While sequestration will reduce the amount of affordable rental housing made available by the federal government, market conditions are the cause of the majority of the existing housing shortage. Affordable Housing Finance explains that severe housing cost burden- where low income renters pay 50% or more of their income for rent- is a problem in every state in the nation. As Progress Illinois explains, many in that state pay more than half their income for rent, leaving little left for other necessities like food or medical care.

The Washington Examiner takes us back to the nation’s capitol with a video on what the rental housing shortage means for those who are trying to escape homelessness. An article in the Stamford Advocate shows the struggle both low and moderate income households go through when attempting to rent in America’s highest-cost cities.

By George Russell

Published March 03, 2011

FoxNews.com

In a sweeping and hard-nosed reorganization of priorities for its $10.6 billion multilateral foreign aid program, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron has pulled the financial plug entirely on four U.N. agencies at the end of next year, put three others judged merely “adequate” on notice that they could face the same fate unless they improve their performance “as a matter of absolute urgency;” and issued pointed criticisms of almost all the rest.

The major exception: UNICEF, the U.N. children’s aid agency, which got a strong endorsement and a funding increase.

The tough actions were revealed as the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, has been gearing up an extended critical look at U.N. funding as part of its overall budget austerity plan. The British revelations also came while U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was on an extended cross-country tour, drumming up grass-roots support for U.N. funding in what is sure to be a protracted battle. Unveiling of the new British priorities undoubtedly will hearten her opponents on Capitol Hill.

Moreover, the British actions change the focus of the debate, from gauzy generalizations about the need for and importance of the U.N. to a realistic look at what it actually achieves.

The basis of that switch is the same urgent necessity hanging over almost every Western government: austerity. For Britain’s coalition government, however, the need to make dramatic domestic buts has been coupled with a promise to avoid cuts, and even make budget increases, in the money it sends to help the world’s poorest people—part of the price of bringing the minority Liberal-Democrats into the coalition.

But the outcome could be an international game-changer: to defend its relatively liberal position on global anti-poverty aid, the government is switching from publicly supporting institutions to publicly awarding and penalizing them on the basis of their results—an attitude that is likely to send a continuing shock wave through the sprawling, bureaucratic U.N. system.

Such an attitude is “long overdue,” in the opinion of Brett Schaefer, an expert on U.S. funding of the U.N. at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and a longstanding critic of unquestioning American support for the institution. “The taxpayers in developed countries and the poor in developing countries both deserve better than they have been receiving from the U.N.”

The U.S. pays 22 percent of the so-called”core” budget of the U.N. Secretariat, and 27 percent of peacekeeping expenses, but its so-called voluntary spending on U.N. agencies and programs goes far beyond that, to an estimated $6.3 billion overall.

Even that number is likely a significant under-estimation, since many U.N. bodes operate as “implementing agencies”—program managers—for U.S. funds that are channeled through non-U.N. institutions, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), where the U.S. has donated $5.1 billion since 2002, and pledged an additional $4.4 billion. The implementing agencies typically charge a percentage for their services.

Most of the U.N. agencies that have gone fully under the British budget ax are relatively inconsequential in U.S. terms. They include:

– the Vienna-based U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), a so-called “specialized agency” that promotes industrial development in poor countries, with a budget for 2010-2011 of $517.8 million. The U.S. left UNIDO in 1996.

–UN-HABITAT, a Nairobi-based agency mandated “to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all.” 2010-2011 budget, about $396 million.

–the International Labor Organization (ILO), a specialized agency for overseeing international labor standards, based in Geneva. 2010-2010 budget: $1.1 billion;

–the U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), another Geneva-based operation intended to coordinate disaster prevention efforts and “build resilient nations and communities as an essential condition for sustainable development.” 2010-2011 budget: about $28 mllion

In all four cases, the British verdict was harsh. Of UNIDO, the government said, a review, “could not find any evidence of UNIDO having a significant impact on global poverty.” Likewise, the review “did not find evidence that UN-HABITAT is leading the United Nations system to work more coherently to tackle urban challenges faced in developing countries.” The U.N.’s disaster reduction system “has not performed its international co-ordination role well.”

Click here for a summary of the British conclusions.

In the case of the ILO, the British government conceded that the organization “has a strong role to play in setting labor standards,” but “does not have a significant impact” on global poverty reduction goals. So partial funding in the future would be funneled through a different British ministry.

Other U.N. organizations got sharp critiques of their “poor value for money,” and stern warnings to shape up within two years or face deep funding cuts—or perhaps worse. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was slammed for “long-lasting historic underperformance.” The $1 billion International Organization of Migration (IOM), which manages refugee camps, among other things, “only fills a marginal gap in the international humanitarian architecture.” The $2.2 billion Food and Agriculture Organization, which the British government says has a “key role” to play on global food security issues, “does not adequately fulfill a critical role.”

Some of the mightier U.N. organizations, like the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Health Organization, were deemed “critical” by the British in terms of their international role, but were rated merely “adequate” for their performance.

