“I noted with interest last week’s report that Winston-Salem has ‘the worst rate of family hunger of any metropolitan area in the nation.’

Yet Twin City kids are fat, a problem that requires Mayor Allen Joines’ urgent attention.

I’m having trouble reconciling this problem.”

Actually, “fat and hungry” is not a contradiction. When you’re involved in ministry to the poor (particularly poor children), you learn quickly that obesity is a problem among low-income people. When you’re eating on Food Stamps or trying to stretch your dollars, you often have to choose the cheapest food — which is almost always the worst for you. Research backs that up:

From the American Academy of Pediatrics, “The Association of Child and Household Food Insecurity With Childhood Overweight Status”, Patrick H. Casey, et al. [emphasis mine] :

Household and child food insecurity are associated with being at risk for overweight and overweight status among many demographic categories of children. Child food insecurity is independently associated with being at risk for overweight status or greater while controlling for important demographic variables.

From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, “Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs“, Adam Drewnowski [emphasis mine]:

“This review focuses on the relation between obesity and diet quality, dietary energy density, and energy costs. Evidence is provided to support the following points. First, the highest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. Second, there is an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost ($/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer. Third, the high energy density and palatability of sweets and fats are associated with higher energy intakes, at least in clinical and laboratory studies. Fourth, poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures, low fruit and vegetable consumption, and lower-quality diets. A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low-income groups. Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit.”

From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, “The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost”, Adam Drewnowski [emphasis mine] :

“Highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the United States are found among the lower-income groups. The observed links between obesity and socioeconomic position may be related to dietary energy density and energy cost. Refined grains, added sugars, and added fats are among the lowest-cost sources of dietary energy. They are inexpensive, good tasting, and convenient. In contrast, the more nutrient-dense lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit generally cost more. An inverse relationship between energy density of foods (kilojoules per gram) and their energy cost (dollars per megajoule) means that the more energy-dense diets are associated with lower daily food consumption costs and may be an effective way to save money. However, economic decisions affecting food choice may have physiologic consequences. Laboratory studies suggest that energy-dense foods and energy-dense diets have a lower satiating power and may result in passive overeating and therefore weight gain. Epidemiologic analyses suggest that the low-cost energy-dense diets also tend to be nutrient poor. If the rise in obesity rates is related to the growing price disparity between healthy and unhealthy foods, then the current strategies for obesity prevention may need to be revised. Encouraging low-income families to consume healthier but more costly foods to prevent future disease can be construed as an elitist approach to public health. Limiting access to inexpensive foods through taxes on frowned upon fats and sweets is a regressive measure. The broader problem may lie with growing disparities in incomes and wealth, declining value of the minimum wage, food imports, tariffs, and trade. Evidence is emerging that obesity in America is a largely economic issue.”

>> Read additional scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on research linking poverty and obesity.

The harsh words and hard hearts reveal the truth — the concern is not for the poor and any negative effects government assistance programs may have on them, it’s for the pocketbooks of those who oppose them! If they were truly concerned about the poor, they would be spending their energy advocating for positive change and accountability for government assistance programs — not trying to dismantle them! (For those who argue that the government shouldn’t be involved in helping the poor, they would be spending their energy advocating for effective private programs to help the poor — not just trying to end them!)

God is not fooled by any of this. Those who ridicule, scorn and ignore the plight of the poor also mock and blaspheme God! And they dig their own graves. God’s Word is clear. He is the defender of the poor!

“Those who mock the poor insult their Maker; those who rejoice at the misfortune of others will be punished.”
– Proverbs 17:5

“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.”
– Proverbs 19:17

“Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts.”
– Proverbs 21:2

“He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.”
– Proverbs 28:27

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
– Matthew 6:19-21

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
– Matthew 25:41-46

“For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”
– 1 Timothy 6:10

In the face of historic deficits, the nation faces unavoidable choices about how to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. These choices are economic, political — and moral.

As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected. We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms, and to speak out for justice.

As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.

Key Principles:

1. The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.
2. Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
3. We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world.
4. National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
5. A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.
6. The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect “the least of these.” “What would Jesus cut?” “How do we share sacrifice?”
7. As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our priorities as a people.
8. God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who are poor.

» Continue reading A Circle of Protection: A Statement on Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor

Our county had a good treatment center which offered detox, outpatient, and inpatient services. The center stayed full, with a waiting list, from the day it opened, but still, it was good treatment, and people got help there. But there were issues with Bridgeway, the operator contracted to provide services, and the state suspended admissions in August. The county is transitioning to a new provider, DayMark, but new patients won’t be admitted until at least late November. So that’s four months with no county substance abuse treatment.

