Do you support Kiva's decision to allow loan requests from the U.S.?

I am so diappointed you offer US loans. I think it dilutes the thoughts of you helping the really poor.

I believe if you want to help the world, you need to help those in your backyard first. If we all did this, the world would be a much better place. The beauty of kiva is that it is free choice... you don't have to lend to those you don't feel deserve it, but there are still plenty out there that can benefit from a hand up.

There are lots of poor people in the United States as well as around the world. I am glad to support them.

I must admit I'm torn.

I'd hate to see loans in the U.S. take away from funding of loans in places that are much poorer. But that doesn't seem to be happening. There still seems to be plenty of funding for all loans so far.

However, since I can choose which loans I help to fund, I can and will choose not to participate in U.S. loans, or for that matter, ANY loans where the borrower doesn't seem to be what I would consider poor.

All in all, I would rather see more of Kiva's effort being put toward helping people in really poor places like Haiti.

Every country has people who want to make their dreams come true and have their own business.
I think people should vote with their wallets.
If someone prefers to fund someone in the US that is their choice.
Democracy is a good thing!

I was hesitant about US loans until I saw the storm of people who were angry about it, and the "us and them" attitude of many of the people complaining now. We needed a wake-up call.

Yes, I still hope they will be cautious about how much of their bandwidth they allocate to the US, so it doesn't slow worldwide expansion and support of developing countries. Yes, the standard of living is much higher here. Yes, I'll wait to personally loan to the US until they find some US partners that deal with extremely impoverished areas, where children are pressured out of school and in some cases where electricity and running water aren't taken for granted yet (yes, they exist).

But no, it was time to make people look at the fact that Kiva is a platform that supports lending to people along a wide *spectrum* of poverty, from someone buying one pig to someone with two employees in a relatively prosperous country. Moldova loans look almost like US loans. It's not all or nothing, and it's not the high and mighty rich helping the humble and destitute poor. It's people who can't get credit from banks, for whatever reason, and want a chance to prove they can succeed. It's me with a decent income helping someone else who's having a harder time right now.

As Premal the founder says on his lender page, "I loan because: there is no them."

This debate confounds me! If you don't like the idea of your money going to Americans, then simply don't donate money to them! It's that easy. Why deprive those of us who do? There plenty of other micro-finance organizations out there that only provide loans to those in foreign lands. Just saying...

If Kiva would post entrepreneurs in the U.S. for whom loans might provide an opportunity to escape from real poverty, I might be okay with Kiva’s including the U.S. as one of its areas of concentration. The type of entrepreneurs included in the first U.S. group, however, even though some had moving stories, didn’t even approach the kind of people I’d once thought Kiva had been started to try to reach.

For that matter, as Kiva has severed its relations, for a variety of reasons, with some of its original, smaller, more grass roots-type, community-grown field partners, I’ve noticed with increasing dismay and sorrow that fewer and fewer of the loans that currently are being posted on Kiva’s pages, even if from the developing countries, bear much of a resemblance to the poverty-stricken but still striving entrepreneur I once had been so pleased and truly dedicated to try to help.

Not every Kiva entrepreneur will be a stone cracker from Ghana or a lady in Cambodia who had to clean public restrooms all day to be able to provide sustenance for her family. But that sort of struggling but still determined individual whom I used to see, quite regularly, on Kiva’s pages was just exactly the type of individual for whom I’d thought that Kiva and we lenders had come together and had committed ourselves to try to elevate.

Dear Kiva

I appreciate all that you are doing for those in the developing world and those who are in newly industrialized countries. I really do. However, there is now a remarkable lack of consistency between your mission statement and what path you have now directed your organization into.
Having now reviewed a good deal of the new borrowers from WITHIN the United States, I am truly disappointed in you.
Not only are these people not in poverty, they are living in a country that has the highest living standard in history. Has the highest GDP in history, multiples larger than the closest developed nation, and there are already means for people in the states to get ahead. This isn't POVERTY. What's more is that these aren't micro-loans! A good amount of them are between US$5k and US$10k!! I realize the people lending them are lending in small amounts but these are in the league of car loans. What exactly do you mean by Micro? In what quantifiable context is 'micro'?
On both ends? or just on the part of the lender. These people aren't in NEED of Kiva. Photography equipment? a storage shed for 'Silvia' when *sigh* she has to pay a whole US$200 a month now? and she lives in the SF BAY AREA? Where the median income is well above the national average of the RICHEST COUNTRY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED?! REALLY? FOR SOMETHING SHE DOESN'T NEED?! THAT IS PATHETIC.

In the end, people are allowed to lend money to whomever they want, and I have no qualms with that whatsoever. My PROBLEM is one of consistency. YOU are being inconsistent with the principles of your mission statement which means you are being inconsistent with ME. Since you are a non-profit organization who expects people to lend money based on your merit, your mission statement, and your TRANSPARENCY I strongly urge you to do one the following: DROP American borrowers from your site, create a site that is for borrowers/lenders of DEVELOPED countries OR CHANGE YOUR 'ABOUT' Page to reflect what your new so-called direction is - and it is a direction a good number of us do not find so appealing so I would NOT recommend the 3rd option.

Good day.

Thomas James Slater

People, please refrain from attacking the US borrowers listed on the Kiva site. They are innocent bystanders in all this upheaval, and don't deserve this vitriol and anger directed at them.
I am fine with US loans on the site at this point. I admit I am eager to see loans to those in poorer areas of the US, rather than what has been posted so far.

I have no problem with Kiva offering the choice, nonetheless I will mostly choose not to loan to the U.S. simply for its low 'bang for the buck' factor. $500 will take you much further in the third world than nearly anywhere in the U.S. Further, the locations that your U.S. field partners seem to serve provide probably the lowest bang-for-the-buck inside the U.S. itself.

I think very carefully about the multiplying effect of each of my loans, i will normally choose something that is more labor-intensive, that requires on the job training of the work force, or that fosters other community services to develop around it; over something that mostly benefits one person. In that regard loans inside big U.S. communities offer even less bang for the buck for me.

With the offering of U.S. loans, I am even more concerned about the long-term stability of Kiva. You have now entered in direct competition with P2P sites such as Prosper.com which do turn a profit and, from the U.S. offerings that I have seen, can potentially serve the same markets. Unless your U.S. focus is properly shifted, your sole reliance on donations to service the Kiva infrastructure is now in peril. And that is where I plan to vote, there will be no further donations from me unless you enter a more sustainable path.

I consider that the first world poor can help subsidize the infrastructure needed to keep the third world poor offerings. A simple scheme such as a graded interest 'tax' relative to loan amount (per person) can provide such feedback (with loans at or below the average amount requiring no interest, or even providing incentives!). it would force field partners in more affluent nations to ponder their alternatives with respect to the best interest rates in the market and would foster the creation of field partners in the most impoverished areas of the world. Doing otherwise it would become more 'profitable' for Kiva and its current, and future, field partners to service the first world instead of the countries that most need the development dollars.

I must add however that even CEO Matt Flannery is missing the point. He states that "The Field Partners we are working with in the U.S. target low-income entrepreneurs" and that is the problem Matt. "Low income" is not "poverty". Kiva's mission seeks to "alleviate poverty", and poverty is defined as 'having little of no money, and few or no possessions."

Matt you have changed the mission of Kiva from one WE ALL agreed on when we joined, to one that adds a totally new dimension, stress on resources and competition between the loans of the 'poverty' borrowers and the 'low income' ones. Our hearts break for anyone in either situation, but Kiva chose to start with a model that addressed 'poverty' and until that is whipped, Matt, Kiva ought to stick to that. THAT is what we are angry about. You are changing the fundamental soul and magic of a marvelous idea.

I'm 100% in favor! If you don't like the US loans don't lend to them!

Alternative Proposal!!

Kiva's role has become confused. Is it a micro-loan coordinating agency or an alternative to less than ethical first world banks?

While no-one disuptes the needs of the American poor, the issue for me is that Kiva is not the Kiva it built its reputation on. US loans don't sit easily with the other loans and am inclined to find other worthy sources for my future loans/donations. I can no longer enthusiastically promote Kiva.

A suggestion: Kiva splits off their US loans and builds a following for a new company name that loans to individuals from developed countries. Certainly banks have turned into an enemy of their customers and such an initiative would be one good force to keep banks accountable to their customers rather than just to their share-holders. While this is a minimal step in administration it would protect Kiva from the backlash that is only in its seminal stages now. (Without quick action I foresee that Kiva's reputation will be setback several years. The next few weeks will tell.)

If Kiva continues to use its name for the new venture they will have stymied its own future. The internet market can be very clear about some things. Just ask Facebook.

Each loan to a US person could be used for several people in less developed countries to do much more with. Poor people in the US with the stability to pass the partner loan requirements aren't actually poor.

If Kiva is going to do this, at least make it easy to filter these loans out. Typically, I lend to groups and the easiest way to find them is to look for larger amounts requested, which is now messed up with US loans.

I think it is great having the option of entrepreneur's from all countries being represented on Kiva. At this time I am not planning on lending to first world countries but it is nice the option exists. If opening first world countries like the USA brings more working capital to Kiva and does not reduce the amount to third world countries, this would be perfect.

I am AMAZED that people are upset about loans in the U.S. - if a person doesn't want to loan in the U.S., they shouldn't. But it's obnoxious that a person would want to prevent someone else from doing so by trying to stop KIVA from making the option available.

How incredibly offensive that one person thinks they have the right to impose their own personal belief system upon another....

Giving interest-free loans without due diligence to entrepreneurs in a capitalist country is frankly immoral, disgusting, and wrong. It goes against absolutely everything capitalism stand for. People here have options if they look around. If they do not get funded, that's for a reason. Maybe they are not trying hard enough in a society of abundance.

It is one think to make the rules more flexible for the truly poor so they can get a leg up and get started in this world, but to give money from this country to entrepreneurs from the richest darn country in the world because they can't get funding is revolting. How freaking often are the U.S. shafting other nations just because they can ? Now I should go and help their people get an interest free loan on my back ? Learn capitalism people, whatever you are practicing here is just evil.

I applaude Kiva for doing this; poverty is relative and to say that a person without access to financing in a dveloped country is less deserving than a person from a developing country worries me big time.

We cannot help all but we can do some and the very fact that Kiva do not impose any policy on me except that to provide funding to the working poor is what makes them strong. I make my choices based on my criteria, I listen to advice and opinion to other on KivaFriends and learn more, placing funds other places - I live richer!

I support your decision to offer loans in the US however I think it should be on a limited basis so it doesn't effect loans to more impoverished countries.

I can't believe the type of discrimination I hear going on here. You ask what is wrong with Kiva? What is wrong with you? First off, none of the loans funded on Kiva are interest free to the lenders. Second, what good ever came from taking choices away from people. Do what you want with your own money. Don't go around trying to make decisions for other people. Everyone can go spouting off mean and hurtful things, such as raging against *hard working* people in the US, but what good will this do? Of course these loans take a lot more money, living here is a *lot* more expensive! Case in point, my adopted sister's mother died of pneumonia in California. From the sounds of some of you. you might refuse to believe that she died from a completely treatable illness, simply because she lived in one of the top GDP countries, and in one of the states with the most resources. She obviously wouldn't have met the "poverty" requirement that some of you have, but she sure as hell wasn't well off enough to afford the medication that would have saved her life. People everywhere need help, not simply the most civil war-torn, diseased, economically depressed countries.

Just so y'all know there is also a thread about this running at http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,3922.0.html . I know Kiva is monitoring that thread (and here) and taking it on board. But for the sake of consistency, I'll repost here a truncated version of what I've just added to that thread.

As I see it, Kiva continues to do the wonderful work it always has. If, like me, you don't want to lend to people in some geographical locations and prefer to give to an area you have an emotional or philosophical connection to, then fine. Don't give or do give as you see fit.

Kiva is a flexible vehicle rather than a didactic one - one that provides endless options to its users who come from all sorts of different philosophical, religious and cultural backgrounds. I am wary of attempts to privilege any of those paradigms over any other. Rather than worrying about whether the organization itself perfectly reflects one's personal views of what is ‘worthy’ (and again, the issue for me is 'who gets to define that on everybody's behalf?'), perhaps the solution here is to embrace the fact that Kiva enables each of us to focus on being true to our own personal ideals.

A few years ago, I had the good fortune to work with the UNHCR monitoring the impacts of microloans in Sri Lanka. And I was very blessed to spend some time with an ex high school teacher who had set up a NGO that was by then assisting communities in over ten thousand villages. We were talking about compassion fatigue in the west and so on, and I asked him, “There is so much that needs to be fixed in the world, how do we decide what is most important? What should we do?”

He said, “Something.”

And that’s just it, isn’t it? Let’s not knock people who are doing something, even if it isn’t in perfect alignment with our own somethings. As I see it, our options to behave as we like and to follow our own moral lights have not been in any way diminished by recent moves.

Ruling out any country as a whole seems dangerous to me. For me, a broader issue is at play - who gets to rule out which countries are worthy and which are not? That's a slippery precedent. Americans might see Iraq as unworthy. Israelis might see Palastine as unworthy. And so it goes. I'd be much less comfortable if cultural bias came into play than I am with the current situation where one judges individual projects on their own merits.

My personal concerns relate to the flight-of-capital arguments. I am glad that Kiva is directly monitoring this. One scenario is, of course, that people who would usually lend to other countries are now lending to the US. Another scenario is that people who come wanting to donate specifically to Americans might find that, after time, they support people elsewhere too. There is an argument to be made that the more vibrant the lending ecology, the better for all. Not to mention that Kiva itself will get additional operating funds from new lenders, making the organisation more robust and perhaps better able to help those in less developed nations. But it's too early to tell, and I trust that the proper analyses of the pilot will be both made and reported to us.

