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.

Student wants to preserve Medicaid and the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion

The Honorable Senator Richard Durbin
525 S. 8th Street
Springfield, IL 62703
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email

Dear U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, February 25, 2018

I have never written to or voiced my opinion to any politicians before this letter. I have been learning many things about politics and policy lately as I feel it is my duty to become informed. I suppose that I sway more to the liberal side, but I feel it is important to have an open mind about everything. I have lived in Christian County for about eight years, but have lived in Illinois my entire life. I have two children who I want to grow up financially secure and not ever need the governments assistance. I have used programs such as Medicaid when I had my first daughter. It helped us through a tough time financially, and we fought hard to get to a place where we no longer needed it. So, I am not writing this because I depend on government assistance and want to keep my benefits. Nor am I writing this to convince you to take benefits away from those who need them. I am writing this as a worried middle-class family.

I feel that healthcare is extremely important, but I fear that President Trump’s changes are going to hurt more people than it will help. President Trump does not like the ideals of the Affordable Care Act; he has made that extremely obvious. Healthcare is a major expense for the federal and state budgets. The cuts that Presidents Trump wants to make to Medicaid will, I believe, hurt more than it will help. 

The plans that President Trump has started to enact this year are to eventually save the American taxpayers money. Everyone wants to save money. No one is objecting to that. With every budget cut something will suffer. Not only will it hurt some of the people currently using Medicaid, but it will also hurt the middle class.

Trump wants to make major changes to Medicaid that will undo some aspects of The Affordable Care Act. By giving states a block grant, no more and no less, he is jeopardizing the ability for coverage for many people not only in Illinois but also in all states. If the states can not keep up with healthcare costs then they must either reduce coverage, make the poor pay some of their health insurance, or decrease the amount of people eligible. 

How will this affect people that were covered under The Affordable Care Act under Obama’s push to increase eligibility? Some of the people who fit into that increased eligibility are at risk of losing coverage if President Trump decides to repeal the increased eligibility. The Mental Health Summit website posted an article in December of 2016 about what would happen if President Trump did repeal the Medicaid Expansion. This article goes on to explain that 650,000 people in Illinois are covered under this expansion. The Federal government was footing almost all the bill for these newly eligible persons. So, it was not a price that the State’s had to pay.

These changes will also affect the middle class in several ways. An article in Time.com outlined this and I believe it was very insightful.

First, the article says, 42% of Medicaid spending goes to the disabled. This group includes the mentally ill, people with physical disabilities, and people with developmental delays. Any cuts will greatly affect them and their families. Families will have to dig into their own pockets to pay for care.

Mental Health America of Illinois reports that under The Affordable Care Act, mental health care was covered as an essential health benefit. The repeal of this will mean that mental health care is no longer mandated to be covered. This Republican repeal will also undo the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered without huge additional costs. 

Second, the elderly makes up about 21% of Medicaid spending. Baby boomers are making up a huge part of our population in the US. Any decrease in Medicaid funding will affect their level of care. The elderly will have to depend on help from family to maintain their healthcare needs.  For example, Medicaid covers the long-term care of the elderly, who often get long-term care when their functioning is severely diminished by health problems such as dementia.  Yes, it is expensive to care for such people, but surely one of our priorities ought to be that we care for persons with significant disabilities, so I want Medicaid’s assistance to elderly persons in long-term care and their families to be maintained; not diminished at all.

Third, children make up about half of all people covered under Medicaid. These are the people that President Trump says are the focus of the changes. Medicaid also covers about 75% of births to poor mothers.

Without the coverage of The Affordable Act, I fear, that insurance prices will rise for the middle class. Medicaid helps to cover the costly healthcare for children, the elderly, and disabled. If these are moved to private insurance rates will go up to help the insurance companies cover those costly healthcare issues.

President Trump also signed the Tax Cuts and Job Act, which removes the penalty for not having health insurance. This is also a major concern for the middle class with private insurance. Now, young and healthy adults will forgo the expensive insurance premiums and not have to pay a penalty. For them, if they are healthy, it is perhaps not a bad thing. For middle class families it could greatly affect insurance premiums. Insurance companies will be losing out on income from these healthy individuals and could raise premiums for everyone else. 

Charging people for not having insurance was never the greatest idea. It is a form of punishment. If you can’t afford to have insurance how could you afford the penalty at the end of the year? But, there were subsidies for families earning up to 400% the poverty level, and the tax penalty was never particularly onerous.  Perhaps a small tax break or some incentive to maintain your insurance throughout the year would work better than the penalty fee tax. Our family pays just under $10,000 a year in insurance. And that is the cheapest option. Our deductible (which was $5,000) went up to $5,500. Premiums have not risen yet, but I fear they will. 

