Student reacts to the Poor Kids documentary from FRONTLINE

One of our assignments in the first few weeks of class was to watch an online documentary. The video was a Frontline documentary called, “Poor Kids”. The documentary has changed my outlook forever on how children are especially affected by poverty. This video was the second part of a documentary that follows children in poverty from a young age to young adulthood. The documentary was broken in two halves. The first half gives a recap from the 2012 documentary of when of Brittany, Kaylie, and Johnny were small children facing the struggles of poverty in America. The second half updates the audience on where the families of these three poor kids are in 2017. The ability to watch Brittany, Kaylie, and Johnny grow into young adults and to hear their stories of struggle, was fascinating to me. All of these families were the victims of unfortunate circumstance that lead them down the path of poverty.

Brittany is a young girl from Illinois whose family struggled to make ends meet. Her parents had another baby on the way in the first film and were worried about how they were going to support another child. Brittany was aware of the fact her family was poor and that her father had just lost his job. Necessities such as a hot water in the winter was not available to Brittany’s family. The hot water heater was shut off due to failure to pay the bill on time. Examples like this are so common for families living in poverty, they often go without one necessity to keep something else running. Brittany seemed to be aware at a very young age of the financial struggles her family faced. She knew that they had to move from their old house because her father lost his job. She knew that most of her belongings in storage were thrown away due to failure to pay the bill. She knew that the cable and internet would be next to shut off. A conversation between Brittany and the camera man stood out to me. She tells him, “you have money now but, in a few months, you could be poor, you never know”. It amazed me how this little girl’s comment put so much in perspective for me. What we have today is not promised tomorrow. Most of what Brittany says in the video is negative and its probably because she is constantly surrounded by a cloud of negativity looming over her every day. It is not shocking that as Brittany becomes a young adult, she battles depression and anxiety. When the film picks back up, Brittany is now fifteen-years-old. She says that middle school was a rough time for her because she got picked on for being poor. She was expelled and held back, she states that was the lowest point. Her highest point was completing middle school, something she was very proud of herself for. Graduating from middle-school is an accomplishment that many take for granted. Instead of seeing it as an accomplishment, other students see it as just the next phase in life. Brittany’s stress has remained a constant battle in her life because of poverty.

Kaylie Hegwood lives in Stockton, Iowa and in 2012 she was ten-years-old living with her mother and brother. She starts her segment of the video by complaining how hungry she is and how this hunger affects her throughout the day. Kaylie lives in poor town that has been run down with little job opportunities and little resources. Kaylie and her friends go “canning” to make money. Five cents for non-squished cans and two cents for squished cans. Her family moved to a motel room where their sink was filled with ice and used as a refrigerator. The one bed room was home to Kaylie, her brother Jordan, and their mother, Barbara. Fast-forward to 2017 and Kaylie’s family is still struggling. She is almost sixteen-years-old and has moved around a lot in the past several years. Her family has lived at their current house for two years with the help of their Grandmother who also provided Barbara with a car and a phone for Kaylie. Her Grandmother has battled cancer along with her mother who is currently battling ovarian cancer. Kaylie admits that she is not sad about things that happen to her and her family any longer, she has gotten so used to it. This realization is hard to swallow for a girl that thinks she only has a 50/50 shot of making something of herself in the future.

The documentary shows a boy named Johnny and his family. In 2012 Johnny was thirteen-years-old with high hopes of becoming a football star. His family went from living in a 3-bedroom house to living in the Salvation Army Shelter after his father, who repaired houses, couldn’t find work while in the recession. Johnny is a bright young boy and blew me away with his mature thoughts. He says that he is a realist and knows that if he doesn’t make good grades, he won’t go to college and have a career to provide for himself and future family. He also wants to play professional football and knows that playing his favorite sport will be over in four years if he doesn’t try hard to achieve his goals. Johnny has both optimistic and realistic plans for his life and its admirable. His mother and father try to work hard but can barely provide for Johnny and his siblings.  As the years go on however, Johnny does find himself hanging out with the wrong crowd and eventually ending up in jail. He chooses to move in with his Grandmother in Chicago and is now trying to get back into playing football in college. The second half of the documentary focuses on his sister, Jasmine and his mother and father who are currently living in a hotel until her mom and dad can find somewhere to live. Jasmine is wise and grateful for the family she has. I couldn’t help but shed a few tears at her statement, “I wouldn’t choose this life but it’s kind of showing me what can happen. I will take this experience and use it to make myself a better person by learning from it and knowing what not to do. My hope for the future would be to have a house with my own room and my own space but you can’t really have everything you want.” This tore my heart that the simple pleasure of having your own room was something I took for granted growing up.

I grew up in a single mother household. We struggled and sometimes did not have enough to eat, or my siblings and I had to wear clothing that was too small for us. My mother held a steady job and she kept the same roof over our heads for 18 years. My experiences are nothing compared to these three children and the overwhelming number of poverty-stricken families in America. I struggle to fathom the number of kids that I went to school with that were living a life of poverty. From elementary school through high school I don’t think I ever took the time and noticed my fellow students who may be struggling at home. Kids I rode the bus with, kids I was partnered with in a group, kids that I sat by in the auditorium or lunch table, could have been homeless. I believe that this documentary and more like it should be shown in middle schools around the United States. This will allow other students to relate more to other students and to show compassion and understanding to those who have different home lives.

Student recommends that the Illinois House pass the Inclusive Education Act

The Senate Bill 3249 is also known as the Inclusion Bill. This bill makes it mandatory to teach LGBTQ history curriculum for public schools. State Senator Heather Steans sponsored this bill. It passed the Illinois Senate in March of 2018. Now the bill has to pass the Illinois House, where it is House Bill 5596. This curriculum will be limited to the public schools; it will not apply to private or religious schools. The superintendent of the school district will be required to monitor and enforce compliance with this new curriculum. The program requires all kindergarten-12^th grades to include this curriculum in their unit studying. 

