside moccasin slipper (red or chocolate, size 7)

If any of those don't seem like something you'd like to spend money on, try some of these other ideas:

- Christmas appetizer plates (the store in Orem has the appetizer size in the style I linked to) from Pier 1 Imports
- a gift that would benefit a third-world artisan (like this one or this one)

And, of course, anything for Henry.

new resources

Just this week I was introduced to a new resource for poverty discussions and was reacquainted with an old one.

modestneeds.org
A friend passed on a link to this website, which has a rather interesting approach to connecting donors with individuals and organizations seeking funds: instead of having an organization seek out donors individually, this website collects "Requests for Help" from these organizations in need and then lets a donor peruse the site to find a complementary fit.

The idea reminds me a bit of kiva. org, where donors can choose from a list of microenterprising individuals and give out loans to those they select. Hence, the donors can do some one-stop shopping for meeting their philanthropic desires.

I'm interested in the success rate of these kinds of websites?

Aspen Institute FIELD Program
Two summers ago I did research work for the Aspen Institute, a thinktank in D.C., through a local microenterprise organization. The data I collected contributed to the FIELD program, which seeks to better understand microenterprise ventures in the United States. The Aspen Institute recently sent me a case study detailing how one nonprofit organization is trying to beef up its earned income to be less dependent on grants. The timing seemed apropos with a wavering economy that will surely cut the generosity of donors as they start to feel pinched.

One thing I really like about nonprofits is that they are in a unique sector which demands constant innovative thinking to be able to even stay afloat, let alone get to a stable position on land. As long as the need for innovation isn't overwhelming, working in a nonprofit can be invigorating and challenging every day.

npr

A large portion of my daily news intake comes through NPR. I listen to it as I do dishes, eat lunch, or take a break in the afternoon. Today's theme was especially poignant for my re-focus on social issues.

The show was about a new book called Creative Capitalism by Michael Kinsley that advocates businesses to do good while doing business. His main subject for modeling how well this might work is Bill Gates, who founded the Gates Foundation and is being more than just a philanthropist in trying to solve social problems.

My main question--which wasn't addressed during the somewhat short segment I had a chance to catch--was what capitalist CEOs might think of this idea at a time when the economy is shrinking? After all, Gates had to first establish his fortune before using it for good. If we can't even establish our fortunes, then can we help others?

My resounding answer is YES. And, just as Mr. Kinsley pointed out, we really must for our own good. By being aware and helping others, we improve our inter-connected world. And that improves our own lives.

So, instead of focusing solely on making the big bucks (or even the small bucks, in my case), we need to be worried about the Other and divert our attention and resources in ways that mitigate our selfishness and improve the communities we are connected to.

re-focus

It's been over a year since I last posted on this site. Since then I have graduated with my MPA degree, gotten married, and been hired for jobs I never anticipated. My poverty thoughts--which were so focused during my graduate program--have only been little wifts here and there while I have been caught up in the "real" world (i.e., outside of school).

This morning I want to re-focus on poverty. I'd like to experiment with how to help with poverty in my new role--outside the classroom, married, and with a different job. I have a few books I'll be reading in the next while to sharpen the saw, but what I'd like to comment on now is what I've been doing for the last year to help poverty.

My husband and I made an early goal in our marriage to dedicate a portion of our money each month to a cause we thought would be worthwhile. Sometimes we have contributed to established instituations; other times we have shared with neighbors or friends in need. The amount is not large enough to be a great help to others, but it is enough to help us remember that we co-exist with others in smaller and larger communities.

And maybe that is a way to successfully approach poverty. Back in agrarian times, people were inter-dependent. Now, we are fiercely independent--and, in some ways, fiercely dependent. Independence is not necessarily a bad thing--as long as it is tempered so we reach out to others AND accept reaching in from others. Dependence, on the other end of the spectrum, is not a good thing. I'm not very comfortable with the trend toward dependence we see in our current political situation. It reeks of thinklessness, laziness, and unequally forced equality.

So perhaps inter-dependence is something that should be looked at more carefully as a viable way to dealing with inequality in terms of poverty.

domestic poverty

This summer I am working for an organization that deals in domestic poverty--domestic meaning "Salt Lake City, Utah." Utah, especially Salt Lake, has a high number of refugees and immigrants, particularly Hispanics, and these groups make up a large part of what some would term "those in poverty."

But my paradigm of poverty is so different from being in other countries--namely, Africa, Argentina, Chile (both richer South American countries), Peru, and Mexico. I have struggled seeing how giving a loan to someone who has a house, a car, and even a job is helping to alleviate poverty.

Well, I take that back. I struggle to see how someone who has a house, car, and job is termed as someone IN poverty. I went into this summer stint with a strong desire to better understand domestic poverty and figure out ways to help those in poverty right in my own backyard. But I have learned what I didn't expect: poverty is a relative thing.

If you will recall (if you are an avid reader of my oh-so-often blog), I once wrote about how poverty is more than a simple lack of financial resources. Rather, it is an attitude, a disease, a lack of self-esteem, a blow to opportunity, or a crippling defect born by those who happen to not be so affluent. It turns out poverty works in much the same way in the United States--those in poverty are fighting for their self-esteem and their dignity, as much as they are fighting to maintain financial control.

One thing I do need to address sometime (hopefully soon) is how this poverty influences the actions and decisions of many people. More on this later...

poverty paradigm

I just got back from spending two weeks in Ghana (hence the lack of blog updates--many apologies to the unknown void). In all my international travels, I have never seen such widespread poverty, nor have I seen people so content. Hmmm, maybe content is the wrong word because I have also never been hit up for money by so many people so quickly. I was in Accra, the developed capital, and I was somewhat dumbfounded by the sprawling poverty that we encountered. But the people are busy and about, most of them hawkers. So, while their roofs barely do enough to keep out the sun (but NOT the rain), they are going about their lives in an unassuming way.

Compare, then, this international scene of poverty to what I will be doing this summer: working with domestic poverty. I will be gathering data for a local nonprofit in Salt Lake City that gives out micro-loans to residents who can't get loans from a regular bank. They may have running water, a roof over their head, and heat in the winter, but the poverty they are in prevents them from accessing many other parts of society.

And so I raise a few questions (some of the bajillions that are floating around inside my head): when did poverty start? How did we decided to define poverty based on economic terms? And, does knowing the cause and root of poverty help with the solution?

A few answers: poverty is so much more than a lack of financial resources. If you don't have money, you don't have security, stress increases, and life becomes complicated. Your life approach is different. Relationships matter more than getting to an appointment on time. Is this all bad? Not necessarily. And who's to say what the line of poverty is? I can say that the little boy toddling out of a broken down shack without running water and no shoes is in poverty; but so can the man on the street of a beautiful homes who can't afford to pay for his electricity. So poverty is more than a financial measurement; it's a lack of empowerment.