I am urging you to not repeal the Medicaid Expansion Program. It is providing much needed services to those who would otherwise not be eligible for Medicaid. I do, however, agree with the proposed work requirements to those who are able bodied. Perhaps this will cut some of the costs to both state and federal budgets.

If Trump truly is worried about pulling people out of debt and not having them depend on government assistance, I fear, this will pull more middle-class people into debt and in need of government assistance.

My suggestion would be to keep the people enrolled in Medicaid that fit into the Expansion Program. To make it fair, split the cost between federal and state government. I realize payment for this would increase taxes, but it is a small price to pay in the long run.

People who would lose coverage could end up costing the taxpayers more money. Uninsured people who can’t pay their emergency room bills or pay any out-of-pocket healthcare bills will eventually be paid for by tax payers and people with private insurance. 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns,

[Student in the SWK-355 Social Welfare Policies and Services course]

Here is a list of where I got my information:

Time.com

http://time.com/money/4649499/donald-trump-wants-to-cut-medicaid-heres-what-the-program-actually-does/

Affect of Medicaid Changes

https://www.thebalance.com/how-could-trump-change-health-care-in-america-4111422

Mental Health America

https://mentalhealthsummit.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/repeal-of-the-affordable-care-act-will-be-devastating-for-persons-with-mental-illnesses-in-illinois/

Student urges State Rep to support funding for Safe Schools (alternative schools)

To the Honorable Representative Avery Bourne,

207 North State Street

P.O. Box 38

Litchfield, IL  62056

Dear Representative Bourne,

I’m writing to you as your constituent and also because you serve on the House Appropriations Committee for Elementary & Secondary Education.  I’m mainly writing to ask you to be aware of issues that are arising after the 99th General Assembly passed (in August of 2015) the “Senate Bill 100”) changing student discipline policies and eliminating zero tolerance in our schools. This bill restricted the use of out-of-school suspensions and imposed rules about how school districts could use such expulsions or suspensions.  Now that schools must do more to establish discipline without the use of suspensions, we may need to spend more money on interventions that keep schools safe and maintain good order in schools without the use of zero tolerance.  Please be aware of this and look for opportunities to fund any school spending that can efficiently provide good discipline and safety in our public schools. Please look out for opportunities to fund interventions that are likely to work and are cost-effective. 

I have lived in this district all my life. I am beginning to have more interest in things going on in my community and the state of Illinois. I have never written to you before, but I have seen you in parades, and heard about you from my family and on television. I am not loyal to the Republican or Democratic parties. I vote for the candidate themselves rather than their party. Your support for policies and funding for public schools that would make our schools safe and orderly places for students to learn would impress and please me. 

Today I am writing you to let you know about a policy that I am for, but I think there should be some changes made. I’m referring to the new Illinois law (Senate Bill 100, from the 99th General Assembly) to prompt changes in discipline policies. This policy pushes to make suspension and expulsions a disciplinary last resort.

I agree with part of this policy. I agree with making suspension and explosion a last resort. I disagree with zero tolerance policies in which school administrators too easily rely on suspending or expelling students because most children do not like to go to school. It is almost like rewarding children for bad behavior by sending them home. When they are at home they can play video games or watch television as a pleasure. Some parents do not discipline their child for being suspended or expelled. I think in-school suspension or sending the child to a safe school would be more beneficial.

I especially want you to consider the benefits of safe schools. The school in my town sends disruptive students to a safe school called ChrisMont. Other schools in Montgomery County send their at-risk students there as well. Chrismont provides at-risk students with ways to cope with their problems along with providing them an education. I think Chrismont is a great alternative for disciplining students. Some students go there for a couple months, a year, or for the rest of their education. It all depends on how the child reacts to the program.  You or your staffers can become informed about safe schools by looking at information provided by the Illinois Coalition for Educating At-Risk Youth (ICEAR). 

We need to find alternative ways to help discipline child in school. Children learn from people around them. If we can discipline the students better maybe we won’t have as many school shootings. It doesn’t hurt to try something new. We don’t know if it works until it is tried. I know the students who go to Chrismont and come back to the public school have a lot more respect for the teachers and other students. We have to do everything possible to keep our children safe.  There is some good evidence and testimony about the quality of the Safe Schools (alternative schools) in Illinois, that I hope you know about.

Of course, there is going to be a worry about funding safe schools. Chrismont offers non-profit educational services under the Special Education Services along with transportation.  Since you are on the appropriations committee for schools, I hope you will keep an eye out for the funding that goes to safe schools. They seem to be doing a good job, and they provide a necessary service for students who aren’t thriving in the mainstream public schools of Illinois. 