Schools can still control the school environment and curriculum, but this law will require that there be some specific coverage of the contributions of LGBTQ persons. Learning about the history of LGBTQ persons teaches the importance of not discriminating against others. If this bill passes Illinois will be the second state to swap out textbooks for LGBTQ inclusive texts. California adopted similar measures in 2011; however, California just approved the LGBTQ textbooks for elementary schools in November. California was the first state to approve this bill. This idea was mainly brought on by suicides among LGBTQ youth. In the upcoming year, California students will gain an understanding of the past and present of LGBTQ community. 

This bill will have no fiscal impact. Textbooks would be purchased through the textbook block grant program whether or not the selections are restricted to textbooks that have LGBTQ content. This textbook block grant program gives annual funding to school districts. School districts can look into online textbooks, which are cheaper. California approved 10 textbooks for elementary and middle school students, so the same ten would presumably be approved for use in Illinois if the Inclusion Bill is passed into law here in Illinois

Change needs to happen. The LGBTQ community is not going to go away. Their history is just as import for students to learn about as is the African Americans, war history, the Holocaust, etc. It is time to stop erasing LGBTQ identities. It is time to acknowledge LGBTQ roles in history. It is time to acknowledge that someone like James Baldwin was an openly gay writer. LGBTQ students need to feel the support from their peers and teachers. It is important for our students to learn about role models of the LGBTQ communities. Of course changing the textbooks will be a slow process, but it something that needs to be done. It is time for Illinois to follow California and approve the Inclusive Curriculum Bill. Our youth need to know about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community. This community is a now a part of history. 

There are several historical figures whose sexuality and sexual orientation are ambiguous, and I hope the presentation of these figures will be nuanced, and help students understand that in historical work, we cannot always be sure of our conclusions.  Also, the ideas we now have about sexual identity and orientation, and the words we use, were not prevalent in the past, so there is an interesting debate about whether our modern terms and ideas about LGBTQ apply in past times and other cultures.  All that sort of information will help students move away from the faith in categories and labels that so many of us rely upon these days.  And I think it's very healthy for children and students in our public schools to learn about different critiques of how gender and sexuality have been expressed or understood at different times and places.  Give the many disappointing aspects of mainstream heterosexuality in 21st Century North American culture (such as the high rates of domestic violence and the high incidence of rape and sexual abuse of children), I think our schools will be doing a great benefit to our society if they open up children to some critical ideas about assumptions and values prevalent in our culture.  It is especially good to know that there have always been eccentrics, misfits, and persons who rebelled against conformity, and among these people were some of the great geniuses and heroes of history, and also some of the villains. 

Student opposes drug testing of SNAP beneficiaries

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), also called food stamps, is for low income people and families who cannot afford their food. Without this program, millions of people in the United States would go hungry. The United States Department of Agriculture provides SNAP, and it works by giving people a certain amount of money each month that can only use on food. It is put onto a card similar to a debit card. People get a certain amount depending on how many people are in their household, how much money they make, and how much their rent and utilities are. It is a great program for helping end hunger in the United States. 

One problem we face with SNAP is that Republicans and the Trump Administration are trying to make it so certain states are allowed to drug test food stamp recipients. The wrong-headed ideal of this policy proposal is that people receiving food stamps must be forced to go through drug testing, and without drug testing they will not be able to receive food stamp benefits. This is wrong in many ways. At the surface level, it may seem like a good idea that drug addicts cannot get food stamps, but what about their children? Should children of parents who have used drugs starve and suffer because of their parents’ illicit drug use? It really is not fair at all. I don’t, and I hope most people do not want children going hungry because their parents struggle with addiction, and even if someone does not have any children and they are addicts, do they deserve to starve? I have a very strong opinion that no one should starve, no matter what. Murderers and rapists in prison don’t starve, but they are trying to make someone with a drug addiction starve when they are not harming others, just themselves. 

Another reason why it is a bad idea to drug test food stamp recipients is because of how costly it is. Seven states have already tried this, but on TANF instead of food stamps (TANF is a different welfare program that gives cash grants to some poor families) and they have already spent one million dollars on these drug tests, and they will have to spend millions more as the years go by, but it has been shown that applicants who have been drug tested have tested positive at a lower rate than the general population. Drug testing does not work to help people get treatment for their addictions. Instead of spending this much money on drug testing applicants of welfare programs, we ought to be implementing better programs to help the poor move out of poverty, and help persons with substance use issues move toward sobriety. 

Hunger in the United States is a real problem, and forcing applicants to be drug tested will not help solve the problem. More people will starve. More people will steal, so they will be able to survive. Instead of spending millions of dollars to drug test food stamp recipients, we could increase the amount of benefits hungry persons receive because a majority of people who get food stamps do not get enough to last them the whole month. They do okay for the first couple weeks, but then they end up having to go to the food pantry because they run out of food. 

The SNAP program does need to be changed, but forcing people to be drug tested has more negative consequences than positive ones. People will also be losing a sense of self determination and autonomy over their own lives, because they already have to jump through many hoops just to get help from the government, but adding drug tests as something they have to do will just make them more dependent and less self-sufficient. 

I think the most important thing is that everyone gets to have the food that they need. Family members should not hurt because they have a parent or sibling who cannot stay clean. It is not fair to either of them, and there are other programs that we should have to help people who struggle with addiction. Not giving people food is not going to magically make them stay off drugs. 

I'd like to mention a few facts here to help support your editorial. 

In the first part of 2018, the maximum SNAP benefits for families in Illinois who live with no income are as follows:
single individuals: $192 per month;
single parents with one child or two-adult households: $352;
household with three persons: $504;
household with four persons: $640;
household with five persons: $760.

