Letter to Senator Praising the School Bus Safety Act

 Dear Senator Duckworth, 

My name is [student's name] and I am a Junior in college, studying Social Work and Education at the University of Illinois Springfield. I have resided in Springfield, IL my entire life and plan to raise a family here one day. I am writing to you today with great gratitude. While conducting research on legislation to enhance safety for schoolchildren, I learned that you are advocating for safer school buses under “The School Bus Safety Act 2021,” S. 2539. A bill that has been brought up before, and you are working to hopefully get it passed in this congress. I understand that you have much convincing to do and numerous hoops to jump through to achieve this goal. However, I admire and appreciate your dedication to the safety of our youth. I think it is extremely important for these changes to be implemented. 

For example, seatbelts are necessary to ensure safety while traveling. I also think it is a given that we must improve the fire safety on school buses to potentially save many lives. As stated on your website, “According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 1,207 people have died in school transportation-related crashes between 2009 and 2018, which is an average of 121 people each year.” This number is far too high, something needs to be done to lower the death rates of children on school buses. Many of the provisions you are advocating for could do so. The NHTSA also changed its policies in 2015 to suggest that all school buses should in fact have three-point seatbelts. So why is this bill not passing into law? 

I do have some questions concerning this matter. Where will funding that you plan to provide school districts with to make these changes come from? Will it be taken from local education budgets that are already stretched far too thin? I read in one article that could cost as much as $10,300 per bus to install these seatbelts and other safety improvements. Once the bill is passed, how long do school districts have to be in compliance with the new standards? I understand the money must be pulled from somewhere, but it concerns be as a future educator that it will be taken away from other students’ needs.

With these questions and concerns aside, I support your actions towards making this bill a law. At least eight other states have already mandated seat belts on school buses, and some of those states are dominated by Republicans, so this should be a non-partisan action. What kinds of things do you need from citizens in order to make this happen? What can I do to support this cause? To me, there is no reason this bill should not be passing, and I am willing to help advocate for the change. 

Thank you for your time and dedication,  

Sincerely, 

It is a good letter, and I hope you send it. 

How strange that this bill did not already pass in the previous times it was introduced (I think it was introduced in 2017 and 2019 or 2020). If Texas can pass a state law like this, I wonder what prevents the federal government. Are there people who think this is not a matter for federal regulation, and decisions about school transportation safety belong to states, rather than the federal government? School busses do often cross state lines (for students who live near a state line and cross it for field trips or sporting events). Perhaps it just has not been a priority.

Sometimes there are economic choices that make financial sense, but are not morally good.  When Ford was looking at the gas takes on the Ford Pinto in the 1970s, their engineers calculated that a certain number of rear-end collisions would cause explosive fires.  They looked at other cheap and tiny cars, and saw that the Pinto was only slightly (very slightly) more dangerous than those other cars. They considered the costs of each life lost, and the cost of  recalling millions of cars to make the adjustments to marginally increase safety, and decided they should not recall the Pinto.  Maybe that is going on here. Perhaps the new safety regulations would cost so much, and the lives saved (how many— 50 per year? 20 per year?) are so few that someone has decided we do not need to enact this into law. 

Student upset about injustice

 For this assignment, I researched the new policy that the Biden administration passed that made  it federally legal for doctors at Planned Parenthood clinics to give referrals for abortions.

Honestly, it astonishes me at times how behind we still are in our reproductive rights for women due to the gender equality in the workforce, which gives me a false understanding of how far we have come. Not only are women continuing to fight for the right to terminate pregnancies in an ethical timeline, but women are still fighting for proper rights for birth control, education about their bodies and menstrual cycles, and even to have their tubes tied without the consent of a husband or two children already. 

In addition to these physical needs by women that are being fought for, women are continuing to fight for the respect of their bodies by the rest of the population. Rape cases, physical assault, and domestic abuse cases are all difficult for women to prove, or win, or even bring to the attention of someone in the first place because honestly nobody  wants to listen most of the time. Even other women do not want to listen sometimes, or are not comfortable hearing about something like that happening, so they just pretend like it doesn’t, and continue perpetuating the patriarchal society and culture we live in today. 