To conclude - I do hope that the community doesn’t become too divided over this. It has been so inspiring to me to see a group of people gathered together to participate in sharing their wealth with the less fortunate. When I look at an entrepreneur and see donations to them from the US, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Thailand, and from families, students, philanthropic groups, children and so on it reminds me that forces for change are at work everywhere. Please let’s all remember that everyone’s intentions, on both sides of this debate, are noble. We want to see Kiva be the most effective force that it can. Please let’s all treat each other with respect in this debate. I for one have nothing less than respect for anyone who is passionate about helping Kiva be the best it can be.

Oh - and I had no idea para breaks are ignored here. So sorry for the inelegant formatting!

I resent having to click on the breast cancer site to provide mammograms to those who cannot afford it in the USA but I still do it as we, in Australia are so lucky to have free mammograms after we reach 50 years of age. I am new to Kiva and feel very confused by all the arguments by regular contributors.

The average amount request by US lenders are substantially higher than other countries. For example, with $7000, I can fulfill like 3 loan requests from other countries, but only one in US. So adding US in will definitely slow if not stop people in other countries getting their loan funded. In addition, US has good social security system while other countries don't. I can't understand why you decide to add US lenders in.

The reason I, and probably many others, joined Kiva is to help people become more financially self-sustainable. Kiva is an enabling environment that aggregates small amounts to enable larger loans. But more than that it is an environment that connects people that want to help to people who need help. As long as the loan requests posting is unbiased and the loans actually get to the people I intended, I really do not expect anything else. The criteria, considerations and the ultimate decision of whom to help is entirely in the hands of the lenders.

I suggest approaching this debate in a positive and constructive way. Instead of considering discriminating people from developed countries who need these loans and do not have anyone else to turn to, lets think how to increase the number of lenders so there is enough to cover all the already posted needs and help Kiva expand its reach and increase its impact even further.

I hope this helps :-)

I think you will come to regret your decision to branch out to US and perhaps more "first world" countries. It has already caused a rift in the Kiva community. And I think it is going to get worse. After reading the comments left prior to mine, I think I am leaning towards those that have suggested you split off the US and other "first world" countries in to a separate organization and leave the emerging nations as the original Kiva.

I have no problems with applying the micro lender/borrower concept to industrial countries for those that want to loan there, but I still think the emerging nations need help a whole heck of a lot more. Just my opinion.

I don't have problems with Kiva loans to the US not for everybody. Only for the ones who really needs it. Too me it's terribly offensive to see a graphic designer or photographer asking for 10.000 $ to improve his bussiness on this site.
Maybe i should apply for a loan too?
javascript:submitComment();

While it is up to every Kiva lender to decide which loans to fund, I do not agree that US recipients are the best value for Kiva lending. I have travelled in many countries where there are NO banking institutions present (esp. in rural areas) and where lending practices effectively marginalize most small farmers, vendors and rural residents. For example, in the Dem. Congo, with a pop. of 53 million, there are under 450,000 bank accounts in the entire country! It is these places where our money and efforts are best put to use simply because there ARE NO ALTERNATIVES for most citizens.

I support Kiva providing micro-finance loans to qualifying people in the USA! Consider providing loans for our Maritime neighbors in Canada as well!

Helping people is helping people is helping people is helping people.

I am a state medical director of substance abuse services but am speaking for myself and not my state. My agency serve thousands of persons who are on the road to recovery. They are sober, they are not breaking laws, but they are on the brink of homelessness and many are unemployed. They have lived in a cycle of poverty and drugs and alcohol and want a way out. Many have talents, remarkable talents. Some also have co-existing mental disorder and developmental disorders, so that their challenges restrict their ability to work more than half-time. They do not have enough money for extras that are necessary other than pay their rent and buy food.

To make it in this country if you are poor, you may be dependent on public transportation that takes twice the time of driving your car. In one day, you may have to report to social services and other agencies, attend treatment, pick up a child in child care, work, shop, and then go home. You have licenses to purchase to have some sort of identity if you want to apply for public assistance. Your food and other shopping costs are higher because the national merchants won't take the risk of offering their services in poor neighborhoods, bodegas, reservations, and rural areas. And you have more medical problems but can't afford insurance or a doctor. And then you are blamed for your conditions but not given help regarding the highest form a charity, helping a person to become self-subsistent by learning a skill and having a job.

When I speak to persons who are the advocates of Housing First for those who are mentally and developmentally challenged they bring up the problems of subsistance and all those extras I mentioned above.

And like it or not, there are significant pockets of poverty in this country, where the above mental, substance abuse, and developmental problems

Therefore, I advocate that these microloans in the US are prioritized to the persons who 1) live in areas of poverty, 2) who are unemployed, but have a skill and want to work, 3) have mental disorders, substance abuse disorders, developmental disorders and co-occurring disorders, who want to work, develop businesses and cooperatives, but have limitations of access and poverty. They must be actively in treatment, their conditions must be stabilized and they may have case managers.

I would also suggest that we prevent a great shift of loans to the USA, as there are serious needs around the world. Pick a fair percentage overall, or restrict the loans from any person to one at a time for US citizens.

There is nothing objectionable about facilitating financing to the poor anywhere. But "poor" is a very relative term, subject to definition in a specific socio-economic context. "Poor" in the US is not "poor" in Uganda, especially when considering the formal and informal social infrastructures in place to save the needy -- from death (by starvation, disease etc.).
What is at stake here is a matter of focus: by focusing on the needy anywhere, Kiva has no focus at all. It is simplistic and superficial to assume that people will "democratically", by choosing to finance their favorite projects", decide who is is need of microfinancing or not. This (i.e. screening) is precisely the function of a micro-financing community or organization, and Kiva is sloughing off its responsibility by pointing at the supporters' community.
(Yes, we should then discuss who is needy in Mexico, Australia or anywhere else).

There are lots of homeless and starving families in the U.S. that could be saved with just a little investment, and lots of communities that could benefit from an entrepreneur sparking economic activity. Maybe Kiva has made some poor choices in who it chooses for loans, but I strongly suspect that borrower abuse is not higher than in other countries. I very much support allowing members to lend in the United States.

Being probably poorer than some of the USA candidate (even if I live in Switzerland), I was happy to be able to help with a little money, giving the person in real need the opportunity to help themselves and their family. The fact that the money was coming back to me was great: I could help more with less.

Now I am profoundly shocked to see people richer than me asking for big amounts of money on Kiva. Really, it has changed the whole thing for me. I know I don't have to give them my loans, but this is not the only question. They compete with persons with more urgent needs. The high of their loans distract the money from many smaller loans. I think the best solution would have been to create a sister-site - but then they would have to build a whole new market and I it would not be as easy.
I would not like to see swiss persons asking for a Kiva loan. (at least not for now, not in this way)
I don't want to see Kiva change in that direction.
Please give me my old Kiva back.
(and please forgive my bad english)

I am very upset that there are now borrowers on Kiva from the US (and perhaps in the future other first world countries).

First - I do not counter the need of these individuals, nor the value of micro-lending (proven a superior financial instrument than loans from the existing US Banks!). There should be a framework for these loans - perhaps through KIVA, but segregated from the rest (KIVAUSA.ORG or a separate loan button?).

HOWEVER

What most bothers me is that lending to those in the first world goes against one of the goals of KIVA and one of the major reasons I, and I am sure many others, make micro-loans (I just reached the 100 loan mark).

Through KIVA we help spread capitalism. freedom and democracy, primarily via the worthy route of female entitlement. By people freely creating value, employment and an entrepreneurial culture, not by receiving an unearned handout but by taking the obligation of a business loan, they are also introducing and showing the value of human rights and democracy to their lands. Lending to those needy in the United States is a very efficient and praiseworthy act of assistance, but it does not fulfill these other goals.

I therefore highly suggest that KIVA not dilute their brand, and revisit this decision implementing their micro-lending service to US recipients in a different manner or through a separate route.

I, too, am disappointed to see all the bickering about the addition of the US loans here on Kiva! Personally, I have hoped for quite a while that Kiva WOULD add loans in the USA. However, I will say- the way it was done, is certainly NOT the way I was envisioning it being done! People in the Bay Area would not be my first choice as a test group!!! Nonetheless, I did make one loan to one person, because I am excited to finally have the USA as an option, and her attempt at a family run business appealed to me, especially in these hard times. In the FUTURE, however... I would like to see Kiva expand it's US efforts to our poorest areas: the Appalachia, our Native Americans on reservations (in particular, the Four Corners region, and South Dakota and surrounding areas), those working with the homeless and battered women/moms who are trying to get back on their feet!!! Giving loans to THOSE types of Americans would make me feel a LOT better about loaning to Americans! and would be what I had in mind all along! I will say tho... this post: " Lyn
2009-06-20 08:45:12 ET
I resent having to click on the breast cancer site to provide mammograms to those who cannot afford it in the USA but I still do it as we, in Australia are so lucky to have free mammograms after we reach 50 years of age. I am new to Kiva and feel very confused by all the arguments by regular contributors." hit the nail on the head!!! c'mon, people!

I recall 40 years ago in high school when I was donating my time to help mentally challenged students to swim an elder relative telling me that I need to help around the house first as charity begins at home. Had I followed his advice, I never would have seen these kids learn how to swim and enjoy their new experience. Well the same applies here. the argument that charity starts at home is a red herring argument. There are those who truly need our help and those who don't. For now, developed countries should not be supported.

I disagree with this direction. we inthis country have many avenues to get assistance and many of these are already tax supported as well as be individual or corporate donations. I will continue to ONLY support those individuals abroad who truly need our help.

As long as Kiva continues to offer the same level of opportunity abroad, I see no reason not to include Americans in these programs. There is a high level of need here. Why not give our neighbors a hand up as well?

Offer both--people can choose which country to direct funds to. If you do not start granting aid to people in our own country I plan to withdraw--we have plenty of deserving people here--let's find them and help them.

It will be interesting to see how the default rate on loans in the US compare to other locations. I'm betting the default rate will be high. My view...KIVA has made a mistake.

I'm very disappointed with this decision Kiva. Your whole purpose when you started was to help out those living in countries that don't have the resources that we in North America do. Now by adding a rich country like the US to the list that is taking away opportunity for those who REALLY need it. Of course an American is going to support their fellow American rather than someone else in a country that they're not familiar with. They would feel safer lending to their fellow countryman as if it's a patriotic thing. I fear this is just adding to the American way of thinking that supporting your own country is better. And that's a step back not a step forward.

I think KIVA's decision to start facilitating loans to USA residents was a very bad decision for 2 reasons. First, USA residents already have plenty of other options, unlike those in other nations. Banks, finance companies, pawn shops, credit cards, friends, families, Small Business Administration and the list goes on. Second, as a general rule, even the poorest of Americans lives better than the richest of many other nations. Every loan thru KIVA that goes to a USA resident is a loan that is not going where it is really needed most. And I suspect that many KIVA lenders will have a bias towards making USA based loans, thus harming the ability of those outside the USA to get loans. I have made 2 token USA loans just to add the USA to my profile list of nations, but there will not likely be any more.

This is not to say I am against USA loans. I support USA lending, but I do it thru Prosper.com, not KIVA. When I loan to USA residents thru Prosper.com, I get to keep the interest on the loan. If I loan to USA residents thru KIVA, it is KIVA's field partner that gets to keep the interest. So it is sort of a no brainer to me that all my loans to USA residents should go thru Prosper.com, not KIVA.

I'm not against offering loans to people in 1st world countries, but I'm pretty sure I won't be giving them my money. I joined Kiva to help entrepreneurs in poor countries because those will make these countries better places in the long run. I'd withdraw from Kiva if I felt that loans for people in the US were taking precedence over loans to people elsewhere.

One other thing: I'm not in the US, and a lot of Kiva members I know aren't either. For us, supporting US entrepreneurs is not "helping our neighbors".

Although I'm very dismayed by the addition of the US to Kiva (my opinions are already covered in other posts), I'm happy to hear that the Kiva staff will attempt to determine its impact upon lending to other countries. I'm also a big fan of another user's comment that Kiva could start a separate site for those interested in lending to residents of developed countries.

I think it is an act of courage to stand for ALL poor people in the world, wherever they are and regardless who they are. Well done

Ultimately it's the lender's choice. I trust in Kiva's operations and logistics that the funds are going to the right people, and those who truly need it. If more people lend because of this, great. If people don't, it will be discontinued or minimized. But why is the option so controversial?

On my first visit to USA in 1985 I was shocked at the level of poverty I saw and could not understand how so much American funds were sent abroad as forgein aid.
I feel that your new policy is right and it allows choice to all Kiva doners. I hope your new initiative prospers and I will support it while also supporting the traditional loans to developing nations.

Jesus said the poor will always be with us - wherever we are. It is our obligation to share what we have with those in need everywhere. I support your efforts to offer microloans to all entrepeneurs, regardless of their location. People should follow their hearts as to where they want to invest their $. I hope you will continue to expand your country list until it includes every country possible!

I have made 163 loans to date and definitely do not support Kiva making so -called micro-loans in the US. Giving to families in countries where they are lucky to make $4.00US a day for a large family in no way compares to someone who sells Italian jewelery in New York or someone who "needs" better cameras to take pictures at too expensive weddings that most people can not or should not afford. In a country like the US where less than 20% of the population has a passport,they have not seen,nor can they even comprehend the suffering and poverty that abounds in so much of the world. Lets keep the money and loans flowing where the difference of $500.00 can mean,literally, the difference between life and death!

