No result found
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2006, conducted for America's Second Harvest (A2H), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 52,000 clients served by the A2H food bank network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 30,000 A2H agencies. The study summarized below focuses mainly on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the A2H network.
Key Findings: The A2H system served by the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network provides emergency food for an estimated 498,800 different people annually. 44% of the members of households served by the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2). 47% of client households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1). Among client households with children, 81% are food insecure and 26% are experiencing hunger (Table 6.1.1). 47% of clients served by the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).37% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1). 30% of households served by the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1) The Houston Food Bank and The End Hunger Network included approximately 406 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 264 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 250 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter. 82% of pantries, 61% of kitchens, and 43% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1). 77% of pantries, 41% of kitchens, and 52% of shelters of the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network reported that there had been an increase since 2001 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1). Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for the agencies, accounting for 67% of the food used by pantries, 44% of kitchens' food, and 51% of shelters' food (Table 13.1.1). For the Houston Food Bank and the End Hunger Network, 93% of pantries, 83% of kitchens, and 77% of shelters use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by The Houston Food Bank. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network.
The FA system served by The Houston Food Bank provides emergency food for an estimated 865,800 different people annually.47% of the members of households served by The Houston Food Bank are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).49% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among households with children, 82% are food insecure and 29% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 18.104.22.168).60% of clients served by The Houston Food Bank report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).43% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).29% of households served by The Houston Food Bank report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1).The Houston Food Bank included approximately 328 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 275 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 250 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.79% of pantries, 50% of kitchens, and 31% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 83% of pantries, 46% of kitchens, and 61% of shelters of The Houston Food Bank reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 77% of the food distributed by pantries, 51% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 49% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 96% of pantries, 85% of kitchens, and 92% of shelters in The Houston Food Bank use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
Meals On Wheels America;
The national Meals on Wheels network continues to face limited funding, rising costs, unprecedented demand and need and increasing for-profit competition. That is why Meals on Wheels America set out to compare the experience and health outcomes realized by older adults who receive three different levels of service: daily traditional meal delivery, once-weekly frozen delivery and individuals on a waiting list.
This study, funded by AARP Foundation and conducted by researchers at Brown University, implemented a groundbreaking approach to investigating the impact of meal service delivery on homebound seniors receiving Meals on Wheels. The study's findings validate what we've all known for decades anecdotally through firsthand experience: that Meals on Wheels does in fact deliver so much more than just a meal.
Galveston Bay Foundation;
Galveston Bay is resilient, but faces an uncertain future. The Bay's watershed is home to the fourth- and ninth-largest cities in the U.S., Houston and Dallas. It's also home to three ports, and remains a hub for the manufacturing and refining of chemicals and petroleum products. But people, industry, and commerce often come with environmental challenges. Galveston Bay's most significant problems are tied to pollution, declines in habitat acreage, and to the impacts of climate change, like sea level rise.
That Galveston Bay could receive C for overall health despite facing these monumental issues shows how resilient it is. This offers hope that we can change our negative impact on water quality, wetlands, seagrasses, and wildlife. But a healthier Galveston Bay is in everyone's interest.
Center for Neighborhood Technology;
This report examines the impacts of transportation spending on households in the 28 metro areas for which the federal government collects expenditure data and of rising gas prices on both households and regional economies. It finds that households in regions that have invested in public transportation reap financial benefits from having access to affordable mobility options, even as gas prices rise, and that regions with public transit are losing less per household from the increase in gas prices than those without transit options.
This annual report includes the following information:
* Description of the Foundation's history and purpose
* Grantmaking activities in the areas of arts and culture, education, environment, health and human services
* Information about the founders
* List of the Board of Directors
* List of staff
* Financial Reports
* Grant Application
Examines the reentry experiences of 652 men in the three cities, including housing stability, family relationships, substance use, employment, and recidivism. Analyzes outcome predictors such as prison programs, job training, and family structure.
Carnegie Corporation of New York;
Uses examples from New York, Houston, and North Carolina to explore some of the innovative programs that are helping immigrants become educated citizens and productive workers, and highlights issues related to establishing a new educational framework.
Michael and Susan Dell Foundation;
Describes the data-driven Accelerating Student Progress, Increasing Results & Expectations (ASPIRE) program, which rewards educators for middle school students' academic growth relative to expectations. Reviews challenges, outcomes, and lessons learned.
Fannie Mae Foundation;
Examines past (1990-2003) and projected trends (2004-2008) in the affordability of homes for the nation as a whole, for eleven selected metropolitan areas, and for people working as schoolteachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers.
Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE);
Looks at how school districts in Houston, Milwaukee, and San Diego are transforming their human resources departments. Identifies key reform issues that are essential in making HR offices more effective and able to provide better support to their schools.
Earth Policy Institute;
At a time when major U.S. companies are announcing job layoffs almost daily, the renewable energy industry is hiring new workers every day to build wind farms, install rooftop solar arrays, and build solar thermal and geothermal power plants. The output of industrial firms that manufacture the equipment for these energy facilities is expanding by well over 30 percent a year. These investments both create jobs and help prevent climate change from spiraling out of control.
Among the several sources of renewable energy, wind looms large. The United States has 24,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity already online (think 24 coal-fired power plants), and 83 wind farms with some 8,000 megawatts of capacity are under construction. Beyond this, a staggering 225,000 megawatts of planned wind farms are waiting for access to transmission lines.
