Social-justice news January 2001

Social justice news
January 2001

Executions decline in 2000
New labeling regs may end "organic" confusion
Where have all the houses gone?
Key Vatican council calls for expansion of global debt relief

Executions decline in 2000
In what some experts believe is one sign of a new sense of caution and skepticism about the death penalty among both politicians and the public, the number of execution in the United States declined 14 percent last year. Eighty-four prisoners were executed in 2000 compared to 98 put to death in 1999.

A Justice Department report released in December also found that 272 people had been sentenced to death in 1999, down from an average of 300 annually over the previous five years.

Of the 84 executions this year, 40, or almost half, were conducted in Texas, after review by President-elect George W. Bush. That is the largest number of executions in one year in any state in the nation's history, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The second-largest number were executed in 1862, when the United States Army executed 39 American Indians in Minnesota after an uprising there.

Texas has executed more people than any other state since 1930, when the federal government began to keep accurate records, according to a new report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the statistical branch of the Justice Department. The report found that Texas had put 496 people to death in that period, out of a total of 4,457 nationwide. The state has also executed the most inmates since the 1977, reinstatement of the death penalty: 199 out of a national total of 598.

The large number of executions in Texas is part of a sharp regional variation. From 1977 to the end of the 1999, the report said, about two-thirds of all executions took place in six states: Texas, with 199; Virginia, 73; Florida, 44; Missouri, 41; Louisiana, 25; and South Carolina, 24.

The report found that of the 98 prisoners executed in 1999, 61 were white, 33 were black, 2 were American Indians and 2 were Asian. Nine of them were Hispanic and were counted in the other categories.

In addition to the reduced number of executions this year, and the smaller number of those given a death sentence in 1999, the New York Times reports other signs of increased public concern about the application of the death penalty. In December, President Clinton delayed the execution of Juan Raul Garza for six months, leaving for the next president the decision on whether Mr. Garza, a confessed murderer, should be the first federal prisoner put to death since the 1960's.

Opinion polls have also shown that though a majority of Americans continue to favor the death penalty, support for it has declined. A Gallup Poll last February showed that support for the death penalty has dropped to 66 percent from 80 percent in 1984.

More info:
From the DPIC: "A Watershed year of change"
From the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Death Penalty 1999" (You will need an Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file. You can download one free-of-charge at Adobe.)

Back to page top

New labeling regs may end "organic" confusion
The "organically grown" label on products in supermarkets across America may have offered a reassuring symbol to consumers hoping to avoid the pesticide and other chemical residue left behind on most of the "conventionally" produced meat, fruit, and vegetables sold in the United States. But the industry's ambiguous standards and sometimes clashing regional regulatory differences often meant produce and meat products could hide behind an organic label even when to a layperson their true origins would appear purely industrial.

But new rules from the U.S. Department of Agriculture may end the confusion and bring labelling consistency to this fast-growing industry. Currently, there are 49 different organic certifications, each with different standards. And more than half of the states have some kind of regulation in place concerning organic foods. Rules and enforcement vary widely. Each regulating body has different policies on issues such as pesticides, fertilizers, feed and antibiotics. These inconsistent rules and the consumer confusion resulting from them have prompted the USDA to develop new national standards for organically produced products.

Ten years in the making and based on thousands of public comments, the proposed regulations are designed to "greatly reduce consumer confusion," according to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "Consumers will know what they are buying, and organic farmers will know what is expected of them." The proposed regulations would oversee the handling of crops, livestock and processed foods, while prohibiting the use of genetic engineering, sewage sludge, and irradiation. They would also require that livestock labeled "organic" be fed 100-percent organic feed and not be treated with antibiotics.

The proposal calls for the following new label wordings. These regulations are based on the percentage of organic ingredients in the product:

100 percent organic: These foods must contain only organically produced raw or processed products.
Organic: At least 95 percent of the ingredients in these foods must be produced organically, with any remaining ingredients consisting of either nonagricultural substances or approved nonorganically produced agricultural products.
Made with organic (specified ingredients): Between 50 and 95 percent of the ingredients in these processed products must be organic.