I am somewhat appalled by what I am reading here, however it explains what makes it difficult for so many non-profits. I have supported Kiva for several years, but I work for a non-profit that has been around for 40 years and helps Native American children get an education in the southwest (by the way MOST tribes do not have any Casinos and many believe they are bad for their people). Their are entire cultures/reservations in this country that have an ANNUAL acerage income of under $2,000 and where the average life span is under 50. Their are children that whether or not they can attend school is decided by $10.00 a month. I don't care about GDP or any of this stuff. We are extremely bad about taking care of our own, and that in itself is a crime. Many of you writing about how much we have in this country need to take a look at how many people in this country have nothing. $100.00 might help a person fix their old truck so they can drive the 5o miles each way into town and work a construction job. How absolutely naive we are is almost unfathomable.

I voted 'yes' to Kiva's decision to extend loans to US projects. The really poor exist here in the US, too. They are almost invisible in the mainstream media, but they are here. Their lack of visibility and opportunity keeps them down. As does their lack of access to the resources that we who enjoy middle class lifestyles (anyone reading this is likely to own the computer they're reading it on) might find hard to imagine, but it's real. Racism plays a big part, too -- and this despite the "post-racist" era we're told we've moved into. It's time the US citizens faced the fact that wealth is distributed with institutionalized unfairness here, and that many poor people here are not poor by choice. Just ask anyone living in a tent city, or a Katrina FEMA trailer.

I am very glad you have decided to offer loans in the U.S. We know how hard many people are struggling in the U.S. during this time and I'm glad to have this avenue to helping them. This doesn't take away money from the developing countries, as one poster opined, because I had not intended to add any loans to the ones I currently make until I heard of this development.

1) Kiva supporters have the choice to ignore the US borrowers. So those who don't like the idea can avoid it, without forcing their opinion down the throats of people who feel generosity can be shown towards ALL, not just "others."
2) I have had a certain amount on deposit, relending it as paid back, that will remain the funding for non-US borrowers. I will somehow find additional funds to add that will be used for folks in my own country. That way, there's still no added competition for my original amount.

Seriously, lend! Sometimes people through no fault of their own find themselves in situations where they need a hand. I'd rather lend to someone to help them contribute to their community than take handouts. We're giving people the opportunity to help themselves: to make their lives better irrespective of which country they live. We should have the courage to lend to them if they have the courage and gumption to try and help themselves. At the end of the day it's a personal choice so just get over it.

I vote no. I believe that those who vote yes are not in line with how poor the real world is. I think this is a big mistake, Kiva.

In support of Kiva's decision to extend loaning capabilities to the United States and in response to: http://www.kiva.org/community/viewTeam?team_id=7326.

Kiva should absolutely facilitate loans in the United States. Those who contest that it siphons money from their definition of the more needy are missing the point. To me, the point is CHOICE. I am thrilled to have the choice and I would much rather do my U.S. giving through Kiva than I would through United Way as I believe the money is more wisely and more efficiently used. Those who rail against the idea of giving $7000 to a U.S. citizen who wants to develop websites, just may be the same people who deprive the world of the next Kiva. I applaud you for continuing to add choices instead of taking them away. To me, the whole idea behind Kiva is to help others help themselves. By limiting my choices, you limit my ability to help in the ways I choose. As our government continues to look for more and more ways to make our decisions for us, I'm glad Kiva is heading in the other direction. It is the sane direction. Thank you Kiva for all you do and continue to do.

What do you care how many options are available? You will still loan to those you choose. I will loan to the same kind of people in the US as the ones I support in other countries, not to someone who is already making a living and wants to expand his business.

i am concerned with the US lending only in that the ones listed so far don't seem that dire (ie: tired of one career and want to change to another? $7,000 for new camera equipment to build up and already successful business??)

if it were more like people still with no home from new orleans or something i would be more likely to lend... but for now i will just continue to lend to those outside of the US

There is no question that too many in the US are, for a variety of reasons, well outside the stereotypical perception of the "American dream" that most people have who reside in the countries traditionally considered to be "developing". So, from that perspective, Kiva's expansion into the US is logical.

However, I am concerned that the almost-unbelievable statistical attraction of the Kiva model to date, which is best reflected in its imperceptible default percentage, will suffer a dramatic decline due to US micro-finance loan defaults. I believe this will occur because the whole group dynamic and cross-responsibility culture in most of the non-North American Kiva developing countries is substantially stronger than that in North America. I fervently hope that my cynicism is misplaced but, until proven otherwise, my small contributions to the Kiva model will continue to be directed to the traditional "developing" countries.

Please note that my comments are directed at the micro-finance non-profit "industry" because of the immense benefit that comes from re-lending money that has been repaid. The inherent strength of that model is based on a high probability of loan proceeds recovery to support re-lending.

On the other hand, the non-profit "aid" industry, focused as it is on raising funds in North America which are to be sent to the traditional developing countries to support one-time activities until the money is spent, does overlook the hardships and inequities of the US citizens who are truly in need and should do much more "at home".

Lastly, from an operational viewpoint, I would urge Kiva to bring added pressure to bear on its regional micro-finance lenders to substantially reduce the loan interest rates charged to borrowers. If nothing else, Kiva should require declining interest rates to borrowers on a sliding scale basis as the amount of Kiva support to an individual micro-lender organization increases. Sure they have expenses, but there are economies of scale that should be reflected in declining loan portfolio rates. I can't imagine North Americans being generally successful bearing an interest rate between 20% and 30% when we see what has been happening with 5%-6% rates. Why we would expect such rates to be sustainable in the developing world is questionable and that the Kiva default rate is so low given those interest rates is quite astonishing. Since many of the regional micro-finance lending organizations have "outside" supporters, their interest rates should trend lower as Kiva support trends higher.

I am not fundamentally against having loans made to the US if the entrepreneurs were actually poverty stricken. Someone who already "has created a stable business that has allowed him to accomplish his dream of [...] providing for his family" and who is supporting a child through university is clearly NOT in that category. And don't even get me started on the storage shed.

Kiva, if you want to loan to the US, it would be best to start a separate offshoot website, so as not to dilute Kiva's focus on developing countries.

Once again we are treated to the disgusting drivel of the latte sipping, effete intellectual snobs who have their heads where the sun don't shine. If you people would fet off your duffs and go out to Indian Country you'd see the meaning of the word poverty. I am an American Indian. My father died of tuberculosis which he picked up in a boarding school. My 2 aunts died of diabetes and mt sister is dying of diabetes. Why don't you milksops try living out on Pine Ridge through a winter?

Like you said, we can vote with our wallet. I am glad that Kiva is approaching USA loans in such a thoughtful, patient fashion. I am not sure I will ever do a loan in the USA, but it is nice to have the option.

I'm in the "voting with my wallet" category. I have no problem supporting a truly needy US entrepreneur - in fact I look forward to being able to do so. But loaning $10,000 to someone for 38 months so they can print our snappier wedding photos just isn't going to happen. I would seriously like to see some loan term restrictions on the US loans. 3 years is wayyyy too long to repay a loan. That's not even $1/month coming back to people who lend $25.00. If you can't pay it back in a year, you're asking for too much money.

I responded to the poll that I was unsure about loaning to the US. Looking at what is available, there is no way I would loan money to any of these US borrowers, good people though they may be. I am in the Bay Area myself-the cost of living is outrageous here. I do not think my limited funds would make a difference for anyone living in this area. Additionally, I am noticing a lot of housing requests from Mexico. I thought the point of Kiva was to help people with businesses, that is, entrepreneurs. I do not understand all the "home loans" on this site now. Be that as it may, I will continue to do what I have done previously-loan to the projects and people that I can really connect with on a personal level. If the site included people from truly impoverished areas of the US (Indian reservations, Appalachia, rural Louisiana) I would be more on board with it. Having people from the Bay Area and NYC (where I am originally from) was a bad, bad way to start out the pilot.

While I support loans to the US for those in POVERTY, I am very opposed to those who are "low income", most of which are on welfare for the past 5 generations or are illegal aliens. There must be extensive checks done to determine true need and who is playing the system. Loaning large amounts to improve or start a business when there are other means of obtaining the money seems to go against what Kiva is meant to be = Micro loans! Better by far to concentrate on countries without the opportunities that abound in the USA! If/when there are loans for people in true Poverty, then fine, so long as there is a field partner responsible for making that determination!

There is a risk that may not have been mentioned in these postings. It is the risk of disenfranchising the creative minds which brought Kiva to the world in the first place. Imagine if every idea you created was met with resistance. How long would you be willing to continue to share your ideas in such an environment? Fortunately for the world, the founders and staff of Kiva are apparently fairly impervious to such criticism, and if they weren’t Kiva would have never been born in the first place. New ideas need nurturing, and very little judgmental and/or scarcity-driven thinking. My guess is that this entire issue will sort itself out in the marketplace and “x” months from now the answer, and any necessary changes or improvements, will be fairly evident to everyone. What long-term harm is there to allow that short-tem process to work itself out in real time? What I’m more concerned about is whether or not the founders and team members of Kiva will be just as willing to try the next idea that comes along, or will some aspects of the postings here give them pause, and a reason to not take the next chance. Kiva has brilliant founders and leaders. Why don’t we cherish that fact, and support them as they try another yet one more idea that may or may not work out. But let us not discourage their willingness to try something new!

If there are people that don't believe there are "really poor people" in the US, they need to take a road trip. I'm really glad to see that you've opened up opportunities here as well as around the world.

I'm not sure how I feel about Kiva's decision to lend to US borrowers. I do think that there are areas of extreme poverty in the US. There are stretches of Appalachia where running water isn't something that's taken for granted. And what about the deplorable state of some Native American reservations? But I don't see any loans to people in areas that I think of as being hot beds of poverty. NYC? Miami? San Francisco?

I feel Kiva has taken a large step away from its self-defined mission. Not because they're loaning to US citizens, but because of what I consider to be the quality of need in the loans that they're offering.

Of course, everyone can just vote with their pocketbooks, but I AM disappointed.

I am ambivalent about this, but primarily negative.

1. Most entrepreneurs or would-be entrepreneurs here in the United States enjoy a standard of living vastly greater - and with much more access to capital - than their counterparts in Third World or marginal countries.

More can be accomplished for the general good - spiritually, physically, quantitatively, and politically - by private people helping entrepreneurs in those latter countries than those here in the U.S.

2. I was an early lender at the now nearly defunct Prosper.com, where individuals loaned personally (somewhat a la Kiva) to recipients here in the United States, a number of them entrepreneurs or small-business people. The deadbeat factor (defaults) was and remains enormous. For many of us who loaned there, even quite carefully, it was and remains as high as 40 percent.

Borrowers here in the United States have a different character, a different relation to community (not much of one at all), and, sadly, a more egocentric and less responsible value system than do most of Kiva's previous borrowers. An escalating default rate caused by them could seriously inhibit Kiva's growth and deal a true blow to its ability to help - as it has been able to do, and quite effectively, for some time.

In the main, I am opposed to this new direction of Kiva. I believe it siphons off funds that could be *much* more effectively used - have far greater leverage and do more true good - if they continued to be lent to entrepreneurs in less privileged and more needful countries.

This new venture discourages me from inviting others to join Kiva, as I have done in the past.

GIVING TO THE U.S., WILL NOURISH THE WORLD.
I believe if we give here in the US, it will nourish and plant seeds that will eventually be given back to Kiva to give to those in the poorer countries. Americans are famous for big hearts and strong backs.
When we re-enforce our own infatrucsure, we will make our own world able to give more.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jerry M.

It is an unfortunate failing of our nation that so many of our citizens have come to expect so much for free: handouts, help, and sympathy as if it is a commodity available to all. This is a subject that Jerry covered well, though. So, I digress.

My point is about branding.

If the overall Kiva mission is to make impact on the world, it is very important to understand a key mistake you have just made: you have compromised your brand through the dilution of your story. The story you now tell is much less unique, heart-felt (people around the world, including our own people, simply have much less sympathy for Americans), and impact-full.

When I first heard of the Kiva concept my heart skipped a beat - it is a beautifully crafted and well executed idea as a relationship between the 1st world and the 3rd world. But with the addition of the US, the story the Kiva brand tells is severely diluted. It is no longer poignant and succinct as it was before; it is general and marginal.

If it is your wish to expand in the US, as this new move clearly illustrates, then do so, but do it under a different brand name with a new core philosophy. Everything about the feel of your site, your logo, the brand name: it is all reflective of the third-world. Stay true to your roots and accentuate them. Grow through more clever branding and storytelling, not a strategic move to increase market share with one big gulp.

Here's to changing the world!

I am glad Kiva has allowed loans in the US.

1) We choose who we lend to
2) I want to lend where ever there are people in need. It doesn't matter what country they are in. This includes the US. I hope Kiva eventually is able to allow me to lend to anyone in the world who is living in poverty.

Thanks Kiva

Remember "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime"? My dad considered himself lucky to find a way to earn 25 cents a day during the Great Depression, when he was newly married in his 20s and with one child. My own birth was delayed for years by that financial meltdown. In mid-life, his (our) home burned, a total loss. Again and again, his efforts to rise financially failed. Decades later, he briefly supplemented his retirement by building shell homes at $750 a house. I have no doubt there were times when he would have welcomed a loan such as those we make through Kiva. Things are relative, folks. Though by choice I'll send my mite elsewhere, I don't object to the pilot US program so long as it doesn't inhibit what we're already doing. It might have helped Dad.

Although I understand why some may feel that offering loans in the U.S. dilutes the intended purpose, the choice is ultimately yours. If you don't feel that Americans are worthy of a Kiva loan, then simply put your money where you feel it belongs. I applaud Kiva's entry into the U.S. market and thank them for offering me the opportunity to lend to my fellow citizens who I feel are worthy. Thanks Kiva and keep up the great work!

I voted yes; there are many very poor people here in Los Angeles for example that are disinfranchised as much as in other countries. Did you ever think how an individuals success here will filter out to their own extended families and what that means for the global economy? Look the really big global picture. Many donors don't want to contribute to other lands - obviouslly I am not one of them - but this way I predict KIVA lenders will actually grow, not reduce loans to qualified persons. I often wondered why Kiva didn't already do this. Ultimately we lenders choose where our funds are loaned as you all know, make your choice on that table.