According to the USDA’s March 2018 food plans:
For a thrifty food budget, a family of two adults aged 19-50 years old need $382 per month; and for a family of four with two adults and two children aged 6-8 and 9-11 years old, the monthly food budget needed is $639.  

For the low cost plan, the amount needed for the two-adult household is $490, and for the family of four with two children and two adults, the amount needed for a month is $841.

For the moderate-cost plan, the amount for the two-adult household: $583.  For the four-person household: $1048.

In 2014, when there were about 120 million American households, total spending per month on food in and outside of home was about $1.15 billion, or approximately $960 per month per household (and the average American household has about 2.5 persons).  

Clearly, the SNAP benefits are not allowing poor persons to receive such lavish benefits that they can live with food consumption that matches typical American diets.  In fact, the SNAP benefits provide less than 40% of the resources that would allow a poor household without income to consume food at a level that matches the American average.  

SNAP benefits aren’t generous.  SNAP benefits do, however, combat hunger.  SNAP benefits reduce the number of Americans living in extreme poverty (looking at consumption levels to define poverty) by about half. 

National School Lunch Programs

Without the National School Lunch Program so many children would go hungry at school. The program was established in 1946 and signed into law by President Harry Truman. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) helps plan balanced meals in public and private schools. The NSLP helps develop healthy and educational outcomes for students coming from low-income families. Students from low-income families are eligible for the National School Lunch Program. These students receive price reduced lunches or free meals at school. Families with incomes below 130% of the poverty line and receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) is eligible for free lunches. Families with incomes between 130-185% of the poverty line are eligible for price reduced lunches. Most of these students are also eligible for snack, breakfast, and summer lunch programs. Schools cannot charge reduced price lunch families more than 40 cents per reduced lunch. Some students are still going hungry, because their family doesn’t know about the NSLP or they don’t qualify.

The NSLP provided price reduced lunches to over 30.4 million daily in 2016 at a cost of $13.6 billion. Behind SNAP in the nation the National School Lunch Program is the second largest food and nutrition assistance program. In 2015-2016 school years, over 98,000 schools participated in NSLP. The meals must meet federal nutrition standards. The program is administered on a state and federal level. On a federal level it is through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On a state level it is through the State Department of Education or Agriculture. 

The program enhances children’s learning ability by contributing to their physical and mental well-being. It has always been said that students who don’t eat proper meals have a harder time concentrating and learning in the classroom.

Documents are kept to prove the lunch program follows the state and federal guidelines. For example, applications submitted by families for free or reduced meals, by site and description of the follow-up actions to verify eligibility. They must keep record of income, expenditures, along with contributions received. Record the numbers of free, price reduced, and full price lunches in categories served each day. The other record that is kept is meal production and inventory records that show the amounts and types of food used. 

Schools get paid on a reimbursement basis. Agencies get paid by the number of meals served. Schools have to submit a monthly reimbursement claim to the Child Nutrition Information Payment System. The department has to then review and approve the reimbursement claim. The claim then goes to the State Controller’s office. After this the check will be issued. It takes about four to six weeks after submitting the reimbursement claim before receiving the check. 

Youth aging out of foster care to get tuition waivers

Most foster kids have had a rough start in life. Most of them have been abused or neglected in some way, which is why they are placed in the foster care system. This means that they usually do not have any family members who are able to take care of them or support them either, since this is the first thing looked for when removing children from homes. The kids are forced to pack their bags and leave everything they know behind in order to go live with strangers. This can be very scary for most children, especially those who already have trust issues with adults because of the abuse they experienced as kids. Also, since they have to go through this process many times, they often develop unstable relationships with adults. This is because they are constantly being placed into homes and then being pulled out and placed into new homes over and over again. This process does not allow for the formation of stable relationships, as the kids never get to have reliable people in their lives to bond with.

 Furthermore, the kids switch schools frequently since they are constantly moving. This not only hurts their ability to make friends, but can also severely interfere with their education. When foster kids age out of the system, they are often left with nothing and no one. This is why I am in favor of foster kids receiving free education up to a bachelor’s degree. This would allow them to get on their feet and be able to support themselves more effectively. In the system we have now, they can get up to three years of schooling through the foster care system. While this provides them with a pretty good start, it would be more efficient in the long run to keep them in the system one more year, so they can at least get a bachelor’s degree. This would give them more options and more financial stability than they would have with only an associate degree or certification. 

Supporting these young adults one more year until they receive their bachelor’s degree would reduce the chance of them becoming homeless since they would be more likely to qualify for higher paying jobs. Also, if they do an internship during their schooling, they would gain experience in that field which would help pave the way to gainful employment. They would also be less likely to end up in jail since their lives would have a more positive outlook and clear direction. Currently, by ages 23-24 years old, foster kids are more likely than non-foster kids to be uneducated, unemployed, homeless, pregnant, and criminal. 

The new bills, Senate Bill 2846 and House Bill 5122, would provide tuition fee waivers to those who DCFS has legal responsibility of, current foster kids, those who have recently aged out of foster care, and those who have been adopted out of foster care. This allows young adults who would otherwise be unable to afford higher education a chance to go to college and have a better chance of succeeding in life. To be able to receive the fee waivers, the young adult must have attained a high school degree or a GED, which is equivalent to a high school degree. The new age limit to receive the fee waivers would be 26 years old and would cover the student’s first five years of school. These tuition and fee waivers would cover the full tuition cost for foster kids to go to any community college, university, or college maintained by the state of Illinois. These bills are seeking to provide foster care children with the same opportunities as children who grew up in families and are more able to afford college. By adding these bills, Illinois could help foster children live more productive, healthy lives. Incorporating these bills would also cut costs in areas such as law enforcement because foster kids would less likely be criminal if they had more support and equal opportunities to education.

Cannabis Legalization for Recreational Use in Illinois

On the ballot this November, Illinois voters may see a new question: Do you support the legalizing of recreational marijuana? This is a controversial topic people love and love to hate. With economics, morals, and legality coming into play, this is a problem with strong views on both sides of the aisle.