Processed products whose ingredients are less than 50 percent organic would not be allowed to make any organic labeling claims other than designating specific ingredients that are organically produced on the information panel of the label.

Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture during the 1990s. USDA estimates that the value of retail sales of organic foods in 1999 was approximately $6 billion. The number of organic farmers is increasing by about 12 percent per year and now stands at about 12,200 nationwide, most of them small-scale producers. According to a recent USDA study, certified organic cropland more than doubled from 1992 to 1997. Two organic livestock sectors, eggs and dairy, grew even faster.

More info:
The USDA National Organic Program

Back to page top

Where have all the houses gone?—an SOTE news analysis
A recent report on National Public Radio described the plummeting demand for rental housing in the eastern German city of Leipzig. With population shifts and economic adjustments in the wake of German reunification, the city of 475,000 people is running a 40 percent apartment vacancy rate. In order to bring the city's urban planning reality more in line with its needs, officials are in the process of demolishing much of the deteriorating apartment stock built during the years of the East German communist regime.

The United States should be so lucky. Here the availability of affordable housing has reached near-crisis proportions. Nationwide, some 5 million families spend more than half of their income on housing, and the shortage of affordable housing units totals about 4.4 million. Making this high demand and low supply of affordable housing worse is a larger problem: extremely tight rental markets in some urban areas. For example, while 5 percent is considered a healthy vacancy rate—one in which owners make a reasonable return on their investments and renters have a reasonable choice of affordable housing—the vacancy rate in Chicago is at 4.2 percent, and the Minneapolis metropolitan area's rate has shrunk to 1.5 percent.

How has the affordable housing market gotten into this situation? With increased wealth for some urbanites in the boom times of the past few years, the housing market has been able to command higher and higher prices and rents. In turn, urban professionals in search of housing bargains have been moving out of high-priced areas and into traditionally middle- and working-class neighborhoods—in the process snapping up most reasonably priced housing. At the same time, real estate developers have been targeting these areas for "rehabilitation" of old structures and construction of new ones, many of which carry the higher prices and rents the housing nomads can afford. Though higher rents can allow landlords to make needed improvements to properties, and rehabilitation has brought revitalization to "written off" neighborhoods, this entire process, known as gentrification, puts the richer invaders into competition not only with these neighborhood's longtime residents but also with those seeking subsidized housing and those leaving welfare, public housing, and homelessness.

These latter groups, lacking the financial resources of their wealthier neighbors to buy expensive buildings and rent expensive apartments, cannot compete and end up fleeing to cheaper areas and sometimes overcrowded conditions. Exacerbating the situation are the practices of some owners who convert units eligible for federal Section 8 rent subsidy program, refuse to accept Section 8 voucher holders, and whose voucher-accepting units also come with minimum income requirements, which exclude low-income tenants.

Beyond the economics of gentrification lies a question of government policy. Writing in the magazine The American Prospect, Kim Phillips-Fein sees what has happened to affordable housing in New York as a symptom of "reinventing government—when the stock market is supposed to replace social insurance, and private charity substitutes for the state."

As signs of government's waning responsibility for affordable housing, Phillips-Fein cites the weakening of rent regulations in New York City that protected tenants from steep rent hikes; the collapse of public investment in housing, including publicly subsidized housing; the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, one of the purposes of which was to prevent growth in public housing stock; cutbacks on the availability of federal Section 8 vouchers; and the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) of 1986, which was supposed to replace direct spending on public housing but has not come close to replacing old programs.

Enacted yearly by Congress beginning in 1986 and made permanent in 1993, LIHTC offers investors a federal income tax credit based on expenses incurred in acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing low-income housing. LIHTC is the "only game in town"—the nation's primary program for producing affordable housing and, in the federal government's eyes, the "solution" to affordable housing problem.

Unlike previous federal programs that provided tax incentives for investors in subsidized housing, LIHTC covers only a small part of a housing project's costs. On the plus side, the Community Reinvestment Act allowed developers to get loans to build in neighborhoods where previously lenders would not lend, and LIHTC has helped make the building of housing in these neighborhoods attractive to commercial developers. Nonetheless, LIHTC projects have not been enough to meet housing needs in the neighborhoods of some cities like Chicago.