Thank you for your time,

[Student in the SWK-355 Policy Course]

Student offers an overview of Medicare

In this paper, aspects of Medicare part A and B will be discussed. Information on the legislation that established the program, when the program began, the purpose of the program, eligibility and benefits, program funding, and program issues will be the core of this paper. To understand this program, let us consider the legislation that established the program, historical context, and the year the program began will be discussed.

 In 1965, President Johnson signed Medicare into law after many previous presidents had proposed national health insurance into the political agenda. In fact, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and even Kennedy all had hoped to see some sort of national health care law passed, but all had only minor victories in this area. Opposition was just too strong. European nations passed major health care system laws in the 1910s through the 1940s, and America was somewhat left behind. This was a major priority of the Johnson administration because of the increase in health costs and the decrease in income that both come with old age. Before Medicare was established, the majority of people age 65 and older did not have health insurance because of the high costs associated with such insurance.  Also, in the 19th and early 20th century, medicine was not so advanced, nor was it so expensive, so rather than pay small fortunes to preserve their health and wellness into old age, Americans tended to either get inexpensive medical help or die. This was changing in the 1960s, and it was clear that older Americans would not be able to afford care unless they had the help of insurance, but the sort of insurance that could be profitably provided to senior citizens would be too expensive for most older Americans. 

Medicare was Johnston’s solution to this problem. Medicare was an established through an amendment to the Social Security Act of 1935 and originally covered Americans age 65 or older, but was later extended to include people under the age of 65 with certain disabilities. Medicare part A and Part B were the two original parts of Medicare.

In general, the purpose of Medicare is to provide federally funded health insurance to people age 65 years and older and to others with qualifying disabilities. Medicare has many parts that cover various areas, but parts A and B are the most significant portions of this health care system. According to Medicare Interactive, “Part A (Hospital Insurance) covers most medically necessary hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, and hospice care” and “Part B (Medical Insurance) covers most medically necessary doctors’ services, preventive care, durable medical equipment, hospital outpatient services, laboratory tests, x-rays, mental health care, and some home health and ambulance services” (2017). There are certain eligibility requirements for each section. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 

Most people ages 65 and over are entitled to Medicare Part A if they or their spouse are eligible for Social Security payments and have paid payroll taxes for 10 or more years. People under age 65 who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments generally become eligible for Medicare after a two-year waiting period, while those diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) become eligible for Medicare with no waiting period (2016). 

As mentioned above, Medicare Part A benefits cover Hospital Insurance and Medicare part B benefits cover Medical Insurance. Another benefit of Medicare is that income, medical history, and current health status are not taken into account in determining eligibility for Medicare.

Medicare is the second largest government program and contributes about $692 billion dollars to the federal expenditure yearly. The Congressional Budget Office’s projections are for Medicare costs to be at about $707 billion (gross expenditure, not net expenditures) in 2018, and go up to over a trillion dollars in 2023, reaching $1.5 trillion in 2028 (see table 2-2 of the CBO’s 10-year budget projections). Medicare accounts for 15% of federal spending. Medicare is funded by many different sources depending on the type of coverage being used. The sources include general revenue, payroll taxes, beneficiary premiums, states, payments, taxation of social security benefits, and interest (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2016). Regarding funding for Medicare part A, the Kaiser Family Foundation states, 

Part A is funded mainly by a 2.9 percent payroll tax on earnings paid by employers and employees (1.45% each) deposited into the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. Higher-income taxpayers (income greater than $200,000/individual and $250,000/married couple) pay a higher Medicare payroll tax on earnings (2.35%)” (2016). Funding for Medicare part B comes from, “general revenues and beneficiary premiums ($121.80 per month for beneficiaries paying the standard premium in 2016, and $104.90 for beneficiaries protected by the hold-harmless provision). Medicaid pays Part B premiums on behalf of beneficiaries who qualify for Medicaid based on having low incomes and assets. Beneficiaries with incomes greater than $85,000 for individuals or $170,000 for married couples pay a higher, income-related monthly Part B premium, ranging from $170.50 to $389.80 per month in 2016
(Kaiser Family Foundation, 2016). 

Like most programs, Medicare does not come without its issues.  For example, Medicare does have benefit gaps for services such as dental, eyeglass, and hearing aid coverage which are common needs of people age 65 and older. Also, people covered by traditional Medicare (Parts A and B), are subject to high deductibles, cost-sharing requirements, and no limits on the beneficiaries out-of-pocket spending (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2016). In other words, it is necessary for many beneficiaries to have supplemental coverage to help cover the possible costs that may come from coverage gaps or out-of-pocket costs.  