Women are not the only group being ignored, though, so I don't even know if it is a truly patriarchal culture or if it is  just a society that sucks if you are not born into the right circumstances.  Perhaps the problems of our culture are deepened by these people being in the government and making all of the legislation that affects the people who just have to deal with not being born into the right circumstances. 

Indigenous people on reservations are suffering from extreme poverty, substance use disorders, and lack of education, but we do not hear about this in the news, even when it is literal genocide we are committing against these people, and it has been throughout the history of our country. 

Black people in this country face racism throughout the institutions that are catered towards associating  lighter skin color with success and safety, when skin color has nothing to do with a person’s worth or dignity.  If Black communities are suffering, would it not make sense for the people who caused the suffering and poverty and overcrowding and lack of resources to take responsibility? I watched a Ted Talk, and in it the deliverer said that genocide of people is complete when the oppressor has caused the oppressed to believe that it is them who put themselves into the oppression and are responsible for their place in the world. I think this fits for  the world we live in with the oppressors being the rich and fortunate, and the oppressed being everyone else. Different degrees of oppression are seen throughout the world and throughout the United States, and it seems like so many people want to end it, but the people who actually have the power to do so, don’t.

This reaction essay shows some vexation at the injustices and lack of empathy in our society. This outrage provoked by violations of basic principles of ethics and morals can be a fuel to someone who wants to contribute to making the situation better. Also, when the disgust with the failings are felt this deeply, a person might be motivated to try to make substantial and radical changes, remaining discontent with incremental steps. But what provoked this essay was a reaction to a progressive legislative achievement, a removal of state coercive power from intervening into the relationships between women and their physicians. Sometimes the positive changes just highlight how primitive and dehumanizing the normal state of affairs is.

SAMHSA distributes money to fund treatment programs

 The policy I chose was Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) was has awarded $123 Million in grants for a multifront approach to combat the overdose epidemic. I find this to be a very good cause. In the past year, overdoses have risen by almost 31%, which I am sure is a direct result of Covid. During the lockdowns, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous were not operating on an in-person group therapy model that so many addicts rely on. Like many other things, they were forced to do zoom and some addicts depend on the face-to-face model. One thing they preach in the meetings is not to isolate yourself because that could become dangerous, yet they were forced to isolate and not receive the face-to-face support so many of them rely on day in and day out. 

There are six different approaches including in this grant, two of which are coming to Illinois. Obviously, I wish they could go all throughout every city in the United States but I guess in the eyes of some, not enough people have died in order for there to be more on the ground action. One of the approaches that is reaching Illinois is “Medication Assisted Treatment for Prescription Drug and Opioid Addiction (MAT-PDOA)”. These grant funds will help to expand the medicated assisted treatment (MAT) services in Chicago. The goal of this grant is to increase the number of people who get MAT services and decrease the illicit opioid use/ prescription abuse. The state of Illinois is also receiving money for First Responders and community members at the state and local government to be accurately trained to administer Narcan, and help to refer people to treatment and recovery support services. 

As stated earlier, I do wish we could see some more on the ground support for not only the ones in active addiction but funding to treatment centers and recovery programs. While I whole heartedly love seeing bills and funding come through grants like these, I would always like to see more. I think they are sometimes pushed to the side because people are uneducated on addiction, but if we could just reach even 30% more of addicts it would make a big impact. 

Here is the link for the SAMHSA website, https://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/202109130300

The page mentions that some programs will get funding for five years, and that makes me wonder if the $123 million is only the amount to be released in 2021. For example, ten tribal entities will be getting $331.2 over five years (averaging $6.6 million per year per tribal entity). Also, is the $123 million a significant increase over what was granted in 2020 or 2019?  With 93,000 drug-related deaths in the past 12 months, I hope this is a significant increase. 

