The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Lottery

I don't enjoy gambling. I live in a town with several casinos and don't really have any interest in using them for gambling. I've never even bought a lottery ticket before. Maybe a scratch game once or twice, but never a lottery ticket.  Until this week.

It started as a joke. The odds are incredible, but for 48 million dollars, I thought, "why not this once" I've read about how for some people in poverty, playing the lottery is a type of remittance. While it is a small amount to pay out regularly, the sudden infusion of cash ($50-$200) is how they pay for those things they need irregularlly - like new clothes, technology upgrades, and stocking up on personal items or entertainment devices.

Buying the lottery ticket didn't start as a savings plan; it was entertainment. I was surprised by the amount of entertainment that it gave me. It was a tangible thing , this piece of paper, that induced dreams. [The only other piece of paper that inspires such dreams is my voting ballot.] What would I do with 48 million dollars? Daring to dream that big is a place far from the economic reality of my life, and of anybody's life. I spent time dreaming aloud, something that doesn't get to happen often for people trapped in the tyranny of the moment that is poverty.

Then today, I was reading up on current US policies related to asset building and it reminded me about the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

"Despite the curtailed policy agenda, the Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes a set of policies and proposals that allocate $519 billion in resources to asset-building activities. An additional $65 billion in funding for the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, while not explicitly asset building programs, presents resources that individuals and families can devote to saving."


There is this continuing question in the EITC funders world [and middle-class sensibilities] of why people don't always use their EITC for its intended purpose of family asset building. There is evidence many many families use it to pay off debts - something which is responsible, but that still isn't asset building for the future. Then it dawned on me.  To people living on under $12,000 a year, their tax return is like winning the lottery.

When you think about what you are going to do with your tax return, you dream. You dream of the things which you know are out of reach on a regular basis. You plan on buying cars, televisions, movies, entertainment, restaurant food, vacations, ect. ect. Five-thousand dollars in one lump sum might as well be a million dollars. People in poverty often get unfairly judged for this behavior and called "irresponsible spenders."

While I could imagination how to split up my $48 million dollars so I could live modestly for a lifetime, I still dreamed of what $$ could do that I can't do now. It was a lot of fun.

Take that fun away by talking about asset building won't persuade people to change their behavior. What we need to do is develop a positive dream of the possibility of a secure life. We as a society, and as social service agencies, don't always give people a goal of what to be, only of what NOT to be.

With a new American Dream, maybe then tax returns won't be treated like we won the lottery.

Methodology that Counts in Poverty Alleviation

I was looking for methods of finding common indicators about poverty, and found this. I LOVE this article’ methodologies. If I was independently wealthy, I would just go around the US and do these for folks. But first I’d need some more statistics training and some GIS skills.

Developing a Regional Poverty Profile 

Poverty is relative to localities. We can tell when people are starving in other countries, but in America, poverty is hidden and part of perception. It is hard to measure something in peoples perceptions.  If we can’t measure this real poverty, how do we know our programs are going to be useful by those who they are intended for?

Here is an example of how to use this regional poverty profile in poverty alleviation. In their example study, they showed that being poor, not-so-poor, and not poor mean slightly different things in the three communities. In one places, not being poor was strongly statistically associated with being involved in a trade. They showed 83% of non-poor households were professionals or traders, whereas in the other comparative areas, only %52-53% of the not-poor were professionals or traders. In the other contrasting area, owning land and property was much more prominent means of acquiring “well-being.”  We would be able to see what the people who live in poverty think would work to make their lives better, not use the top-down method of the school, or IWD telling folks how get a “good job,” what that job is, and how to improve their lives.

“Different ethnic groups may have different value systems that, among other things, could influence their perceptions of well-being and poverty.” By building on their existing perceptions we can be sure to have programs that work for the people they are intended for.

Using their quantified knowledge WITH real measures of  industry/sector or work, hours, wage, property ownership, plus access to affordable food and public transportation we could see if something like having a bank account or a car is really a measurable asset to the relief of poverty. We could also know what types of employment would actually benefit folks – not make assumptions that all jobs are good for all populations. “Jobs” are good on the aggregate, but it isn’t “a rising tide floats all boats” for folks in poverty. This can help find the right river for them to put the boat into.

