Hunger, Housing & Poverty Committee
Housing is only considered “affordable” if a family spends no more than 30% of their income to live there.
Time to Bmore Equitable
Write to Baltimore City Council to tell them you support Bill 22-0195.
Click here to send a pre-created email to Councilman Costello and your Baltimore Council Member.
The U.S. government does not use the term “hunger,” but it defines and regularly measures the incidence of two conditions related to it.
One is “low food security,” or not always being sure of having enough money to pay for food.
The other is “very low food security,” skipping meals or not eating for a whole day or longer because there is not enough money for food.
The term “food insecurity” refers to households in either group. Bread for the World considers food insecurity to be hunger. Americans frequently interpret “hunger” or “food insecurity” to mean that someone does not have enough food.
And, of course, it’s true that not having enough food is hunger. But the two terms also encompass not just the number of calories available to people, but the nutrients they consume.
Since nutritious foods tend to cost more and may be harder to access in low-income neighborhoods, people who live below the poverty line are too often forced to choose cheap foods that may be filling but do not provide the nutrients needed for good health. Their health—especially the health of children—can and does suffer as a result.
“The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. … Inequality is the root of social ills.”
“The Face of Poverty” by student artist Megan Jackson is a national entry of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) Multimedia Youth Contest. This contest allows students in grades 7-12 to learn about poverty in the United States, its root causes, and faith-inspired efforts to address poverty, especially through CCHD. The contest is sponsored by CCHD and RCL Benziger.
Top Priorities for 2023
of Baltimore City residents live in food deserts where no healthy, affordable food options can be found.
Baltimore City school ages children are hungry when they arrive at school.
# of households in the United States that are food insecure.
Oppose any budget cuts that would increase hunger and poverty in the United States and around the world.
One in 8 households in the United States is food insecure-which means that 1 in 6 children’s lives are at risk of hunger. Budget cuts that reduce access to basic living standards like nutrition and health care will increase hunger.
Nearly 800 million people in the world are still hungry, and 20 million people are at risk of starvation due to famine and near-famine conditions in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen. Cuts to international poverty-focused development assistance results in life or death consequences.
Fully fund domestic safety-net and international development programs that end hunger and poverty.
At less than 1 percent of the federal budget, foreign assistance is some of the most impactful money we spend.
We urge Congress to continue to stand firm in its commitment to international affairs programs by providing no less than $60 billion in the international affairs budget for fiscal year 2018.
In the United States, programs like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), Medicaid, and “Given the current political climate, I have caught myself asking, where are our faith leaders in all of this?”
- Tax credits provide basic assistance and opportunity to individuals and families working to get back on their feet.
- Annually funded programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) nutrition program and summer.
- Electronic Benefits Transfer helps keep hunger at bay for millions of children living at risk of hunger.
Oppose harmful structural changes to SNAP, Medicaid, and international development assistance.
Block grants, per capita caps, and other structural changes that shift the cost of domestic safety-net programs to states threaten the ability of programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and refundable tax credits to help everyone who is eligible.
Our lead aid agency must be independent, strong, and capable. Any reforms to U.S. foreign assistance should be conducted jointly by Congress and the administration – in consultation with the development community – and be guided by core principles ensuring that U.S. assistance has the greatest possible impact, especially on the lives of those most in need.
There are hungry people in the United States. Why should we spend taxpayer dollars on international poverty-focused development assistance?
Globally, nearly 800 million people are hungry, and malnutrition causes approximately half of all deaths of children under age 5 (3.1 million children) each year.
Hunger and malnutrition prevent millions of people in developing countries from living healthy, productive lives and stunt the mental and physical development of future generations.
Foreign assistance is a vital tool within our foreign policy strategy. At less than 1 percent of the total federal budget, foreign assistance is some of the most impactful money we spend.
Poverty-focused development assistance programs, including initiatives like Feed the Future, help to stabilize weak and fragile states, build economic prosperity by driving growth, and promote U.S. moral leadership around the world.