The scope of the problem calls for more investment than $123 million, but the page mentions that there was also a release of $250 million to community behavioral health center back in July, and there would be $1.5 billion for the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant program and another $1.5 billion for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program.  Would $2 billion or even $3 billion be more reasonable figures for funding those block grants, given the magnitude of the problem and the cost in human lives lost?

First Reflection Essay: CASA Volunteer

 A CASA volunteer is a Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused and neglected children.  Children need a loving environment where they feel safe and protected.  A CASA volunteer is permitted by the courts to help make the children's dreams a reality.  CASA is an interest of mine, and I will start training this fall.  I am excited to become someone who can help bring a positive change to the lives of vulnerable children.

In this position, you get to know the child(ren) assigned to you.  You talk with the child and others in the child's life.  This can include the parents and other relatives, foster parents, teachers, social workers, medical professionals, and attorneys.  There can also be others in the child's life that can help to collect additional information.  This information is beneficial for social workers, judges, and others to assess the child's needs and the best permanent home for them.  

There are six prominent roles of a CASA volunteer.  The first role is to meet with the child regularly.  The second is to gather information from all interested parties.  The third is to watch for any unmet needs of the child and be the child's advocate.  The fourth is writing a court report for each hearing that concerns the child and giving it to the judge.  This report contains what the advocate believes to be in the child's best interest and has what the child would like to happen.  The fifth is to attend all court hearings that pertain to the child.  This is approximately every six months, but they may be done more often when needed.  The sixth and final role is to monitor the case until the child is placed into a safe, nurturing, and permanent home.

CASA welcomes volunteers from many different walks of life.  CASA is just looking for someone that cares about children and has common sense.  The volunteer does not have to be a professional, lawyer, or social worker because they will be carefully trained and well supported by staff who will help you through your work cases.

There are a few things that are required in becoming a CASA volunteer.  A required background check as well as a 30-hour training before they can become a volunteer.  The CASA volunteer also agrees to stay on a case until it is close, which can be, on average, a year and a half.

State-mandated restrictions for CASA volunteers include giving money or expensive gifts to the child or family of the non-minor or child.  CASA volunteers are prohibited from taking a child to their home, providing legal advice or counseling/therapy.  A volunteer cannot be related to anyone involved with or employed by any party that might present a conflict of interest.  The CASA volunteer should not engage in any activities that are prohibited by the juvenile court system.

There are many resources for advocates.  This program offers many professional staff members who specialize in different areas to work with the volunteers personally for support.  There are agency partners and other general community resources.  CASA offers ongoing training opportunities for its volunteers to help them serve the children better. 

This seems more like a descriptive paper about a service or policy than a reaction essay.  Reaction essays are opportunities for you to reflect on things, share your feelings about policies or services, or generally share your thinking about something related to social welfare.  In this well-written paper you have given a descriptive overview of the CASA program.  It’s practically a second policy paper.  That’s fine.  Nothing wrong with doing it that way.  Full credit for the assignment and all that. And with the CASA program, there isn't much controversy, is there? 

You have to go back to 2004 and the Caliber study based on COMET data to find issues.  People like Richard Wexler were vocal critics of CASA at that time. 

https://youthtoday.org/2004/07/an-evaluation-of-volunteers-courts-controversy/

A few years ago (2016) the City University of New York Law Review published an article critical of CASA authored by Amy Mulzer and Tara Urs (“However Kindly Intentioned: Structural racism and volunteers CASA Programs”).  But, really, it’s hard to find such criticisms, and most people express enthusiastic support for the program. 

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=clr 

Reflection Essay: The effects COVID Has on Income

The student opens the paper with a long series of statements of fact related to this question of the pandemic's effect on income and poverty, mostly taken from just a couple sources.  This is just a reaction essay, so this is okay for this assignment.  Students are just given an hour to write whatever they can about some issue related to policy or social welfare services, and they can do whatever they want in their papers; it's a free writing exercise. 

