iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peg Chemberlin

Peg Chemberlin

Posted: March 10, 2010 05:37 PM

Yesterday the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships offered a recommendation that affirms a historic stance of American churches and will take a significant step toward alleviating poverty in the U.S. Throughout the Bible, the prophets, Jesus, and Paul's letters to the early Church all call on believers to break the yoke of injustice, feed the hungry, and house the poor. The prophets make it especially clear that this is a societal obligation, not merely an individual one. But how are we corporately and individually able to answer this call if we don't know who the poor are or what they need? That is the question the Advisory Council's recommendation would seek to answer and one of the reasons why the report we just released is so critical.

Current federal guidelines for measuring poverty have not been updated since the 1960s and are woefully inadequate in helping assess levels of poverty in America today. A new standard is needed. Among a number of other recommendations, the Advisory Council urged the President to "utilize the knowledge, expertise and on-the-ground experience of local faith-based and community organizations to redefine the Federal poverty guideline so it more accurately measures and responds to the needs of low-income people."

As the recommendation goes on to say, "Living costs and expenditures have changed dramatically since 1965." Instead of using the 45-year-old standard that assumes families will spend one-third of all available income on food, a new standard would more accurately reflect the fact that "the modern American family spends just one-seventh of household income on food while many other expenses, such as transportation, medical expenses, housing and childcare costs have increased dramatically." As costs rise in nearly every aspect of life, low-income people are forced to bear an increasingly heavy yoke. And as long as our systems for determining who should receive aid are based on outdated models, these people have no hope for relief.

Partly as a result of the work of the Advisory Council, the Administration is working to correct this flawed formula. The Department of Commerce will use a new formula for the first time next year in the Census Bureau report. Under a "Supplemental Poverty Measure" the government is augmenting, not replacing, the formula that determines how many people are considered to be living in poverty. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, also affirmed the new standard suggested by the Advisory Council as an important step and promised that the Advisory Council recommendations "will become an active action plan."

America's churches and persons of faith have a rich and vibrant history of speaking out on the issue of poverty. We are already on the front lines, responding to the call of their faith to care for the poor among us, and we are ready to do more. But without a means of accurately gauging the needs of our communities and the ability to direct federal resources where they can do the most good, millions will continue to go hungry, homeless, and forgotten.

Fifteen years ago the National Academy of Sciences issued a more accurate definition of poverty than the one currently being used. The Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is ready to put that definition to work. But we can't stop there; a new measure to determine who is living in poverty needs attention right now throughout the federal government. If we can do this, maybe we have a chance to do what so many faith communities are striving to do: abate poverty. But if we can't measure it, we can't abate it. So let's start measuring.

 
Yesterday the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships offered a recommendation that affirms a historic stance of American churches and will take a significant step to...
Yesterday the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships offered a recommendation that affirms a historic stance of American churches and will take a significant step to...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MeinNH
Ooooo Silly Me
04:04 PM on 03/13/2010
The numbers that they use to define "poverty levels" for assistance are 45 years old and do not take into account the cost of living increases over that time. If you for example, apply for Food Stamps, your rent is set at (for one person) $138.00 per month....where can you rent for that? It is time these programs address the reasons for poverty and use real time data for assess who is at poverty levels. At one time in the 60's medicaid helped the middle class, now you can't even get it if you are poor.
blogisti
Censor Approved Knowledge Only
10:09 PM on 03/12/2010
It's odd that America has great difficulty deciding who is poor but no difficulty giving welfare to the rich. In fact, the richer they are the more welfare they get. The rich pay lower taxes, get more write-offs, get more "freebies", use more of societies resources like medicine and all the "medical write-offs"(cosmetic surgeries, dental work, massages, etc.,)
The amounts "given" to the rich are obscene by any measure. Yet the poor are snared at and berated for asking to live in simple human dignity with the bare essentials of life(food, shelter, clothing).
This turns the message of the Bible upside down and I don't see any clergy or other Christians fighting for the "blessed poor". It would be nice one day to see Christians actually following the precepts of the Bible.
I won't hold my breath.
02:00 PM on 03/11/2010
Unfortunately, the GOP under the control of Reagan, Pope John Paul ii and Rev. Jerry Falwell has condemned the poor to being welfare queens and good for nothing lazy people who are stealing from all of the righteous people3 who belong to the Repub party of predatory corporations and endlessly greedy people.

The Repub party is made up of Cons, Neocoms and Theocons, including my own religion, the Catholic Church. They sold themselves to the Repub party for thirty pieces of silver and the illusion of power.