Pros:

Revenue Boost. Taxes coming from marijuana sales will increase dramatically. We have seen this in all states that have legalized pot. Colorado, for example, earned over $247 million in revenue from marijuana licensing, fees, and sales. That money going back in to the Illinois economy would be extremely useful and beneficial, especially considering this state has the second worse debt in the country. Also, Illinois would likely be the only state in the Midwest that would have the votes to pass recreational marijuana, so travelers would come from near and far, further helping our economy.

Wider Access for Medicinal Use. Marijuana has shown to be effective at helping people cope with their pain and illnesses, from epilepsy to PTSD to depression. Those who do not have a medical marijuana dispensary nearby, or do not have the appropriate means to have a doctor sign off on their need for it, have the opportunity for easier access to the health benefits marijuana offers.

Safety Control. Legalizing recreational marijuana would allow for laws and regulations to be enforced on the type and quality of the product, ensuring consumers would know it is safe.

Criminal Justice Reform. If marijuana were legal, many say law enforcement officers would have more time to reduce more significant crimes such as those involving violence. If marijuana use was legal, prisons would have more room for serious, violent criminals.

Liberty. It is better to allow people to do what they want to do, and only regulate their behavior with rules and laws when doing so gives us significant gains in protection, justice, or prosperity; banning recreational use of cannabis does not give us benefits to justify the limitations of personal liberty we suffer.

Cons:

Drug. Marijuana is a drug, no matter how you frame it. Drugs alter a person’s mental state, and many fear we do not know all the consequences to long term marijuana use.

Health Issues. Studies have shown that marijuana has caused brain, lung, and heart issues. Studies have claimed that it restricts blood flow in the brain, raises your heart rate, and higher levels of carcinogens than cigarettes are pumped into the lungs because of larger inhales by the smoker.

Morals. Many are against drugs of any kind, whether it be alcohol or prescription pills. This is a mind-altering substance, and that just does not fly with some people.

Gateway Drug. Some fear that marijuana use will lead to the use of harder drugs such as heroin or cocaine. It could be an introduction to the larger world of drugs, and studies have shown that marijuana use could lead to a higher risk of prescription drug use.

Who Will Profit?  If Cannabis is legalized for recreational use, perhaps the very violent and wicked persons (Mexican Drug Cartels, for example) who now make so much profit from the sale of illicit marijuana will have their businesses legitimized and normalized.


Social Decline and Quality of Life. People who smoke lots of marijuana tend to be annoying.  They stink (marijuana has an unpleasant odor), and when they are stoned they often act immaturely or congregate to loiter and play obnoxious music. If recreational marijuana use is allowed, we will have more of these nuisance users in our public parks and at public events, where they will diminish everyone else's enjoyment of public spaces and events.

Now that you have seen arguments on both sides, how do you think you will vote in November?

The Ban on Transgender Soldiers

 Donald Trump recommended a new policy saying that people who are transgender and have had gender reassignment surgery be disqualified from military service. In July of 2017, court rulings halted the ban because it could have been potentially unconstitutional. The Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recommended this to President Trump. He thought that by banning transgender people from the military, this would enhance the military’s ability to protect Americans and win wars. The thought was that the exclusion of transgender persons would help military people to survive better. In July President Trump posted on Twitter that the government will not accept or allow in any capacity for transgender people to be in the military. In August, he guided the Pentagon to reverse a policy made my President Obama to allow transgender people and people with gender dysphoria to serve in the military.

President Trump also tweeted that the military cannot be burdened with the disruption and medical costs that transgender people would bring to the military. Republicans are for this policy and say it is for saving money for the military, but Democrats and LGBT advocates are against the policy. The Human Rights Campaign suspects the Trump Administration of being prejudice against transgender people. Nancy Pelosi tweeted that no one should be turned away from serving in the military, and the ban is trying to humiliate transgender people in the military. Advocates say the ban is worse than the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which banned gays from serving in the military. They could not talk about being openly gay. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said the policy has zero medical credibility and that it is anti-transgender propaganda made by Republicans. 

I’m curious about how many transgender persons serve in the military.  Does anyone have a guess?   I found a source at the BBC and at Snopes that review the research:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40950946. 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/27/how-many-transgender-people-currently-serve-in-the-u-s-military/  

There are interesting historical examples of women who disguised themselves as men to serve in the military.  That history might be an interesting note to consider in a contemplation of the issue of transgendered soldiers.  I recommend you do a search for The Drummer Maid or the Female Drummer.

You might have informed your audience about the political reasons why the Commander in Chief might want to ban transgendered persons from serving.

There are the claims for direct reasons, which were covered fairly well in your paper:

1) It is detrimental to the fighting effectiveness of the military

2) The costs of helping those soldiers transition to their new gender through surgery and hormone treatments is too expensive a burden for the military to bear

3) Allowing the transgendered persons to serve makes it difficult to recruit persons who would otherwise be good soldiers.  Allowing transgendered soldiers harms the reputation of the military.

There are also indirect reasons.  I assume these are likely to be the real reasons for the attempt to ban transgendered soldiers, but I didn't pay much attention to the issue, and perhaps no one has published an analysis of the likely reasons for this policy.

1. Trump and General Mattis are uncomfortable with transgendered persons, and want to exclude them from the military, and will do so because that is what they want to do and they have the power to do it.
2. Trump wants to increase the intensity of the political support he has from those who approve of his presidency, because in some critical areas he is failing to deliver policies that will please those supporters, so he uses a ban on transgendered persons serving in the military as a way to appease his supporters.
3. There are very few transgendered persons in the general population, and many people do not accept transgendered persons as normal or good (some people hate any challenges to their ideals about binary gender and sex). Since this is a small group with little political power, it’s easy to scapegoat them and direct attention and hostile emotions toward them, as this will help Trump get political support from people who don’t know about his other policies or their (harmful) effects, and who will ignore those policies because they are so delighted with the attack on the (politically weak) transgender interest groups.