Uninsured/under-insured Guilford County residents in need of substance abuse treatment can go to ARCA in Winston, RTS in Burlington or ADATC in Butner for detox and crisis stabilization. But those services are limited to 14 days. While that’s helpful in some cases, in many cases, it’s like sticking a bandaid on a seriously injured car crash victim and dumping them back into the middle of the interstate. Those in recovery from cocaine addiction, for example, often need significantly more residential treatment. They need to be in a safe, structured environment while their brains begin to heal. And at just 14 days’ clean time, a crack addict’s brain looks like someone turned the lights out.

Much is said about “community-based treatment,” which means non-residential (not in a facility), but in reality, it sounds a lot better than it often works. “Best practices” and “client-centered therapy” are also important parts of good treatment. But the substance abuse treatment available locally to alcoholics and addicts who don’t have good health insurance coverage doesn’t always measure up to those terms.

I’m a realist. I know that the biggest reason why we don’t have the needed treatment is because there’s not enough money to pay for it. Local and state treatment programs are paid for primarily with tax dollars. There’s always been a shortage of treatment beds and treatment options. And the current economy has no doubt worsened the situation. But I also know the cost of addiction that most taxpayers don’t see or think about. It’s “pay me now or pay me later.” When treatment-ready alcoholics and addicts can’t get the help they need, and they continue in their addictions, taxpayers still end up paying for it.

People who can’t access needed treatment services often continue to cycle through emergency rooms (the most expensive form of healthcare) and detox programs. That costs taxpayers money. Active alcoholics and addicts who are on disability may use government benefits, such as SSDI or SSI checks, food stamps or utility vouchers to buy alcohol and drugs. Taxpayers pay for that. Police officers, jailers and judges can tell you about the correlation between addiction and crime. Again, taxpayers pay.

The cost of the destruction of lives — both the addicts’ and their friends and families — cannot be measured.  Alcoholics, addicts, and their friends and families lose time from work dealing with crises. Alcoholics, addicts, and their friends and families deal with mental and physical health issues — some which contribute to the alcoholism and addiction, and some resulting from it. Families break up and relationships end because of alcoholism and addiction. Single-parent families are at a greater risk of poverty and are more likely to receive government assistance. All of this adds up to more taxpayers dollars.

There’s much stigma, misinformation and mythology attached to alcoholism and addiction. This probably contributes to the lack of advocacy for increasing treatment options. But if we were to really look at the bottom line, we’d see that “detox and done” isn’t really serving anyone.

It’s easy to appeal to compassion and make an emotional case for providing treatment for alcoholics and addicts who are ready to do the next thing. But the pragmatic case is just as compelling, if not more so. Currently, adequate treatment is not available because our community can’t afford to provide it. But the truth is that taxpayers are already paying (and likely paying more) for not providing adequate treatment services, which raises the obvious question: Can we really afford not to provide it?

“What would Jesus do about today’s homelessness? He would start with a sack lunch and a prayer. And then would begin to overturn society’s approach to homelessness.”

~ Joel John Roberts, CEO of People Assisting The Homeless, Publisher of PovertyInsights.org

» Read WWJD About Homelessness in America?

From YES! Weekly blog:

08/27/2010: Draft revision of RUCO ordinance advances to advisory board

08/25/2010: RUCO task force plods forward

» Previously on ChosenFast.com

Since RUCO began, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of violations. (See graph at Greensboro Housing Coalition’s web site.) But now, the future of this successful program is in jeopardy.

City Council member Nancy Vaughan has suggested that RUCO change from a mandatory program to self-report. (She has since seemed to be reconsidering her position.) Representatives from TREBIC (Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition) and the Greensboro Landlords Association would like to see RUCO abandoned. Housing advocates, such as Greensboro Housing Coalition and Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, fiercely oppose any changes.

City staff (Engineering & Inspections and Fire Department) also argue for keeping RUCO. The Greensboro Human Relations Commission has an interest in the outcome of the fight. Council member Robbie Perkins supports keeping the program. (source: Jordan Green)

Meanwhile, landlord Bill Burkley, who’s worked as a paid political consultant to some Council members, is appealing fines for code violations, and has just had his case continued before the advisory board which is pursuing the elimination of RUCO (source: Amanda Lehmert, via Fec) Five Council members who were contacted for a news story say they weren’t contacted or lobbied by Burkley.

I oppose self-report on code violations, because I know that some tenants won’t report, for fear of landlord retaliation, including losing their housing. Just recently, I’ve seen three examples of renters who fear retaliation and/or have already been retaliated against for reporting code violations. (Update: In all three cases, these were serious violations requiring immediate attention, that likely would have resulted in a 48-hour vacate notice, if not fixed within that time period.)