 I think this is especially great on a neighborhood level, both in the flatlands of DBQ and all the way out to Dyersville/Ashbury. How do they define well-being differently than the flatlands? What would benefit their economic success differently, and how do you quantify it? I just love this paper! I hope the ISU people can use it as a base and build policy ideas around it.

This method could also be used to include data that it leaves out, like the source of income for people in poverty, how they spend their money, or measuring the economic inequality of an area -which is a little controversial because Americans don’t really want to know this and feel bad about them doing well.

My VISTA Soapbox

Talking to other VISTAs (there are 4 of us in this town) I also find this VAD lack of context to our anti-poverty task to be annoying.

One of the major complaints I have with my state VISTA program (not my site) is that they don't have an organize plan or framework to fight poverty. They have not been able relate my work into a context to shows why my work needs done. I thought we were fighting a war! I would expect there to be a better plan.

I don't just "get" how starting an art project for kids fights poverty, or how building houses fights poverty, or how planting trees fights poverty. In fact, I find too much of the work VISTAs are recruited to do is more like charity. Charity gets on my nerves.

Paulo Freire writes "In order to have the continued opportunity to express their 'generosity,' the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. And unjust social order is the permanent fount of this 'generosity,' which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity."

No offense is meant to my VISTA brothers and sisters who are helping Habitat for Humanity, but that program is a perfect example. One of my best friends got a great deal from building a Habitat House (leadership skills, community connection, stable housing for her family, ect.) but she needed a habitat house because of the inequality in our education, justice, and social systems. I value the work, but to me, treating a symptom isn't VISTAs role, although it is a highly valuable thing. But all these "re-stores" they are trying to open all over the U.S. come from the fact that structurally, the construction industry is not good at making houses. There is so much waste that they want to find a "generous" (and sometimes green-washed) way to dispose of it.

One of my sister VISTAs works for a project that plants trees. I love it! Trees are awesome. But she never could tell me how her work was VISTA worthy. Eight months later we were all reporting our projects to the state commissioners on volunteer service and half-way through her presentation she explained how if you plant a tree on the south side of a home, you can save up to %30 of the energy costs. I get it now. It is just annoying that it took 8 months to learn. Also, while I value the project it doesn't get at the structural problems of why poverty continues to exist in one of the richest nations in the world. It is another way of treating the problem. As we learned from PSO, money is not the primary thing that people in poverty suffer a lack of.

I love this quote from one of the VISTA alumni pages. "VISTA Motivation - They knew something was wrong. They could see where the system broke down for parts of society. One way of getting at that was VISTA. The most successful Volunteers were able to see their role in balance to the situation. They understood bureaucracy and its nonsense and their own limitations. They still got up everyday and went to it."

We exist in a context. Early VISTAs did more direct service because it was the direct service that helped them find the flaws in the system. They are the ones who went on to fight it in other systematic places. Those are my heroes.

But when I came to my state, they couldn't explain to me how I fit into a state strategy to fight poverty. From my observation, they have a milieu approach. Throw enough glitter and some of it is bound to stick. My service site, however, couldn't answer that question,either, when I started. By asking for an answer we've moved the program and the entire non-profit forward. We are now working toward a strategy that puts all of our partners in context and has shared community goals. It helps them understand their personal power in the goal of fighting poverty and injustice.

I think most people, in the hearts, understand their work is valuable as fighting poverty in some way. The problem is that they are never asked to write it down and put in on a chart so everyone can see it. Maybe they are afraid if they have to say it aloud, it isn't working for what they want it to do, but they don't want to stop. And some of it is just dogma. That's what I really can't stand.

I wish the state was taking the same initiative to explain our purpose in context to a strategy of solving poverty.