In conclusion, Medicare is a federally funded health insurance program that started in 1965 and has the general eligibility requirements of being age 65 or older or having a qualifying disability. The type of coverage a beneficiary receives depends of which part they are enrolled in, Medicare part A being Hospital Insurance and Medicare part B being Medical Insurance. Funding also depends on which benefits are being received. Existing issues such as coverage gaps and out of pocket costs can be offset by enrolling in a supplemental insurance plan. 

References

Medicare Interactive. (2017). What does Medicare cover (Parts A, B, C, and D)? Retrieved September 25, 2017, from https://www.medicareinteractive.org/get-answers/introduction-to-medicare/explaining-medicare/what-does-medicare-cover-parts-a-b-c-and-d

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016, April 01). An Overview of Medicare. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/an-overview-of-medicare/?gclid=CjwKCAjw0qLOBRBUEiwAMG5xMFw-Y8jF229OQjFt8R1j6vPqWc7PbTvWvgrnIEWK3wVE1HTOR4RHXxoCFrwQAvD_BwE

Student reacts to decline in unemployment among persons with disabilities

Recently, I listened to “Disability in Decline” by NPR’s The Indicator. This podcast talked about how there a rise in the number of people who have left the work force because of a disability. In 1994, the number of 25-54 year olds unemployed because of disability was less than 5 million. In 2014, that number was 7.3 million. Since then, that number went down by 600,000 people. That is nearly a 7 percent decline in those unemployed because of disability. Economists are saying half of that 7 percent is due to people changing the reason they are unemployed, now saying they are home taking care of their families. The other half is due to job finding.

This has led to questions because the number of unemployed has normally grown, not only during recessions, but also in times of recovery. We are in recovery now, so why are there so many less disabled people unemployed? One of the reasons may be our stronger labor market, and employers are more willing to hire disabled workers. Businesses may likely be more comfortable hiring disabled workers because they do not have to raise wages. This is both good and bad. It’s good because people who are disabled or formerly disabled can get jobs more easily than they used to. It’s bad because they are likely not being payed as much as other employees. In the end, it is always good seeing the number of unemployed go down. It means there are more opportunities in our economy, which is how we grow and prosper.

On a side note, my cousin who is highly disabled—she is 25 and acts like a 7-year-old—has two jobs. She bags at a local grocery store, and she works at this new bakery called “No Label at the Table”. The owner created it with her autistic son in mind, and only hires young adults with disabilities to help bake and run her bakery. Isn’t it great that we are becoming a place where people like my cousin are more accepted and given opportunities that they never had in the past? 

That is great news.  A gain of 300,000 positions (or opportunities to fill existing positions) for persons who were at least to some degree disabled shows that the economy is performing reasonably well. Everyone really does want to see the unemployment numbers go down, and the current 4.1% official rate (in the spring of 2018) is a reasonable level, although 3% would be better.  As social workers we are especially interested in rising wages for low-income workers and opportunities for meaningful employment roles that persons with disabilities can enter. In times of low unemployment it is usual to see declines in poverty and increases in wages, along with gains made by persons against whom many employers are more likely to discriminate in times of high unemployment.  The employment indicator is one of the most important indicators we can examine, and I am glad you found this good podcast episode to bring our attention to this good news.

Student wants Social Security to refer denied disability applicants to job services

The Honorable U.S. Representative Rodney Davis

Springfield District Office

2833 S Grand Ave. East 

Springfield, IL 62703

Dear Mr. Davis, 

I am writing to you to advocate for the bill Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act (H.R. 3310).  It amends titles II of OASDI and XVI of SSI of the Social Security Act to allow the Social Security Administration to provide information on appropriate public or private places that provide employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services to individuals who are denied OASDI or SSI benefits based on an adverse determination of disability. 

This bill needs to be passed to help those who are living in (or at risk of falling into) poverty after they suffer an injury or illness that causes disability. Perhaps their disability is not so severe that they qualify for disability benefits, or perhaps there are technical reasons why they do not qualify for SSI or Disability Insurance (perhaps they have too many assets to qualify for SSI).  If people who are denied disability benefits can find a job suitable for their abilities, they will be able to support themselves. But, if they are denied Disability Insurance or SSI and they cannot find a job that will match their abilities, what can they do? 

Those who are denied Disability Insurance benefits or SSI will either need help finding a job or else they will need other forms of benefits to prevent their becoming homeless or malnourished. Surely it will be better to help such persons find work, if work can be found. If the Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act is passed, the Social Security Administration would direct the many (over 60% of persons who apply for disability benefits) who are are denied  the benefits they seek to services that could help them find appropriate jobs matching their situations. These referrals should lead to many persons finding appropriate employment. For these successful job seekers, they will not need to utilize the as many welfare programs because they will have full time work. They will be able to get insurance through their work instead of being on Medicaid. They will be able to have an income, so they will not need to rely on SNAP for all of their food. By passing this bill, the country will be saving money on welfare programs. There will not be as many homeless people on the streets or in shelters. People will be able to take care of themselves by having resources gained through jobs that they are able to do. They will be able to become more self-sufficient and independent. 