Others, like the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) –long a British favorite in the U.N. system–were given the nod as providing “good value for money,” but still criticized for their “weak” delivery of services and “weak” framework for producing results.

The most favorable British judgments came for UNICEF, which spends about $3.25 billion annually and has a “critical role” in delivering to combat poverty and other humanitarian objectives, and has greatly improved its focus on doing so. But even there, the government found room for additional improvement.

The reaction of U.N. organizations to the British shock tactics has been dismay—expressed as diplomatically as possible.

Kamdeh Yumkella, head of UNIDO, said he was “disappointed” by the British decision to withdraw funding, and claimed the review “undervalues” much of the agency’s contribution to British objectives and contained “inaccuracies.” The ILO declared that it “appreciates the commitment” of Britain to maximizing aid impact, before adding that it was “surprised by the conclusions.” A previous evaluation, the organization said, had recommended continuing support.The shock waves inspired by the British announcements may soon be followed by others.

Norway, for example, has long been one of the most reliable U.N. piggy-banks, giving a full 1 percent of its $380 billion GDP to foreign aid, often through U.N. channels. Its direct contributions to U.N. organizations are upwards of $900 million, not counting money channeled through U.N. affiliated development banks. It ranks as the U.N.’s sixth-largest donor.

Nonetheless, a spokesperson for the country’s development aid agency, Norad, told Fox News, “We are inspired by the new British review, and will look closely to see what lessons can be learned from it. Norway is a dear friend to the U.N. But it is important to be honest and let friends know when they don’t deliver what they promise.”

The chance to do that may come very soon. Norad this month is finalizing two separate studies on the U.N., including an analysis of how the world organization, in its sprawling array, spends its money. “If evaluations show that an organization performs badly,” the spokesperson said, “it will have consequences.” The evaluation would likely be released, she said, “in a couple of months.”

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03
/03/uk-pulls-plug-united-nations-spending-oppo
sition/#ixzz27HpFKzwl

************************************

Brits have their own spending difficulties……

British taxpayers are paying to refurbish prisons in other countries in a desperate attempt by the Government to repatriate foreign criminals.

Prisons have become a United Nations of criminals Photo: PA

By Tom Whitehead, Security Editor

The Telegraph (UK)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/9461768/Britain-the-United-Nations-of-
Crime-pays-to-spruce-up-foreign-jails.html

10:00PM BST 08 Aug 2012

The funding, part of a £3 million-a-year scheme, even provides human rights training for prison officers abroad.

The disclosure comes as figures showed Britain to be a “United Nations of crime”, with its prisons housing offenders from 80 per cent of the world’s countries.

Some 156 different nationalities are represented in jails. The cost of locking up foreign criminals is estimated at almost half a billion pounds a year. The situation has become so dire that the Government is even paying to renovate jails abroad to encourage more offenders to serve their sentences back home.

Cross-Government funding is being spent on projects in Jamaica and Nigeria to improve prison conditions there. It is being paid for out of the £3 million-a-year prisoner repatriation fund, which also includes financial incentives to help inmates resettle in their home countries.

In Nigeria, one project provides human rights training for prison officers in three states, while another is paying for guards’ facilities at a women’s jail in Lagos.

In Jamaica, funds are helping to modernise the prison service and rehabilitation programmes.

Research carried out by the House of Commons Library found that in March there were 11,127 foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales.

They came from 156 different nations, compared with the 193 countries officially recognised by the UN.

Ten countries made up about half of the foreign inmates, including Jamaica, Nigeria, Poland and Ireland.

It costs around £41,000 a year to house a prisoner, suggesting that the taxpayer is paying more than £450 million to look after foreign criminals.

The proportion in the prison estate increased slightly from 12.9 per cent in 2011 to 13 per cent this year. In 2010, David Cameron promised to ensure that more prisoners would serve sentences in their own countries. But figures last year showed that just 47 had been removed under a so-called prisoner transfer in 2010.

Priti Patel, a Conservative MP, claimed that Britain had become a “United Nations of crime”.

“Too many foreign nationals are enjoying themselves at the taxpayer’s expense,” she said. “Criminals flouting laws in Britain should be deported immediately.”

The religious make-up of prisoners is also changing, the Commons research disclosed.

Some 12.5 per cent of inmates regarded themselves as Muslim compared with 6.7 per cent in 2000. Around half were Christian, down from 60 per cent in 2000.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We have voluntary prisoner transfer agreements with more than 100 countries, allowing prisoners to serve their sentences in their home countries.”

:One of Britain’s most senior police officers has warned that spending cuts will leave officers unable to cope with a repeat of last summer’s riots.

Sir Norman Bettison, the Chief Constable of  West Yorkshire Police, said a 20 per cent cut in forces’ budgets by 2015 would put public safety “in jeopardy”.

Advocates can use the profiles when meeting with Congressional staffers in a local district office or on Capitol Hill, to describe the extent to which additional affordable rental housing is needed locally.