Too Many Spocks, Not Enough Scotties (In Economic Development)

I was asking myself why people incorporate. Many non-profits seems to think if they are a corporation (although there are many types of corporations) that they get something out of it. This makes me wonder, why would you want to constitute yourself like a monster, assuming that is purely logical. Perfectly logical would be Spock.

Iowa is currently looking at reconstituting its economic development department into a more corporate model. I sympathize with this idea, at the same time as really abhorring it. I don't think the problem is that the department is missing the Spock piece, but rather missing more of the dynamics of the Star Trek team. You do need a charismatic leader who is willing to take risks. We learned this from Captain Kirk. We need an influential "logical" being like Spock to be represented, but we all know, we like Spock best when he leaned toward the side of emotion. It is especially why everyone loved Data in TNG. We also need a Dr. McCoy to often remind people of their high moral obligations. Once in awhile, it is also their job to declare "I'm a doctor! Not a _______" to remind people that they are limited to their role.  There is a need for the engineer, the helmsman, the tactical engineer, and a navigator. The team also needs red-shirts. I know that sounds sad, but on a good team the red shirts are the constantly rotating individuals with particular pieces to play, but not part of the core team for the long haul.

I think if more business partnerships were organized around this model, we wouldn't have monsters running the economy and we would all be a little better off. What we don't need is more Spocks.

Words that make me cringe

I promised myself I would write another blog about the jargon of the non-profit word, and my VISTA site, but this is just my internal discussion.

I have been thinking about jargon for the last few days because I have had to begin changing my lexicon as I begin to work at my site. I also want to make sure I write down and recognize jargon as I pick it up so that when I am describing to others my work, I can be clear to NOT use jargon words when possible. The reason is that, as I wrote earlier, when dealing with people who are coming out of poverty, jargon words act as a barrier to them, at times. The jargon of "help" from service providers can make an unpleasant experience more intimidating. To be more inclusive, we must use more inclusive language and I want a guide to maintain my own self. Like I wrote in my previous blog, adapting to the job means changing myself. This isn't bad, but an anthropologist's job is to be able to explain to other people a culture, and language can be very powerful tool or a hindrance to that task.

The other thing I found out today about myself is that I unconsciously cringe at some language. It isn't because I disagree with an idea, but the way it was presented, because of the jargon, biased me.

So my boss and I were talking about my role and opportunities that we had identified between our program and another program we are connected to. I will talk more about this SWEET program later. My boss comes from a management and especially retail environment. He has been involved for years in the chamber of commerce and in his new position at my site been building up professional business relationships. But that word "professional" is almost a jargon word itself.

Professional to me means someone who wears a suit. It means they show up to meetings, use a computer, have agendas, and is skilled in some behavior or activity. Business professional means fluff. It is a word that makes me cringe. When I think of a "business professional" I think about a person who comes up with ideas and then tells someone else what to do. Usually it has to do with how to make money. I cringe just thinking about it. It is a person (usually male) who's good ideas aren't from the employees, but something that looks good on paper. I just don't relate to it, and in a way it is the reason I became an anthropologist. I want to change what it means.

I want a "business professional" to be an anthropologist, in a way. I want them to be leaders who let the sales people, customers, and producers of the goods come up with the ideas. I don't want the top down approach in the 21st century. I think about Sam Walton. His great idea was to pay people a living wage with benefits and buy big enough lots to get the lowest price and pass that along to consumers in poor neighborhoods. He wore a cowboy hat. But his idea got so big, and was so successful, after his death, a room full of business leaders in suits run the company now. I want business leaders to be the guy in the hat, not the suit. Suits make decisions based on numbers. Hard hats make decisions based on people.

But this is my internal stereotype. And I know it isn't always fair. I still know that "big business" is not all roses. There are businesses that don't make decisions based on sustainability, responsible stewardship of the environment, or its human cost. I also know that a lot of work has been spent, not just on re-branding corporations to look more friendly, but some really are more friendly. My internal bias still causes me to cringe at the word "business" or "business community."