This bill will help people pay taxes because more people will get jobs and that happening will increase the taxes that come out of their checks, which makes the United States have more money. Our country needs money and this will lead to more people in the workforce.  Certainly, most people prefer to be self-reliant and employed if they can be. I hope you agree, and will support bills like H.R. 3310, and generally advocate for more services that help persons with disabilities find employment or opportunities, especially when they have sought services through Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income and had their claims denied. 

Between 2001 through 2010 the Americans seeking disability benefits and actually getting them from Social Security were only about 45 percent of people who applied. People that were denied disability benefits were 53 percent.  But, since that time, the rate of denials has increased, and fewer people who apply for benefits because of disabilities are getting anything.

If you look at this chart from the Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2016, you will see that more and more applications for Social Security Disability Insurance are being denied.

Let me quote from page 149 of the 2016 report on Disability Insurance:

Final outcome of disabled-worker applications, 2006–2015The final award rate for disabled-worker applicants has varied over time, averaging 34 percent for claims filed from 2006 through 2015. The percentage of applicants awarded benefits at the initial claims level averaged 23 percent over the same period and ranged from a high of 25 percent to a low of 20 percent. The percentage of applicants awarded at the reconsideration and hearing levels are averaging 2 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Denied disability claims have averaged 62 percent.

Please note that.  The Social Security Administration is denying 62 percent of claims for Disability Insurance. Does it seem to you plausible that 62% of those who apply for DI are actually not worthy of such benefits?  Surely Americans tend to be a hard-working and industrious people, and we have good work ethics, and I cannot believe that 62% of those who reach the desperation of applying for Disability Insurance do not deserve such benefits. Nevertheless, whether they deserve or do not deserve disability benefits, they clearly need help finding work, and H.R. 3310 would do just that.

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, people that are denied disability are likely to become homeless. This is because after denial, they cannot find work, and if the Social Security Administration would help these people find work, vocational rehabilitation services, and support services, many people would not be homeless. Social Security denies so many people for disability because they think there are certain jobs that they can still do, but the person whose application has been denied may think there are no jobs they are capable of doing. Therefore, it is very helpful to give them resources to help them find those jobs that they will be able to do. For example, a person that got denied may be able to do a job that is not as high functioning as what they have tried in the past, and they can get help with this from the Social Security Administration. If you will support H.R. 3310 and help it get a hearing in committee and then eventually get to the House floor, I hope I can proudly tell my friends and neighbors about your support of this excellent legislation and your demonstrated commitment to helping people become self-sufficient.

  Your Obedient Servant and Constituent,

     [ Student in SWK-355 Policy and Services course ]

Student advocates action from the White House on mass shootings

   The President

        The White House

            1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

                  Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President Donald Trump,

I am very concerned about all the mass shootings we have been having recently, many of which are happening in schools where many innocent children are being killed. I know that you are also, like all feeling human beings, upset by these atrocities, and you and I are united in our desire to find a solution that will end these mass shootings.


I believe stricter gun laws would help lessen America’s gun violence. I think you can work with Congress to get reasonable gun control laws passed to reduce the mass shootings. In addition to gun control, there are other things that can be done with less political difficulty, and I hope you will advocate for Congress to send you laws that will do these other things, or find a way to use your powers as head of the Executive Branch to encourage other preventive measures.


 Studies have shown that the gun homicide rate is much higher in the United States than in other developed countries. For example, the rate is “six times the gun homicide rate of Canada, more than seven times that of Sweden, and nearly sixteen times that of Germany” (Lopez, 2018). This correlates with the fact that the United States also has the largest amount of privately owned guns. CNN states “The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters. After controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths” (Lopez, 2018). 

This shows that gun deaths in America are highly over represented. Since America only accounts for 5% of the world's population, it should only represent 5% of the world's gun violence. Since this is not the case; however, we know that something is very wrong here. I know that the Second Amendment gives us the right to possess firearms. I know that we cannot change this right, but I believe that something needs to change in order to significantly lessen the number of mass shootings and resulting tragic deaths we have been suffering from in our country. In the first 52 days of 2018, America has already experienced 34 mass shootings (Jeffery, 2018). 

