From casst92+@pitt.edu Sun Feb 4 23:57:30 1996 ID for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 01:55:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 01:55:33 -0500 (EST) From: Cathleen Schlegel-smith Subject: Sociologists in the private sector To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Hi all, I'm a graduate student of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh. As part of a course we call 'The Professional Seminar', I have been asked to bring in some information about sociologists who are employed in the private sector. If you are a sociologist who is or has been employed in the private sector, my classmates and I would greatly appreciate your responses to the following questions as well as any other information you think that we might find useful. 1. What is the highest level of education you have attained in sociology (BA, MA, ABD or Ph.D)? 2. While you were earning your degree, what was/were your declared area(s) of specialization? 3. By what type of organization are you employed? (If self-employed, please indicate) 4. Was your employer specifically seeking a sociologist to fill your current position? 5. Please describe briefly the type of work that you do. 6. Did you have plans to seek employment as a sociologist in the private sector while you were still in school? If so, did you take coursework, declare areas of specialization or engage in any other type of academic preparation toward this end? If yes, please describe. 7. Based on your employment experience in the private sector, what types of courses (sociology and other courses), areas of specialization and other types of academic preparation would you recommend to graduate students of sociology who are interested in positions in the private sector? Thanks in advance, Cathleen Schlegel From rcincotta@usaid.gov Tue Feb 6 11:29:03 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:27:22 -0700 To: , From: "G.PHN.POP.PE" Subject: Press Clips-- Feb 2 X-Incognito-SN: 643 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.02.90 ENCRYPTED=NO Forwarded to: Internet[ppn@csf.colorado.edu] Internet[POPENV-L@INFO.USAID.GOV] cc: Comments by: Richard Cincotta@G.PHN.POP@AIDW -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- TITLE: Extracting Their Pound of Flesh COLUMN: JUDY MANN SOURCE: The Washington Post; WP (Copyright 1996) Congressional opponents of family planning scored a major victory last week by passing legislation that will strangle U.S. support for international contraceptive services. Led by House Republicans and backed by the Christian Coalition and other right-wing groups that oppose abortion, these efforts ironically will lead to an additional 200,000 illegal and unsafe abortions, according to Nils Daulaire, deputy assistant administrator for policy and child health policy adviser at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Damage to family-planning programs will be far more extensive than it appeared from early news reports about the temporary budget agreement. The legislation will decrease by 35 percent the amount of money available to spend on international family-planning programs -- that is, it will cut the budget by nearly $200 million. USAID will not be permitted to spend any of its appropriation for family planning until July 1, nine months after the start of the fiscal year, which, in Daulaire's words, will cause a "tremendous disruption in services." It is the only international assistance program that is restricted in this way. After July 1, spending cannot exceed 6.7 percent per month of the total appropriated, which means that only a small amount of the whole will actually be spent before Oct. 1, when a new fiscal year begins. Daulaire projects that as many as 5,000 more women will die over the next year as a result of unsafe abortions and mistimed pregnancies, and that roughly 500,000 additional births will result, putting further stress on child-survival programs that are strained already. Further, he says, the piecemealing restrictions imposed by Congress will increase administrative costs by four to five times, costing U.S. taxpayers $750,000 to $1 million more. Most of the campaign against family planning has been carried out in the guise of preventing U.S. foreign aid funds from paying for abortions, although that practice has been banned since 1973. This current fight began last year when House Republicans voted for a measure sponsored by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) that would have prevented any foreign nongovernmental organization from receiving any U.S. family-planning money if it attempted to provide information about abortion or lobby its own government to change regulations regarding abortion. The Senate refused to go along with the Smith language, the White House said it would veto any bill with this language, and a stalemate on the whole foreign aid package ensued. Pressure to get a foreign