I could not obtain permission to share the stories of any of these renters. I was told: “Do not blog about this.” “Don’t tell anybody.” “You can’t say anything.” It’s frustrating, but their refusal to even allow me to share their stories anonymously proves the point that self-report doesn’t work. RUCO’s mandatory inspection system has been proved to work, by decreasing code violations markedly.

I understand why TREBIC and the Greensboro Landlords Association oppose RUCO. It forces landlords to meet code, levies fines for violations and prevents rental of units without certificates. In other words, it costs landlords money, and both those organizations represent landlords. But that doesn’t make their opposition right.

The worst part about the push to go to elimination of RUCO and self-report of violations is that it pits power and money (TREBIC, Greensboro Landlords Association) against poor people who are most likely to live in substandard housing and fear reporting housing code violations.  Power vs. poverty is an unfair fight. Too often, power wins. I’m hoping and praying that many advocates — and renters! — will step up and fight for the continuation of this successful program.

Be one of the voices in support of RUCO! Email Council members. Speak during the public comment period at a Council meeting. Write a letter to the editor — News & Record, YES! Weekly, Rhino Times. Blog, Facebook, Twitter. Say something!

Also posted at CaraMichele.com

UPDATED, 08/28/10: My landlord friends tell me via the comments below, and in private conversations, that the power vs. poverty analogy is not accurate.  I’m still listening. Meanwhile, there’s more.

“Requests for help rise as non-profits struggle:” (PDF) Some agencies have seen applications for emergency financial assistance double since last year. That assistance pays for utility bills and rent payments. Some people are being turned away. That means gas and electricity turned off. And families being evicted from housing. (When you can’t pay your rent, you get evicted. And if you live in public housing and your utilities get turned off, you get evicted.) Greensboro Urban Ministry Director Mike Aiken says this is the worst he’s seen it in his 30 years of service.

“The cold snap causes scramble at shelters:” (PDF) Homeless shelters in High Point and Greensboro are already doing emergency winter shelter — sheltering people beyond their normal capacity — because of freezing temperatures which have come early this year.  And there isn’t enough shelter space for everyone who needs it.  This adds urgency to our efforts to establish more emergency winter shelter locations.

I fear that it’s going to be a long, cold winter.  In a lot of ways.  For a lot of people.

Unlike a lot of hotels, where people check in and stay for a night or two while they’re traveling, the Coliseum Inn is used by many people, including families with children, as low-cost housing.  Without alternatives, some of these people are going to be homeless when and if the hotel closes.  A recent News & Record article says:

Closing the motel would also put some residents out on the streets.

The city staff have been working with nonprofits to determine how they can help low-income residents who call the hotel home, said Dyan Arkin with the department of housing and community development. Counselors may be provided to help residents find new housing.

Who are the non-profits that the City is talking to? What are the options for the Coliseum Inn residents? I’d really like to know. I emailed Council and met with representatives from the City’s Dept. of Housing and Community Development months ago, when I first heard of the possibility that the City might buy the hotel. But I haven’t heard anything from the City since that initial meeting.

Our housing programs are full. Our shelters are full. A group of us are currently having meetings about emergency winter shelter, because we already know there won’t be enough shelter for individuals and families this winter — and that’s before you factor in the closing of the Coliseum Inn.

I just want somebody to be honest and non-political at that Council meeting tonight.  If there’s a plan in place for those residents, awesome, tell us what it is.  If not, then say that.  And we’ll go from there.  As my homeless friends say, “Just tell it like it is.” Please.

Update: Got a call from a City staffer. There’s no magic solution for potentially displaced residents, “but there’s a recognition that there could be needs.” The conversation will continue.   I’ll be watching the meeting tonight. You can watch online here.

Update #2: Council voted to buy the property. So I guess the work begins now. [Sigh.]

From my on-the-street perspective, it certainly appears that hunger and homelessness are increasing in Greensboro.  There are more and newer faces at free meal sites, homeless shelters and the downtown library, one of our de facto day centers.  I went to Weaver House the other day looking for a homeless friend, and for the first time in years, I didn’t recognize a single face among the crowd of homeless people hanging out around the doorway and in the parking lot.

I’m hearing from homeless service providers that their numbers are up.  There were problems with our county homeless count last year, resulting in an undercount, and I’m not depending on the next count for an accurate number, either.  But my eyes tell me that there are more homeless and hungry people in town.  And it’s apparently going to get worse before it gets better.