I am very diappointed that Kiva is offering US loans. I think lending of these large amouts (I saw upto $ 10.000) during long periods of time is not in favour of the really poor Kiva helped until now.

Rules, rules, rules.
Scarcity, relativity, force.

First, be polite and respectful. Don't force your choice on others - allow them the same freedom to choose that you expect.
Appeal, don't argue and demand. Scarcity is relative and folks here will vote with their selections.

The APPEAL of KIVA is what made it such a success.

Those in favor are USA citizens . We in the old world know how they think. They think they are the center of the world. They make war withe anybody who doesn't agree. They runed the lives of millions of people all over the world for there power over oil.
I'm sick to know i'm a member of a organisation that loans money for american citizens for computers, advertising, pet material, music industry, and many project that have nothing to do with poverty, food, surviving.
Shame on you Kiva.
Stop this nonsence

Microlending is appropriate for every country in the world, not just the poorest. The first-world banking system is not set up for small loan amounts, and people who need them have to rely on credit cards or payday loans, with ridiculous interest rates. It's one of the things that keeps the working poor poor. We need to end that, just as much as we need to end extreme poverty. Everyone in the world should have access to reasonable lending sources.

United states off ass citizens are chauvinist pigs. they keep the rest of the world poor and threaten them with their atom bombs.
They make war in the whole world. Even in Europe the leaders are afraid of the warmongers. After 60 years they still are occupiing every country in europe and everybody fears the warlords.
And know, they take away the money for the poor in africa en south america.
10.000 dollar for a pet shop??? A whole village in Peru is very happy with 1000 dollar.
Shame on you fucking americans.
allready 200 years you are taking lives from the indians and now from the poor worldwide.

Microloans is for me a political task. We can make economic growth in part of the world that is underdeveloped. Kiva could matter, not only to help a few people, but on long term change the world, and make it more equal.

When they lend to people in US, it is something completely different.

The only thing the US gave the world is the atombombing and war, war, war.
They give nothing to the poor .
Poor countries can have weapens, planes, weapens, war, weapens, death.
10.000 dollar is a microloan??
3500 dollar for a petshop.
Are all thes americans retardet? stupid?

My attraction to Kiva is the fact that I see it as a vehicle to assist those less fortunate than those of us in the "developed world".

Personally I find it as a dstraction and dilution of attention to expand to the US.

Great idea -- poverty knows no geographical boundaries and there are people in this country who desperately need help. If some Kiva lenders don't want to help Americans, no one is forcing them to. Help whomever you like, for goodness sake!

I believe some valid points from different perspectives are being expressed, but I am saddened that a few have decided to use profanity and personal attacks to make their point. This approach only devalues the message and the credibility of the person delivering it.

I think it is fine that you are offering loans to people in the USA. I personally prefer to continue lending to people in developing nations, but I don't think it's my place to stop others from offering a loan to an American, if they so choose. I would ask, though, that you consider carefully the kinds of loans you are offering people. There are many neighborhoods throughout the USA in great poverty, such as places in the Gulf Coast region where people are still living in FEMA trailers four years after Katrina and Rita, inner cities where people do not even have banks in their neighborhoods (let alone get credit), etc. These are the people we need to assist via Kiva, in my opinion; people who need a hand and do not have the options available to the middle and upper classes. I don't think you should offer loans to people who are capable to getting loans through more traditional means. Thank you for what you do!

There are people struggling in all countries. I am glad that KIVA is piloting microfinancing in the USA. Perhaps it will provide a model that can be applied to other developed countries as well. To be honest, I would be happy if there were loans to small entrepreneurs in need in Australia, Japan, the UK, etc as well. KIVA's online community is growing, and as more lenders join (whether to support US entrepreneurs, or those of other countries/regions), more entrepreneurs will be supported across the globe. I think it is the next step in the growth of the organization.

I think it's absolutely fine that you're allowing people from the US to make requests.

If people don't like it, then they don't have to give their money to help, and trying to stop OTHER people who DO want to help from doing so is downright awful. I wonder if you would tell people to their face, "I'm sorry, not only do I not care enough about you to help you, I'm going to bitch and moan in hopes that no one else can."

Wow.

And then there are the people who feel that all US citizens are evil people who don't want to do anything to help the rest of the world (never mind that Kiva's headquarters are in the USA...), and really there's nothing I can say to that, and I hope that Kiva isn't going to be swayed by their hateful comments.

So yeah, I don't have a problem with this at all, and I'm looking forward to lending money in both my own country and around the globe.

I am the sole owner of a small, American-based company that received loans from two microfinance institutions in the last 3 years. Whereas I was not poverty-stricken, I was in a place to grow and unable to do so without the help of this funding -- our bank would not give us a much needed loan. Because our company has been able to thrive and prosper, I am now able to provide employment to 8 individuals (3 of whom had been laid off from other jobs). Just as in the third world, one woman prospering benefits others and the local community at large.

My hope is that with Kiva's domestic microlending initiative, entrepreneurs will emerge from the inner cities and communities that are have a lack of access to opportunity. And I believe that individuals in need of funding abroad will still have the same access to Kiva's community of lenders, and not lose out to Americans in need. I think what we're seeing is that there is a great deal of need, both here and abroad, and our focus should be on casting the widest net to help the most people possible.

I have been involved in US charities and find many of the receipients to be experts at "playing the system", while the truly needy go unhelped. You should not be offering loans in any US cities, as there are abused programs galore. The only place I can accept you offering loans in the US are in very rural areas like Appalachia where people really need this type help, but don't want handouts. Most charities ignore these rural people and focus on the city areas where the poor wear $150 sneakers, have 2 - 3 TV's, and have no intention of actually earning anything. In the rural areas people are too proud to take charity, but a loan to help them help themseves would be a good fit.

I am happy to support those in my country as well as other countries who are in need of a helping hand. If people are concerned about diluting foreign aid , I would suggest either alternating loans or doubling your support.

Everyone deserves a chance, and everyone deserves a cash injection to get going.

But seeing Dorothy from Ghana, Samir from Tajikistan, Salama from Afghanistan and Johnny from Manhattan in one list of applicants, comes across as:

1/ mixing up priorities
2/ forgetting what 'poverty' is
3/ the US is really in a bad shape (maybe it is)

P.

I support loans being made to any business in ANY country. I know how hard it is to be a minority and start your own company. It's been 10 years now and I can finally say I am a success, but I was fortunate to be able to get funding through my local bank, a lot of people can't. Isn't is discriminative to not fund our own country?

The US "entrepreneurs in need" include a photographer, a special events organizer and a computer person. (Being an online coach myself, I KNOW it doesn't cost thousands of dollars to start.) Furthermore, there are microloans available for US entrepreneurs. There's Grammeen, Lenders for Community Development, SBA Microloans, Accion USA, and programs in many states, such as the Nevada Microenterprise Initiative and the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund. Where are the microloans in Afghanistan? Kiva. I think our mission is clear.

I voted yes because I don't mind in principle which country the loan request comes from; but doesn't Kiva lend at 0% interest as a favour to those in need, and to get businesses to start in undeveloped areas which need those businesses to become self-dependent and eventually prosperous? Even in times like these I'd expect an infomercials director in Florida to find a regular loan, or some other work to save up the capital.

I agree that, as mentioned above, the "bang for the buck" factor is much higher in other countries than the US, and you could improve 10 people's lives in other places with the amount that gets loaned to 1 person in the US.

With that said, I'm sure there's a place for microfinance in the US as well. I'm sure the agreement with Kiva gave those two microlending organizations some useful exposure, now I wish they would continue to promote their US activity on their own or in a loose partnership with Kiva, but that we keep Kiva's high visibility, resources and lenders focused on countries with a more urgent need.

So much discussion on both sides of this - allow me to add my two cents. Here are my personal reasons for not lending to US listings on Kiva: 1) People in the US - even the poorest of the poor - have access to assistance far greater than what is available in most of the rest of the world. Here in the US we have options - we may not always like our choices, but at least we have them. 2) Few of the loans would do much to actually change that individual's circumstances. 3) The difference in purchasing power....my little $25 can make so much more impact in other places. 4) There is a different culture in the US, one that more supportive of defaulted loans (See Jerry M comment above). This has been demonstrated in several other projects with default rates of 40% and more. I am so disappointed that some on here have resorted to name calling instead of a respectful discussion of different points of view. Once you call me stupid, obnoxious or hateful...I really don't care to even consider your point of view. You don't know me or my values.
I happen to care a lot about the poor in this country...and have spent most of my adult life working to actually help people move out of poverty. Years ago I made the personal decision to work in social services at far less pay so that I could do what I believed in...putting my money where my mouth is literally. No matter how you want to dress it up, spin it or justify it - loaning money to a graphic artist living in San Fransisco (bus # 114104) which has one of the highest costs of living in the US (and therefore the world) is not doing anything to help anyone out of poverty. If Kiva has changed their definition of "alleviating poverty" that this somehow qualifies...then I need to reconsider if it is still in harmony with my values.

My answer is, "Yes, but..."

Assuming Kiva will continue to allow five-figure loan requests from the U.S. and other countries for “low income, small businesses,” I have a few suggestions for it.
* Offer a clear statement of what “poverty” means in terms of Kiva’s mission. Include working definitions of levels of poverty that can be applied to specific loan requests.
* Clearly differentiate two or more levels of loan requests based on the level of poverty of the entrepreneur(s) involved. Consider a full rage of possibilities for implementing this differentiation, from adding a new sort/select category on the current Lend page, to separating different poverty level listings on different Lend pages on the current website, to creating completely distinct websites with distinct marketing plans for distinct loan products.
* Offer targeted donation options based on clearly defined operational elements, such as regional or country-based field operations.

My reasons for these suggestions are at the Kiva Friends discussion.
http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,3922.msg61025/topicseen.html#msg61025

Can people please read the FAQs About Microfinance and link to CGAP, www,cgap.org, as shown on KIVA's ABOUT US page. Its all about poor people and alleviating poverty. That's why I joined. Over the last few days I've looked at the US entrepreneurs stories and I can't see how they fit into the tenets of Microfinance.

if the USA stops their silly wars all over the world, if they stop their nuclear program, their silly race to the moon, their prisons all over the world and choose for their own social system like the old world, there wouldn't be so many poor people.
If the idiot Bush saved the banking world in time instead of playing war, there was no crisis.
But the US does not know what heapens in the south. they only care for oil and drugs and warindustry.
Soon Kiva will offer loans for weapon shops in the US

This dilutes Kiva's core mission. To fund one American who needs some support will take away from several guys in other countries who are experiencing real poverty. I don't doubt there are poor people in the States but in a land of so much opportunity they don't compare to people in the Developing world. If you have to keep this going then at least separate the sites, but copy the engine. Ideally don't use the Kiva brand at all. I work for a charity, Kiva used to be my favourite charity, but not anymore. If I knew of a kiva replica I'd head that way now.

I basically don't disagree with KIVA expanding the target of entrepreneurs US. But I have one term to adimit it. It is that KIVA should separate Homepage, for example KIVA of developed countries and KIVA of developing countries. Cartainly it's not a problem that separating web site is the way of resolving. For me, however, it's not forgivable that developing countries' entrepreneurs and developed ons is co-existing at one place psycologically, even if there are people cannot borrow the money from formal institution unregarding as places they live. What I want to say is that when I invest someone, psycological mind is different between developed and developing, therefour, KIVA should think about nature of borrowers.

It could have been a great decision if Kiva had at least worked with most or all third world countries. So the timing is bad in my opinion.

I never imagined the introduction of US borrowers would be so controversial. The discussion however has shown how ground breaking Kiva's model has been. People are engaged and that is awesome.

Just one idea on a theme that I have heard many times regarding the fact that poverty in the US is not what it is in developing countries. Lets keep in mind that poverty in some developing countries is not quite what it is in others. Poverty and funding need in Bolivia is quite different from what it is in Ukraine; in my experience I have also seen differences within countries.

I generally feel like Kiva's move is an important one mostly because it is experimental and innovative in poverty alleviation. It is a chance to deal with poverty on a global scale. However, there are issues that may need attention and I think the debate has the chance of been enriching and help make Kiva even better.

Thank you Kiva for taking the risks no one else has been able to!

I'm appalled at Kiva's decision
there can be no justification for adding USA to the list as it is a developed country boasting the worlds richest economy. If the US qualifies then so should every country in the world.
$1000 in a third world country will make an immense difference - it will not buy a days training in a first world country so US borrowers would need to get a vastly disproportionate ratio of loans to be effective. This would then remove available funds from 3rd world borrowers.
I will be leaving Kiva once my current loans have been repaid if we continue to loan to First World countries as I believe it to be a political and selfish decision that is bound to attract some level of misguided support in these times of global economic downturn.

Leaving Kiva will be a difficult move but I see little alternative as I cannot be part of what has effectively become a bank for First World borrowers.

For sure helping people is a great thing regardless of the people's location. However, I feel that Kiva should have opened a different platform for developed countries. As it allowed US-lenders to join it has to be consequent and open to ALL countries. Which would mean that a US web designer, a French winegrower, a Swiss watch designer or a German supplier for car industry would somehow compete for credits with the poorest of the poor. Does that make sense?

Completely contrary to the Kiva I joined a number of years ago. Am now considering alternatives.

My problem with the U.S. loans is not that they're in the U.S., but that they're so much larger than the average loan request in the developing world. The average U.S. loan I see on the site now is more than $5,000, while the average loan in, say, Pakistan I see is around $200. This is just a quantitatively different thing.

When you say the U.S. loans will be "no more than 5%" of the portfolio, is that number of loan requests or dollar amount? Because if it's number of requests, that still means dollars for U.S. loans will be a substantial percentage of overall loans.