operations appropriation bill mounted steadily after Oct. 1, when checks to Israel and Egypt weren't delivered, foreign aid missions weren't getting their funding, their contractors weren't being paid and population programs weren't being funded at all, according to Victoria Markell, vice president of Population Action International, a nonprofit, research-based advocacy organization that receives no federal funding. The Smith language was cut out of the final bill last Thursday in the face of growing public outrage over the prospect of yet another government shutdown. "The ideologues had to come up with some formulation that will restrict population-planning spending as much as they could," Markell says. Neither the Senate nor the White House wanted the blame for another government shutdown. "It's such an attack on women and children," Markell says. "How in the world can you pretend to care about child survival when we know that women and mothers are going to die without access to family planning?" She cites a World Health Organization statistic that 90 percent of children in developing countries who lose their mothers in delivery will die by their first birthday. "We know that if women have fewer children, the children they have live longer and are healthier and everyone benefits." "One of they key priorities of our family-planning program is to reduce abortions worldwide," Daulaire says. Yet when it became clear that the Smith language gutting family-planning services would not pass, "they decided that the way to extract a cost was by severely restricting AID's ability to provide family-planning services around the world. They understood very clearly that this language would mean not just a 35 percent reduction in funding but was really much harsher." What is clear from this exercise is that the conservative Christian bloc of House Republicans is targeting international contraceptive and family-planning services, not just abortion services. And the people who will suffer are women and children in the poorest parts of the world. Is that the Christian way? From kvrao@dad.bgsu.edu Tue Feb 6 19:17:11 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:16:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Prof K. V. Rao" To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - 6TH IN'L CONF ON APPLIED DEMOGRAPHY (fwd) SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON APPLIED AND BUSINESS DEMOGRAPHY SEPTEMBER 19-21, 1996, BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403, USA ORGANIZING COMM: K. V. Rao, Chair Members: Hallie J. Kintner, USA, Mohan Singh, Singapore Ronald Prevost, USA Peter Morrison, USA Thomas Burch, Canada David Swanson, USA Linda Gage, USA Zeng Yi, P R of China Jerry Wicks, USA Jonathan L. Entin, USA K.S. Murty, USA Shaomin Li, USA Lou Pol, USA Filomena Racioppi,Italy P. Ramachandran, India ******************************************************** The Sixth International Conference on Applied and Business Demography will be held from September 19-21, 1996, Bowling Green, Ohio. The conference will have paper sessions, poster sessions, demonstration of software, panel discussions, workshops, and exhibition area. Session and workshop proposals and individual paper abstracts are invited on any topics/areas that use demographics in their study. Some areas specifically identified for the 1996 conference include: Demographic analysis of retirement plans, spatial analysis, emerging consumer markets, internet resources, GIS Technology, training needs, population estimates and projections, demonstration of software, merging traditional and non-traditional data sources, immigration (legal and illegal), health care reform and minority health, demographics studies and research in HBCUs, aging populations, mortality, morbidity issues, Demographic analysis for human resource management, and Demographics and credit institutes. Please send one page abstract of your proposed presentation by March 15, 1996 to: K.V. Rao, Conference Director, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. Tel: 419 372 7240, Fax: 419 372 8306,e-mail: adconf96@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT FORM FOR PRESENTATION AT THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON APPLIED AND BUSINESS DEMOGRAPHY - SEPTEMBER 19-21, 1996 BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403 PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM AND MAIL TO: ADCONF96@BGSUVAX.BGSU.EDU Name: ___________________________________________________________ Title of Paper __________________________________________________ Organizational Affiliation: _____________________________________ Mailing Address: ________________________________________________ City/State/Country_______________________________________________ Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________ Telephone: ___________________ FAX: _________________________ DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACT/PAPER IS MARCH 15,1996. ABSTRACT: (ONE PAGE) --------------- From ts730688@oak.cats.ohiou.edu Mon Feb 12 06:17:54 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:19:00 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Alan Smucker To: PPN@csf.colorado.edu Subject: GIS and Population I was wondering if anyone on this list has some suggestions for introductory readings on some of the technical and broader issues of populations analysis using GIS. I'm particularly interested in looking at planning applications for developing countries. Thanks in advance. Tom ts730688@oak.cats.ohiou.edu From bashi@ssc.sas.upenn.edu Mon Feb 12 07:50:45 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:51:14 -0500 (EST) From: Vilna Bashi To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: FUNDING: Community Action Research Fellowship (Due 2/15/96) (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:59:32 -0500 From: Amy Cohen To: soc-grad@ssc.sas.upenn.edu Subject: FUNDING: Community Action Research Fellowship (Due 2/15/96) >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:51:22 CST >Reply-To: H-Net/H-Urban Seminar on History of Community Organizing & > >Sender: H-Net/H-Urban Seminar on History of Community Organizing & > >From: Wendy Plotkin >Subject: FUNDING: Community Action Research Fellowship (Due 2/15/96) > >Posted by Peter Dreier > >I want to make folks on the Comm Org list aware of a small funding >opportunity sponsored by the American Sociological Assn. It is called >the Community Action Research Fellowship program and the deadline is >February 15. I know this doesn't leave much time, but people might be >able to pull together a quick proposal. > >The program provides small grants of $1,000-2,500 to sociologists who >are working with community-based organizations, local public interest >groups, and community action projects. Sociologists in academic >settings, research instituitons, private and non-profit organizations, >and govt. are eligible. The funds cannot be used for dissertation >research. The Fellows are expected to work with communtiy >organizations. The program can fund such activities as needs >assessments, empirical research relevant to community action, design >and/or implementation of evauation studies or analytic review of social >science literature related to a social problem or policy issue. > >The goal of this program is to help link sociologists with community >action groups and to use sociological research to advance the goals of >these groups. > >Applications will be accepted until Feb. 15, 1996. The applications >should include a 3-5 page (no more than 1,500 words) description of the >project, including a detailed budget; a time schedule showing how a >specific organizations will use the research to carry out its goals; a >resume; and a letter from an organizational sponsor, including a >description of the organization's goals, funding, etc. > >Applications should be send to: Spivack Community Action Research >Fellowship, American Sociological Assn., 1722 N St., NW, Washington, D.C >20036. For further information, contact Carla Howery or Paula Trubisky at >the ASA: (202) 833-3410. The program is sponsored by the ASA's Sydney >Spivack Program in Applied Social Research and Social Policy. This is the >Community Action Research Fellowship's second year. Four grants are likely >to be awarded in this round. If people cannot pull together an application >this year, but are interested in future years, they should stay in touch >with the ASA. > >Thanks. > >Peter Dreier >Occidental College > Amy Cohen Penn Program for Public Service cohen@pobox.upenn.edu University of Pennsylvania 215-898-7695 133 S. 36th Street, Suite 519 Philadelphia, PA 19104-3246 ---- Questions about the list? To subscribe, unsubscribe, or ask questions, send e-mail to: pamking@ssc.upenn.edu From rcincotta@usaid.gov Tue Feb 20 13:52:27 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 13:39:59 -0500 To: , , , , <71634.217@compuserve.com>, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , <72763.1775@compuserve.com>, <102413.2335@compuserve.com>, , , , , From: "Richard Cincotta" Subject: NPR Program / legislated cuts in family planning X-Incognito-SN: 1125 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.02.90 ENCRYPTED=NO Comments: Here is a balanced piece on the Pop Legislation that aired on NPR on Wednesday morning. There are some strong statements made on both sides of the fence...Happy reading! The piece is also attached to this message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1996 National Public Radio Morning Edition February 14, 1996 U.S. Funds for Overseas Family Planning are Threatened GUESTS: Dr. AMY POLLACK; PEGGY KIRLAN; DOUGLAS JOHNSON; Sen. MARK HATFIELD (R- OR); Rep. SONNY CALLAHAN (R-AL) BYLINE: TED CLARK BOB EDWARDS, Host: A dispute over abortion threatens U.S. funding for overseas family planning