Health insurance ought to cover mental illness

Mental health 

Mental health care should be covered on all health insurance policies just as specific medical care is. Mental health can be more devastating than many physical ailments, but many people are not able to seek help for these problems because services cost too much money and are rarely available, with many health insurance providers making it nearly impossible for many families to seek help.

 Having acute mental health problems can affect a person’s life in many ways. First it can make them have internal problems and negative cognitions that make them feel horrible about themselves. This will continue to bring them down farther and farther until they are able to seek treatment. Mental health can also have a huge impact with school work or in the job force. The person enduring a mental illness may not do as well in these environments if they are silently suffering with their mental health. Having stress and bad mental health can also lower your immune system and cause a person to get physically sick more easily. 

Without affordable treatment they may feel alone and helpless, and they may develop worse relationships with their loved ones because of what they are experiencing. These things can lead to hopelessness, suicidal ideations, drug abuse, or other escapes from the pain sought out by the person with the mental illness.  Mental health is a very serious problem that many people have experience with, either by knowing someone with these problems or they themselves have experienced mental health problems. 

I personally believe mental health is more debilitative than some of the sicknesses that are covered on insurances. For example, many insurances will either cover prompt care completely or only have the patient pay a small cover fee if they have a cold, or any other small ailments that the patient is seeking medicine for. Having a mental illness, however, is not seen as important to many individuals. I believe this is because many people do not see the person suffering as much as they do with a physical illness, and they understand the physical illness better than they might understand the torments of mental illness. 

Some people also think that the mentally ill just need to be happy, or stop worrying etc. and think it is an easy fix, which it is not. Mental illness can affect a person for the entirety of their lives if not treated, and many people do not understand this, which makes them feel more alone and causes them to experience a lower quality of life satisfaction. 

This could change if insurance could help cover mental health problems along with physical ones, because mental health is just as—or even more important than—physical health in its power to ruin life satisfaction and stability. Adding mental health coverage to all health insurance policies could dramatically lower suicide rates, and would help people who choose to use their insurance to seek help with finding healthy coping skills to better handle their life problems. After seeking help, they would more likely better provide for our community because they will be able to work more productively.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program

Low Income? In Need of Affordable Housing?

The Housing Choice Voucher Program

Families who are of low-income, disabled, or are elderly make use of this program to help with rent in the private market. The program is funded federally from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. HUD then disperses funds to local public housing agencies, or PHAs. The program was started in 1974. “President Richard Nixon supported the creation of the tenant-based Section 8 program as an alternative to the government involvement in producing affordable multifamily apartment” (p. 4-38) (1). “Housing vouchers are one of the major federal programs intended to bridge the gap between the cost of housing and the incomes of low wage earners, people on limited fixed incomes, and other poor people.” (p. 4-38) (1) 

Before vouchers were given in 1974 the government was trying to end the housing problems for low income families. Around 1949 public housing was built to provide low-income families with an affordable place to live. The program, however, did not solve the housing problem. A shift in policy allowed users of the vouchers to rent from the private market. Without this program many low-income families would face the possibility of homelessness. (2)

This program serves approximately 5.3 million people in 2.2 American households. (4) If you or your family falls with in the income guidelines this program would help you find suitable housing. You can find income and family size guidelines at Hud.gov to see if you qualify for assistance. If you do qualify, and receive a voucher, the voucher will pay a certain portion of the rent and you will be responsible for the difference. (3)

This policy greatly affects a family’s ability to receive affordable and safe housing. It enables children to live in better and safer neighborhoods. The money saved in rent helps alleviate other monthly expenses such as food and other necessities.

The program does have an exceptional waiting list. Since the funding is finite not everyone who qualifies for a voucher will receive one. There is also the possibility that private landlords will not accept the voucher.

Many Americans have opposing views of the program. Some feel that the government is spending too much taxpayer money on them. They might also feel that it is a personal, not governmental, duty to find and afford housing. Those who support the program feel that it is alleviating homelessness and providing children, disabled, and elderly with affordable housing. The program also gives people the option to live where they want as opposed to low-income housing. 

Recently this policy has come under review by President Donald Trump. Funding is not rising with the projected need. Estimates of $19.8 Billion are projected while only $17.6 Billion is being proposed on the budget. This change could affect approximately 100,000 voucher holders. (5)  The actual spending on all tenant-based housing assistance (the Housing Choice Voucher Program is the largest tenant-based housing assistance program) was $20.3 billion in 2017, and in April of 2018 the Congressional Budget Office estimated total spending in 2018 would be $20.6 billion (6).

This program can be a vital tool in finding affordable and livable housing. It is recommended to get on the waiting list as soon as possible since funding is limited. For more information about applying visit Hud.org.

References

1. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/AG-2017/2017AG_Ch04-S10_Housing-Choice-Vouchers.pdf

1. http://www.michaelcarliner.com/files/Orlebeke-HPD-2000-Evolution-of-LI-Housing-Policy.pdf

1. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet

1. https://www.cbpp.org/housing-choice-voucher-fact-sheets

1. https://www.phada.org/pdf/FY18Appropriations_FINAL.pdf

1. Row 1288 columns K and L of Sheet “1. CBO’s April 2018 Baseline” in the April 2018 Spending Projections, by Budget Account spreadsheet available at https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data 

Housing First Policy

The Housing First policy assists homeless people in finding permanent housing as a mechanism to solve the concurrent problems they may face along with homelessness while combatting homelessness as the source of the problems. It is carried out by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and benefits the homeless on an individual and family level. The policy was created in the 1990’s by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in order to: 

1) provide immediate access to housing with no need to fulfill “readiness” requirements; 

2) give people a sense of choice and self-determination; 

3) provide recovery orientation by addressing underlying issues; 

4) give people support; and 

5) start the process of social and community integration. 