This goes back to my discussion of jargon. The non-profit, especially private non-profit, world has adopted a language of business. I have a list of the words I have been keeping, but let me high-light a few: assets, investment, capital, production, entity, ask, development, cost, target, and mission.

As I become more educated about what I do and my "mission" at my service site, the language can change me, but do I want it to?

Anthropologist, VISTA, or Employee?

Usually I start at the beginning, but to make this more readable, lets start at the end with my questions, skip to the beginning and end somewhere in the middle.

Is it cheating to use my VISTA title as a resource when doing anthropological research on poverty? Poverty is a state of being without resources. Using the jargon and title quickly navigates the system, but also is an inauthentic experience because it is not like that of which my participants have. When I play my card as a VISTA to my advantage so I can quickly get to my work as an employee, am I sacrificing my anthropology? If I sacrifice my VISTA experience by not playing by the culture of poverty rules, am I doing some possible harm to my project because I don't have the same investment in the programs' successes?

So, what am I? Anthropologist, VISTA, or employee?

Just to be clear, I am not an "employee" or "staff" of my site organization, I am a program lead. I just want to be clear on this. I used "employee" as a word people can relate to, a term of indentured-ness, not because I am paid by them. When I say employee, I mean the applying knowledge, instead of creating it side.

I love anthropology. It isn't just a scientific style, it is my adopted learning style. If I want to understand my new job, in a new place, I must understand its culture. I also feel very blessed that I work for a place that respects data and wants to have the science back up its mission. When both allocating and applying for grants in a world of non-profits, you need data and stories to back up the work. It gives us a competitive edge. I see anthropology as the perfect science to fulfill this. But at times, I have to stop being a scientist in observation mode and do work. I have to make phone calls, and I have to attend meetings. But I am trying to balance 3 identities.

Part of this blog is to let my friends and family know what I am doing in Dubuque, but also I am keeping this as my field notes for the next person who may come help this organization. I also hope that it will be passed along to any student or person interested in the foundation's organizational culture, and those interested in re-creating the success the programs here in Dubuque seem to be having in fighting poverty.

So let me explain what I have learned so far and where my questions come from.

I work as a Volunteer In Service To America (VISTA). We are not staff of the organizations we work with, we are volunteers. Our stipends are paid for by the federal government because we are doing the hard task of ending poverty in America. We are receive a stipend but for all purposes we are volunteers in a war. I try not to look at my paychecks at all because it scares me to see how little I make with a college degree. At the same time, I, as a scientist, think that experience is very important. For us to really understand the challenges people in poverty face, we have to experience them for ourselves. If we want to make the system more effective for those it is trying to help, we have to be able to describe the system from the client's point of view, not us the service providers.

The traditional anthropologists who deploy to the tribal nations in Africa, for example, are not expected to be one of the people, like how Richard Borshay Lee describes in "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari." In his article, he describes how when studying the substinance culture of the !Kung tribal group, he provided his own food and housing so not to disrupt their natural habits by a new person to feed. An anthropologist is encouraged not to adopt too much of another culture or they may be accused of "going native," meaning they adopted most or all of another culture's habits and effectively joined them. This can be dangerous for an anthropologist who, as a scientist, is a cultural interpreter. To lose yourself in another culture could make you loose your impartiality, something science appreciates. If you go too far, you may also lose your ability to communicate with your audience.

A VISTA is not a staff person, but not everbody understands the distinction between my position and the organization I am working with. People expect you to know their rules (the rules of the middle class and in this case, the organizations cultural rules), behave in socially acceptable ways, and be representative of the organization, which in my case is a foundation. Many donors and high-powered people walk into the office, and I have to be capable of leaving a positive impression with them. I asked my VISTA leader at the state office today how I should make sure to represent my unique position in my e-mails and in my introductions to people I work with, or will be working with. I want to make sure, the same way an anthropologist would introduce themselves ethicly to a population for study, I am clear about my special position.

