NEWSBYRACHEL MULROY

Children enter foster care for a variety of reasons, but quite often socio-economic status plays a role in determining their placement. The same clients placed in care due to poverty-related circumstances (often generalized as "neglect" ) are at risk of falling into poverty as adolescents and adults, according to a Brown Universtiy report. With this in mind, I think we can all agree that the most important aspect of foster care is placing children with educated, caring, competent adults who are capable of providing stable and nurturing homes for their foster kids.

Contemporary Services, Inc., a private foster care agency in Baltimore, Maryland, has recently denied one couple's application to become foster parents due to their outrageous request that any foster child not bring pork products into their home. I know, I couldn't believe it either! Denying a child the right to eat bacon is (apparently according to these guys) an infringement of his religious, cultural and personal rights! I know I can sleep better at night knowing homeless and transient children can eat pork wherever they want.

However, for Tashima Crudup and Andre Moore, who are devout Muslims, consuming pork is a cultural and religious taboo. This is an undeniable fact, but what is curious about this whole situation is that their denial letters states this as the only reason why Crudup and Moore are unsuitable for foster parenting. Of course, Contemporary Services (which doesn't seem to hold very contemporary values) has no other justifiable reason to doubt their capabilities. Crudup completed the 50 hours of training required for licensure, and she ensured placement workers that children would be allowed to practice their own religion in her home, and even offered to provide transportation to religious services. Crudup herself grew up in foster care, and has the ability to empathize with clients.

Of course, I'm not the only one concerned about what's really going on here

Earth Day is right around the corner, and I am loving how "living green" is catching on around here! As more and more people become environmentally conscious, it is now more fashionable than ever to conserve our valuable resources. While I'm enthusiastic about saving the planet, I have to laugh and shake my head at some suggestions for how we can help individually at home. Living in poverty has taught me the same eco-friendly things that so many websites and morning talk shows treat as amazing revelations (shut off the lights?! what a concept!).

1. Do laundry efficiently. We all have to do it — at home, at the laundromat, at our mom's house. I've almost always had the privilege of having a washer and dryer, I just haven't always been blessed with the income to afford maintaining them. When my dryer broke a year and a half ago, I just hung our clothes to dry. I wash all our laundry in cold water to keep the bills affordable, and the bonus is that I'm helping the planet too.

2. Shut off the water. I never ever let water flow freely in this house, whether you're brushing your teeth or doing dishes — if you don't need it, you better not turn it on. Reducing our water bill this way is great, but we also use greywater for our outdoor plants and mopping the floor (it just gets dirty again anyway).

3. Take the bus, bike or walk. Where I live, if you have kids but no vehicle, your only affordable options are taking the bus or walking to where you have to go. If you've never trooped through the snow on a bitter New England day with a 4-year-old and a 2-year-old in tow, let me be the first to let you know it is an experience one never forgets. But what it has taught me is that there are a lot of lazy people out there destroying the ozone layer when they could take advantage of days that permit a walk to the store or a bus ride to a friend's house.

As every survivor knows, an abusive relationship is cyclical. The abuser hurts the abused, the abused tries to leave, then returns to the abuser because he is also the provider. The wheel spins again. Similarly, consumers living in poverty fall victim to major corporations which they rely on to meet their needs.

This year, Walmart has replanted its flag at the top of the Fortune 500 list with $14 billion in profits. How is this retail giant thriving when more than 14 million people are out of work? Why is it that the poorer Americans become, the richer Walmart gets? It's a combination of many factors, but in the end it all adds up to one conclusion: Walmart has reined us into an abusive relationship.

I admit I'm guilty when it comes to being an unconscious consumer; I hate the store but just can't stop shopping there. I'd like to leave, but I don't know where to turn to.

As exposed in the film Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices, the supergiant is notorious for international human rights violations, civil rights violations, a blatant disregard for workers' rights and robbing the American public through tax loopholes and subsidies. The company is guilty of noncompliance with EPA regulations and polluting our environment from coast to coast (and worldwide).

Despite knowing this, millions of consumers living in poverty are stuck in the same rut I am.

Imagine waking up every morning in the cab of a pick-up truck. Worse, imagine falling asleep in one every night. There aren't many things to feel greatful for when you're homeless. That's why I just have to share this story of a young woman who is using her own personal adversity to help those living in the most desperate state of poverty.

Shay Kelley worked for AT&T until she was laid off in 2009. Her car was stolen days later. Kelley found herself homeless in Jackson, Mississippi, after she was unable to afford rent due to her circumstances.