programs. The House of Representatives wants foreign aid to contain anti-abortion restrictions. The Senate and the Clinton administration do not. Unless the dispute can be resolved, and that seems unlikely, family planning funds will be reduced by more than a third. Many experts say a cut in funds for family planning will cause deaths among women and children in developing countries and actually increase the number of abortions, a position rejected by anti-abortion groups. NPR's Ted Clark reports. TED CLARK, Reporter: The United States is one of the biggest contributors to international family planning programs, and so the 35-percent cut in U.S. funds will have an impact worldwide. Family planning organizations say it will have a devastating impact. Population Action International estimates that 50 million couples overseas use family planning services funded by the U.S. government. If a third of those couples lose access to the services, the organization says there could well be more than 10 million unintended pregnancies a year. Ten million unplanned pregnancies in the poorest countries of the world could result in more maternal deaths. Family planning groups estimate from 5,000 to tens of thousands of additional maternal deaths. The deaths will come, says Amy Pollack [sp] of AVSC International [sp] in New York, because women in poor countries live on the edge of good health. AMY POLLACK, AVSC Int'l.: They barely survive in many of these places. They maintain a very low nutrition. And pregnancy is one situation that really stresses the system maximally. And if a woman has recurrent pregnancies that are not spaced, then it's clear that she never recovers from the first delivery before she goes into the second pregnancy, or third or fourth or fifth pregnancy. And by doing this, she puts her own life at risk. TED CLARK: When family planning services are available, Dr. Pollack says, women learn to space their deliveries farther apart, leaving time to recover. Their children are healthier, too, when deliveries are properly spaced. [Peggy Curlin of the Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA) in Washington, D.C.] PEGGY CURLIN, Center for Development and Population Activities: Family planning is the best intervention for child survival that exists. If a mother gets pregnant before her last child is two, the chances of that child surviving are very slim. The child's nutrition suffers. And of course then later on, a child's education suffers because there is not enough money to send all the children to school. And particularly girls suffer, both in the health care and in education under this. TED CLARK: Population Action says half a million infants and children could die as a result of the cut in U.S. funding. Family planning workers provide many services besides contraception, including nutrition, immunization and health care education. All these services could be harmed if family planning funds are cut. And many experts in this field say abortion rates could rise, too, as the number of unintended pregnancies rise. Peggy Kirlan says the lowest estimate she's seen is 200,000 excess abortions among women in developing countries. PEGGY CURLIN: When they have an unplanned pregnancy, and perhaps they can't feed or clothe or educate the children they have, they may be forced to seek out an unsafe abortion simply because of family economy. TED CLARK: Family planning groups say they seek to prevent abortions by providing contraception and education. Many anti-abortion activists dispute the assumption that cuts in family planning will lead to increased abortions overseas. Douglas Johnson [sp] of the National Right to Life Committee says family planning funds do not necessarily hold down the abortion rate. DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Nat'l. Right to Life Committee: It depends on how these funds are used. When the funds are given to organizations which believe that they have a mission to introduce abortion networks into countries where that is contrary to law, and there are such groups, then the effect of the U.S. dollar is to increase the number of abortions. TED CLARK: Here's what led to the cutback in family planning funds. The Reagan and Bush administrations placed stringent anti-abortion restrictions on foreign aid. There was already a law against using American funds to perform abortions, but the Reagan and Bush administrations went further. They also prevented U.S.