Anthropolgists when doing field work are not supposed to mis-represent themselves. Part III in the American Anthropology Association code of ethics states we "in both proposing and carrying out research, anthropological researchers must be open about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of support for research projects with funders, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and with relevant parties affected by the research. Researchers must expect to utilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion and disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities." That sounds like a different way of saying a lot of what my job description is. I will also be utilizing others work and my own work and making sure there is communication. But I am also a VISTA.

While most people on the street may not know what a VISTA is, it is benefit to me if people and organizations I am working with understand my distinction. My self-identification also has the added benefit of raising awareness about the VISTA program so more people become aware of how their tax payer dollars are being spent, and the types of opportunities there are to serve America.

So, while I may be doing anthropological research on poverty, I am also an insider to the culture of poverty, on paper. I make very little money, and due to the VISTA contract agreements to have no outside paid work, have no opportunities for relief from this position. I am not just a researcher, I am living the life. It reminds me of the book "Black Like Me" by Howard Griffin. He was a journalist who went undercover as a Black man in the 1960s in the south and wrote about his experience. He was part anthropologist, part journalist. But I am part Anthropologist, part VISTA.

The VISTA experience is, for lack of a better term, going undercover. From what I have inferred from the pre-service orientation style, and from my own knowledge of leadership and learning styles, the VISTA program is set up for many people in service to have an exploratory learning experience to really walk in another's shoes. "Exploratory learning" is a style of learning that doesn't focus on textbook experience, but where there is freedom to uncover relationships between things and ask questions. It is a more intuitive and individual style of learning. It is like giving a child an aquarium with fish and plants living in it, and letting them generate the questions for study and experiment. It is not done without supervision, and with some guidance, but the focus isn't just on memorization and tasks. I've not read that this is exactly how it was meant to be, but it is what I have observed.

At pre-service orientation, no matter which group you were assigned, the set up was of round tables. On those tables were colored placards, markers, colored pencils, an array of different types and colors of pipe-cleaners, and for my group, playdoh. This was both used as an ice-breaker because people could decorate their name-cards and make them unique, but also used as a tool. There are several types of learning styles identified today. Some people see or read something and remember it. Some people retain the most information if they hear it. Some people remember the most information when they write it themselves. Some people remember information best if they repeat it over and over again. What was given to us for us to have access so we could use our hands and our brains while retaining information. It was also to play with. At one time we were asked to break into groups. There were groups for our preference based on what we liked to do most. Our choices were: tell stories, dance, sing, or do visual art like painting, drawing, and sculpture. We each re-told a story about success with our chosen art.

Another time, during the pre-service orientation, we all sat in group and shared experiences and reflections on the information that had been given to us via lecture earlier that day. We were expected to use the information, and also practice healthy communication styles when talking about something deep and personal like experiences in crisis and poverty. Not everybody had yet had a personal experience with things like being hungry, being evicted, or not having enough money for essential items like tampons or toiletpaper. It was a time to have a conversation with both sides sharing and being honest with a group of strangers. This is also an exploratory learning strategy. You can't control the conversation, it will turn and turn. We had a moderator to keep it moving, keep any one person from dominating the conversation, and to initiate questions at times when the converstation slowed. It wasn't a series of yes or no questions, and it wasn't the person with the most education passing along information.

For a VISTA to have a meaningful and deep experience with poverty, there has to be this personal involvement. We must live the life and at time identify our own advantages and disadvantages so we can help lessen those for others in the future. Anthropology, as a science, would at times balk at this strategy.

But at times I am an insider. I have to act like an employee. I am a project leader. I am not just a scientist or student of the culture, I have to engage. At times I am forced to represent one of my three cultures. I must represent the culture of an organization even when I am not fully a part of it. I am not staff. I don't make a paycheck like they do. I don't have local knowledge. To be more specific, I must be a good representation of the program I work for and the parent organization. Let me explain more about my particular VISTA position and site.

I am the Project HOPE coordinator, Americorp VISTA. I've described what a VISTA is, so let me describe what the Project HOPE position is.