This is one girl who doesn't let a thing get her down. After finding a job at a restaurant, Kelley saved up enough cash to buy a pickup truck (Bubba) and start a solo journey across the United States aimed at helping the homeless.

Project 50/50 was dreamed up by Shay Kelley shortly after her dismissal from work last year. Her goal is to travel to each of the 50 states in 50 weeks, collecting and donating 200 non-perishable food items each week she's on the road. That comes out to 10,000 items across the nation in a year. Kelley accepts items such as blankets and toys for distribution as well.

On her website, Kelley documents her experience by journaling and posting photos she takes with a camera that was donated to her for the trip. Some of the most inspiring stuff I've ever read is written on Shaykelley.com. It is humble and sincere and ambitious. The photos she takes are beautiful, and can be purchased through the fundraising page. Kelley also has a Facebook page for her fans, and has been nominated for HGTV's Change The World prize.

Native Americans account for just over one percent of the population, too small a percentage to effect much political change. But millions of them are being cut out of the promise of America. The national poverty rate was 13.2 percent in 2008, a figure that is on the rise thanks to the Great Recession. Our nation's Native American population living on native land, however, suffers at a rate of 32.2 percent.

A survey of the 40 most debilitated American Indian and Alaska Native counties shows that geographic location is a key factor of Native American poverty. Those in rural areas have lower rates of employment and higher rates of child poverty than similarly disadvantaged minority groups in other counties. Some reservations, like Pine Ridge in South Dakota, resemble third-world countries.

One of the greatest threats this geographic barrier poses is malnourishment. Without the money to purchase high-quality foods such as fresh vegetables and grains, not to mention access to grocery stores that stock them, Native Americans are among our country's least healthy. Food stamps do little good for those without access to markets on a regular basis. However, the USDA's Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations exists to break down barriers -- both physical and financial -- to provide the Native population with healthy food choices.

Think of it this way: while city-dwellers get an EBT card to swipe for bagfuls of food, many Native Americans get their food assistance in the form of an actual prefilled box. So what's in it?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll never go hungry again. That's what the Red Artichoke Culinary School in Salinas, California, is hoping to achieve by teaching the homeless to cook. The staff at Dorothy's Place, which provides services to homeless people, has been mulling over starting a culinary school for several years. That idea has been gaining interest and support throughout the community for the past several months, and directors are working to make the school a reality.

Red Artichoke isn't just about cooking classes -- it's a program designed to empower those in need and give them the education and life skills needed to pursue a career. After all, simply learning how to cook doesn't mean you'll have the food to do so. Dorothy's Place runs the soup kitchen (hence the name, Dorothy's Kitchen) on Soledad Street that will do more than just hold a finger in the dam. Currently, the people who run the kitchen are guests who volunteer to do so. In its quarterly newsletter, program director Jill Allen rationalizes that since they already have self-motivated volunteers working in the kitchen, why not take it a step further to give these folks the chance for a better life?

While the kitchen is functional for service purposes, renovations are needed before it can become a center for learning. The estimated cost for adding space and equipment stands at $165,000. Donations are needed to make it happen. The wish list Dorothy's Kitchen has compiled includes cabinets, flooring, stock pots and money for permits and fees. The kitchen also needs skilled chefs willing to donate their expertise to helping students attain credentials and employment.

When I gave birth to each of my daughters, I never once thought my life could be in danger. I didn't worry because I am an American, and therefore have access to the most capable health professionals in the world. But after reading Amnesty International's report "Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA," I counted myself lucky to have survived childbirth at all. The United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and spends more than any other nation on health care expenses, yet ranks 40th in maternal survival rate. This paradox translates to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births (as of 2006) nationwide, with severely disproportionate ratios among minorities and low-income women.

Maternal death is defined by the World Health Organization as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of giving birth. The report's numbers are staggering. For example, there are 86 deaths per every 100,000 live births among African-American women in New York City. Washington, D.C. has an overall maternal death rate of 34.9 per 100,000. What's worse is that half of these deaths are preventable. Amnesty highlights cases of new mothers who died because of hospital oversights which led to internal bleeding, heart complications and other reversible ailments. In an industrialized country, these figures are inexcusable.

While we can afford to provide at-risk groups with proper prenatal care and health coverage, we just won't do it. Minorities are more likely to be impoverished than whites and therefore less likely to carry private health insurance. Rather than be indebted with hospital bills, pregnant women are simply avoiding the care that could potentially save their lives. Meanwhile, 42 percent of births in the U.S. are covered by Medicaid, but because of system flaws coverage usually results in delayed or inadequate care. It's clear that this halfhearted government effort isn't helping prevent many maternal deaths among African-Americans. In fact, there is a 23.2 percent difference in maternal mortality between white and black women, according to the CDC. And there's nothing genetic about that.