-funded groups from using private money or money provided by other governments for abortion-related activities, even in countries where abortion was legal. President Clinton, at the urging of family planning groups, rescinded the Reagan-Bush restrictions, and now the House wants them back. The House failed to achieve that goal, but it did win a 35-percent cut in family planning funds. Douglas Johnson says President Clinton and certain family planning groups have only themselves to blame for the cutback. DOUGLAS JOHNSON: It is their ill-considered decision to once again interject abortion as an essential and major component into this program, which has created the difficulty. TED CLARK: Johnson does not think the cut in family planning funds will increase child and maternal deaths, as many experts claim. He notes that the House has crafted a separate Child Survival Fund to improve health care delivery for these groups. And he rejects the assumption that abortions will increase. DOUGLAS JOHNSON: I don't think there's any way to calculate it by getting into extrapolations where you'd really be making up numbers. TED CLARK: Dr. Pollack disagrees. She says there are ways to calculate the effect of the budget cuts on abortion rates. She says it can be deduced from historical experience. Dr. AMY POLLACK: A perfect example of this is Rumania, where we have absolute numbers that indicate that when you take away family planning services, which is what Ceausescu did, you end up with increasing numbers of illegal abortions. TED CLARK: The cut in family planning funding has caused something of a split among anti-abortion activists. Oregon Republican Mark Hatfield, who describes himself as pro-life, spoke out against the cut on the Senate floor last week. Sen. MARK HATFIELD (R-OR): We need to restore, with rhetoric and with resources, support to AIDS Family Planning Program. For those of us who take a pro-life position, this is the most effective way to reiterate our profound opposition to the practice of abortion. TED CLARK: The House of Representatives is not moved by arguments like this. Sonny Callahan, chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, doubts that family planning groups are really worried about the possibility of increased abortions. Rep. SONNY CALLAHAN (R-AL): If they're concerned about that, why don't they go ahead and say that they won't spend any of their money on abortions? And then they could get full funding. But you see, that's not the case. TED CLARK: So it seems to you as though this impasse will continue? Rep. SONNY CALLAHAN: Oh, there's no doubt about it. TED CLARK: Family planning groups are mounting a campaign to restore the money cut from population programs. The House seems determined to keep the cuts in place until its anti-abortion restrictions are accepted. The disagreement is deep and abiding. Unless it's resolved, U.S. funding for international family planning programs will be 35 percent lower for the foreseeable future. This is Ted Clark in Washington. -------------------------------------------------------------------- [transcript from the NPR program on Family Planning. It'll be in the clips this weekend]. From rcincotta@usaid.gov Wed Feb 21 13:27:10 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:25:06 -0700 To: , , , , , , <71634.217@compuserve.com>, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , <72763.1775@compuserve.com>, <102413.2335@compuserve.com>, , , , , From: "Rebecca Lopez" Subject: ...no subject... X-Incognito-SN: 1125 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.02.90 ENCRYPTED=NO Forwarded to: Internet[ppn@csf.colorado.edu] Internet[djshep@aol.com] Internet[Bernadine_McRipley.parti@pcusa.org,marschja@martin.luther.edu,achapman@aaas.org,dhunt@igc.apc.org,71634.217@compuserve.com] Internet[estermap@ewc.hawaii.edu] Internet[pwaak@audubon.org,lnelson@audubon.org,jacqueline_hamilton@together.org,chiapetta@nwf.org,karen.kalla@sierraclub.org,ras@igc.apc.org,zpg@igc.apc.org,seymour+r%wwfus@mcimail.com,e.ortiz@conservation.org,dolan+r%wwfus@mcimail.com,teri@igc.apc.org] Internet[re@popact.org,leroy@popact.org,johnswms@aol.com,72763.1775@compuserve.com,102413.2335@compuserve.com,vdompka@aaas.org,slgsummit@aol.com,d.kress@tfgi.com,t.dmytraczenko@tfgi.com,j.jordan@tfgi.com] cc: Comments by: Richard Cincotta@G.PHN.POP@AIDW press clips: Family Planning/Reproductive Health Cuts Mandated by US Congress. -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- Here are some recent articles on the population budget cuts that appeared in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the Baltimore Sun, and the San Francisco Chronicle: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 16, 1996 Atlanta Journal and Constitution CARE Cutting money, costing lives International family planning programs represent only a few hundredths of 1 percent of the U.S. government budget But they have been extraordinarily successful By Maurice I. Middleberg Last July, I snapped a photograph of a couple who had become family planning providers in the remote Andean village of Cushcandahy, Peru, 11,000 feet in the mountains. Their modest home displayed a sign: "Planificacion Familiar Aqui (Family Planning Here)." Thanks in part to funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development, CARE has trained more than 1,400 workers and introduced family planning services to thousands of