When you meet with your Member of Congress or Member’s staff to discuss the need for affordable housing units, you can open the discussion by citing the number of severely burdened, extremely low income households living in your district.

For example, if you are a resident of Minnesota’s 5^th Congressional District, you can point out that over 38,000 extremely low income households live in the area. Among these households, 22,572 households (59%) face a severe housing cost burden. This means they pay over 50% of their income towards rent. Access to affordable housing would alleviate that burden for these families, allowing them to cover other bills and expenses, including healthcare, child care and transportation.

The Congressional District Profiles demonstrate that extremely low income households consistently face a severe housing cost burden, in large part because the poorest households in most districts have the fewest rental units affordable and available to them.

As the profile for the 5^th District indicates, that community has an immediate need for about 24,000 additional housing units to serve ELI households. Advocates should explain to Members and their staff that the National Housing Trust Fund is a solution to this housing shortage. The trust fund will directly address this demand for rental housing by providing additional resources towards expanding the supply of affordable housing in the district.

We hope housing advocates across the country find the profiles to be a useful advocacy tool. For more information on using the profiles or suggestions for when and how to weigh in with your Members of Congress, contact our outreach team at outreach@nlihc.org.

For our inaugural research brief, we illustrate the stresses on low income renters using data from the American Community Survey (ACS). There is much discussion about income inequality in the news today and our research brief highlights evidence from the ACS that demonstrates how the lowest income, most vulnerable households face undue burden in the housing market.

We find that hardship among renters is on the rise across all income groups. While the pace at which rents have increased slowed since 2007, rents continue to rise (from $824 in 2008 to $855 in 2010). Yet, while the rents keep inching up year after year, renters themselves have suffered setbacks.  Renter households were earning $31,891 in 2008. By 2010, their median income fell to $30,691. As a result of these two trends, renters are facing an increasing cost burden. By 2010, 53% of all renters faced a cost burden.

While housing affordability problems are affecting all renters, the lowest income groups are the most likely to face a housing cost burden. Among the pool of cost burdened renters, we know that about 83% earn less than $35,000. And, while very few renters earning above $75,000 face a housing cost burden, nearly all renters earning below $20,000 each year are burdened. NLIHC’s first Housing Spotlight illustrates that housing problems are not equally distributed among renters , the poorest households are facing the greatest obstacles to finding decent housing, and the Great Recession seems to be widening the divide.

The next issue of Housing Spotlight will dig into the latest data on the shortage of affordable and available units to low income households.  Future issues will discuss renters in foreclosure and the characteristics of the nation’s subsidized housing stock. Housing Spotlight will be provided first to NLIHC members as a member benefit. Want to be the first to receive Housing Spotlight? Join us!

Rice packers yesterday insisted some of the giant modern retailers increased the fee demanded from them every year, adding to their cost burden.
Somroek Tangpiroonthum, president of the Thai Rice Packers Association, said large retailers had increased the “back-margin” fee (also known as the “entrance” or “supplement” fee) from 1-2 per cent of the selling price to 5-10 per cent in recent years.

Some modern retailers have also marked up the retail price by 6-10 per cent, he said, resulting in consumers paying over the odds.

He called for the government to negotiate with large retailers to maintain the back-margin fee, as the sale of packed rice offered a low margin. If such charges were increased further, then suppliers would have to pass the burden on to consumers because of higher operating costs.

The Internal Trade Department will soon set up a meeting between the giant retailers and the rice packers in a bid to solve the problem.

Somroek also called on the government to release its rice stockpiles – particularly jasmine rice – via auction, in order to increase the supply for domestic traders. This would make up for a shortfall of rice in private warehouses.

Department director-general Yangyong Phuangrach said rice packers had agreed to freeze their retail prices for another two months, in order to ease the burden on consumers.

The government will release about 70,000 tonnes of jasmine rice via auction on August 10, in order to increase supply for domestic consumption, he added.

Meanwhile, Tesco Lotus senior vice president Darmp Sukontasap said each year, his company sold about 17 million packs of rice, the equivalent of 85,000 tonnes. This is only 0.5 per cent of the overall rice consumption in the country in one year.

With all the modern retailers combined, the volume is unlikely to exceed 2 per cent of national consumption, he said.

Therefore, it is unlikely the business these retailers conduct with members of the rice packers’ association can have a major impact on the market price of rice, he argued.

Furthermore, he added, the rice that the packers sell to modern retailers is only 30 per cent of what they produce, with the rest sold on the open market.

“It is unlikely the price of the 30 per cent sold to us would have a major impact on the 70 per cent sold on the open market,” he said.

“The margin per unit for rice packers is now 8-10 per cent, which is much more than the margin of modern retailers. Therefore, we see no reason for an increase in the price of rice sold to consumers. This year, there’s enough rice for both domestic consumption and export, and the market price is 15-per-cent lower than last year,” Darmp said.