The motivation to support such a program stems from the ideas that housing is a human right, not a privilege and the fact that previous models were not working.

Homelessness is a widespread problem, and there are many people who face chronic homelessness while also suffering from medical issues, mental health problems, and addiction/substance abuse. In the past, there have been programs that aimed at helping homeless people through essentially making them jump through hoops. 

The McKinney Act—which Bill Clinton later renamed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act—provided funds not only for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, but also for job training, primary health care, mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, education programs, and other supportive services. The consensus was that homelessness is a complex problem whose solution requires more than simply a roof and a bed (Cohen, 2015). 

Now, the Housing First model is thought to be a more successful policy at addressing homelessness. Housing First focuses on providing housing to those with concurrent issues as part of the solution to these issues rather than trying to make people solve the issues before they can have the chance of getting a roof over their head. 

Housing First programs can benefit chronically homeless individuals who have other needs that need to be addressed and also families who may be experiencing a temporary bout of homelessness due to a financial crisis but only need help getting housing, 

Housing First programs often provide rental assistance that varies in duration depending on the household’s needs. Consumers sign a standard lease and are able to access supports as necessary to help them do so. A variety of voluntary services may be used to promote housing stability and well-being during and following housing placement (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2016). 

According to Cohen (2015), the number of chronically homeless has decreased by 21% since the Housing First approach became popular. There are two different program models that can be implemented depending on the situation. First is Permanent Supportive Housing, which targets individuals who have experienced long-term or repeated homelessness who also suffer from health issues, addictions, disabilities, or mental health issues (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2016). This program provides long-term housing in the form of rental assistance, and also supportive services to target any other issues plaguing the individual. Rapid re-housing is the second model and its goal is to provide short-term housing assistance to get individuals/families into housing as soon as possible and then remain there. 

Housing First programs are funded by a variety of sources, 

Medicaid for medically necessary behavioral and rehabilitative services, including mental health case management for tenants eligible and enrolled in Medicaid. State and local safety net funding for short-term and crisis needs, including medical services for those individuals not enrolled in Medicaid. Foundations and other private sources to cover gaps in funding for operational costs and outreach efforts. Federal funding for rental housing subsidization (Open Minds, 2014). 

It has been shown that Housing First is cost effective when it comes to a decrease in spending on emergency services and it also has been shown to cost less than shelter programs. The issue with funding is that the budget is not large enough to expand the affordable housing that is available. So, there is an affordable housing shortage and federal support for more funding has decreased. 

Values that spark support for this program relate to the idea that housing is a human right and not a privilege that people should have to earn. Another reason people support Housing First is because there was an overall realization that getting out of homelessness and having a place to live works as an aid to dealing with some of the issues that were once thought to be something that homeless people had to conquer before they could earn housing. People who value autonomy and choice may also support this program. Values that may cause people to oppose this policy are if they have negative feelings about public aid and feel that it is not their responsibility to help people who cannot help themselves. If people hold the idea of “picking yourself up by the bootstraps” they may not support a program that they feel is giving people too much with too little requirements in return. 

References

Cohen, Rachel M. “'Housing First' Policy for Addressing Homelessness Hamstrung By Funding Issues.” The American Prospect, The American Prospect, 27 Jan. 2015, prospect.org/article/housing-first-policy-addressing-homelessness-hamstrung-funding-issues.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. “Housing First.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Alliance to End Homelessnes, 20 Apr. 2016, endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/.

Open Minds. “What Is ‘Housing First’?” OPEN MINDS, Open Minds, 2 June 2014, www.openminds.com/market-intelligence/executive-briefings/serving-chronically-homeless-housing-first-model/.

Student describes Housing Assistance

Housing Assistance

Housing Assistance programs have a purpose to help clear out houses and neighborhoods with very poor living conditions, and bring families living in such substandard housing into a better home and neighborhood by providing financial assistance for the cost of housing. The Housing Act of 1949 brought forth this government funding to promote community development and eradicate slums that came after The Great Depression.  The largest subgroup of this program today is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as Section 8.  In 1974, the Housing and Community Development Act was passed which attempted to fix the biggest housing problems vexing low-income families.  

Section 8 housing is administered locally by Public Housing Agencies throughout the nation.  This program is made pretty simple in terms of the processes used; the local agencies provide vouchers to the low-income families, and the low income families try to find landlords who will accept the vouchers.  The initial standard rent contribution from the family who will in the subsidized rental housing is set locally by the Public Housing Agency, then is lowered according to the family’s income and ability to pay.  So, all in all, the voucher program is set in place to put a limit on the amount paid for rent in low-income families.  The bill for monthly rent in Section 8 housing will never be more than 30% of the monthly income of the tenant; the rest is paid for by the voucher.  Families are allowed to choose where they want to live if granted a voucher, but they will need to find a landlord willing to accept them, and landlords are permitted to discriminate against potential renters using the housing rental assistance vouchers; many do.  The housing must meet specific standards set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to ensure that homes paid for (partly) by federal dollars at least meet health and safety requirements.

To qualify for Section 8 housing, the tenant must have an income 50% lower than the nation’s median income, which is around $56,000.  In other words, the tenants’ income cannot be greater than $28,000 to qualify for this Section 8 voucher program.  This voucher program has also been extended to families or individuals who are disabled or elderly.

There are other, smaller Housing Assistance programs to help low income families with housing costs.  Each year, nearly 50 billion dollars is spent in housing assistance programs, with nearly 20 billion being spent on Section 8 housing assistance.  

As you can see, nearly half of the budget provided for housing assistance goes into tenant based programs; which is the Section 8 housing with the voucher program.  Project based housing assistance is very similar to Section 8 housing; this program allows apartment landlords to obtain a subsidy to help lower the rental costs for low-income tenants.  