I can understand the dismay expressed by some here. On balance though I find that I agree most with those who point out that: (a) there is disadvantage and impoverishment in developed economies and micro-credit is one way of addressing this; (b) lenders such as myself can vote with our wallets; and (c) the importance of Kiva as a platform for social change should not be limited to an 'overseas aid' mission. So I've no problem with the concept of Kiva listing entrepreneurs in the US or any other rich nation. My own lending will most likely continue to be in support of those in poor countries, but I can imagine supporting a project in the US if I was convinced it had social merit.

The whole premise of charitable giving (or loaning) is to help people who need help. The U.S. has its share of people who need a break. No matter how an individual feels, there is room for expression in the Kiva structure. If you approve of helping people in the U.S., then do so. If you don't, don't. This seems to be a non-problem to me. We are all free to choose, just as we have been to chose among the countries whose people were already included in Kiva's outreach.

Imagine through Kiva you lend 25 dollars to a women in Uganda. Later she immigrates to the United States and finds that she has few other options than to again run a microenterprise in the US. Selling African handicrafts on the street lets say. She cannot get a loan from a bank for many reasons, she cannot speak the language and doesn't have credit, she would most certainly be turned away from a bank. She could however get a loan from a microfinance institution in the US to start her business. At the microfinance institution they will help her build her credit, they will do everything in their power to give her credit, this is their social mission. Would you Kiva lender have lent to this women in Uganda, but not this woman in the United States? Kiva's launch in the US, in the long run could open credit up to pockets of immigrant communities and rural impoverished communities that could truly benefit from microfinance. Kiva is paving the pathway for US microfinance to grow and expand in the US- I support this mission.

Kiva can only be as good as it's field partners and their particular innovations. The field partners in the US have not yet found a way to be working with the very poor, and I think that that is what some of us would like.

Difficulties for the very poor trying to meet basic needs in the USA include that having housing and adequate nuitrition are essential for employment or self-employment, and in the US, even meeting these is very costly.

I am myself a below-poverty-level Kiva lender who has much personal experience with homelessness, For the homeless, microfinance help would do well to incorporate access to good shelter and food during the time of "getting on one's feet" economically. Not all the very poor are without housing, and certainly inner-city persons, including youth, should also be a focus of the MFIs.

I think it would be helpful if the loan requests would give us more financial information about how the money will be used, and about the finances of the person asking, because it is hard for us to be informed otherwise. The person may have gotten the MFI's support because of doing pretty good already, or because they are eating out of dumpsters and food kitchens--if it's not in the description, I can't guess. And some will prefer to loan to the former, and some to the latteer.

And a person wanting to start a day care center--what do I know of the costs? Maybe it costs $3000 for the classes to qualify for a license. And If there are $2000 in remodeling needs absolutely required by law, I need to understand that.

Having been involved in an NPO-supported project to make and sell greeting cards while I was homeless, I think I have more experience than a lot of people to imagine how projects might be designed that help persons in difficulty obtain some self-employment income. But a very poor person in the USA hasn't the infrstructure in their life to do it alone. A homeless person in India may cook and sell her cooking on the same place on the sidewalk, while in the USA you absolutley cannot.

An innovative program that might allow us to reach out to the very poor in the USA might be one that offers some extra helps, such as workshop spaces in which self-employed persons may do their sewing, creative or mechanical work. NPO's might take over the marketing for them as well, buying at wholesale, and retailing through their own catalogs. This isn't in place yet.

Kiva and the MFI's can only build step by step. Now that the Kiva-MFI doors are open in the USA, innovative programs to move further down the poverty curve can develope, if people with these goals are in the MFIs or or are talking to them.

Whether you are a supporter of Kiva in the USA or one who doesn't support this, I hope you will keep thinking about and articulating how you think microfinance could work best in the USA, and maybe we will get there.

I understand the relativity of poverty all to well. I full-heartedly support this move and hope to see it with other "developed" countries as well (Brazil and other Central/South American countries that have huge social divides between haves and have-nots come to mind.) I can understand people's frustration with this move, but I believe the intent of Kiva is still fulfilled with this move. We are still here to help people who can not get help other ways. I don't see that it matters if they are in Africa, Asia, or next door. Keep up the good work.

Just another example of the US hijacking a good idea and twisting it for it's own benefit. A very sad day, though just another example of the contempt that the US has for the rest of the world, combine that with the arrogance and sense of entitlement detected from shore to shore and the real face of America is shown once again.

I am conflicted over the decision to lend to US borrowers. The feel good of this project for me was that the people who were being supported were starting businesses like me but i was a little better off and had a little to be able to share. It gave me a good feeling to share. The US borrowers are asking for more money as a loan than i have in my savings account! I need them to support ME!! What i had hoped to see from KIVA over the years was that the developing nations would flourish to the point of becoming lenders themselves.
I will vote with my wallet and i will NOT loan to US borrowers, however i do feel that this policy is taking away from the developing nations borrowers and lining the pockets and the over indulgences of those who do have other alternatives. There are other site like prosper.com that already served the developed nations borrowers.

I am so diappointed you offer US loans, sorry.

I believe there are deserving people all around the world, including the US, but so far many of the loans have been for people that have university degrees, have decided to change careers and other non-essential loans. I think that the current loans from the US, that are approximately 10-20 times larger than the loans from other countries, are not in the true spirit of Kiva. If they want to offer loans in the US, I think they should be much better screened.

I really do hope Kiva has some way of monitoring the flows of loans to US borrowers vis-à-vis those in developing countries. If net lending has increased, that's fine. But if US borrowers have in some sense pushed aside those from the developing world, then this pilot project should be put to an end.

The argument that one should look at one's own backyard first is flawed. Unlike the US, many developing countries don't have the resources to look after the well-being of their own citizens. The failure of the US in this regard shouldn't be borne by farmers in e.g. Peru or Azerbaijan.

I This is direct from the ABOUT section:

"Kiva's mission is to connect people through lending for the sake of alleviating poverty.

Kiva is the world's first person-to-person micro-lending website, empowering individuals to lend directly to unique entrepreneurs around the globe."

While some are reading more into that than is written, adding a US MFI to their list does not in any way contravene their stated aims.

That being said, I'm not impressed with the first MFI, as there do seem to be frivolous loans involved, and I don't see any reason why anyone should provide collateral free loans to those people - especially when the $ could do more good elsewhere. Let them use their credit cards, or go to a bank, or pawn something they have, or go to friends and family that might be able to fund the $3000 or $10,000 they're looking for. Now some of them may be newly legalized immigrants with no credit history, no assets, or might have been through bankruptcy. Some people might be willing to be the hand up to those people, but I just can't be that person because I do see how much more effective my $ would be elsewhere. But I think they have a right to be on this site, in case someone else feels differently.

But I wouldn't be against them being lower visibility on the site, or in a different area where they don't detract from where we can much more effectively support people who have no other option. I do agree with many of you that:
- Microfinance is needed most by entrepreneurs without access to credit due to lack of banking systems or lack of collateral
- That small amounts go a lot farther in 3rd world countries
- That the impact of loaning to a 3rd world entrepreneur is far more bang for your buck and helps more people

But at the end of the day, this is a market-based solution - so put your money where your mouth is and fund the people here that deserve it. Those people aren't Kiva - Kiva just helps to facilitate US reaching THEM. Wherever THEY are. But you have the right and obligation to choose wisely.

So that's the theory, but in practice I do think that this particular MFI should be under some scrutiny, because I think many of the loans involved do NOT reflect well on Kiva or their stated aims. There seem to be some people that are just taking advantage of this.

Kiva is welcome in the USA. This involvement is to give opportunities not only to Americans who do not have access to a bank loan but also to those who left their own countries in search of a better future. $25 would not dry my bank account and I happily support new small business owners. Congratulations Kiva and congratulations Accion USA.

When Martin Luther King was asked by the media why he was doing for poor people who weren't black, he responded with a question,"Are they poor?"

It dilutes nothing to expand Kiva's process to people in the developed world - and if we are to create a true redistribution of wealth (so people do not have to rely on aid/welfare), we must include everyone.

I believe the vast majority of people who receive a Kiva loan are inclined to share their resources long before they gain what most Kiva lenders would call security... If people in NA who have been marginalized economically and socially are empowered and gain more influence in our democracy we would see a cultural shift towards the developing world that would multiply what Kiva has already been able to accomplish several fold.

Poverty is relative, period.
After 15 years in West Africa, 15 years in innercity Oakland, CA, and 1 year in Guatemala, I've seen different types of poverty, all of which could use a hand from Kiva.
Vote with your wallet.

As a long time lender and previously enthusiastic supporter of Kiva, I am extremely disappointed in this move. It has seriously turned me off Kiva.

Iwould like to say that not everyone in a rich nation is rich. People need help and no matter where they are they still need help. Please dont judge people from where they are.

Just what i think, People have the choice in who they lend to.

Mohammed

As has been said, I can vote with my wallet. I am very suspicous of this latest move and I will be looking for alternatives.

I am really excited that Kiva made the move to the U.S. I don't believe this dilutes funds going to the developing world - lenders still have complete control over where their funds go so you can continue to lend overseas as normal. Rather than complaining, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

I must come down on the side on NOT lending in US (or any other developed nation) Most of my objections have been iterated on these pages and I will not waste space by repeating them except to this extent.... "Needing" $6000 dollars to develop a website for your business idea is a world away from "needing" $600" to buy two goats to raise so that you might feed your family. PLEASE do not stray from your original and core principals. I agree with the writers who urge you, if you must, to start a secondary website for economic development in the first world.
Beverly Archer

In favor of the choice. And the reality that there are starving people in every country that could use a helping hand. Just because someone is American or an American immigrant shouldn't exclude them from access to loans that will help them put food in their bellies. I think its selfish and hypocritical for those not in favor of it to say its okay to give to this person but not this another. You should really think about your motives before patting yourself on the shoulder for "being a humanitarian"

The big mistake with this Kiva decision is that, if there are any real poor and needing people in the developed countries, like USA, it doesnt look like Kiva have found them.

I am disappointed at Kiva's decision to loan in the US.

I will not choose to lend US entrepreneurs as I believe my loans will have more impact in developing nations. I also feel strongly about lending in areas where entrepreneurs do not have access to other avenues of funding.

I want to make it clear that I do believe there are people living in exceptional individual poverty in the US and all around the world, however I would prefer to lend to individuals where the loan has a larger impact on their local community.

Kiva is primarily about microfinancing, not donations, and microfinancing is what is making a difference in peoples lives. No-one is being forced or fooled into loaning money to U.S. based entrepreneurs, so why not allow lenders the choice? Geographic location should not be a barrier to accessing microfinancing funds, which is one of the great ideals of Kiva in the first place - I'm not a U.S. citizen and I'm sure they have their reasons for expanding there at this stage, but I look forward to the day when Kiva funds are available to entrepreneurs in every country!

While I am not categorically against US loans (as others have already mentioned: poverty exists everywhere) I really think there needs to be some kind of screening process involved or Kiva will lose all credibility. Seeing loan requests from a US architect or TV producer right next to one from someone in Ghana who has next to nothing does not sit well with me. I don't doubt that these people need the money, but I have a hard time seeing how these loans fit the Kiva profile. And until I see a US borrower on Kiva who is *actually living in poverty* I will keep sending my money to other countries where they will do more good.

I support the suggestion to move these mid/low income/storage shed loans to a sister site where they will not take attention away from the third world borrowers.

Strongly in favor. The opportunity to give nationally in no way diminishs my desire or intent to continue to give internationally. However, charity does - indeed, begin at home. In a global economy there is no denying the interconnectivity of opportunity, lessons, and attitude: if we leave the American slice out of this, we've disconnected the connectivity.

Lending to people living in poverty from of any country should be an option for those of us connected to KIVA.

I have a tendency to lend to single parents with children, we all have our own focus - my focus is based more on need than where the person is from. I am in favor of US lending.

There's a saying: "Love sees no color." From this I respectfully like to add: "Loaning too should see no color, country, or borders." There's room in the Kiva tent for all people in need, just as there's room in the Kiva tent for all of us to exercise our freedom to decide whom to loan to.

Of the hundreds of loans I've made to date, two were to the United States: One loan was to Yamile (recent cancer survivor) in California, and the other was to Carlos (originally from Ecuador) in New York. I chose to loan to them, not because they're from the United States, but because their stories moved me. It wouldn't matter if they were from the moon; they were people in need and their stories touched my heart.

Thank you Kiva for providing us a means to help those in need regardless of who they are or where they live.

The source for unsecured business loans in the U.S. is the Small Business Administration. SBA loans have a threshold of $25K--if you need less than that, you can't get one. Few other lending institutions make unsecured loans, except for credit card loans. And as we all know, the banks can and do change the terms on credit cards after the loan has been made. For those reasons, "microfinance" loans in the US are generally considered to be loans under $25K. That said, well-educated Americans who want to be their own boss have a better option--getting a job and saving for their dream. In the U.S. as in other nations, Kiva should be partnering with organizations that serve those who don't have access to other options (and not because they've fried their credit rating buying designer jeans and lattes they couldn't afford).

I'm in favor of including US entrepreneurs but would like to see them limited to people who are truly unable to get loans in any other way. I'm certain there are people who are discriminated against due to race, age, ancestry, etc. But I suspect there are also people who say they can't get a loan but perhaps have been unwilling to do the inconvenient legwork eg. put together a business plan, apply multiple places, etc.

I don't really see an issue with loaning in the US. While I don't think someone with tons of education and other opportunities to get money should really be up for consideration... it is in fact in the end up the the people who lend the money to decide who is worthy or not.

There are plenty of impoverished places in the US... maybe they aren't 3rd world, but some aren't far off. Anyone been to New Orleans lately? There are plenty of viable people in the US that would not be remotely considered for a loan from traditional sources... but who probably have great ideas or could be more successful in their current business if given a true shot.

