The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse recently received a $6 million grant to provide permanent housing for homeless adults suffering and recovering from an addiction. Thanks to the grant, nearly 100 people will be placed in permanent housing throughout the city to begin their long-term recovery.

The recognition of the need for long-term solutions and goals on the issue of homelessness should be applauded, as many programs, particularly government-sponsored addiction recovery and rehab programs only have the capacity to treat the short-term.

I thought I’d use this story to introduce a three-part series I’d like to do on homelessness. In all my academic and personal studies of the issue, I’ve noticed an interesting pattern that seems incredibly illogical to me: whenever the issue of homelessness is discussed in the media, it is extremely rare that anyone who is actually homeless is interviewed or included in the discussion. There are plenty of “homelessness experts,” government figures, and economists, but interestingly those who probably have the most accurate opinions of the state of homelessness and the answers to solving it are never asked for them.

So, experts and economists aside, I thought it would be interesting to hear about the issues of homelessness from someone who is actually homeless. I’ve asked my friend Shawnee, a 34-year-old homeless woman living on the streets of Los Angeles, to answer a series of questions about being homeless, her situation in particular, how she became homeless, and the challenges she faces in an effort to get off the streets. Stay tuned for the first round of questions this week.

Faiza Jama Mohamed and Janet Nkubana were named co-laureates of the 2008 Africa Prize for Leadership for the Sustainable End of Hunger.

Last week I had the pleasure of watching live, these two magnificent women receive the Africa Prize, for their contribution to women’s rights and efforts at sustainability and an end to hunger.

One of these women empowered herself rising from a childhood of refugee camps and an unstable environment to return to her native home in Rwanda where empowered, she was dedicated to fighting hunger, poverty and hate. She reached out to the Hutu and Tootsi widows and help them see that behind the labels and pain they were all in need of the same things…love, hope, food, shelter and peaceful change. Together the troupe known as “Gahaya Links” -more than 4000 women- have utilized their basket weaving talent to bring sustainable change & micro-enterprising to a new level. BELIEVE ME…it’s a new level with commercialized CSR embracing the opportunity that neither these women nor the original sponsoring organization could foresee; their works can be purchased in the USA with proceeds going back into sustainability.

Our other equally talented recipient is a mover and shaker on women’s rights in Africa. This is no small task! To challenge not one system, but all systems in a region, to institute a effective declaration and protocol that recognizes women as contributors to change and to cease all criminal acts against them.

These women (2 and the 4000 plus behind them) have proven that sustainability comes from within and can be achieved with time, support & seed money from external donors/organizers who believe in them as much as they believe in themselves. Collaboration works and empowerment takes on a life of it’s own once the seed is sown.

So with all the efforts and arguments on ‘cures to global problems’… Globalhood IS RIGHT AND does have a point at the end of the day…THE seed sown through collaboration and empowerment (simultaneously) …yields a mighty damn forest…

I don’t know about you…but I see a forest planted by locals as far more effective in shielding from the rain storms than a few trees planted on untiled and unfertilized soil!!!

A new film documentary called Haitian Hope, produced by BZ Films in conjunction with Partners in Health, is a beautiful depiction of the country and its culture. In addition to portraying the deficiencies in healthcare and education, the film aims to highlight other social and economic issues following four devastating storms that recently wreaked havoc on the country.

Check out the short film here. Please pass on the link!

Another interesting read! http://proxied.changemakers.net/studio/01july/haque3.cfm

The women in Bangladesh have managed not only to become a driving force to promote economic independence for women, but have managed to set up a daycare center at work allowing them to multi-task while being the initiators of self growth and change.  They have protected themselves from scrutiny that they are not ‘following tradition’ and being ’suitable mothers’, challenged their position in the work force by being the sustainable force of Asia’s garment industry -which is tradition anyway, but now there’s credit!-, AND are motivating their daughters to want more for themselves than marriage and hand-outs from their husbands.

Talk about social change that is community driven, allowing slow but sustainable development, moderate challenges to the face of traditional roles, and opportunities for mutual gender respect.  These women have managed to manipulate their duties and roles to challenge economic conditions, ideology, gender stereotypes and create sustainable solutions, that may not be the kind of economic growth we hope for, BUT A GREAT START.

That’s motivation to do more and be the change you want to see!!!

If it’s not obvious why I’m reporting and not cynical but happy…women are the driving force and key to sustainability.  Positive changes in their roles reduce the cycle of early marriage, numerous unplanned pregnancies and continual poverty which is further correlated to diseases… which drives up the pharmaceutical industries prices…and thus the domino effect continues.  They are interrupting parts of the domino effect.

Nothing is new, but everything is recycled and improved. This is how I view the economic enhancements discussed on Changemakers.net. The article caught my attention because it speaks of ‘new’ initiatives that allow people that have been forced out of the economic system or just plain ‘broke’ to belong and utilize their skills and talents as systems of commerce. How could you not want to read that, it’s all about integration of social identity and economic opportunities within reach!!!