Across the nation we currently have nearly 43 million Americans living in poverty; however only 4.5 million families are taking advantage of low-income housing assistance programs provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  None of the housing benefits administered by HUD are mandatory spending; everything is part of the discretionary budget.  While generous liberals might well argue that HUD ought to provide vouchers or public housing for 2o million households Americans rather than 4.5 million households, conservatives may appreciate the fact that these programs use so little to serve only a fraction who need the help, thus allegedly putting the fear of homelessness into the souls of low-income persons so that they will be more willing to accept unpleasant or low-paying jobs out of desperation when those are the only sort of jobs available.

The benefits to this program are many; allowing low-income families a chance to get back up on their feet and keep them from drowning in bills and expenses that often have a greater total than their income.  It allows families or individuals to have more money to put food on the table, pay medical bills, go back to school, etc.  The possibilities are almost endless when a large part of the families’ bills is being paid by this voucher program.  This Housing Assistance program helps bring the people and families living in poverty into a place where they are getting help with making ends meet.  Rental assistance can be combined with other anti-poverty government programs such as SANP, WIC, SSI, etc.  These nutritional assistance and income assistance programs also play a large role in breaking down the poverty wall.  Less money to be paid in rent, while nutrition and income assistance programs allow for more money to use on groceries and other expenses.  The biggest negative factor about this program is the wait time, like other governmental programs, is sometimes very long.  There are more people who are living in poverty and applying, than there are workers to keep up with all these applications.  It is also a set amount, much like state funding for SNAP.  Once the well runs dry, there are no more funds to be dispersed to the tenants who are relying on this income.  

I think a solution to this major negative aspect is to somehow “take-away” the monetary value of the voucher program.  So instead of the voucher paying the landlord, the bill could make the landlords lower the prices for those who are at a low-income, as with the project-based voucher system.  A problem that I see with this solution is a type of discrimination; landlords are not going to want to rent properties out to low income families because they would not be making as much money as the amount of money they could earn if someone who with a higher income had been renting.  Then, we would have a greater number of homeless and hungry.  

Overall, the Section 8 Housing Assistance program is very beneficial to millions of Americans throughout the nation.  I feel that without this, we would have a steadily growing number of urban slums and terrible neighborhoods with even worse living conditions.  With this voucher program, we ensure that the renters granted the voucher are living in suitable conditions.

Student supports Foster Care Children's rights

February 8^th, 2018. [for the sake of the assignment, pretend it is March 10th, 2017]

Avery Borne 

227-N Stratton Office Building Springfield, Il. 62706

Dear Avery Borne:

Hello, I am a junior at University of Illinois Springfield and I am currently studying policies in the Social Work program. I am writing you to inform you about the 2017 IL H 3542 bill. This is a bill concerning the Foster Care Bill of Rights, on the topic of Foster Care. I know that this is not one of your issues that you work with, but I would like to tell you about it, in hopes you will support this. This bill was passed out of the Human Services Committee on March 8th (of 2017), and as it is coming to the floor of the House of Representatives soon for a vote. I hope you pass this bill.  

Children that are placed in foster care deserve proper care from a loving and resourceful home. I believe our country has a responsibility to children to improve the placement and the condition of these children’s lives.  Children who have experienced many transitions between families may be facing worse developmental outcomes than children raised in stable two-parent families. Moving from house to house or family to family is damaging to all children. 

I know that what I am going to tell you is not an anecdote about foster care, but my story illustrates a situation that acts upon the children involved in the same way. My nieces, age five and nine, have been moving back and forth between parents as part of the marital agreement set by the state. My nieces go from dad’s house one week to mom’s house the next week. They have been doing this for about two years now. I know that both houses have different rules. When going from one to the other the transition is very hard. The first couple days when they first go back they have to be constantly reminding themselves how they are required to act. Going back and forth or moving from house to house is hard on children, as it sets back their development. Focusing more on whose house they are at as to how they must act rather than how to be themselves. 

Again this is an issue regarding this amendment to be added to the Foster Children's Bill of Rights Act Section 5:

“to be placed in the least restrictive and most family-like setting available and in close proximity to his or her parent’s home consistent with his or her health, safety, best interests, and special needs.”

By reading this letter I have hopes that you will read more about this and when it comes to the House, you will vote yes on the issue and pass the 2017 IL H 3542 Bill, as well. 

Thank you for taking your time to read this letter. If you could reply back with your position on the issue and how you may address the issue it would be much appreciated.

Sincerely, 

[SWK-355 Student]

Student advocates for legalization of marijuana

Dear State Representative Norine Hammond, 

      rephammond@macomb.com

My name is [I removed the student's name] and I have lived in your district all my life. I was raised in Beardstown, Illinois but moved to Bath, Illinois three years ago. I have never written to you before, but I have come to know your politics through, [name redacted], a close family friend.  On March 1, 2018 the Illinois Senate passed the State Bill 2275, also called the Marijuana Legalization Referendum Act, with a vote of 37-13. The measure now heads to the House of Representatives for consideration. The Marijuana Legalization Referendum Act is a simple question on the next voting ballot, asking voters if they support legalizing recreational marijuana for people 21 and over. I would like to discuss some of the pros of legalizing recreational marijuana with you.

The first argument for legalizing recreational marijuana is the possible revenue boost. State and local governments are currently struggling with rising costs and decreased revenue; many are looking for creative ways to help increase income to pay for everything from new parks, road repairs, to funding schools. It is believed that marijuana legalization could be the windfall in the form of new taxes that could be applied to its distribution and sale. For example, in Colorado, analysts suggest that taxing the drug could raise between $5 million and $22 million annually. The job industry is also growing as marijuana is becoming more of an above ground type of industry with respected companies stating to investigate possibilities for growth. This legalization can generate quite a bit of income for marijuana consulting companies whether they are helping with growing or producing a butane free wax which has become popular recently. The possibilities are endless for economic growth.