As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in February, “When I hear if we cut foreign aid we can balance the budget, it’s just a complete lie. Foreign assistance is an insurance policy. Investing over there, even though we have needs here, makes us safer.”
For more information, see the Poverty-focused Development Assistance (PFDA) 101 fact sheet in this packet.
Our government has a spending problem, and our debt is on an unsustainable path. We have to live with the additional cuts to discretionary programs like foreign aid.
Cuts to lifesaving poverty-focused development assistance have real life or death consequences.
- Fewer farmers will have access to programs that help them grow their way out of poverty.
- Mothers and their children (particularly in the critical 1,000-days window) will lose access to nutrition interventions and treatments, leaving them vulnerable to stunting.
As we potentially face the largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, almost 13 million people could be cut off from lifesaving food aid; and over 1 million people could lose access to safe and sustainable water sources, and/or sanitation services that prevent the spread of disease.
For more information, see the Consequences of Sequestration fact sheet in this packet.
Does all U.S. foreign assistance get wasted or sent to corrupt governments? Should we overhaul USAID & the State Department to make them more efficient?
The United States does not provide most of its poverty-reducing aid directly to foreign governments. Instead, it is distributed through U.S.-based NGOs, including many faith-based organizations. There are checks in place to minimize the risk of fraud and abuse.
If done right, foreign assistance can push local institutions to do the right thing and increase accountability to both their citizens and U.S. taxpayers.
Slashing the budgets of the State Department and USAID is not reform and will not improve the effectiveness of these institutions.
Instead, it will hamper the progress that has already been made toward more effective overseas aid.
Reform should be based on sound policies guided by proven aid effectiveness principles.
Congress should oppose dramatic cuts to foreign assistance, and instead provide the necessary resources to ensure our security, reaffirm U.S. global leadership, and maintain the positive bipartisan trajectory toward sensible, policy-based reform.
Cuts to SNAP (formerly known as food Stamps) and Medicaid are necessary “to maintain the integrity of the program” or “to make sure the truly needy receive it.”
SNAP is already an effective and efficient program that reaches exactly whom it’s supposed to.
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $786,well below the strict national income limits. Eighty-three percent of SNAP households have incomes below the poverty line, which is $24,250 for a family of four.
Eighty-two percent of all SNAP benefits go to the most vulnerable households-those with children, elderly, or disabled people.
In fact, roughly 1.7 million veterans live in households that participated in SNAP at some point during the past 12 months, and about 980,000 veterans lived in households that participated in SNAP in an average month in 2013.
More than half of Medicaid recipients are children, and more than one-third of all U.S. children rely on Medicaid fir their health care. For more information, see The Hunger-Medicaid Connections fact sheet in this packet.
Structural changes to SNAP or Medicaid- whether a block grant, per capita cap, or shifting of costs to the states- will hurt the programs’ ability to respond to increases in need and will result in increased hunger and hardship in our country.
For more information, see the Budget 101: Block Grants, Flexibility, and Per Capita Caps fact sheet in this packet
What do you propose we cut instead? Where is the money to support programs for hungry people supposed to come from?
Congress should look to a combination of revenue increases (closing tax loopholes and tax expenditures) and responsible entitlement cuts that won’t hurt vulnerable populations.
Most of the deficit reduction enacted over the past few years has already come from nondefense appropriated spending programs, the same programs that the Trump budget and current spending caps hit especially hard. It’s time for a more balanced approach.
In the United States, the health-related costs of hunger and food insecurity to our economy are a staggering $160 billion. Investments in anti-hunger programs and antipoverty policies will curb future costs.
Charitable and private responses to hunger are more efficient and caring than government programs.
Ending hunger and poverty requires strong partnerships between the federal government, state and local governments, and local communities. Churches and individuals through private charity alone cannot serve every person who is hungry.
Including SNAP and child nutrition programs, the U.S. government provides 20 times more food assistance than private charity. Federal nutrition programs ensure that struggling families and individuals- regardless of what state they live in- have access to the food they need to thrive.