While I am highly in favour of the thoughts, processes and methods discussed, it is not entirely new, but a spin-off of bartering, and one that we would do well to re-invest in as a global community.

Marx informs us in many technical terms that ‘money’ is that which is most valued turned into commodity and weighed against the haves and have-nots. He among other economic and social theorist also informs us that we utilize our skills and unique qualities in trade for something that we need. Years after Marx, we have other sociologist and anthropologist which talk about the “KULA system”, which is similar (a modern day version with no boats) to what they are doing in Australia that this article is discussing and that the world is dubbing ‘new’.

The idea –Kula/new money/shells = how many points? that if I invest 25 hours sewing a wedding dress and I need beads for a rite-of-passage ceremony, and I’m financially ‘broke’, the wedding dress that I made can be exchanged in a giant market for the ‘right’ type of beads and maybe a few other commodities based on time/value of the dress. There is of course an understanding of mutual respect, quality of merchandise by ‘exoticness’ or carefully displayed skills, and allocated time commitment.

It is an honor system that the West pushed out of style, brought back in, and those who do not read too often see as ‘new’. Jump on the bandwagon, push for it in developing countries and communities, and embrace it, because it does in fact allow previously financially challenged individuals and groups to opt-in to the system (to a certain extent) and benefit; It does allow people to grow and live in the fullest sense according to their own learned skills or naturally talents. However, do not embrace it as a ‘cool new fad’, but DO GIVE IT and the News Reporters two thumbs and two feet up, y for keeping us informed of GREAT efforts in sustainability..

“Glad to see it’s back…it’s useful in development and is as sacred as traditional inter village marriages used to bring sustainability where one tribe lacks something another has need for”.

For more info, read Jared Diamond, Marx, Adam Kuper or any number of economic and social theorists in anthropology.

To read the article see: http://www.changemakers.net/node/12870

Cheese company Cabot Creamery and the Good Deed Foundation have paved an innovative way to raise funds for several non-profit agencies in the tri-state area.

Through October 18th, Cabot Creamery will donate 5% of all sales on its 8-ounce cheeses to the Good Deed Foundation, which in turn will donate 100% of these funds to non-profit foundations including the New York Women’s Foundation, Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York City, and Mary’s Pence.

The program is expected to raise over $30,000 and, more importantly, will serve as a model for other for-profit retailers and manufacturers to produce funds that are mutually beneficial. In addition to providing much-needed funds to area non-profits, the concept also provides innovative marketing and advertising for the participating retailer. The concept taps into exponential growth potential of funds; $1 becomes $2, one beneficiary becomes three. It’s an innovative new philanthropic and marketing concept.

Says Andrew Martin, founder of the Good Deed Foundation,

“By redirecting advertising dollars to ‘constituent marketing’ through not-for-profit agencies, companies will gain market share, nonprofit organizations will benefit and issues that affect us all can be tackled more effectively.”

Help the Good Deed Foundation and Cabot meet their fundraising goals by purchasing participating Cabot cheeses through this weekend.

Cheese

The article focuses on Burkina Faso, but the problem of people having sex too young and contracting HIV/AIDS is a world problem.  I was alarmed at a previous AMSA conference when the now retired senior officer reported on his findings that the rate of HIV was higher in China than Africa (so he said) but was unreported due to the language barrier and people living in the country-side and being ignored from assistance .  I was alarmed when I went to Jamaica to understand the reality of HIV, as I sat in a 22* year old woman’s house to find that she hides and cannot find work, because she has been verbally torn down and ostracised for having HIV, that was given to her by her long term boyfriend.   

The problem is the same in Africa!  But how do you solve a problem in which the roots are in gender roles and ideologies of what it means to be a woman?  Many women catch HIV because [as the HIV educators in Jamaica informed me and the article on Burkina Faso support] a woman is not seen as a woman without a man with whom she is sexually engaged, -that is the belief; it is an enforced social ideology (through taunting and ostracism) that the presence of a visible relationship makes a woman ‘whole’ and the sexual relations with the opposite sex creates a ‘man’.  There are many ways and versions of saying the same thing, but this is the premise that seems to be prevalent among “African” oriented cultures.  I say African cultures because I make it a point of only generalizing information that I have first hand knowledge of or witnesses myself.   

The problem with the latter issues is that solving it is bigger than health education and ARVs (which have become in the minds of some active engagers of sex ‘it’s like candy’ because education or no education, certain factors are not being addressed) because as long as a woman is not self empowered and the community is not educated to redefine the roles and ideologies of ‘woman-hood’ the woman will continue to compromise her wants and needs which only results in deterioration of life-hood for her and at the very least her children.  This lack of empowerment and the end results of the engagement ultimately affect the entire community, because we all know it really does take a village to raise a child.    How much more will be needed to raise a HIV child, who now faces an unemployed mother, discrimination, restrictions on marriage, lack of family support, restrictions on ability to work and fears about death?  So many domino effects are created by the one decision to have sex.  Why should this be the case?  Why should it be that the change from ‘girl to woman’, ‘boy to man’ is defined by this one action by the non-formally college educated masses (developing country or not)? 