I also want to discuss the possibility of a more effective criminal justice and law enforcement system. The legalization advocates claim this move will provide police officers more money and time to go after criminals committing other crimes, such as violent cases. Legalization advocates also argue that legalizing recreational marijuana could create wiggle room in the criminal justice system, that would then allow judges and prosecutors to focus more on the violent crimes, thus freeing space in our overly crowed prison systems. There was a study that estimated that nationwide legalization would save the government $8.7 billion annually. 

Spending less money supporting organized crime is also a good argument in favor of legalization. Legalizing recreational marijuana cuts off an important revenue steam for a large amount of illegal drug trade. Legalization advocates claim that by making the substance less profitable for the criminals, it will provide a decrease in the violence associated with the trade. The result could save lives while taking pressure off law enforcers. 

The last point I am going to discuss is the safety controls legalizing recreational marijuana could provide. When a person is buying marijuana off the streets, there is no way for them to know what or if dangerous substances are cut into the drug. Although current legalization efforts do not address safety issues, they do create a framework for safety control systems, which would work to eliminate some of the risks from smoking a substance potentially laced with toxic ingredients and would reduce the risks coming from smoking illegal marijuana. 

In conclusion, I am asking for your support of State Bill 2275. I feel this would be a positive change for the State of Illinois. Thank you for your consideration and for all you do for the betterment of Illinois.

Respectfully Submitted,

[Student in SWK-355 Social Welfare Policy and Services Course]

Student accepts state funding for abortions in some cases, but doesn't want state funding for all abortions

Dear Senator Righter,

As you know, I am a constituent in your district from Teutopolis. We have talked before – you helped in my past internship at Illinois Policy, and I’m sure your previous aide, Judy, has told you about my recent internship in Washington D.C. I am a Social Work major at the University of Illinois Springfield, and I wanted to bring your attention to a bill that I believe you should vote no to.

HB 40, Access to Abortion, is a bill that provides taxpayer funded abortions to all women in Illinois, including those on Medicare and state employee’s insurance plans. Currently, the state only provides funding for abortions in cases such as rape, incest, and to protect the mother’s life. The bill also ensures that abortion will be legal in Illinois even if the federal government repeals Roe v. Wade.

I believe that this bill should not be passed for multiple reasons. Though I am conservative, I am pro-choice. I believe that women should be able to choose what is best for their lives and their bodies. However, I disagree with this bill. First, this bill would cost Illinoisians millions of dollars, millions of dollars we do not have and cannot afford. In 2015, there were nearly 40,000 abortions in Illinois, and if abortions were free, it is proven that even more women would get them. Currently, abortions cost about $1,650. That would amount to millions of dollars of further debt that the state cannot afford.

I agree that in rape, incest, and mother safety cases, abortion can be payed for by state tax dollars because that was not the woman’s decision, but in other situations, that should not be the case. It is not hard to not get pregnant. Plan B is around $30-$40, male and female condoms are a few dollars. Abstinence is free. Because of the Affordable Care Act, many women’s birth control is free or inexpensive. We should not provide free abortions to everyone because they find it too difficult to buy protection, “condoms don’t feel good”, are careless with their birth control, or do not have the education to understand how to not become pregnant.

When a woman chooses to have sex and not protect herself from pregnancy, the only person at fault is her and the man. It should not be the job of her fellow citizens to bail her out of the problem she put herself in. Senator Righter, please vote NO to HB 40.

My comment on this excellent example of a policy advocacy letter is that it is refreshing to read an opinion on this issue that is nuanced and takes a stand based on ideals of fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.  So often any policy advocacy related to abortion is entirely one-sided with an extreme stand totally against nearly all abortions and state funding for abortions or else totally in favor of policies to make abortion accessible to all, including those who can’t afford it.  Another thing that I find interesting is that you hardly even touch the moral issues related to “rights of unborn children” or “rights of the mothers to control their bodies.”  You dispose of that right at the start with a statement about your general opinion that abortions ought to be a women’s matter of choice, but when it comes to the public funding them, the public purse ought to facilitate abortions only in the three rare extremes (life of the mother, rape, and incest).  The letter is also a good example because of its elegance and directness.

A few points just for us to think about, that are really not about the letter itself:

1) If someone wants to make abortions free for all those who want them, they can create a charity and fund abortions for poor women.  Let the advocates for accessible abortion provide them through private means.

2) What about the case of unborn children who are severely malformed or unhealthy, so that a doctor predicts they may perish within hours of birth; could that situation be added to the standard categories of rape, incest, and health-of-the-mother?

3) What about cases where the unborn children have a reasonably good chance of survival, at least for a matter of years rather than hours, but are likely to be in need of intensive medical intervention throughout their lives, and are also likely to be so profoundly disabled that they present a tremendous potential burden on the society and the family?  In those cases, can financial considerations be taken into consideration, and should the state fund abortions to save money in the long run? 

4) And, what about the moral issues?  If the state is going to fund some abortions in special cases, can anything be done to address the objections of those who feel so strongly that abortion is akin to murder?  It is normally accepted in a democracy that when you fulfill your duties as a citizen and pay your taxes, you understand that some of that money you’ve contributed will go to fund things you strongly object to (I object to a wide range of things done in my name by my government with my tax dollars, especially the killing of many innocent people with our careless, callous, and cruel arial bombardments from drones and so forth). But, is abortion a special case, where the opponents are so deeply morally offended by the act that the government should fund those special case abortions only with a special source of funding that some persons could refuse to pay?  Perhaps it could be handled in a way similar to federal funding for elections, where taxpayers check a box to agree to contribute some of their tax contribution to support public funding of elections.  

The four points I raise were correctly ignored in the letter; I just offer them to provoke some thought and debate.