Don't forget what we've learned over the last year... when the US takes a tank... the rest of the world suffers even more. Helping those in your own backyard... certainly can't hurt the rest of the world.

Entrepreneurs need $. Kiva isn't aid. It's an online tool to support entrepreneurs that don't have access to traditional lenders and to hopefully help alleviate poverty. If Kiva is to only go by need, based on above posts, then many of those third world entreprenuers that I've loaned to wouldn't qualify as I 've lent money to artists, beauticians, salesmen and others, some of which in their own words are 'successful' entreprenuers in West Africa that are on their second or third loan. The entrepreneurs in third world countries are considered 'rich' by their countrymen - yes, poor by our standards, but comfortable and/or rich by their own. Entrepeneurs in third world countries are often looked to as the leaders of their community. Do I support the decision to go into the USA? Yes. Do I support future decisions to go into other developed countries? Yes. Do I support separate websites? No. It adds cost for the non-profit and makes things less transparent. Will I loan to people in developed countries? No. Choice though should be up to the consumer. Shouldn't it? Kiva has the right to grow and expand. Doesn't she? As much as I liked how small and quaint Kiva was when I joined and as much as I wish I had been there on the ground floor, the reality (for me anyway) is that it's exciting to see how Kiva grew when she was mentioned on Oprah and in Bill Clinton's book. I joined around the 9 million mark and I forget how many people and today we're closing in on 79 million and 500+k people. Wow! In almost two years 70 million dollars. I see only good things from adding the USA and any developed country. It'd be nice to stay petite and elite; however, Kiva has the opporrtunity to change the world. Really change it. Not chump change. Not talk change. Real change. Real change that involves real people like you and me. Bottomline: Kiva is about helping entreprenuers secure financing that they wouldn't otherwise get. Kiva isn't aid. Kiva is a tool in which a borrower is connected to a lender. Let Kiva be that tool for the entire globe.

Maybe the US loan recipient starts a successful business and goes on to loan back to Kiva for an entrepreneur on the other side of the globe. That would be good, right?

I agree that to improve we must also help those closest to us, not necessarily first, but we can not forget them. In the case of KIVA, I do believe helping people in the U.S. will be beneficial to all and even possibly serve to inspire more sites like KIVA. Ultimately, this may lead to a new effort to restructure our banking system.

It is we, the microlenders, that decide the extent to which loans are made in the United States. So monies invested here are personal choices not Kiva's.

I applaud Kiva for recognizing that there are some individuals who want to invest in the U.S. first. By setting up partners, Kiva grows the base of investors and, to my mind, displays an appropriate level of country neutrality as it should as the organizor.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who do not want people to shove their beliefs down the throats of those who do want to loan to US borrowers. One can choose to lend to a US based borrower, or not. However, I agree with many well-spoken Kiva members who are concerned that Kiva is not choosing borrowers who are in poverty. I'm alarmed at the only US loan on the Kiva site that I've seen today. 208 lenders have funded this loan, with $1,475 left to fund. It could take 260+ lenders to fund the $7750 loan to a Miami photographer, instead of funding 5 or 10 borrowers living in actual poverty. Thanks to other posters for recommending the prosper website, although I will continue with Kiva to lend to borrowers in developing countries.

Kiva, I had the utmost respect for your mission statement and mandate of lifting people out of abject 'stupid' extreme poverty.. however, as some have already said, loaning to people in the USA has watered down your mandate. I whole heartedly disagree with what you have done. There are agencies and avenues for people in the USA to get help if they are so poor they cant send their children to school or buy food. If they cant make car or house payments thats not poverty.

I really had hoped you'd reconsider this idea.

I love Kiva, always and forever, but I don't like the us loan decision for all personal reasons. My votes will primarily be shown by my excluive use of Kiva to be directed at 3rd world opportunities. I understand others who have different personal preferences to be excited about US opportunities.

As work exits the U.S., the number of poor will increase, wages will fall, and those with will find themselves without, and without credit. It will matter in the near future if it doesn't matter right now. There are poor now, so adoption might as well start.

How will the loan amounts reflect the cost of living where the loans are made?

In just the few days that the US funding has been available i have seen a delay in the time it takes to fund the 3rd world loans. The size and scope of the loans for the US for ONE person is equivilent to 10 loans to someone say in Africa or Bolivia. These people really are bootstrap businesses with no other alternative. The US borrowers have numerous resources from getting a second job to selling off some of the luxury things they have and using the $ to fund their business. I live in the US and I have a small business. I do what it takes to create income for my business even if it means working extra somewhere else. I actually created a separate product where all the money from it goes to KIVA. In the US the opportunities are there to make it!! I am saddened that the reason for KIVA is being weakened by the greed and laziness of those who would take advantage of an easy ride. I really STRONGLY suggest that KIVA create a SEPARATE site for the US Loans.

See where your $25.00 is going for US photographer in Miami.. here is his web site... http://www.jmiguel.com/# His photo sessions start at $1,500 and top out at 15,000.00. What a Lovely studio he has.
I really think KIVA is for the little guy.. the ones who need to buy a peanut butter machine for a couple hundred $. This really has me fuming.. guess I should look and see why.. Off the top I would say that i feel that there are resources available to this gentleman that are not even available to some of the lenders.. namely me at this point. I guess the US being able to borrow takes the level off the playing field for the developing countries.
Nuff said.. I'm over it. Rant Finished!
Blessings All
Alaia

I think if you're allowing us to help people anywhere in the world, that's a great thing. I concur with those who feel it dilutes the Kiva message if you're not focusing the effort on those with the greatest need, wherever they are. I'm sceptical that US loans will be going to those in the US who most need them.

Join the debate here:
http://www.kiva.org/team/pissed_off_kiva_lenders

This changes everything.
I like to work with a site/community dedicted to helping poor people.
This is probally a good idea, but NOT on kiva.org.
Having these loans on the same site is just offensive (just look at all the comments above).

I will, as probally most of the 40% that do not like this, move my loans to a site DEDICATED to helping poor people. Unfortunally I have not found any good options, but if this goes on, there will be one soon.

Let's just hope that Kiva listen to all it's users, I'm sure that the people supporting this do not mind in supporting a "sister site" with these new loans.

Will you also support microfinance institutions lending to Switzerland, Japan and Liechtenstein?

Try:

kiva.org - microfinancing for developing countries
kiva_usa.org - for everything else

Here is a loan that I funded (a bit cut down for length):

Her business hires out in-home caretakers for the elderly. With her team of caretakers, she is able to provide a high quality of service. She has relationships with local care facilities, and regularly gives talks at churches in the area to reach out to people directly.

Imagine that this loan is from Lebanon, now Kenya, then the US, or Ukraine, or Nicaragua. Did your opinion of the loan change at all? Why in the world should it?

I evaluate loans based on the need of the borrower, and their impact on the community. Someone doing service work in health care, education, or elder services is probably not the poorest of the poor, but supporting them builds the kind of community structure that makes lives better regardless of what country that community is in. Loans that Change Lives, for the better, that is what I support through Kiva.

i am so proud of kivas decision to include americans in receiving loans !!!!!

To me, the decision to allow borrowers from the US or not is mainly a question of whether having the US lenders on the site adds to, detracts from, or does nothing for the opportunity for borrowers from other countries. If having the US loans does not increase lenders and the amount lent more than or equal to the amount of the US loans posted on the site (i.e. they are 'taking away' potential loan money to developing country entrepreneurs), then I don't feel that they should be there. But if an equal amount or more people from developing countries can be helped due to the increased site traffic, donations, etc, then I think it is fine for the US loans to be there. Personally I am hoping for the latter. I hope that helping people in developed countries will be a win/win: good for the both the developed and developing country entrepreneurs.
However, I do think that with Kiva getting into developed country micro finance they ought to think a little more about educating lenders about extreme poverty vs. relative poverty. Being poor in the US, where things exist like free K-12 education with meals, welfare, SSI, food banks, shelters, clothing closets, ERs, etc, is nothing like being poor in a developing country. Not that it is easy or something you would wish on anyone, but unless you are trying, you probably won't starve to death in the US or die of a disease curable with $2 worth of antibiotics, which is much more than could be said in other countries.

Absolutely against loan requests from the U.S!!!!
you say: "there are poor people in the US as well as around the world". I agree! BUT, I do not see any French people, Swedish, Danish, English, Germans. Do you think Europeans is full of rich people?
Poor people in the US asking for more than $5k!!!

I used to lend money because I thought Kiva was "Fair". You want to be FAIR with everybody? then open loan request to every citizen in the world!!! Americans do not deserve it more than any other industrialized country!!!

Until then, I will not lend money anymore!!!

I have donated to Kiva entrepenuers. The purpose to me is to help those who really need and deserve some fiancial baking. I live udern the poverty level here in the US. Occasionally, I am able to sell something that I have made to make an extra $25 dollars or so. I dontate in small denominations like that. I feel that $25 would help be grealy to replace supplies that I need, etc. There have been times I have needed a few hundred dollars and with my income level as low as it is, I cannot qualify for any assistance in the US. I would like to be an entrepenuer and a donator. I am in the US so why should there not be a Kiva orgainization here to help folks like me. To me, singling out one particular place that recieves funding is completely goes against the trye natrue of the orgaizizion eifh i yo HELP.

I completely support the funding of US entrepreneurs, especially at this time when credit is scarce. I don't think the point of Kiva is to now change completely to funding people in developed countries. In addition, I believe Kiva's forage into the developed world will set an example for new organizations to emerge, of people who will be helping others in the backyard. There is poverty in the US and I think we cannot ignore that. Also, don't estimate people's generosity--for example, I think people may now donate more because of the extra options--I for one, plan to add donations to US entrepreneurs on top of my donations to those outside.

If people want the option of helping US entrepreneurs, so be it. (I personally do not.) However, if the loans I have seen so far show what the Americans call "need", you need to re-assess the term. It's more like "want". "Need" is far, far greater than video cameras and designer dog clothes.

If you've ever been hungry in America you'll understand why this is necessary. Please consider expanding this organization throughout the world.

This is a great idea and consistent with the Kiva concept.
In every country, developed and undeveloped, there are the haves and have not, the connected and disconnected. It is just the ratios that change.
Kiva is about helping entrepreneurs that are disconnected, and people can be in need of that help in any country.
Also a successful recipient from the US or any developed country, is just as likely to become a lender to help someone else from anywhere in the world.
And lastly, it is still up to me to decide who I lend to. Thats democracy I can believe in.
Great move Kiva!!

http://www.jmiguel.com/# --- That's the link to see the photographer's studio. Very nice place. Clearly not in need of Kiva lifting him out of poverty. THE USA DILEMMA boils down to who is getting the loans. An $800 loan to help an impoverished individual buy a used flat-bed trailer and some yard-maintenance equipment, print some flyers, and put gas in his old pickup for a while would be acceptable. A loan for $300 to a disabled parent of three to buy baking supplies and start making and selling/catering cakes & cookies is acceptable. KIVA is not making USA loans to impoverished people with nowhere to turn, and it puts Kiva in a position of violating its own mission.

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=113826 ....... TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for a SHED?!?!! You have got to kidding me! How does that help a business, get anyone out of "POVERTY" ... she has a refrigerator with an ice/water dispenser in the door for poverty's sake - in San Francisco! KIVA, this is just disgusting.

Dreams, desires, needs, and basic economic survival are universal; it is not confined to geo-political borders. The safety net has ripped in the U.S. I am not only lending to those outside the U.S., but just made my first loan within my own country. No apologies on my end to anyone. Thank you, Kiva, for extending this lending opportunity to qualified borrowers in the United States. My dollars will go where they are needed. Nothing knee-jerk about that!

I'm very sorry to say that some of the comments above made me totaly give up on the Kiva community. Now it seems like it's a site where the majority(???!) of the users are ego-nationalistic and rather help people because they live in the "right" (== their == USA) country rather then helping poor people that really need the help.
I'll will find another way to help poor peope, this community is nothing I want to be a part of anymore.
Huge misstake by Kiva staff to go ahead with this without asking it's community first!

(excuse my english :) )
well i'm not against loans in us, but think kiva must maintain his loan targets, the poor ppl, i'm sure in us are a lot of people that really needs a small loan to start or maintain his little bussines

But i think kiva must select carefully the loans in those areas (not only US, this is not a 'us or not us loans' i think its most an 'developed world loans or not') sure kiva can find an enterpreur in us or in my country (spain) with similar needs that other offers in kiva, but the first selection i think was unlucky , i mean , i can have some money issues, and need a loan to start a bussines , but obviously my situation si really diferent from someone in really poor countries

Please again, dont think its against persons in us, its not the problem, my vote 'not sure' is not a 'do no loan to anyone in us' is only a think that in us (or spain, or france, or germany or japan) has sure a lot of other financial sources, and has , probabily a diferent 'level of problems'

In the other hand, i think microloans are not only a way to help a person, but a way to help a country injecting money in its economic model, and USA (or europe, or japan, or australia) dont really need this as far as other countries)

The only fair thing to do is to make these business owners (worldwide to include USA) available to the "lenders" which includes me. I then can chose where my money goes. After all, it is my money and I should have the right to direct where it goes.

I'm siding with the brand dilution argument. Kiva is about providing loans to people that REALLY need them, not to people that KINDA need them, and there seems to be a lot of "kinda need" in this first slew of US entrepreneurs.

For me, Kiva means "a service that uses micro loans to help people out of poverty". $10000 is not a micro loan, and people that already run a relatively successful business in the US is not "living in poverty". Letting premium photography studios like http://www.jmiguel.com/ into the loan database is just devastating for the Kiva brand. It's like if Apple released an ugly, broken and cheap computer - they'd lose their mojo, and if Kiva is not about making huge impact per invested dollar, it will also lose it's mojo.