Cuts of the magnitude included in the Trump budget cannot be made up by churches and charity. Proposed cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, refundable tax credits, and TANF (the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) alone would require religious congregation in the United States to raise nearly $250,000 a year for 10 years to make up the difference.
Hunger & Poverty
Good nutrition during the 1,000-day period from the beginning of a woman’s pregnancy to her child’s second birthday is critical to a child’s health and future well-being.
To accelerate progress on nutrition, we must scale up what we know works: improved access to nutritious foods, vitamins and minerals, clean water and sanitation, promotion of breastfeeding, and treatment for severe malnutrition.
All children deserve the opportunity to live a healthy life and reach their full potential. Join us in making this opportunity a reality!
Leading Facts about Immigration Poverty
Leading Fact: Immigrants as a group have a poverty rate of 30 percent. Meanwhile, the national poverty rate is 14.8 percent. Hundreds of thousands of people could be moved out of poverty if comprehensive immigration reform is achieved and a pathway to citizenship provided for undocumented immigrants.
Hunger Fact Sheet
Learn More: Bread for the World recognizes immigration to be a hunger issue “on both sides of the border.” This means that when considering the way immigration and hunger intersect, we need to think about how hunger pushes people to migrate and how they experience hunger once they arrive in the United States. For example, many people migrate in the first place due to poverty in their home country. As advocates, we can promote more foreign spending on food aid and less on border security, which has been proven to be ineffective in preventing people from migrating. Domestically, we must consider how those most marginalized within our own country are experiencing hunger, and address why they are experiencing such hunger. Bread for the World explains, “No group of immigrants is more harmed by hunger and poverty than those without documentation. Lack of legal status contributes to their economic insecurity and exploitation. It also means that they have limited access to the social safety net in the United States.” To learn more about the intersectionality of immigration and hunger, check out the following fact sheets from Bread for the World: Immigration is a Hunger Issue and Border Policy Fact Sheet.
The true cost of disinvestment and decline in the physical attributes of a city is far more than direct spending on maintenance and lost tax revenue, but these are the measurable aspects of vacancy.
The broader costs to communities in terms of lost residents, public health impacts, and heightened crime are less measurable but very real. In Baltimore, these costs are also highly inequitable as they are largely borne by majority Black neighborhoods and Black homeowners.
The Costs of Baltimore’s Vacant Housing Study
The primary datasets used in this report are from the University of Baltimore’s Jacob France Institute Baltimore Neighborhood Indicator’s Alliance and Open Baltimore. Research Was Conducted by Johns Hopkins University.
- Baltimore’s vacant properties weigh on the city’s economic and social potential with measurable costs that far exceed the investment needed to bring them back to productive use. These costs are also highly inequitable as they are largely borne by majority Black neighborhoods and Black homeowners.
- The city’s recorded inventory of 15,000 vacant properties is dynamic, with properties entering and leaving vacancy every year, but hovering between 7 and 8% of total city properties. The number of total unoccupied properties is much larger, but includes housing in good condition.
- Baltimore’s housing market has strengthened in the past two years, but still falls well below national benchmarks. The city has the third highest rate of vacant and abandoned properties in the country.
- We estimated at least $100 million in lost revenue annually. The depressed value of vacant properties creates a shortfall of potential property tax revenue of approximately $50 million each year, with an additional $22 million loss attributed to the “contagion effect” on the value of nearby properties. The city could also benefit from at least $24 million in additional income tax revenue and over $12 million in additional water and sewer revenue if 15,000 vacant properties were occupied.
Equitable Housing Initiatives
What Is Inclusionary Housing Bill 22-0195
Welcome Basket Projects
For Our Neighbors who previously experienced homelessness.
In 2022, Baltimore rehoused 1,188 individuals and families experiencing homelessness. But the annual point-in-time census counted 1,597 Baltimoreans in need of housing on just one night in February. Every day, more neighbors, friends, and family reach out for help. MORE HELP IS NEEDED.