HOPE stands for Helping Our People Excel. Project HOPE encourages and facilitates
collaboration, communication, and advocacy among referral resources,
education/training providers, employers and people in our community to
dissolve existing disparity and ensure equity in employment and
economic opportunity." Facilitates is a jargon word that means call for and host meetings between parties, keeps notes and minutes on the meetings, and passes along communication between parties. It means they know who needs to know what and makes sure that all those people get information they need. It also means at times helps research resources. Resources are things like grants. Grants are money. Usually this means money for things like materials. Materials can be many things, but usually it is paper for fliers, aide of a computer and someone who knows something about graphic design, money for food at events, and may even be for renting space for meetings. It usually doesn't mean money for paid staff, and most the programs are run by volunteers at some level. At times facilitation can mean mediation between partners.

Partners are people who are working together. In this situation it means groups with often different purposes. We have an array of groups who are partners in Project HOPE. There are banks and financial groups from the area. There are people from social services like the Multi-Cultural Family Center. There are neighborhood associations involved. There are labor groups. There are governmental groups. There is a groups from educational institutions. There is even a group that is made up of the same people as from the other groups but a separate entity. I know it sounds redundant, but actually it isn't. Because some groups spend money, some raise money, and some have niches they can't break out of because of their internal constitutions, or external legal standing, they must work in the way they do, there must be several organizations, even if they have similar people on them. There isn't so much overlap that it is dangerous, but it is an anomaly. Given some time, and some upcoming interviews I will try and map these relationships, but that is in the future.

There are several successful and yearly projects that are going on. While the projects may go even if there was no Project HOPE, for them to go on without someone facilitating the collaboration, that would lead to a danger of duplicity in some things. It would also put people back in their niches and leave gaps in services allowing people to fall between the cracks and not get help, even when it was available. There are some successful projects that are also dependent upon the Community Foundation to keep oversight on, financially. This is also a mediation of sorts. I don't directly do this, but my job is not to directly do anything.

Direct service is another term needed to be understood to understand the nature of the work and this organizational culture. Direct service means dealing with people. Social workers who meet with individuals, trainers who teach classes, and the people who can touch those living in poverty, they do direct service. It is the grassroots in a traditional sense where you go to your neighbor's house; person to person contact. I don't do that. I love that stuff the most. I organize from a grassroots perspective. I don't want to know just how many people graduate from any of the programs offered, I want to know where this person comes from (geographically) and I like to ask, when someone drops-out, where do they go? I mean really, where do they go? Are they on a street corner? Are they living in someone else basement, and if so, which basement? But it isn't my job to track that person down.That would be the job of a trainer, social worker, or mentor. My job is to make sure there is a mentor, job coach, or teacher and make sure those people tell me, and I can tell the people who have invested a lot of money and energy and love, where did those people go. My job is also to make sure there are fail-safes so that if I disappear, there is a structural safety to continue to make sure there is a mentor, teacher, or coach.

This is where my personal question about bureaucracy come is. Did I grow up to be a bureaucrat? I work within a system, a careful system. But I don't do direct service, or I am not supposed to in my job description. This doesn't mean I don't get to talk to the people I am trying to help, but I am one, sometimes two generations removed.

I was thinking about my conundrum and I think I came to the justification or reason that my "grassroots" are not people, they are organizations. This fits the day-to-day of the job description but also is helping me see how my old habits will fit into my already conscious frame. This job is about organizing organizations.

If it gives you a headache, try being me and balancing it.

But, I'm also an insider to some parts of poverty culture. On paper, and in my heart, I am a VISTA. I took an oath of poverty in a silent way as part of my oath of service to the USA. I was called by VISTA to this program. The programs we facilitate must work, and they need to work for me. I have something at stake in their success. As a new person to the area, I need to make sure that I can navigate the system and leave a clear trail behind. I do this by exploratory learning within the confines that the VISTA program sets in the way of a VISTA assignment description (VAD).

But sometimes being a VISTA feels like I am cheating too.