Please Mr. President Trump, instead of blaming these on the mental health of the shooters, we should focus instead on the item that is making these mass murders so easy to accomplish. I believe we should focus on having stricter gun laws in America. This will not only save lives, but will also ensure that fewer people develop trauma-related mental illnesses resulting from these shootings. A 2016 meta-analysis of “130 studies in 10 countries found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to firearms can save lives” (Lopez, 2018). America’s rate of death by firearm is increasing at an accelerated pace. If the United States changes the gun laws to be more like Australia’s, we can expect to see this number go down dramatically. In Australia, the “firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent” (Lopez, 2018). To accomplish this feat, Australia banned many guns and bought the privately owned, now banned, guns back from their owners. Another idea would be to require gun purchasers to receive a license or permit before they can acquire any kind of gun. After Connecticut incorporated this law, there was a 40% drop in gun related homicides and a 15% drop in suicides as well (Lopez, 2018). The evidence from Australia, Connecticut, and the scientific literature is conclusive; some forms of gun control and restrict gun access can reduce some types of gun-related violence.  Yes, gun control alone will not solve the problem, and we will still have persons who are murderous and dangerous, but no solution is perfect, and saying that an improvement like sensible gun control must be rejected because it only partly—rather than completely—solves a problem would be an act of political cowardice.  And you are no coward!

I believe stricter gun laws would help lessen America’s gun violence. Yet, gun gun control is not the only policy to pursue. I also believe that we need stronger preventative protection to help stop mass shootings from being carried out. More metal detectors in places like schools, clubs, concert venues, and anywhere that would have a large crowd, would ensure that weapons do not make it into the area. Maybe the Federal Government could use grants or policy incentives to help local police or states to supply these metal detectors. There should also be trained police on site that are ready to handle these situations, so any Department of Justice policies that improve police training and professional behavior would be welcome. Another idea, especially in schools, would be door stops that would prevent the shooter from getting into the classrooms all together. Can the Federal Government supply the modest grants that would help schools install these door stops?  Lastly, there needs to be a way, at least in schools, that can help target potential culprits and ensure that they get the help they need. In most cases, a troubled student will often have a turbulent history before committing a crime like this. Schools already provide free counseling to students having any kind of issues; we just need to ensure that those who need help actually get it before it’s too late. Maybe in next year’s federal budget we could direct more resources to these sorts of mental health interventions in schools to help out troubled youngsters before they become dangerous homicidal maniacs. 

Sincerely,

[Student in SWK-355 Policy and Services course]

References

Beauchamp, Z. (2017, November 6). A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

Jeffrey, C. (2018, February 21). Mass shootings in the U.S.: When, where they have occurred in 2018. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-us-when-where-they-have-occurred-in-2018

Lopez, G. (2018, February 21). I've covered gun violence for years. The solutions aren't a big mystery. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.vox.com/policy-and politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts

Santaella-Tenorio, Julian; Magdalena Cerdá; Andrés Villaveces; & Sandro Galea. (2016).  What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?, Epidemiologic Reviews, Volume 38, Issue 1, 1 January 2016, Pages 140–157, https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv012.  Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

Here are some points I have in response to this letter:

1) Think of your audience.  Do you really want to cite something from CNN with this guy? Better to not give the source than to admit that the source is coming from a persons or institution this President hates.

2) You have assembled a good range of facts.  In an academic paper, more could have been presented, but the advocacy letter must be brief, so you had to be selective, and I think your instincts led you to pick some of the strongest facts from that German Lopez article.  The four articles you reference are all good.

3) The emphasis is on mass shootings, and of course mass shootings do grab everyone's attention, including the president's attention, so this is understandable.  The general problem of the violence in our American culture is a bigger issue, and as I think we demonstrated in class, the deaths caused by the daily violence of gun homicides and suicides is orders of magnitude more destructive of human life than the mass shootings.  I appreciate that your evidence showed how your policy suggestions might address the wider and larger problem.  There may be some good sense in approaching President Trump, because of his personal style and worldview, with policies set in a context of ending mass shootings, when the ultimate objective may be reduce the tens of thousands of deaths by gun homicide and suicide.

4) On this particular issue of gun control, there are powerful political realities that the letter might have recognized and addressed.  This president likes to appear as a tough guy, and also as someone who is independent of others, so maybe a mention of the vociferous National Rifle Association and its members and what the President might do regarding that group would be useful. You begin to recognize this when you admit that we have a Second Amendment, but you might have gone further in adding a paragraph about the Second Amendment, the rights of Americans to have guns, and how those facts might be reconciled with the need for the sort of gun control you are asking the President to support. Perhaps suggesting that weak politicians are afraid of the NRA, and the NRA may have noble ultimate objectives, but it is fighting for those good ultimate aims by badly opposing many worthwhile policies, and only a strong and brave Republican President would be in a position to help liberate his political party from the wayward misdirection of those NRA advocates.  