Currently, the United States has 40 plants manufacturing wind power components. Eight of these plants are assembling wind turbines, 20 are fabricating wind towers, and 12 are making blades. In addition, many more manufacturing facilities are under construction, recently announced, and in planning. Every billion dollars invested in wind farms creates some 3,350 jobs -- nearly four times the 870 jobs created with a similar investment in coal-fired power plants.
With solar cells (photovoltaics), the U.S. growth potential can be seen in the recent expansion from small rooftop installations to commercial generating facilities covering several square miles. In 2007, the United States installed roughly 200 megawatts of solar cell generating capacity, most of it on rooftops. In 2008, Pacific Gas & Electric -- a leading California utility -- contracted with two firms to build 800 megawatts of solar photovoltaic generating capacity; their output at peak power will equal that of a nuclear reactor. A billion dollars invested in solar cell installations generates 1,480 jobs.
A similar growth situation exists with solar thermal power plants -- facilities that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight and generate steam to power turbines. Until recently there was just one of these facilities in the United States: the 350-megawatt SEGS complex in California. Now there are 18 commercial-scale power plants under development (15 in California, 2 in Florida, and 1 in Arizona) with a collective generating capacity of 4,160 megawatts -- nearly a twelvefold increase. This is an example of yet another labor-intensive energy technology (2,270 jobs per billion dollars invested) with a sharply falling cost curve that is fast becoming a major player in the U.S. energy economy.
Next consider geothermal energy. For 20 years, the United States had only one commercial-scale geothermal generating facility, in California. Now suddenly, almost overnight, there are some 96 projects -- most of them with a generating capacity ranging from 10 to 350 megawatts -- in western states. We are witnessing the emergence of a major new source of electricity.
Two new technologies -- plug-in hybrid cars and advanced design wind turbines -- have set the stage for building an entirely new automotive fuel economy. While four manufacturers are coming to market with plug-in hybrids in 2010 or 2011, the early estimates of how many they will produce appear to be small. What is needed is a crash program, almost a World War II -- type mobilization, to produce tens of millions of cars powered largely with electricity, mostly from wind farms, at the gasoline equivalent cost of less than $1 per gallon. The good news is that plug-in hybrids do not need a new infrastructure.
The U.S. goal for Detroit should be not merely to save it but to make it the world leader in producing high-efficiency plug-in hybrid cars. Replacing one gas-guzzling SUV with a plug-in hybrid will, over the car's lifetime, reduce oil imports by 200 barrels, saving $20,000 of oil imports. Such an initiative multiplied across the fleet would keep hundreds of billions of dollars at home for job-creating U.S. investments.
Another job-creating way to save energy is to invest in urban transit, both light rail and buses. When combined with making streets bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly, this also increases mobility and reduces oil imports.
In terms of job creation, investment in retrofitting buildings creates more than seven times as many jobs as a similar investment in coal-fired power plants. One of the early leaders is Houston, which plans to retrofit each of its 271 government buildings, thus simultaneously reducing energy use and operational costs. As Houston Mayor Bill White says, "It makes good business sense."
In California, Adobe Systems, a software firm, retrofitted its expansive corporate headquarters at a cost of $1.4 million, dropping its electricity use 35 percent and its natural gas use 41 percent. The energy savings paid back the $1.4 million retrofit investment in just 14 months. (More typically, the payback time on retrofitting buildings is closer to 5 years.) And these jobs cannot be outsourced.
Building the new energy economy creates jobs in the construction of wind farms or the retrofitting of buildings, and also indirectly in the supply lines that provide, for example, the parts for wind turbines or the thermally efficient windows for retrofitting. These investments also generate jobs outside the energy sector. For example, the construction of a wind farm in a Great Plains community generates jobs in local businesses such as restaurants and home improvement outlets.
The government's role in this vast job creation initiative is to use public funds as incentives to leverage far greater investments of private capital. We estimate that $100 billion of federal funds used strategically over the next 12 years would leverage $400 billion of private capital investment. If this $500 billion is allocated evenly between renewable energy development (wind, solar, and geothermal) and retrofitting, and if every two jobs created in the energy sector creates one job elsewhere, this would quickly generate 600,000 new jobs that would last through 2020.
In addition to the short-term need to create jobs, there is the all-encompassing need to avoid runaway climate change and the threat it poses to global civilization. If the world is to have a decent chance of saving the Greenland ice sheet and at least the larger glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau, the glaciers whose ice melt sustains the major rivers and irrigation systems of Asia during the dry season, then global carbon emissions need to be cut 80 percent by 2020. For the United States, this might require up to $500 billion of federal funds to mobilize $2 trillion of private capital -- for a total $2.5-trillion investment in renewables and efficiency by 2020. Investment at this level would create 3 million new jobs that would last through 2020.
A complementary measure to accelerate carbon reduction would be to incorporate the cost of climate change in fossil fuel prices either through a cap-and-trade system or by restructuring taxes. The latter would mean simply raising the tax on carbon and offsetting it with a reduction in income taxes. Both these measures shift investments from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.
One of the glaring gaps in current U.S. policy is the failure to extend the wind production tax credit beyond one year. The time has come to extend it to 2015, giving investors the needed confidence to make longer-term investments in both wind generation and transmission lines.
Beyond this, a strong national electricity grid is needed. Such a grid would both permit more-efficient management of the country's electrical generating capacity and link regions rich in wind, solar, and geothermal energy with population centers.
Historically, it is rare for so many emerging threats to have a common solution. The measures described here would simultaneously reduce carbon emissions, lower oil imports, and create millions of new jobs. This is a win-win-win opportunity that we cannot pass by.