I say, allow US loans, by all means, but weed the crap out of the database somehow, or your brand and community is going to take a huge hit.

I can appreciate Kiva's delima and I salute their objectivity.

At the end of the day, no one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. The real vote will be in terms of actual loans made however..... even if it's only 1 loan..... obviously the lender feels good about the decision to do so and no doubt the recipient will benefit from the help. I say, let it be and let's move on. Cheers, Norm B.

I am very disappointed that Kiva has started offering loans in the USA. As with many other commentators I struggle to see how most of the current American borrowers should qualify for a 'Kiva' loan.

One of the biggest attractions of Kiva to me has been that it targets developing countries and thus helps the wider society in which the borrower lives and works. Yes, there is poverty and deprivation in the USA - but there also organisations which alreday deal with them.

Don't dilute the Kiva brand, its message and the focus of its staff through this unwanted diversification.

Can someone tell us the alternatives for Kiva? With USA getting loans from Kiva, I am considering moving my support elsewhere.

While I am ambivalent about lending to my fellow Americans I acknowledge that they have the right to apply for loans. If people don't want to lend to Americans then *don't select them as loan recipients*. I personally will continue to make my loans outside the US but perhaps the addition of US clients may increase the number of lenders that otherwise may not have joined Kiva, which would be to everyone's benefit.

I do not have a problem with KIVA offering loans in the USA. However, what is being offered does not fit with your previous working description or exemplified by what has been offered on your site. I think of poverty as rungs on a ladder. Luis, the delivery driver who was featured in your first set of USA loans is a good example. He had been homeless and had no job after 9/11. It would have been nice if Kiva had been there for him at the “bottom rung” of his climb out of poverty. We are now seeing him come in on the 4th or 5th rung of the ladder with a Kiva loan. While I do not begrudge him the loan (he is obviously a very goal driven and hard working individual), I think your target audience has always been those on the lower rung of the poverty ladder. I would really like to see you target the areas of severe poverty that I know exists in the USA. My choice will always be those individuals on the bottom rung and I will probably leave the other rungs of the ladder to someone else.

It saddens me that there appear to be those who would choose to further disenfranchise poor people in America by not allowing them the opportunity to realize the dream of a better life. Having grown up minority and poor in this "land of plenty" I can tell you there still are, albeit shamefully, third world countries within the US. I don't believe we have to stop making loans to those in developing nations in order to also help those in need right here at home. The sad truth is that we won't be able to help 100% of those in need either abroad or here, but we should do what we can in each instance!

Just a small warning . . . Americans -- and especially the younger ones -- have been raised in an entitlement mentality. What I and others have seen from our KIVA experience is that foreign entrepreneuers have extremely low default rates. This will change with U.S. loans. Default rates for U.S. loans could easily exceed 20%, compared to the 1% default rates we see with foreign loans. When you loan to Americans, they just accept that you owe them, and don't see anything particularly wrong with assuming the loan is a gift. KIVA lenders don't mind loaning at no interest. And they have hearts of gold demonstrated by their outstretched hands. But if loans are not repaid, the many lenders who continuously roll over their paid-off loans into new loans will lose this huge advantage of their KIVA participation. The U.S. lending market represents higher risk than the foreign markets. Lending to U.S. entreprenuers is a B-A-D. Consider yourself warned !!!

All,

In my view, those who oppose adding the option of US lending have their hearts in the right place, but are making an incorrect assumption that more US loans will decrease lending to borrowers in developing countries. It will do the opposite.

I worked at Amazon.com when it first expanded beyond bookselling -- similarly, many loyal customers thought adding other categories would ruin the spirit and value of Amazon. But instead, because Amazon added to its appeal to many new customers by expanding, it now delivers far more value (selection, price, Kindle...) to readers and has transormed bookselling in favor of writers in the "long tail" of books.

Similarly, many Facebook users decried the expansion beyond college students. But few would now deny Facebook is more valuable to its users (leaving interface controversy aside) now that anyone and everyone is on it.

Of course Kiva has different issues than Amazon or Facebook. But to become a huge force for good, it must constantly grow both the "demand" side of the equation -- entrepreneurs who meet the standards of MFIs and are good bets for Kiva lenders -- and the "supply" side. By adding worthy low-income borrowers around the world, I think Kiva will help to generate this positive cycle and bring more lenders to the community.

I don't know that I agree with Kiva's expansion within the USA, supposedly the world's richest nation. I know I have a choice in relation to where and how my donation is used, however, I believe that donating to people in such a wealthy country as the US deflects attention/funds away from those people/countries which are truly in need. Obviously, poverty doesn't discriminate. But people in the US have many, many other options available to them that those who live in the poorest nations of the world could only dream of. The amount of money that is being asked of from US citizens is far too much. Again, I realise it is all relative, but $10,000 to one US initiative is more than enough to support a dozen or more people/businesses in the poorest countries. To me, for every dollar given to a US citizen is like taking $100 from a poorer nation. I will continue to support Kiva because I believe it to be a truly worthwhile cause, but a more equitable balance must be drawn between the 'haves and have nots,' In my opinion, far more emphasis (by Kiva) should be given to those people around the world who do not have a choice and suffer horrendously because of corrupt governments, war, famine, drought, disease or whatever, than to those who may have merely fallen on bad times or made poor decisions in their life.
I am not trying to be critical of the good work Kiva does, but simply doing my bit in drawing attention to those people whose plight is more far more desperate.
thankyou
Gerard

I am really disappointed that KIVA has decided to expand to the US (and possibly other developed countries). I was truly inspired by the Frontline episode which aired in 2006 and joined right away and emailed KIVAs link to family & friends. Now I fear that as KIVA branches out to the US, the American requests will out-number and take precedence over 3rd world applicants especially in this bad economy (BTW I am Canadian and I would feel just as offended if KIVA decided to run the pilot program in Canada). I have seen huge backlash in some of the groups I belonged to towards anyone objecting to this expansion (ie. being called unpatriotic and/or anti-American). As well as an attitude shift from eliminating poverty in 3rd world countries to "helping those in your own back yard first" - one blogger said she funded a US candidate even though she felt they were much better off financially than she was. I guess she felt compelled to help a fellow citizen rather than someone who truly needs the money!!! Being financially challenged does not make someone a victim of poverty. By juxtaposing US applicants next to 3rd world applicants it appears to challenge people's patriotism!! Micro loans for entrepreneurs is a great idea - just don't sneak it in under the KIVA umbrella. This was not what I signed up for nor is it KIVAs original business plan/mandate.

Of course I know there is serious poverty in developed countries but I do not believe it is relative. Anyone living in a democratic developed country has many options for promoting social/economic change within their community: ie vote, protest, write to politicians, volunteer, support local organizations and charities, fundraise, sign petitions etc etc etc. I cannot do this for third world countries and chances are, neither can most of the applicants from these countries. However I felt I could open a KIVA account and hope my investments creates an opportunity for one business owner after another and another so that one day, these successful business owners will feel empowered to change the politics and promote social change within their own country.

This expansion appears to me like KIVA is moving towards being just another bank (granted they may have a social conscience but for how long?). And investing in a US bank is not something I'm prepared to do. I will wait until the vote later in July but in the meantime I will search for another micro finance group that is more in line with my philosophy.

i too was so excited when kiva announced its decision to support america's poor----but when i went to lend, i saw americans who wanted to attend something to do with dance, and middle-class white guys getting almost a $9,000 loan to expand their businesses, etc.-------i looked at the other loans from the poorer nations and see they are creeping along to get as little as $200-----i dont mean to sound racist, but now i understand what all the hoopla is about-----these american loans are being funded fast and not to this nations poor either----------it was disgusting to me to go to the page and see middleclass americans swiftly getting a really big loan, and seeing some for real poor people loans expiring in 1 day-----i think kiva has made a big mistake with this usa lending---i hope you fix it, and give the loans to the real american poor, or at the very least put a cap on how much they can ask for depending on their income----the way it is now, is not the kiva i knew.

Well said, Azizah, I strongly agree. I believe Kiva has lost the plot. The amount of money being offered to US people is ridiculous. People should have a closer look at the poorer nations and their people as they process the pages for who they might lend to. It is sickening to see really poor people in third world countries under kiva's banner with loans expiring in 1 day while money is given to people in first world economies. The very idea of kiva stating that these poorer people have one day remaining to finance their loans is beyond the pale. Americans have choices that people in the developing world will ever realise.

I am disappointed KIVA is so right wing. Every borrower list marital status immediately. There is NO diversity here.

There are no gays welcome here. I guess gay is just a San Francisco thing?

Another Sarah Palin divide platform

If you don't want to support the US, don't lend there! Otherwise, stop whining. Poor is poor and charity is charity. There is no such thing as "better" charity. There is no such thing as a "rich" poor person. Kiva is about lending to people who can't get funding through traditional means, and they are all over the world.

I think it's really amazing that Kiva has finally decided to offer folks the opportunity to lend to folks living in communities devastated by poverty in this country. For those of you at issue with particular loans currently being offered by Kiva in the US, express your disdain for the current process and call for reform. But for those of you expressing "disappointment" in Kiva's US involvement IN GENERAL because people aren't "poor enough" most certainly need to take a closer look at what's really going on in this country. It comes off as a very privileged, and frankly ignorant, argument to say that the US doesn't experience as extreme a level of poverty as other countries in the world. Do you know about the shanty towns just outside of Brownsville, TX? Do you know what life is like on most of this country's Native American reservations? Do you know what's it like to live with no running water and no electricity? Do you know about all of the immigrant folks who picked the vegetables on your dinner table tonight, that they live in lean to's, caves and shacks in California's agricultural valleys? One of this nation's most food-rich places and yet it's "home" to thousands of starving people. Those are just a few examples of many communities struggling to just stay alive every day HERE IN THE US. If you don't know about these communities struggles and you're arguing that the United States doesn't have communities facing abject poverty, then you have no business being on this discussion board. People should really educate themselves before they comment on things like this. Lastly, I find that most people are much more comfortable helping those they don't have to look directly at, a lot less guilt is experienced. But to face the fact that people in the US, literally your own backyard, have been forgotten and silenced is a much more honorable endeavor. I applaud Kiva and look forward to the full launch of the US program and the continuing evolution and betterment.

I WILL be leaving KIVA if they continue to offer US loans.

Please start a DIFFERENT site for US loans, and stop diluting your focus.

Kiva should first and foremost concentrate its efforts on loaning to undeveloped countries where getting a loan is normally not an option. This is the principle Kiva was founded on and I don't think they should stray from that.

People are forgetting that US has nice things that poor can take advantage of (like I once did): welfare, food stamps, food banks, etc.. Even then these US entrepreneurs are running their own business and certainly getting by.

There is a STARK difference between a poor person in the USA and a poor person in Nigeria or Mexico (believe me I live in mexico right now).

I will watch and see to see if I continue to participate in loaning on KIVA. I used to love doing this... it made me think that a small amount could go so far to making people's lives (that otherwise had little hope) better.
Why wouldn't the KIVA people set up a separate and distinct method to accept donations for loans to U.S. people? That would have made so much more sense.
But KIVA is a U.S. based organization after all. I wonder if there was a threat to their U.S. 501(c)3 tax status if they didn't keep some of the donations in the U.S.?

Loaning to people in western countries is not why i started with Kiva. Even though we can choose to not assist those in the US, I think it detracts from the mission of Kiva and distracts those of us doing the loaning.

The people in 3rd world countries who find themselves living in poverty do not have the social security safety nets that are in place in the US and countries like it, and that is why i choose to loan to those in the 3rd world.

If the U.S. entrepreneur doesn't get his $10,000 loan for his taxi he will not starve to death. He can go on welfare. He has access to various charities.

Entrepreneurs from third world countries do run the risk of starving to death, they do not have the same access to welfare or variety of welfare groups.

Solve REAL poverty first, then address the poverty issue in rich developed countries.

I think it is a fine idea for Kiva to offer loans to Americans. Even though we are a first world country there are people in the US whom banks consider unworthy of loans and just need a little money to fund great ideas. Isn't that the point of Kiva, to help people help themselves. Poverty is relative, its true that a poor person in the US doesn't have it as bad as a poor person in Uganada, but they still have it bad. I'm new to Kiva it took me a long time to decide wether to participate, its their decision to offer US loans that made me finally commit. My first loan was not to an American though, it was to a group in Boliva that I thought was worthy. What you loan should not be just about the country, it should be about if the amount you loan can really make a positive impact to the borrower, period.

I posted this message to the Happy Kiva Lenders group and am cross-posting here.

******
I am honestly surprised at the vitriol being spouted by some kiva lenders due to the extending of loans to US entrepreneurs. The vast majority of US loans that I've seen since June 10 are pretty obviously made to US immigrants from some of the same developing countries you are espousing as being loan-worthy. Because they have been 'fortunate' enough to have left their former homes behind, are they now rolling in the clover?

I think not.

As to the larger US loans taking funds away from those most of the protesters deem more worthy, it's all relative. Operating a business in the US is more costly than it is in developing nations and these people are learning that firsthand.

Frankly, there were several US entrepreneurs I couldn't get behind myself, but by the same token, there is an even larger number of entrepreneurs in those developing nations whose businesses I can't bring myself to support, such as cosmetic sales and beauty salons. I see these as being unnecessary and frivolous. While it may give someone a job/provide income, if an area is seriously impoverished should the citizens be spending their limited income on these goods and services rather than food, shelter, clothing, basic health care?

I simply choose not to place my funds with those businesses. Those of you who are so vociferous about not extending loans to US entrepreneurs would do well to make the same decision and stop stirring up the pot.