Transgender Military Service, a Letter to President Trump

Letter to the Commander in Chief, President Donald Trump,

Dear Mr. President:

By March 23, 2018, you have a plan to no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in the military forces. I believe this idea is severely flawed and will negatively affect not only your presidency, but also the lives of many Americans. 

Transgender people have just as much right to defend the United States as all other Americans. A study commissioned by the Department of Defense from the Rand Corporation (Source 1) found that, “there are no readiness implications that prevent transgender people from serving openly and that numerous foreign militaries have successfully permitted upon service” (Source 2). One of your major arguments is about the cost of medical care for the transgender troop members. This study also proved that the medical cost would be very small. Transgender troop members can be held to the same standards as their respective counterparts. They can keep up and be successful in the military. For a very long time, people were not even allowed to be openly gay in the military. That has become such an outdated idea. 

I believe I was the most alarmed by the comments in support of your tweet about not allowing transgender people into the service. Many people had very vividly cruel language to describe the people in the LGBTQ+ community. Dear Mr. President, you are the President for all Americans. We all need your help to encourage feelings that we can all love and respect each other based on our moral strength and our contributions, and we need you to discourage the hatred and hostility shown against people in the LGBTQ+ community.

 The men and women fighting for the protection of our nation should be able to be comfortable in their own skin. I do not see any threat to our country or the effectiveness of our soldiers, sailors, and aviators by having a transgender member of the military. I see more benefit than anything else. Allowing a diverse group of people to serve in any capacity will allow more perspectives. More perspectives offer a greater ability to problem solve and create innovative new solutions. This idea can work especially in the military sector. If women and men are both allowed to serve in the military, so should transgender people. 

President Trump, I sincerely ask that you reconsider, if for nothing else, I believe this to be a very basic right. You have many things to gain, and the country will gain, if you do not follow through with your idea to restrict Transgender persons out of the military.  I wish you the best in making an educated and well-informed decision about the troops. 

Best,

[A student in the SWK-355 class]

P.S. the rest of the study can be found at http://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-military-service

Source 1: Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly .
Source 2: Transgender Military Service

SNAP and College Students

I began by reviewing the article entitled “Rethinking College Students and SNAP” by Tom Allison, found on the list of current events for this class.  This title really drew me in because people do not understand how difficult college can be when dealing with your own adult life outside of school.  Most young adults are trying to get away from parents and learn to become their own responsible self, but college can be both a learning experience and, also a stress in lives of students everywhere.  You have no time for a steady routine like in high school.  You are trying to work when not at school, sucking up all your hours of daylight, leaving your homework time to interfere with your sleep schedule.  Depending on the major and the coursework, you may spend more time at school than others, leaving you to only be able to work a part time minimum wage job.  To help pay for groceries, many college students turn to SNAP.

This article focuses on the financial deficits in many college students’ lives and the problems they have affording enough food for themselves.  At Spelman College and Morehouse College, students held a hunger strike to change the school policy banning the sharing of any unused meal swipes with another student.  This lasted two weeks before the schools announced a plan to help students who cannot afford proper nutrition for themselves.  The article discusses that nearly 20% of college students are eligible for SNAP, but only 3% of students actually use it.  Students do not seek help for food often because of embarrassment and humiliation, and so many students go hungry because of this.  The article mentioned that these factors can lead to bad grades and even dropping out of school entirely.   The author goes over the two problems with SNAP and college students, which are the application process and the eligibility standards. In my opinion, I believe the largest barrier of college students gaining SNAP benefits is that they must work at least 20 hours a week.  College students sometimes have coursework that will take up nearly every hour of their free time outside of class; taking 20 hours of that week is a large chuck of time for completing necessary assignments.  

I find a great deal of understanding from this article, because I think I was in this position my first two years of college.  Trying to go to school five days a week, do the assigned coursework, study for quizzes and exams, and work part time, was extremely stressful and hard on me.  I was living on my own and scared to ask my parents for help.  I wanted to be able to prove to them that I was able to do this on my own without any help, which I think a lot of college students can relate to.  There were periods where I was eating ramen noodles and peanut butter sandwiches for lunch and dinner almost every day.  I would always hear the typical college stereotype that “college students are broke” and I just thought this was a normal part of the college experience.  

I am glad that UIS Volunteer Services (I think) hands out free food to students in need, but campuses everywhere need to have groups like this.  We need nationwide knowledge of the nutritional deficits that college students face and find a way to fix this gap.  Changing eligibility requirements as mentioned in the article is a major obstacle that would be crossed by waiving the hours worked each week for students and supplement their class hours instead.  