people in Peru, from the Amazon basin to the Andean mountaintops. Unfortunately, the efforts of CARE and other humanitarian agencies to bring family planning to villages around the globe have been jeopardized by the congressional resolution of the budget impasse. The funds available for family planning were cut by 35 percent. Even worse, a set of unprecedented procedural requirements threatens to reduce the actual flow of funds to a trickle. Meanwhile, here are the facts: Some 120 million women in the developing world want to stop or postpone childbearing but do not have access to family planning services. Women in the developing world are 100 times more likely than American women to die as a result of childbirth. Half a million women a one every minute of every day a die each year from complications of pregnancy and childbirth; 5 million women suffer serious illnesses or trauma. In developing countries, more than 10 percent of births end in the death of the infant before his or her first birthday, a rate more than 10 times as high as in the United States. High infant mortality is in part attributable to the fact that many births are high risk; that is, they occur to very young women, to women over age 35, to women who have already had many pregnancies or who have given birth in the preceding 24 months. In many countries, simply spacing births could reduce the infant mortality rate by one-fifth. Ten million to 12 million illegal abortions occur each year in the developing world. CARE does not support abortion services directly or indirectly. Reducing funding for family planning services means that fewer women will be able to avoid the unwanted pregnancies that too often conclude in abortion. We find the action by Congress particularly puzzling in view of its laudable decision to protect other child health programs such as immunization. It may be a simple lack of understanding of the health benefits of family planning. The cuts in family planning programs are disproportionate a three times the 11 percent cut in foreign aid overall. In addition, agencies cannot get the funds until July 1, nine months into the fiscal year and five months after Congress appropriated the money. Thereafter, the funds will be doled out at a rate of one-fifteenth of the appropriation each month. As we were entering the village of Cushcandahy, the local health worker said to me, "In these villages, they say that only God and CARE come to visit." The truth is that God and CARE have relied on the compassion and enlightened self-interest of the American people to build the links between Atlanta and Cushcandahy. International family planning programs are of virtually no budgetary significance, totaling only a few hundredths of 1 percent of the U.S. government budget. They also have been extraordinarily successful: In 1965, 10 percent of women in the developing world used contraceptives; today, more than 50 percent do. Congress should rethink the excessive cuts and burdensome rules it has mandated and restore a program that reflects American interests and generosity. Maurice I. Middleberg is director of the population unit for CARE, which is based in Atlanta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 18, 1996 San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Crisis avoidance The Republican Revolution strikes another foolish blow, this time weakening global family planning programs THE United States is marching back into the Dark Ages by scaling down its international effort to aid family planning. The retrenchment was forced by congressional Republicans who are opposed to abortion and don't take seriously the world population crisis. Ideology is a dangerous game where survival is ultimately at stake. By law, no U.S. money can be spent abroad for abortions, but the United States is the world's biggest donor to family planning groups, many of which provide abortion services. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, there was an embargo on giving U.S. funds to any organizations that performed abortions or provided information about the procedure. That ban was lifted by President Clinton. When House Republicans failed to reinstate the ban, they cut the U.S. budget for family planning around the world by 35 percent - from $550 million last year to $360 million this year. The United States is also reducing its contributions to the U.N. Population Fund. Only by ignoring the evidence can such actions be justified. The policies of enlightened nations are aimed at controlling world population, which has reached 5.7 billion and is expected to double in the next 60 years. Every day, there are an estimated 900,000 unplanned pregnancies, most of them in undeveloped countries. "What we did," said Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Oregon, referring to the U.S. aid cuts, "is bar access to family planning services to approximately 17 million couples, most of them living in unimaginable poverty." Some other Republicans don't take any of this seriously. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., asked during a hearing last year: "Is there really a population crisis? Is there any hard evidence that we are in imminent danger of not having enough resources for the world's population, or is it just an aesthetic preference of the West?" Such thinking mired us for centuries in the last Dark Ages. Full U.S. funding, with no restrictions, should be restored for international family planning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THE BALTIMORE SUN *** EDITORIAL PAGE *** SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 AID LEARNS THAT GOOD DEEDS DO NOT GO UNPUNISHED By Sara Engram When the Clinton Administration preached "reinvention" of government the State Department's Agency for International Development (AID) heeded the call. Along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, AID became on of two federal "reinvention laboratories" where all the talk about more efficient more effective and less costly management turned into reality. AID has shed some 70 senior level positions, each paying about $100,000 a year. It has slimmed total staffing levels by 16 percent -- from 10,800 people to 9,050. It has cut regulations by 55 percent, cut the time it takes to award competitive contracts from a year to 150 days, cut project-design time by 75 percent and overhauled its program operations, procurement, accounting and budget procedures. Virtue is its own reward And what thanks does it get for doing more with less? A whopping budget cut, along with potentially devastating restrictions on some programs. The saga of the 1996 AID budget is one of the grimmer tales of the budget stand-off. The agency never expected an easy ride, given the Republican-controlled Congress' zeal for slashing the budget and the difficulty of defending aid to other countries when we have plenty of poor, homeless and hungry people right here at home. But the fact is that foreign aid is crucial to advancing U.S. interests around the globe and to making the world a safer place. From nurturing economic activity that raises living standards and slows the rate of illegal immigration , to helping emerging democracies set up a system of law, to providing medical care and family-planning assistance to countries with burgeoning birth rates and high rates of infant and maternal mortality -- the agency's programs plant seeds that, eventually, can help forestall political unrest or hostilities that spill over into wider wars. Tiny share Foreign aid is a tiny share of the budget -- less than 3 percent (1.2%), and AID gets only a sixth of that. But a recent poll showed an alarming number of Americans assumed that the government spent more on foreign aid than on Medicare. Under the compromise finally reached by the Congress and the White House, the agency's budget will be cut 11 percent. Since some aid programs, such as assistance to Egypt and Israel, must hold relatively steady, other programs took an especially hard hit. None, however, got the shabby treatment reserved for family planning assistance. Those programs, a favorite target of a small House group of zealous opponents of abortion and family- planning, were cut 35 percent, a loss of more than $200 million from 1995 funding levels. Even worse, these opponents succeeded in requiring that no funds for 1996 be spent before July 1 -- and then that the allocation be dribbled out in 15 monthly increments, most of which would come, absurdly, after the end of the year for which the money is appropriated. Since the budget impasse had blocked expenditures after October 1, that requirement creates a nine-month gap -- an ironic length -- in U.S. aid for family-planning services for some of the poorest families in the world. Clearly, the restrictions are aimed at interrupting these programs, many of which are administered by private, non-profit organizations in countries receiving the aid. Defeat for families The victory for ideology is a clear defeat for tens of thousands of families who, as a consequence, will experience higher rates of unplanned pregnancies and more deaths among mothers and infants. Pregnancy is a high-risk undertaking in countries where nutrition is poor and health care is unaccessible or primitive. It's also a defeat for efficient government -- and an illustration of how Congress can talk one game and play another. Despite its calls for effective government, Congress can't resist an ideological power play. What else explains a requirement that must have been dreamed up in red-tape heaven? Instead of one, clean transaction, we'll now have 15 checks and 15 contracts for a program that is underfunded to begin with. Reinventing government? The bureaucrats are hearing the message. It's the ideologues who, it seems, couldn't care less. Sara Engram is deputy editorial-page editor of The Sun.