Community housing developers find themselves in the position of many nonprofits: Does the private investment emphasis in using LIHTC override the community development mission? As the Chicago Rehab Network argues, "On a federal level we cannot advocate for an increase in tax credit allocations without reminding Congress that the LIHTC is not, and was never, meant to be the whole answer to the real expense of building truly affordable housing."

So what should public policy, and especially government, be doing to promote affordable housing? Phillips-Fein suggests the following: income supplements for poor tenants; construction of new public or nonprofit housing; subsidies for private-sector development; partial restoration of rent regulation; and protection for small-building tenants.

Catholic Charities of the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago calls for preservation of existing and creation of new low-cost, decent housing for low-income families, the elderly, and other vulnerable people; partnerships between nonprofit community groups, churches, private developers, government, and financial institutions to build and preserve affordable housing; and combating of discrimination in housing against racial and ethnic minorities, those with handicapping conditions, and families with children. Catholic Charities believes the federal government should sustain the HUD budget; protect the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires financial institutions to provide loans in communities in which they do business; expand LIHTC; and increase Section 8 funding.

It has been the traditional role of nonprofits to address social needs that government and business will not or cannot fill. Yet nonprofits' social mission should not serve as an excuse for government to evade its responsibilities in the area of public welfare by dumping the provision of social services on nonprofit agencies, which may lack the capacity to handle the load. The Reagan administration's massive downsizing of federal domestic spending is a case in point, as is the struggle nonprofit social service organizations have had in picking up the pieces of those ground through the welfare reform mill.

The relinquishing of social services to the "private sector," likely to pick up steam in one form or another in the new Bush administration, unfortunately has meant two things, both bad for nonprofits and the people they serve: overwhelming the capacities of private agencies, and letting private business more into the equation.

Turning low-income housing development over to the free market, as government policy has essentially done over the last few years, has not substantially improved the pool of affordable housing in most U.S. cities. It is crucial for society to find the right mix of government policy, business incentives, and nonprofit social service interventions to lessen the misery of those lacking the basic human need and right to shelter.—Joel Schorn

More info:
Kim Phillips-Fein in The American Prospect
Chicago Rehab Network:
HOMELine
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago
From SOTE: Stat house reviews an increase in emergency shelter and food requests

Back to page top

Key Vatican council calls for expansion of global debt relief
The Roman Catholic Church has been a long-time proponent of debt cancellation for highly indebted poor countries (HIPC), and, in one of its strongest statements to date, a key council at the Vatican issued a call for "100 percent cancellation of unpayable debts including those owed to the international financial institutions." So far, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) have agreed to reduce debts owed by impoverished countries by only about one-third.

The December 6, 2000 statement was made following a special 3-day consultation organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in Rome, entitled "From Debt Relief to Poverty Reduction."

The group declared, "[W]e call on the leaders of the world's largest economies meeting at the G8 Summit in Genoa in July 2001 to reduce further the debts of poor countries including those currently excluded—such as Vietnam, Nigeria and Bangladesh—and to address the problems of highly indebted middle income countries. Deeper cancellation, is required. This should result in a 100 percent cancellation of unpayable debts including those owed to the international financial institutions."

Regarding participation of civil society, the group stated: "We believe that the Church should not endorse a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper that has excluded meaningful participation of civil society. We therefore urge the WB and IMF to set out transparent criteria on the minimum standards of participation that will be required by the PRSP process."

In another show of support for global debt relief for the world's poorest nations, Pope John Paul II commented in his Christmas message: "Encouraging . . . are the efforts of all those, including men and women in public life, striving to foster respect for the human rights of every person, and the growth of solidarity between peoples of different cultures, so that the debts of the poorest countries will be condoned and honorable peace agreements reached between nations engaged in tragic conflicts."

