On my trawling of teh internets for news articles about poverty further my education, I came across this New York Times article with alliteration: Proving Poverty Could be Problematic at Area Food Pantries
Some background: Some pantries will give food to anyone who asks; at most you have to give a name and maybe some contact information so the pantry can keep track clients helped for reporting purposes Kathy down at Oberlin Community Services was distraught that during the LEADS poverty simulation the fake Oberlin Community Services was only giving food to people from certain zip-codes. She wanted to make it clear the real Oberlin Community Services gives food to anyone who asks, regardless of zip code and regardless of whether or not the food is perceived as being needed (though there are pantries with limited resources that do restrict who gets food based on zip code). The thinking is based on the assumption of common human decency: only people who really need food will ask for it. Plus, it's humbling and can be hard for many people to ask for free food. Those who overcome those emotional barriers must be in need.
The gist of the article: Some local United Way leaders in San Francisco are concerned about fraud at the food pantries; they are worried people (mostly commercial grocers) who do not need food are coming by, getting food from the pantry for free, and then re-selling it at their stores. These leaders want to institute a change to make people who come to the pantry prove they have low income to stop people with higher incomes (who theoretically would not need food because they can get their own) from getting food.
Hot button issue, anyone?
My Opinion: Though I understand the concern of food pantry fraud, I have several issues with the proposed change. For one, it is hard to tell based on income level who needs food and who doesn't. Just because someone is above the federal poverty line does not mean they are easily meeting all of their bill payments. For two, being in poverty and enrolled in the Federal bureaucratic benefits programs is hard enough; there shouldn't be more hoops to jump through. It's hard to keep track of all the paperwork to "prove" poverty, and any illegal immigrants would have an especially hard time.
Plus, there's just this idea floating around in my head that we have enough money and food that we should have enough to provide for everyone....but we're not. The federal budget for food stamps--which feeds a lot of people as it stands now--- is minuscule compared to the budget for national defense. Not only that, but America has a lot of food that is not used. Part of what Second Harvest Food Bank of North Central Ohio stocks their food pantries with is edible food bought from farmers that can't be sold at market for whatever reason and would get plowed back into the ground if Second Harvest hadn't come along. The Second Harvest tagline is MORE FOOD; LESS HUNGER. The more I meditate on that line, the more I like it.
MORE FOOD; LESS HUNGER
No comments:
Post a Comment