Poverty

Today, Boston University's Center for Finance, Law & Policy announced that it will assume responsibility for the Global Financial Inclusion Guide. Formerly known as the Financial Inclusion Regulation Center run by CGAP, the Guide is now the only centralized database of banking laws and regulations for developing countries.

Demos, a multi-issue policy, research and advocacy group, is hosting a day long conference this Tuesday to investigate the history and current state of anti-poverty policy in the U.S. From the event page:

Fifty years ago, Michael Harrington's classic exposé The Other America shed light on widespread poverty in the United States and helped pave the way for reforms that have improved the lives of millions of Americans. But with millions of people still living below the poverty line even before the latest recession hit, inequality rising, and millions out of work, there is much more to do.

Wednesday July 11^th, the Asset Building Program will be hosting an event focused on the special July/August issue of the Washington Monthly. "The Future of Success" takes a look at current economic conditions, how we got here, the impact of the recession on the wealth of American families, and how we might get out. The editors and writers of the Monthly have taken the asset building perspective to heart and decided that it is a critical tool for restoring the American Dream. The event will feature two panels, one comprised of contributors to the issue, the other of expert commentators on the issues at hand.

In our last podcast, we discussed the growing consensus that financial inclusion and asset building can help reduce poverty and how cost-saving breakthroughs in payment technologies are enhancing the impact of social protection. But in order to really understand savings-linked social protection, we need to delve into the question of what kinds of savings methods are best suited to social protection goals - formal, informal, both?  

With a growing consensus that financial inclusion and asset building can help reduce poverty, along with cost-saving breakthroughs in payment technologies such as mobiles and biometric IDs, the potential of financial innovation to cost-effectively enhance the impact of social protection is increasingly hard to ignore.

On June 17^th, 2012 Ashoka Changemakers in partnership with the G2012 Mexico Leaders’ Summit announced the creation of a new financial inclusion competition. The G2012 Mexico Financial Inclusion: Innovative Solutions for Unlocking Access competition seeks to highlight the lack of financial services geared towards the poor and encourage the development and growth of financial products focused on underserved and unbanked communities.

When Mexico assumed the role of the G20 Presidency, President Calderon with the support of G20 member countries, broadened the group’s financial and economic focus by asserting, “Under the Mexican G20 Presidency actions to foster financial inclusion, including financial education and consumer protection have become a priority of the finance track agenda.”  With financial inclusion a key agenda item, the group has reached across sectors to learn from and collaborate with key stakeholders in the space, including the private sector, civil society and non-G20 member states.

This past Tuesday, June 18^th, the Global Assets Project (GAP) launched its interactive website and held a panel discussion on the opportunities for promoting savings-linked social protection payments.

This past December, I wrote a post following the announcement that Capital Bikeshare (D.C.'s bikesharing system) and Bank on DC had teamed up to give reduced-cost bikeshare memberships to people signing up for their first bank accounts. I wrote that "While it will be interesting to see if this reduced rate is affordable for the target population, the initiative is an exciting example of creative thinking and cross-sector collaboration."

Yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment that would have gotten rid of the mechanism that allows states to eliminate asset tests for SNAP.  Nearly forty states have lifted their asset tests for most applicants to the program through the challenged policy, known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE). It’s not a big surprise that the amendment failed; a similar proposal was defeated in the Senate last year. However, in light of the vote, it’s worth taking a moment to recognize many of the ways in which this policy has played a positive role, both in helping families access the benefits they qualify for and in easing administrative burdens at a time when state budgets are in crisis. Despite frequent statements to the contrary, BBCE has actually increased state flexibility and allowed for greater efficiency and associated cost savings.

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides funding to legal services organizations throughout the country, is an essential feature of the safety net—though rarely described as such. LSC funding is used to provide civil legal services to households at or below 125% of the federal poverty line. Unlike in criminal cases, where the right to counsel is constitutionally guaranteed for indigent defendants, parties to civil cases have no such right under federal law. In other words, depending on where you live, it’s perfectly legal for you to lose your house, all your possessions, and perhaps even custody of your child without ever talking to a lawyer, no matter how little money you make.

LSC-funded services are crucial in helping keep many families afloat. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, like other social services programs, LSC has faced major budget cuts, and continues to see its funding attacked. Over the past three decades, LSC’s budget has been effectively cut by just around seventy percent. One member of Congress even proposed an amendment to the FY 2013 House Appropriations Bill that would have ended all funding for LSC, citing the organization as “nonessential” and alleging fraud (it failed, but received 122 votes in the House). Like the proposed cuts to SNAP, cutting LSC’s funding—or even failing to increase it—could have truly dire consequences for low-income communities nationwide.