The U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration have made a commitment to cancel 100 percent of the bilateral debt of thirty-some heavily indebted poor countries. Congress has also provided funding to assist the Inter-American Development Bank to partially cancel debts owed to it. So far Congress has appropriated $545 million toward an ongoing commitment to bilateral and multilateral debt cancellation. Debt relief advocates from Jubilee 2000/USA say the US Funding will encourage other creditor countries to fulfill their pledges, totaling $27 billion. These funds should help cancel between $90-$100 billion worth of debt and reduce the actual debt service payments of at least 22 heavily indebted poor countries by an average of 30.7 percent between now and 2005.

But many groups, including Jubilee 2000/USA, say this is not enough to meet the requirements of justice or to free up enough resources to tackle problems including the AIDS epidemic in the developing world. Sixteen of 22 countries that have so far received a reduction in payments will still be spending more each year on debt than on health. The UN Secretary General and the bipartisan Meltzer Commission have both called for 100 percent cancellation of debts of impoverished countries. The recent African Development Forum 2000 has also called for the expansion of debt relief programs.

The Jubilee 2000 scorecard for the year includes significant victories beyond the unexpectedly large debt-relief package from the US Congress. Congress also authorized the use of gold sales for the IMF in order to free up funding within the IMF for debt relief—"commitments . . . larger than the monies appropriated, because they represent bipartisan acknowledgment of the severity of the debt burden." Congress also made a statement opposing user fees imposed by the World Bank and IMF, acknowledging that they are harmful to impoverished communities.

According to a statement from Jubilee 2000, its "unfinished business" includes:

—Encouraging congressional approval of $375 million in funding over the next two years to fulfill the U.S.'s existing commitment to international debt relief.
—Pressuring the WB and IMF to provide definitive debt cancellation for HIPC. Although most major creditor governments are committed to 100 percent bilateral debt cancellation for heavily indebted poor countries, no such levels of relief are being offered by these and other international financial institutions.
—Pressuring creditor governments and international financial institutions to immediately suspend debt service payments and the accrual of interest on loans from HIPC. The unexpected delays in implementation of debt cancellation for eligible countries makes this imperative. As these debts are scheduled to be reduced further accrual of interest merely makes it more expensive for the debts to be removed from the books while continued payments further harm the indebted countries.
—The goal of "debt sustainability" under the current international debt relief initiative is misguided and inadequate, and must be replaced. This initiative currently defines "sustainability" in terms of a debt-to-export ratio. This overlooks the impact of debt payments on overall budget expenditures and development needs. It promotes environmentally unsustainable economies by encouraging countries to maintain a dependence on the export of primary commodities. The goal of debt cancellation should be people-centered sustainable development, not "sustainable debt."
—Debt cancellation must not be conditioned on IFI-designed macro-economic reform programs, such as Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which have been formulated and implemented without transparency or democratic participation of civil society. By imposing policies on countries that they have designed, the IMF and WB have undermined democracy and national sovereignty. These programs have often increased poverty, inequality and environmental degradation in much of the global South.

More info:
Jubilee 2000/USA

Back to page top

Statement from the Consultation "From Debt Relief to Poverty Reduction"
Organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and needy.—Proverbs 31:8-9

A Consultation entitled, "From Debt Relief to Poverty Reduction" was held in the Vatican, under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, from December 3rd to 6th 2000 and brought together representatives of Bishops' Conferences from 20 of the poorest countries in Africa Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia*, and representatives of Catholic development agencies. Representatives from International Monetary Fund and the World Bank took part.

The meeting was received in Audience by the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, who also addressed a written message to participants.