One thing I have been interested in researching and understanding this semester is the effect COVID-19 has had on poverty levels. For the first time since 1997 (actually, since 2010), the poverty rate increased in 2020 (the Great Recession caused increases in poverty in 2008, 2009, and 2010). On a long-term scale, numbers predict that by 2030, 588 million people could still be living in extreme poverty, 50 million more than the pre-COVID-19 estimate (Kharas & Dooley, 2021). Since the beginning of the pandemic, it has been reported that at least 74.7 million people have lost work at one point in time (Root & Simet) (HRW). Among households making less than $35,000 a year 57.3 percent experienced income or employment loss. Additionally, 24 million of those adults reported experiencing hunger and more than 6 million feared being evicted or foreclosed on within the next few months  (Root & Simet) (HRW). The number of adults who had reported not having enough to eat in the last 7 days had increased by 5 million since 2020. Many families have already used their stimulus money and are living day to day off government food programs. In March of 2020, approximately 49 million people filed for unemployment insurance. President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, which encompassed 1.9 trillion of relief funds, has helped but is only temporary. 

The CARES Act has created many programs such as the Pandemic Unemployment Compensation to help relieve those who are unemployed due to the pandemic. While these programs have made strived to assist those in need during hard times, the question is often have they done enough to offset the lost earnings and rise in unemployment. Interestingly, poverty rates fell in all age categories. The greatest range being for individuals aged 18-64.  The largest race group to fall in poverty levels was the “Other” group which includes Hispanic and other non-white or African American individuals. The resource provided by the University of Chicago entails many facts and statistics regarding the effect COVID-19 has had on our economy both at a state and country level. 

Resources 

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2021/06/02/long-run-impacts-of-covid-19-on-extreme-poverty/

The report was by Homi Kharas (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/10/21/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-global-extreme-poverty/ )

The follow up from June of 2021 was from Homi Kharas and Meagan Dooley (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2021/06/02/long-run-impacts-of-covid-19-on-extreme-poverty/)

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/02/united-states-pandemic-impact-people-poverty# 

Brian Root and Lena Simet

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/02/united-states-pandemic-impact-people-poverty 

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202084.pdf 

I like your attention to facts and figures.  You’re evidently quite the quantitative and empirical thinker.  If that’s how you roll, okay, good.  The assignment is supposed to let people explore their feelings and emotional reactions to situations in policy and services, but I can definitely relate to kindred spirits who, like I do, express our feelings about issues by citing facts that should elicit in our audience the same outrage or alarm or joy that these figures provoke in our own hearts and spirits.

What I get from this paper is that you are concerned that we haven’t done enough to correct for the harms inflicted by the pandemic and the necessary (or perhaps sometimes unnecessary, better to err on the side of caution, eh?) steps that have been taken to thwart the spread of the virus. You are also concerned that the persons most vulnerable to the harms, who have had the greatest harm inflicted, where those who were already living more precarious lives in poverty or near poverty. Those are good social work instincts. 

Consider why it is controversial to shift money from the wealthy to the poor to ameliorate the suffering caused by the pandemic. Consider why many people wanted to reduce the efforts to support persons who were harmed by the pandemic recession.  Consider why many people thought it would be better to just not try to contain the virus and let the economy go on the way it had been, despite the predictable high levels of death that would have caused (probably 2-3 million as opposed to the 700,000-800,000 we will actually have).  What were the priorities these opinions imply?  Why is it considered “mainstream” and rational to prefer the continuing accumulation of wealth by capitalists over the actual lives of persons who would perish in an unconstrained pandemic?  Why is it considered part of normal debate to suggest that low-income persons should be allowed to risk their lives at work to avoid loss of income, but extreme and “radical” to propose a temporary shift of tax and wealth-redistribution policies to protect the most vulnerable by limiting the wealth growth of the wealthiest during the pandemic?  

The numbers you cite are pointing to something going on deep in the American state of mind, and you have to ask whether that state of mind is ethical, and what has shaped the thinking of so many to accept proposals that would have consequences of mass death as “good” because they “preserve the economy”.