St. Ignatius Parish is reaching out to support our neighbors previously experiencing homelessness by purchasing new comfort items and housewares packed in a Welcome Basket that will be delivered to their new home when they are rehoused. While it may seem to be a small step to addressing the homeless problem in Baltimore City, Yvonne Wenger, Director of Community Affairs at the Archdiocese of Baltimore assured us that our parish’s participation to provide 10 Welcome Baskets means a lot. We agree and appreciate the generosity of our parishioners. We made a commitment to join the effort of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Mayor’s Office on Homeless Services and the Mount Vernon Neighborhood Partners because of our shared concern for our neighbors experiencing hopelessness. According to Yvonne, who facilitates this project on behalf of Archbishop Lorie, “the welcome baskets are a need for the individuals and families that will provide resources and immediate results.”
The Justice & Peace Ministry went all in on the project providing a list of green, eco-friendly products, and healthy (mostly) snacks and teas. And, so did the Parish Office in helping with all of product deliveries, packing, and preparations. In addition to the bamboo laundry hamper, and contents each Welcome Basket included a welcome letter from Rev. Brian Frain, S.J. and a $25 VISA gift card.
Many thanks to Rev. Brian, Chris McCullough, Greg Richards, Barbara Dailey, Theresa Furnari, Lorraine Cuddeback-Gedeon, John Odean, Angie Turner, and Deacon Paul Weber
Congress Must Protect and Strengthen SNAP and Other Key Anti-Hunger Programs
Give policymakers a brief, up-to-date fact sheet on what they can do to protect and strengthen key anti-hunger programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Leading Facts about Minimum Wage
Leading Fact: $17.67: the amount per hour the Living Wage Calculator suggests an individual living with another adult and two children must earn to support their family. The current statewide minimum wage, $13.25 an hour, is simply not enough.
Learn more about Minimum Wage
Learn More: The current minimum wage in Maryland is a major contributor to the reality of hunger and poverty in our state. Minimum wage employees do not make enough money to support themselves and their families adequately, resulting in hunger, poverty, and related social problems. Our work advocating for a $15 statewide minimum wage by 2023 through the Fight for $15 campaign supports legislation that would put Maryland on track towards achieving a living wage for all people and families. A $15 minimum wage would bring great relief to many in Maryland living paycheck to paycheck and renewed hope that practical change can be achieved through just legislative action. This legislation would not entirely address the ever grave situation of poverty afflicting Baltimore, where, according to the Baltimore City Health Department, nearly 30% of families currently have an income below the poverty level, and about 13% of the population is unemployed entirely. However, it would be a drastic improvement. To learn more about hunger and poverty in Maryland specifically, check out this fact sheet on Ending Hunger in Maryland.
Community Housing Hub
What Baltimore Can Learn From Other Cities that Have Tackled Vacant Properties
From the Baltimore Banner
Baltimore isn’t the only place that has struggled to reduce a glut of vacant properties: several other cities and towns also are dealing with decades of flight to the suburbs, the Great Recession housing crash, and the lingering effects of redlined neighborhoods or other remnants of racist or discriminatory practices.
Some states — including Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. — have been able to use a $1.5 billion Obama-era program to prevent foreclosures and address neighborhood blight, but Maryland did not qualify. Baltimore’s vacant house problem is so stubborn and pervasive that no one tool, developer or community association alone can solve it, but those working on the issue say the city should try new ideas, tap community resources and pursue legal options to make progress.
The Baltimore Banner went looking for examples of how other cities have addressed vacant and blighted housing. These are some of their stories.
Loaves & Fishes Ministry
St. Ignatius engages in Direct Action to address hunger in Baltimore City through the Loaves & Fishes ministry. Learn more by visiting our Loaves & Fishes ministry page.
For more information about getting involved with Loaves and Fishes contact Len Heckwolf at firstname.lastname@example.org