We came together to study the progress made on debt reduction in the framework of internationally agreed debt mechanisms. Our guiding principle in all our discussions has been the Preferential Option for the Poor. We are also witnesses to extreme poverty and misery in our countries. We believe that in every poor man or woman we meet Jesus Christ. We therefore reiterate our absolute conviction that the suffering and death of so many people as a direct result of poverty is a scandal crying out to heaven for redress.
The greater part of the meeting was devoted to an examination of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers which indebted and low income countries are required to prepare, in the context of the enhanced HIPC program and also to secure concessional donor finance. We insist that progress towards this new international compact on poverty reduction can only be brought to fruition with the complete cancellation of unpayable debts and their transformation into development resources - where 100 percent cancellation means 100 percent!
We have noted that, in contrast to externally imposed Structural Adjustment Programs, the new Poverty Reduction Strategy initiative is designed to shift policy-making to a process intended to draw civil society into discussions of nationally owned development priorities and policies and to base policy-making in this process.
The meeting addressed the notion of civil society, stressing the special role for those organizations which worked for the common good, while not seeking either economic or political power, as being those most likely and able to make representations on the conditions of the poor and the marginalized. It was suggested that the Church could sustain Forums which would permit the poor themselves to have a voice in the participation process.
We believe that the Church should not endorse a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper that has excluded meaningful participation of civil society. We therefore urge the World Bank and IMF to set out transparent criteria on the minimum standards of participation that will be required by the PRSP process.
In the political and economic dispensation in our countries, we are certain that weak governance and corruption are robbing the potential livelihoods and life chances of the poor. Throughout the world, the Church must address this global phenomenon with renewed vigor. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate for the Church to participate in discussions in order to secure the prudent allocation and management of public resources.
Furthermore, we would wish to work as far as possible as a cooperative partner with other denominations, faiths and civil society actors.
We are also certain that the confidence of the poor in their Church must not be jeopardized by manipulation by other institutions as it participates in political and economic programs. The Church's engagement with broad-based participatory policy development must be dependent on guarantees of access to all relevant economic information and durable commitments to the transparent and accountable management of public resources.
The political, social and ecclesial context in each of our countries will determine how our Church will engage with national Poverty Reduction Strategies. Our participation is based on the determination to pursue the goal, not of transitory or shallow poverty reduction, but, the eradication of poverty where the poor are enabled to realize their God-given potential through sustainable human development programs. We believe that successful and sustainable development strategies must be guided by the principle of Subsidiarity. This means the poor, and their authentic representatives, should be the key interlocutors and key participants in shaping the economic, social and political policies that most affect their lives.
Our meeting noted that poverty, in its various manifestations, has primarily a female face—be it access to economic resources, or income, or a voice in the decision-making process.
Authentic poverty eradication therefore requires the achievement of gender equity. This entails removing the obstacles to the full participation of women at all levels of society as well as ensuring that all policies and programs are consistent with attaining full human development for both women and men. We recognize a multiplicity of possibilities open to the local Church in its endeavors to articulate the concerns and suffering of the poor. The meeting stressed the special role the Church has as a reconciling agent within society. This also recognizes that conflict is a major cause of poverty.
It is crucially important that the Church enhances its own analytical capacities in regard to economic, social and policy issues. This will underpin the Church's prophetic role in the social sphere.
The universality of our Church also prompts us, not only to work for the eradication of the debt burden of the poorest countries, but also for a global financial and trading system that addresses the causes and pressures that result in unsustainable debts. We take this opportunity of a renewed international interest in poverty reduction on the part of the world's most powerful governments and institutions to urge them to address a trading system that, in systematically favoring the markets and exports of the North over those of the South, is fundamentally unjust.
As the year 2000 closes, we believe that we must renew our efforts to secure a new and broader debt relief initiative. The current diversion of precious resources to the payment of debt-service away from human development goals is an affront to our common humanity. Accordingly, we call on the leaders of the world's largest economies meeting at the G8 Summit in Genoa in July 2001 to reduce further the debts of poor countries including those currently excluded - such as Vietnam, Nigeria and Bangladesh - and to address the problems of highly indebted middle income countries. Deeper cancellation, is required. This should result in a 100 percent cancellation of unpayable debts including those owed to the international financial institutions.
As we leave Rome at the dawn of the new millennium, we are full of hope and determined to live out authentically the rich heritage of our Church's Social Teaching.
We are heartened by the message of the Holy Father to us, in which he gave us new encouragement to our efforts and urged us "to foster the subjectivity of society, a society which enables each person to be an active subject by placing their God-given talents at the service of the wider community."
"Jesus Christ came 'to proclaim the good news to the poor' (cf. Lk 4:18). May he be your support and inspiration during these days as you renew in the light of the Great Jubilee, your special commitment to all who are poor and outcast."
May Mary, Mother of the Poor, assist us in the releasing of our goals and vision.

Back to page top