Continuing my documentation of the process for getting food assistance from the state, I got a phone call today from a caseworker at the Department of Human Services. She was reviewing my paperwork and was calling to do a phone interview to follow-up. I was very relieved that it was before Thanksgiving, but was at work and on my way to a meeting, so I was in a hurry. I know better than to be late to a first meeting (see future writing on hidden rules of the middle-class). It leaves a bad impression. The meeting was about funding, so in my head, that had high priority.

She was nice on the phone, but I was in my foundation work role and treated her differently than using new cultural rules I am trying out to test. She went over my paperwork. I had missed a few things like she wanted more information about my housing. I have a month-to-month with my roommate, not the house owner. I own a car. I had written down my income wrong. When I explained my job situation and explained I was a VISTA she became warmer. Not a lot warmer, but was more willing to talk to me about the situation, even though I was in a hurry. I used jargon she was familiar with and moved quickly. I even agreed to e-mail her some information, although my origional plan was to negotiate the system sans technology. I was hoping to have the whole thing worked out before the Thanksgiving holiday, but I ran into more obstacles than I had thought. She wanted some sort of proof of my VISTA contract and pay information. I have an e-mail with enough verification, but I have some of my early science in it and some personal information that I don't want her to have, so I had to re-email my state VISTA leader, which I quickly did when I heard our business appointment had been postponed 15 minutes. But my VISTA leader was gone and I got an auto-reply about her being back in the office on Monday. While the reply did have a cell-phone number for her, I don't know if it is my self-worth question, or formal politeness that has me also not going to do the follow-up until Monday. I don't want to wait. I don't. It only is more of my savings that gets eaten as I wait, but I also am from my own culture. I have money in the bank. I'm not going to starve, and my own bad habits tell me that I can wait until the last minute. When it is priority, I will deal with it. But priority then, and even now, is to get my job done. The job means this writing, but also attend the other meetings I had planned for the night, or back into research mode? What identity should take priority, and by whose rules does that choice get to be made?

I guess I've come to call what I am doing, "Experimental Anthropology." Experimental Archaeology is when scientist reconstruct or try to reconstruct historical or prehistoric technologies to see what energy it took to create, or reconstruct how objects would come to be how they were found. I am trying to create a cultural experience that was found (culture of poverty) to test data on poverty in the U.S. and reconstruct pathways that have been successful to also test the data and find ways to improve it.

Anyone want to comment?

I will write more about the organizational culture of my new position another day. I have some other great stuff I have learned about the culture of poverty from research done in my office, but also internal communication styles, habits, and behaviors of the office my desk sits in.

My Oath of Service

I've gotten lots of questions from people about what I am doing in Iowa. I ask myself this as well. After moving in to my new house, I spent the last few days at a pre-service orientation (PSO) with the Americorps (Volunteers in Service to America) VISTA program. It was in Lombard, IL. I enjoyed the training, but would have enjoyed it more if I weren't fighting a cold the whole time. The PSO was an introduction to the VISTA program.

The VISTA mission is to "build capacity in non-profit organizations and communities to help bring individuals and communities out of poverty." It was started in 1964 modeled on the Peace Corps success overseas. We are the domestic equivalent to the Peace Corps.

At the training we spent a lot of time understanding poverty. This means identifying the assumptions about people in poverty, getting facts, and overcoming stereotypes. Poverty is something people live in, not an inherent nature of any person. It is because someone lacks resources; it can be a lack of financial resources, emotional resources, mental resources, social capital, or role models. We can relieve poverty by supplying the resources and making sure they are being delivered to those who need them.

One of the most interesting things I learned was how the U.S. measures poverty. They use a system called the Orshansky's Poverty Threshold. This number is caculated by multiplying the cheapest USDA food plan for a year for a family of 4 by the 1950s estimate that 1/3rd of income should be spent on food. If a person makes less than what is needed to supply food for 1 year, they are considered in poverty.

But using a 1950s model is quite antiquated. For one, it doesn't consider local costs of food. It doesn't take into account adequate housing costs, which have come to consume more and more of family budgets. It doesn't take into account health care, another cost that is consuming family budgets increasingly. It doesn't take into account child-care, another huge cost to most working families.