Providing SNAP benefits on more generous terms with more accessible eligibility standards would be an easy way to help pay for college education. One of the many nice things about SNAP (speaking a a food producer—I am sometimes a farmer in the summer when not on my 9-month contract as a professor with the university) is the fact that it stimulates the economy by increasing demand for good food products (I can sell more peaches and apples and berries if poor people and college students get SNAP benefits allowing them to purchase my produce).  SNAP and other food benefits are really just another way to subsidize grocery stores, farmers, and industrial food corporations.  We get all the money eventually.  Since just handing money to food producers violates some people’s sense of fairness (we tend to not be poor, and yet there are many very large subsidies for some very wealthy agribusiness corporations), why not give us the money indirectly by giving it to college students, impoverished families with children, and persons who would otherwise be embarrassing us with their gauche tendency of getting sick with malnutrition or starvation in this rich civilization we have built? 

College students are a special population to consider.  Persons who succeed in college tend, on average, to make tens of thousands of dollars more than they would if thy merely took some college, finished an associate degree only, or completed their education with a GED or high school degree.

The 2017 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us:
Median usual weekly earnings of a college graduate: $1,173
Median usual weekly etc. of a person with an associate degree: $836
Median usual etc. of a person with some college and no degree: $774
Median etc. of a person with a high school degree or GED: $712.

So, if we have a policy that costs us, say, $5,000 per college student, and 10% of those students who receive this $5,000 in SNAP benefits complete college because of the SNAP benefits, because with those benefits, they would have given up and settled for “some college” you can see that we're raising the incomes of 10% of the recipients by about $400 per week, or approximately $20,000 per year after they graduate. The government may only directly recover $5,000 of that $20,000 through income taxes and payroll deductions, but there are multiplier effects as well, as the increased earnings of a higher educated population contribute to overall economic prosperity, and if colleges and universities are doing their work right, we should also have many benefits in terms of happier people, better citizens, more creativity, and wiser voters from the increase in educated persons. 

The next question is, does the increase in tax revenue and economic flourishing from that 10% that made it through college because they received $5000 in SNAP benefits pay for 100% of the cost of providing those SNAP benefits to all the poor college students, including the 90% who would have somehow found a way to graduate without the SNAP support?

It depends upon how long people work, I guess.  Let us do a thought experiment.  Assume the SNAP benefits are given to 100 poor college students, at a cost of $1,250 per year for four years, each student is getting $5000 in benefits over four years.  So, over the course of four years while those 100 students are in college, the program costs $500,000.  We imagine that 90 of those students would have graduated anyway, even without SNAP, so the benefit for society is that those students were able to study on full stomachs and not work so many long hours, and perhaps they learned more as a result, or had less emotional stresses, but let us assume we did not increase their earnings.  Only for 10 of those 100 students did the SNAP benefits make the difference, allowing them to graduate and earn $70,000 per year on average over a 30-year post-college-degree working life rather than the $50,000 per year they would have earned on average over a 30-year post-college-drop-out working life.

Let us say that those students earning an extra $20,000 each year pay 14% of that in payroll taxes and 11% of it in federal income taxes, so that we get back 25% of the $20,000 each year, on average.  That's $5,000 per year.  Let us also say that without a college degree, each of those students would have needed about $10,000 in benefits for four years of poverty or near-poverty in their lives when they would have qualified for Medicaid or SNAP or the EITC or something like that, but by getting them a college education, we prevented that.   So, we saved $400,000 in benefits we didn't have to pay out, and we gained $1,500,000 in increased tax revenue (ignoring entirely the multiplier effect).  So, based on those assumptions, we get back $1.9 million in reduced benefits paid out and increased tax revenues.  But, we gave $5,000 to 100 students, so the program cost us $0.5 million.  So, was it worth it?

Wow, it looks like a SNAP benefit to college students that costs us $1,250 per year in SNAP benefits for the students and induces 10% of beneficiaries to graduate from college when they would otherwise drop out with “some college” as their highest attainment is going to reap big returns, approximately $3 to $4 long-term dollars for ever $1 spent on the program.   I wonder if the 10% figure is accurate as an estimate of the facilitation of college degree completion we might get by just offering about $100 per month in SNAP benefits to all poor college students. Anyway, it looks like a good policy in terms of cost effectiveness if the assumption of producing about a 10% increase in graduation rates among poor students holds true.  

Programs don't have to be cost-effective.  Even if the program lost money in the long run, we could justify it on moral grounds in terms of giving people a chance to finish college even if they are poor, so that we can have a society based on meritocracy where talented and hard working persons from poor families have a chance to complete college and compete against the many middle-class and wealthy college students for whom food at college is not an issue.