The future couldn't look brighter for all 107 seniors at Urban Prep. Every one of them has been accepted to college, a combined total of 72 four-year colleges and universities around the country -- not bad for the first graduating class of this innovative charter school. The Chicago Tribune has been touting the achievements of these young black men and the Academy all week.

The Urban Prep Academy for Young Men is the first, and Illinois' only, all male, all African-American public charter school. With three schools -- Englewood, East Garfield Park and South Shore -- the Academy serves high school students from some of the most destitute neighborhoods in the city. As a matter of fact, 82 percent of students come from low-income families. Inner-city kids are often exposed to high levels of violence, poverty, and crime -- statistics that are magnified among minorities. Despite the challenges of surviving in such an environment, these teenagers are thriving in the classroom.

There is so much hype surrounding statistics that supposedly represent the complex African-American community. The media (and especially racists) like to bend data to suit their purposes, and even government info can be misleading. It's refreshing and inspiring to see young black men rising above the stereotypes they confront every day. The Urban Prep Academy is a promising venture. The faculty and staff are obviously more than capable of meeting the challenge of educating a subgroup with a high risk of falling victim to the streets. According to its 2009 Annual Report, Urban Prep ranked third (of 98) in Chicago public schools, while the neighborhood school was ranked at 81. I had to read the report twice to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting information -- no hype here, this charter school really is incredible.

It seems that lately, investing in our future isn't a high priority for Congress. If it were, the amendment to extend funding for emergency TANF and thousands of summer jobs would have cleared the Senate this week. Instead, the proposal only got 55 votes out of the 60 needed to provide states with $2.6 billion -- money intended to help families in emergency financial situations and to support youth employment. The proposal set forth by Sens. John Kerry and Patty Murray would have created at least 500,000 jobs for teenagers this year, and simultaneously could have provided impoverished families with much needed subsidies.

Does congress want people to work or not? How can Sen. Scott Brown, who spent a good portion of his campaign talking about job creation, vote against this proposed amendment? It's so confusing to me, because just the other day Brown was quoted by MSNBC as saying, "Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger." Apparently, that stance works fine when he's fulfilling his promise to Republicans to vote against the health care bill -- but as for making jobs available? Not quite as important, actually.

At first glance, employing a 16-year-old for the summer might not seem like an issue that should stand front and center. It isn't even summer yet anyway, and maybe if poor people weren't so lazy in the first place they wouldn't need the government to spend money on them.

What about the long term? What happens when these teenagers enter the workforce in a year or two and there is no viable market for unskilled, minimally educated employees? There is no way America can continue to push people with zilch for job experience into the pool and expect the unemployment rate to decline. Not only are we robbing them of a head start, we are robbing ourselves of the money teenagers can (and will) pump into our economy each week (Megan Fox movies, etc.).

Most Americans will be getting 2010 U.S. Census forms in their mailboxes this week. You've likely seen information pamphlets lying around the post office or the DMV, or maybe you caught the Census commericial during the Super Bowl or you've seen that ridiculous NASCAR stock car plastered in Census advertisements. In any case, the government is doing whatever it can to get the word out about the demographic count that's been held every 10 years since it was included in the Constitution. Not excited? It isn't really all that interesting -- unless you're part of a low-income or minority community.

Census workers attempt to count every American, but they can't do it without the willing participation of each citizen. The mail participation rate was just 72 percent in 2000 (see your area's participation here). According to information from the NAACP, Latinos, African-Americans, Native Americans, low-income people and the homeless are at the greatest risk of being missed. These populations are especially underrepresented, meaning that funding determined by inaccurate Census data is forced to cover more people than it was meant for.

The good news is that shelters, soup kitchens and other service providers will be counted through a "service based enumeration operation." This is like a Census outreach effort, one that aims to account for as many low-income and homeless people as possible. The government also takes into consideration those who are college students, serving in the military or otherwise without a permanent residential address. Clearly, these are good indications of the Census Bureau's efforts to take a "snapshot of America." As Americans, we must also do our part.

The data gathered is used by the government to determine important things such as political representation and federal funding. Private and public institutions also refer to Census data to determine where to invest. Of course, if you don't have much use for public schools, head start programs, senior centers or more political input, the 2010 Census may not have dramatic effects on your situation. However, there are plenty of us out there who have seen much-needed funding for public services vaporizing. This is why filling out the Census is so important!