The formal education changes the ideology and the majority can’t afford formal education; thus we go back to the sex equals ‘worthiness’ arguments verbally and mentally and stipulations of acceptance enforced by stigma and ostracism, leading people to compromise the health of others and themselves.    The end result of the unprotected, unwanted, misunderstood actions to gain acceptance and LOVE is either actions that ultimately can kill the ‘self’ (literally and allegorically), or kill another.

 “These young people want to have a normal sex life, which is reinforced by the fact that it is “practically inconceivable” to not have children in Africa, where “a couple who have been together two years without having a child are criticised,” said Martine Somda, president of Rêve +. “People say that the man must be impotent.”  (plusnews –click) The above is an extraction that provides insider knowledge on what I am speaking of when I say the actions to gain acceptance and LOVE.  If there was acceptance and strong self confidence wouldn’t have to worry about so many people ignoring the fear of death from HIV and placing more focus on the fear of being unloved or unaccepted, resulting in them having undesired, unwanted, unprotected sex.  There seems to be a lot of ‘uns’ and unnecessary compromises!  What that says to me is that someone would rather risk death to themselves and others than feel unwanted.  Thus, if this is the case the mental and emotional aspects of health education (not resolution) seem to be the ignored factor when addressing sex education, and how to combat feeling and social stigma.  It also seems that the social responsibility argument is being missing from many individuals choice to engage in social roles to meet their own needs.  In plain English… selflessness/selfishness of the choice behind having NOT ONLY HAVING SEX, but Unprotected, Unwanted, Unprepared for sex seems to be missing.  We all need a dose of humanitarian, social responsibility education behind the ‘freedom of expression, freedom of love, buy a condom advertisements’ or “be an adult and get your ‘party on’ ”. 

The situation regarding roles and ideologies mixed in with tradition, religion, elderly values and media influence is so complex and they have to be ‘attacked’ all at once to get any large scale positive change underway.  I don’t know about you, but the ‘fit in and be one of us’ is a bit creepy to me; it reminds me of a horror movie.  That’s what it’s like when I hear irrational arguments about ‘manhood’, ‘womanhood’ and how that relates to sex.  “come…join us…be one with us…”.  Wait!  Wasn’t that a line if the movie ‘THE LOST BOYS?” “Repeat that to yourself out loud and see how you feel.   

Back to the African Diaspora argument (from paragraph 1)…  In Jamaica, a woman without man is asked if she’s a lesbian.  If she does not have kids during her teens or 20’s the under-educated masses call her a ‘mule’.  The animal is used to translate a message since the culture speaks in symbols, analogies and allegorical messages.  For both Jamaica and Africa a man without a woman is inferred to be homosexual or impotent.   The only thing that this taunting and allegorical side bars, heard as whispers in school yards leads to [in those that have not had the benefit of being self empowered yet] is unprotected and (many times) unwanted sexual relations in search of self acceptance, love and some attention.   Why do we do this to each other? Why do we define a social identity and gender roles on things that limit the other entity from self empowerment and a brighter future!  Do we really self hate that much that we need to tear down another to feel good, or is it that we are so wrapped up in ideological ‘correctness’ and boxed concepts that we are sheep that follow the masses even when we question the ethics and morals of what we are engaged in! 

Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa recently announced a new $5 billion plan to build 20,000 affordable housing units across the city over the next five years. “This is the least affordable big city in America,” the Mayor was quoted as saying in the AP-released article on Monday, detailing the plan. The plan is geared toward providing affordable housing for the middle class by constructing new housing units, presumably in the form of apartment buildings. In Los Angeles, a salary of $40,000 can be considered low to moderate income.

While I can attest to the overpriced housing market that sticks its nose in the air to anyone who doesn’t make at least six figures, it seems like an uphill battle for a number of reasons. Most importantly, considering the current disasterous state of federal funds, many are skeptical about the origins of this $5 billion. According to the AP, $700 million has already been pledged by an investor, which will add to the $1 billion pot, courtesy of an earmarked fund for housing. The mayor claims that the rest of the funds will come from private donors, government grants, and alternative lendors.

Hmm. I’m not sure about this. I can’t help but think of my homeless friends that live in Santa Monica Park, who have been on a Section 8 waiting list for affordable housing for over 3 years.

What is confusing to me is the fact that the nearly 50,000 people living on Los Angeles streets were not prioritized, or even considered, in this plan. The plan has essentially ignored thousands and thousands of homeless people in an effort to make housing more affordable for people who already have it.

The plan, at least as much as I’ve learned about it, is really geared toward providing city employers more leverage when it comes to drawing employees to the city, which, in turn, will obviously bring more dollars to the city in the long run. 12.5-22.5 percent of the budget is to be set aside for low and moderate income people. What about the no-income people? Considering Los Angeles has one of the largest homeless populations in the country, it’s amazing to me that if the city has $5 billion to dedicate to housing, its not using all of it to aid the people who need housing the most.

I guess there’s no economic return on housing homeless people, so what’s the rush?