The sin of Pride reveals and condemns them for what they truly are all about. The GOP, the Bush and Cheney families and the Theocons may rule for now, but in the end the Kingdom of God will always prevail.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:21 PM on 03/11/2010
Uhhh...Bush extended federal funding to faith based institutions so that they may provide services to the poor through federal tax dollars. Everyone had a hairy canary then.
02:37 PM on 03/11/2010
Grate Post.......Bobtr900....
photo
newtom
eschew obfuscation
01:04 PM on 03/11/2010
So long as the faith-based providers do not discriminate based on their religious belief then let them continue to do their work. Many of them are very good and effective. But the government cannot overlook the responsibility to maintain oversight of the programs, guaranteeing that services are not withheld from anyone on the basis of the religious beliefs of the organization providing the services.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Colmore
12:38 PM on 03/11/2010
Not all needy people go to churches for help. In fact, some avoid them rather than be forced to attend services. A more accurate gauge would be the food banks in each community. There are many, many more people in need of food than there has ever been. The postal carriers have a food drive each year, and I am sure the food banks that benefit would gladly help identify the numbers of families in dire need of food. A lot of needy people do not want to be preached to in order to get a meal. Lots of churches can only help one or two familes at a time. Sometimes the restrictions placed on the people are too stringent for lots of needy families.
12:33 PM on 03/11/2010
Yeah today were are redifining poverty in relative instead of absolute terms. So instead of poverty meaning you cant provide clothing food and shelter for your family, poverty is going to mean that other people make much more money than you so you must be poor. Its fairly ridiculous. Many of the "poor" in america today live at higher standards than middle class americans in the 1950s.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:26 AM on 03/11/2010
"Blessed are the poor..." Not if the Republicans can help it!
photo
newtom
eschew obfuscation
01:06 PM on 03/11/2010
Yeah, funny way to put it. But think about it for a few seconds and the Rs (neo-conservative, religious types in particular) don't want to spend anything on the poor -- that's socialism. Yet they insist they are xtian, and xtianity is clear about helping others. How do they reconcile this conflict?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:19 PM on 03/11/2010
They never reconcile anything - hypocrisy is built into the fabric of the Republican Party.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robbcoffee
09:16 AM on 03/11/2010
Poverty is complex. I think the main challenge is prioritizing and finding niches. It gets even more complex when you consider the world rather than the nation... and then have to decide between mere sustenance which can over the long term even make problems worse, or development which is trickier, more expensive, and might lead to neglect of basic needs in the short term.
Perhaps the trick is to diversify: accept all definitions of poverty and traverse the market to ensure that all needs are being met. I'm a firm believer that governments should handle basic essentials for citizens of a nation, and that churches, NGOs and charities should be a diverse batch that caters to higher needs and help out the desperate poor of underdeveloped nations.
The difficulty is mostly for the charity giver, who must determine what needs are truly greatest at any given time and what organizations can provide the best service. Unfortunately competition between charities leads to marketing- which often distorts these matters (does it ever feel to you like there is a big fight between cancer and heart disease charities over which is the big killer?)... We need to find a better way to seperate charity from the private for-profit market, create more ways to ensure interagency cooperation and keep needed but unpopular charity causes from falling apart.
08:40 AM on 03/11/2010
We are not Xians. We are Christians and we observe Christmas, not xmas.

However, if the churches had not abdicated their responsibility to the poor, as directed in the Bible, and by Christ (not X) there would be no need for the social service programs so many are proud of today and so many must depend on today. The Church universal will have to face that in judgment..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:31 AM on 03/11/2010
X is the Greek letter chi. Chi was substituted for Christ among the early Xtians. It's only the self righteous evangelical conservative minded that continue to press for using christ's name on everyone. Who honestly cares?
photo
newtom
eschew obfuscation
01:01 PM on 03/11/2010
Keep X in Xmas.
photo
invirginia
A higher double-standard.
06:28 PM on 03/11/2010
You learned her good. And you're right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marianproletarian
01:30 PM on 03/11/2010
I'm an atheist, and I observe xmas.
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
06:14 AM on 03/11/2010
The poor keep the corporate wheels turning round and round .....

Everybody hop up on that debt treadmill, there's plenty of interest to be paid .....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oregon bird
04:15 AM on 03/11/2010
Love the picture. Especially given how much we know about the lobbyists that the various Xian churches have hired, the amount of money they've put into influencing our laws, and in instilling ha/.tred and fear into the cultures of Africa. The missions paid for out of donations that ended in _m.ur.derous legislation against GLBT citizens in Uganda.

There is no legal way to track money given to religious charities. Not the amounts they take in, nor the distribution. When money is put into eclesiastical hands, it legally disappears. No taxes are paid, despite the use of public infrastructure -- including our courts, which they use freely to protect their funds and properties (all donated or purchased out of donations) when victims of abuse or fraud refuse to be intimidated or pacified by repeated invocations of god & church.

Whatever poverty might be, it is increased and made worse by donation into religious hands.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bubba Gump
Christian, Liberal, Former NCO -- US Army Reserve
03:46 AM on 03/11/2010
My definition of poor: someone who has severe trouble with putting food on the family table, keeping a roof over the family's head with heat in the winter, making sure the family has proper clothing for all seasons, and/or health concerns that threatens to force hunger. I'm not talking about designer clothes or filet mignon, but the basics. If you can afford satellite TV or better than basic cable, you might be middle class instead of poor. Poor means you can't cut into luxury expenditures because they've already been eliminated. But this is my personal rule of thumb, not a definition enacted by Congress.
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
06:17 AM on 03/11/2010
What about the white guy without an education or job skills who works in a warehouse but wants to drive back and forth in a $49,000 GMC pickup truck ? He's as poor as they come - sold a bill of goods by the TV ....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Singing Sparrow
retired-government worker
02:01 PM on 03/13/2010
A very good definition of poverty here in our society. Doesn't help much to judge people by the standards of the planet because we live here and shop here and warm our homes here with our ways. Thank you also for recognizing the need for basic cable which is pretty much the only way people can get televsion now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Sapp
Husband. Xtian. Founder Eleison & AVN
06:51 PM on 03/10/2010
So often we focus on the big political stuff going on at the WH and access for faith leaders into the legislative side of things. But a lot of the real work and changing of lives happens in the execution of policy, and it sounds like some real positive steps were taken in that regard this past year by the Council. It may not be as sexy as abortion in healthcare or complete financial reform, but a lot of lives can be changed through relatively small improvements in how the government does its job. Thanks for sharing this success story.