There is some positive change in calculating what poverty looks like in some local settings, but this US standard of calculation has not been challenged yet. Some local mayors have begun some research into the issue, like Mayor Bloomberg in NYC. He even secured private money to research the issue. It is almost frustrating that we don't have a real measure for what my work is trying to relieve. This will stick with me.

The other part that really struck me was the Oath of Service that I swore to.
The Oath is as follows :

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; That I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

While the swearing in ceremony was very unceremonious, I personally deeply reflect upon this charge. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. I didn't take a job, I have a sworn commitment to fight in a war against poverty issued by the Commander-In-Chief of this country 45 years ago. It is the longest American war on native soil. I do feel like a solider. I do feel compelled to do a good job for those who have no voice but my own.

My biggest critique of the PSO was that they didn't adopt enough military style language and circumstance. I wish they had trained us more like soldiers. The training was taught in a social-science exploratory learning way that I think in necessary, but some of the events outside of the classroom felt like they should be a more ritualistic. Rituals are a way to create community and put people into a similar mode. They also can achieve an air of reverence that I think others would have benefited from.

I say this because there were 2 types of people I met at the training. There were those people there who saw this VISTA program as a job attached to a paycheck, and there were those who saw the VISTA program as calling. These are not mutually exclusive categories, but a spectrum. I could tell the trainers were on the extreme side of it being a mission/calling. They were all a pleasure to work with and really had a commitment to ending poverty in their lifetime. Their respect and reverence of us as soldiers going to war was evident. I think my physical illness at the time of training kept me in reality and I never achieved that spiritual high I often get when thinking about the big goals that my little job are helping to achieve. I totally get an endorphin rush, similar to that of being in love with a person, when I find myself swept away by the romanticism of service. Isn't service just like love? To be completely consumed by another.

Love can be defined a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection. In religious context, love is not just a virtue, but the basis for all being. Service is my religion, and service is my passion. I think this is why I loved my last job. I felt in service to the state of Minnesota. I was even a little heartbroken when it ended. I was not only fighting poverty by using electoral politics, but I was also organizing people to build capacity for the future. Organizing seniors to help the senior caucus of the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party means they are better represented. Inviting new people to volunteer, even in some limited capacity provided by the campaign, builds the local parties and identifies new leaders. While it isn't the only thing I ever want to do if I am going to help win the war on poverty, it was one method. I was lucky to have the opportunity.

In the future, I still have some other capacities I think I would like to try. I haven't lost sight of my goal of getting my masters in social work and public policy. All this organizing is useless unless we have good policies to enact with our elected officials. I see my goal right now as to learn from the roots the policy problems while continuing to identify new leaders within the communities who need the help. People who actually represent those who need help, not just good citizens who want to help. We always need to be developing new leaders.

When it comes to the day-to-day, I look out my window at the Mississippi river, the city of Dubuque, and all 3 states I can see from my window, and I say, wtf am I doing in Dubuque, Iowa. I never thought my life would lead me here. But keeping my life goal in mind, I have the honor of serving the people who need me. They need me here in Iowa. I am going to make the most of this year of service to my country and serve where I have been given the opportunity. We will see what comes from here.

I'm already a little intimidated. I went to the office last Monday to check it out and the people there wore suits. It was in a fancy building, in a professional part of town. I was very nervous and sick. I have an office. I have a computer. I'm nervous because I guess I imagined the job more fieldwork, less office work. I have to work to get out of my desk in meaningful ways. A committed place to work, and the technology to succeed is necessary, but I have a personal fear of becoming a bureaucrat and not an anthropologist. My fears may be unfounded, but I'll find out more tomorrow.

The other part I am most concerned with is I haven't fully imagined my life here yet. Usually, I find some sort of template or expectation of myself to create a life I want to live. I haven't felt physically well enough, or informed enough yet, to imagine myself and set the small goals to accomplish this. I don't want to wait too long, or I will find myself being acted upon, rather than acting on my own life. After work tomorrow, and some coffee, I will commit time to deciding who I want to be and move forward.