Posted by Judi
Jul 10, 2009 - 1:51 pm PDT
******

I have been donating to Kiva for approximatly 3 years, looking to help those who have no other options to obtain financial assistance, primarily in North Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Asia. I am concerned that by deciding to give loans to US residents, that they have strayed from their mission statement and focus. While I understand their decision to help US residents during this difficult economic time, personally I will continue to donate to residents who live in those areas where I already donate through Kiva, where so little financial help is available to them to improve their place in their society. If Kiva does decide to offer micro-finance loans within the US, they should place a limit per person to what is offered in loans, which they may already be doing, although I'm not sure. No one will be required to donate to US residents if they prefer not to.

I am very proud of Kiva for seeing that poverty is everywhere in the world and that we as lenders should have the choice of who we would like to lend to. I think that adding the USA is a good idea and if you do not want to lend to those borrowers then you can chose a different person to loan your money to but do not take away my freedom to choose who I can loan money to after all I earn my own money and I can loan it to people who I feel need it. I do not understand why everyone is getting upset. There is very poor people in the USA that do not have and do go hungry every night. I know for a fact my mom when we were little made sure me and my sister would eat but she would go for many days with no food because of the lack of money. I know there are food banks but sometimes you can only go to these once a year . I think we should all take the time to decide who we want to lend to and not push our views on other lenders. I also think that when we help someone out of poverty then they can become a Kiva loaner and help someone else with a loan. I thank you for your time and I am a proud mom of a wonderful 4 year old son and I am proud to loan on Kiva.

もっと途上国に十分な資金供給を！
先進国にマイクロファイナンスの需要があるにしても、
Ｋｉｖａでなくても良かろう。

I am OK with Kiva offering US-based loans. I will continue to lend my money to developing countries, but it's good that the choice is there for those who want to.

I'll be interested in seeing figures on how this affects the total amount loaned to developing countries.

I feel very bad about this new policy. US citizens have access to credit, welfare, charity, etc. And if they suffer to access this credit, they chose by their vote to have the capitalist and social system in place.

Other developing countries suffer from a lack of a democratic system and social structure so they trully cannot access creedit and they did no choose their lack of support from the goverment, and other social structures of the country.

Nobody says poor us citizens do not deserve our help, of course they do. But that is not the point, they live in a free country that chose to be the way it is, if not, be like sweden!!!, with a welfare system that covers 100% of the pop.

Vote with our dollars? no, thats not the point, the point is a moral stand, and kiva has destroy it with this measure.

Oh dear, dangerous ground. Will EU Kiva donators want support in France and Germany? Stick with the recognised and accepted problem areas, leave the developed countries to do their own thing. Don't destroy the good thing that you have got.

That defeats the main purpose and original philosophy of this micro-loan coordinating agency. The deep issue here is that poor people in other countries are not eligible, not even allowed to step in a bank for a loan for lack of collateral; so it is of importance for those third world lenders to get the loan from an organization that does not require collateral. Yes, we can the poor people in the US to get a loan, but most people here can go to local lending agencies (banks, credit unions, Small Business lenders) to get the loan, because all you have to have in most cases is a good business plan, that is all.

In third world countries a perfect business plan does not get you a loan, you must have collateral, cosigners, etc. People are very poor in those countries. If a miracle happens over there and a small-business person gets a loan over there, the interest itself will kill the business. The US is one of the countries with the lowest interest rates. For instance the interest rate in third world countries can be about 5%, not annually, but monthly. So, poor people of the US is the equivalent of the wealthier people in other countries.

At the end Kiva is going to end up dumping the good deed done in other countries poor lending to the US. That is taking away opportunities from people that don't have any and adding those opportunities to people that have plenty of options. In the US people can apply for government assistance, loans, deductions, etc. Option that are never been heard of in anywhere else in the world.

I forgot to mention... in a third world country you can start a business with 1000 dollars and keep it going; that amount could really build a good business to support a whole family. Here in the US you might need at least 50 times that to start a business. So in essence Kiva could lend $50.000 to about 100 people else where in the world, while in the unite states that would help only one person.
The moral issue here is that Kiva's original purpose was to help those that could not even dream of a loan.... so why deviate from that.
Thanks Kiva for all you have done and for all you are going to continue doing.

As a Kiva lender, I am ashamed to see how many people are striking an "us vs. them" pose in regards to the loans to US entrepreneurs. I agree with those who say, “Vote with your pocketbook”. No one is forcing anyone to loan to the US entrepreneurs. In response to James, I would like to point out that the overall average income in the SF Bay Area is irrelevant to those who live here in poverty. Because the overall income is so high, the cost of living is correspondingly high. The poor here cannot save enough money to buy a bus ticket to move their families somewhere else! According to the San Francisco food bank, 1 in 4 children in San Francisco do not have enough food to meet their needs. Having done a nursing rotation in a public school in one of SF’s poorest areas, I can attest to the number of students there who do not get any dinner at night and who, in fact, rarely know where they will sleep that night when they leave school. They are shuttled from one relative’s place to another relative’s place at random intervals. Many have no electricity by which to do their homework at night. This is life for the poor people who live in a wealthy, expensive area. Moreover, I would like to point out that here in San Francisco, $5000 (which James seems to consider a completely excessive loan) is the poverty level cost of living for a family of three for only TWO MONTHS here in SF. If you compare this size of loan to someone who lives in southern Africa who is borrowing $500, the $5000 loan is tiny in comparison since $500 can support a family of 3 in many southern African countries for at least 5 months (and, yes, I have spent a lot of time in multiple countries in southern Africa).

The reason I joined up with KIVA was the focus on third world assistance through micro loans. I am disappointed the good efforts of KIVA are being diluted with assistance being provided to US entrepreneurs. I would prefer to have seen a separate entity set up that concentrates on micro loans for US businesses and not use the goodwill of KIVA lenders in this way. I will continue to lend to the developing world.

The amount of loans required by US recipients can be up to 500x that requested by non-developed country loans. Surely assisting 500 people instead of one is a much better use of funds.

All developed countries have needy people; they also have many more facilities available to help these people. Let's stay in the 3rd world, where Kiva can make a difference to the life of so many more people, where it is most needed.

I agree with this US pilot and will vote for it with my pocketbook. As a poor person in the US myself, I view Kiva as a safe place to hold the little money I have to save and to help other poor people in the process...all over the world. I agree with Kiva & the UN's definition of poverty as more than just income level as translated through monetary trading--it is about levels of inclusivity in society. If we exclude people, from any country, from society and only want to help them when we consider them of a geopolitical distance from us, then we are not truly including them, are we? I wonder if the other Jewish folks who passed the man beat up and robbed on the road to Jericho did not think the same thing: "He is a Jew, so he can take care of himself. Helping him would be too expensive. I'll save my investment for people who are really in trouble." I don't think the Good Samaritan has to be from another culture...I think the point Jesus was trying to make is that our true neighbors are the ones we assist in times of suffering. There is little human suffering worse than poverty, except perhaps war.

I only agree with this decision because the power is still left with individual lenders. If people want to help those in relative poverty here in the US more than those abroad, then let kiva be the tool.

I personally will still be commit my dollars to helping those abroad first, since I feel that just being in the US gives people here access to many more advantages and human rights protections that those in developing nations lack.

My only concern would be if Kiva's resources to help were diverted away from helping those in developing nations. But as long as it remains small in number (2-5%), I don't see any problem with Kiva providing opportunities for people to help other domestically if that is their choice. Your $25 certainly would make a bigger impact abroad, but I don't think those choices should be taken away from lenders. Each of us is responsible for our own choices and dollars. Take and use that responsibility with good conscience.

A $50 loan to a poor country is a big deal, a $50 loan in the USA doesn't buy anything except an IOU.

I am disappointed by Kiva's decision to offer loans to the developing world. Even though the social safety net is not perfect in the US, it is a heck of a lot better than what it is in the developing countries the loans were targeted to before.

I will no longer add a contribution to Kiva as part of my loans and hope that this will send a message that will ultimately be heard by Kiva management.

It appears that Kiva management was making this piliot project a forgone conclusion and in the newsletter posted it appears that Kiva has not heard our feedback.

I am saddened by this fact and hope that ultimately Kiva comes to its senses.

I give my money (few dollar) on the basis of trust that KIVA will use it in the best interest of the recipients under the conditions of their needs, no matter of their religions belief, political association, nationality, race etc. At the end of the day we all are human beings in need of ...........something. Lets start support each other without any prejudice.

Another concern I have involves lenders from around the world - is KIVA going to recognise the needs of the poor in other developed nations and support loans to them as well? To limit to the USA is parochialism and to spread to other developed countries will further diminish the standing of KIVA.

So what about the UK then? Lots of people here are much poorer than in the US, but not quite as poor as in developing nations.
They've even got TV shows now, in the UK, where richer people can dole out help to poorer families.
Shameful.
Microfinance is there to put much needed nourishment into people's bellies, to stop those cramps of starvation, at the very least. Not to buy photography equipment or taxis. By American standards, I am poor.

I appreciate Kiva's efforts to involve the community of lenders in decision-making and believe that venturing into domestic microfinance was a reasonable and well thought out decision. But, you simply cannot please 100% of the people all of the time. Because it is so easy to incorporate an entity in the US, I would suggest that all those disgruntled Kiva users who just cannot bring themselves to remain with the community (which would be a loss), then they should form their own, new community of lenders which creates its own vision/methodology.

In other words, there is a huge unmet demand out there, if you are convinced you can do better, or differently, by all means don't let the rest of the world hold you back. For example, I just read about web based platform where you can become a micro-patron of the arts called Kickstarter.

This is a good decision. I personally ONLY give to African debtors, because I believe they are the most poor and wretchedly in need of this service. And I can only loan so much. However, I have always appreciated the fact that loans are available to better off places including asia and eastern europe, which clearly have less problems than some of the african nations. Likewise, if someone wants to loan to a US debtor, let them. The offering will not "dilute" or affect my continued "choice" to keep lending to poorer countries. Restricting choice by nation is not the point of Kiva. Kiva's point essentially is to lend out your money via MicroFinance to someone who cannot get a bank loan, for the lessening of poverty by helping a man buy a fishing pole rather than giving him a fish.

I'm disappointed that the idea of helping the poor in this country (the USA) is controversial. Getting a loan in the USA isn't as easy as you may think if you are poor. I have only given to people in other countries so far but joined because I could also select US applicants will I will at some point if I they need help & have a good plan. The idea that some people don't want the US requests included sounds like anti-American sentiment. If this turns out to be a far left "America sucks" organization I will not continue to participate which will make me sad. Everyone deserves a chance; everyone who is willing to work for it.

Greetings to you more so from our project called youth under employable skills modules and apprerenticeship requiste training YUSMART.Resently we came across your organisation with the hpoe that it would be of resorce to our project which is helping the disadvataged youth in uganda. We are kindly looking for your support to thses youth who are unable to turn up for help to any person in the community .

Mi nombre es agente de comercialización de la marca
OPEL INVESTMENT.Have ha estado bajo presión para obtener un préstamo o
decepcionados por los bancos y otros prestamistas, compañías de inversión Opel
han venido a poner fin a todas sus problemas financieros.

Ofrecemos hipotecas comerciales, personales, garantizados y no garantizados
préstamos a bajo tipo de interés del 3%. Aplique hoy y obtener su aprobación!
Obtención de Préstamos de 5000 a EE.UU. 50.000.000 dólares, euros y británicos Pounds.See cómo
fácil que puede obtener el dinero que son el orgullo needed.We nosotros mismos en hacer
lo correcto para los que esperaban para desarrollar la vida need.We largo
relación con nuestros clientes, así que usted puede estar seguro de que estaremos aquí para
en cada paso del way.We sólo le pido que considere sus obligaciones
para nosotros como veremos con condiciones excepcionales y programario, por lo que
Servi-como cliente de clase mundial
A CONTINUACIÓN SE MUESTRA EL FORMULARIO DE SOLICITUD
Nombre :_______
Nombre :________
Nombre del Padre :_______
Nombre de soltera :_______
Sexo :_______
Ciudad :______
Estado :______
País :______
Monto del préstamo :______
Préstamo Duración :______
Propósito Loan______
Desde :______
Ingreso mensual :_____
Ingreso Anual :______
Número de Teléfono :_________
Fax :_________
Saludos cordiales
George Elliot.
Contacte con nosotros a través de nuestro enfoque en el servicio al cliente
por e-mail: marksamfunds2007@gmail.com
> swap

Mi nombre es agente de comercialización de la marca
OPEL INVESTMENT.Have ha estado bajo presión para obtener un préstamo o
decepcionados por los bancos y otros prestamistas, compañías de inversión Opel
han venido a poner fin a todas sus problemas financieros.

Ofrecemos hipotecas comerciales, personales, garantizados y no garantizados
préstamos a bajo tipo de interés del 3%. Aplique hoy y obtener su aprobación!
Obtención de Préstamos de 5000 a EE.UU. 50.000.000 dólares, euros y británicos Pounds.See cómo
fácil que puede obtener el dinero que son el orgullo needed.We nosotros mismos en hacer
lo correcto para los que esperaban para desarrollar la vida need.We largo
relación con nuestros clientes, así que usted puede estar seguro de que estaremos aquí para
en cada paso del way.We sólo le pido que considere sus obligaciones
para nosotros como veremos con condiciones excepcionales y programario, por lo que
Servi-como cliente de clase mundial
A CONTINUACIÓN SE MUESTRA EL FORMULARIO DE SOLICITUD
Nombre :_______
Nombre :________
Nombre del Padre :_______
Nombre de soltera :_______
Sexo :_______
Ciudad :______
Estado :______
País :______
Monto del préstamo :______
Préstamo Duración :______
Propósito Loan______
Desde :______
Ingreso mensual :_____
Ingreso Anual :______
Número de Teléfono :_________
Fax :_________
Saludos cordiales
George Elliot.
Contacte con nosotros a través de nuestro enfoque en el servicio al cliente
por e-mail:marksamfunds200m7@gmail.com
> swap