Description of Bill to provide Overdose Prevention Sites

 Illinois Senate Bill 78 is coming up for deliberation in the Illinois Senate, and I wanted to write you to inform you of the implications of the bill, as seen from the results of previous facilities of the same sort in other parts of the county and continent. 

Bill 78 would allow for Overdose Prevention Sites to be established. In some places, they are called Safe Consumption Sites. These facilities are part of a Harm Reduction Initiative to get intravenous drug users off the street and into a place where they can have access to clean and safe materials for using, such as clean needles and clean water, and people around to monitor them and administer oxygen or naloxone in the event of an overdose. These facilities would be placed in areas where there is already a high rate of drug use. The purpose of these facilities is not only to help people with drug addictions, but also to help the communities where they live. By providing clean needles and safe disposal, safe consumption sites reduce the amount of used needles found littered in high-traffic areas. The provision of clean needles would reduce the number of HIV transmissions, which costs the state over $300,000 per diagnosis, and reduce Hepatitis C transmissions, which costs over $30,000 per diagnosis. There hasn’t been a single overdose death within a OPS facility. It would also serve as a resource center for people who are seeking treatment, and they would provide referrals to local treatment centers. 

Many people are, understandably, going to be wary of building such a facility where we would be allowing drug users to use their substances without fear of consequence. Also, surely people don’t want these facilities being built in their communities and attracting drug abusers to the area. In reference to the first objection, while they would be allowing people to use without (as much) fear of death or of legal consequence, it’s been proven that those consequences don’t stop people who are already addicted from using a substance. Also, these facilities have shown an increase in addicts seeking treatment and recovery. As for the second objection, these facilities won’t be built in areas that don’t already have a serious problem with drug use. They would be taking the people and the related litter off the streets, making them safer, and cleaner, and providing resources to addicts to help them find recovery. A recent case study showed that 75% of addicts and alcoholics do eventually find recovery, they just have to live long enough to get there. 

For more information, consider a review of the recent history of drug policy available without cost on the internet in the paper by Ximene Rego and associates from 2021: 

https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7 

And see this article from 2021 hosted on a website of an advocacy group that is trying to encourage more places to follow the Portuguese model:

https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

Student describes student loan forgiveness attempts

 The issue on student debt has always been a concern for many Americans today. In response this being that President Biden mentioned giving out a $20,000 loan-forgiveness in student debt relief around the time of his campaign. But afterwards the supreme court struck down this policy in late 2022. But so far, the administration’s officials are coming up with a new plan under the higher education act hopefully canceling student debt by 2024.  And if this does happen, many former students would find it very beneficial, and we would all most likely enjoy an improvement in the economy.

This policy would be life changing for many that are still stuck paying off student debt that should’ve been taken care of. As for those in support, Senators Cory Booker and Bob Menendez were among 87 lawmakers who, in August of 2023 wrote “We are extremely disappointed and concerned that the Supreme Court substituted politics for the rule of law to deny as many as 43 million hard-working Americans life-changing relief from crushing student loan debt…”.  Also, on May 12, 2023, in Washington, DC there was also a group of loan-borrowers that showed up to the white house, ordering that Biden should urgently cancel student debt. All this showed that there were many that were looking forward to this plan succeeding. Not only this, but also allowing the student debt relief plan to take place would allow for borrowers to spend money on other areas. Following debt forgiveness, statistics on wealth and spending would allow us to see what groups benefitted from this plan. The policy would also allow for narrowing the racial wealth gap among people.

As for the criticisms that may cause some to oppose this plan: it could be unfair to those that don’t have debt or already paid off their debt. This is understandable because the main target audience for this plan is for the loan-borrowers. And it makes you wonder about where this helps the other percent of Americans that don’t have anything to do with this plan. For example, some people may have saved money every month for many years to prepare for when their children would be ready to go to college, while other households with even higher incomes may not have saved anything at all, and then just taken out loans when their children went to college. Paying off everyone’s loans would penalize the households that had cut their consumption so they could afford college with little or no debt for their children, and would reward households that failed to prepare for the expense.  

Speaking of not including everything, this plan does not address the crippling costs of college which could be added. That is, if students can get loans, then schools can raise the costs of attending, certain that their students will be able to get loans and grants to pay whatever fees and tuition they decide to charge.  Another reason why this could possibly be an issue is that it could cause people to take advantage of the system and influence those to take on more loans in the future.  But some of these issues can be fixed with a bit of modifications to this plan. One thing that is a bit concerning is the cost and inflation concern of this action. Because what everyone is seeing is how it will cause many of Americans to be loan free, but what those don’t see is how much spending is going on here for this program, and excessive government spending could contribute to inflation. 

This plan originally applies to federal student loan borrowers, The White House site stated “income-driven repayment (IDR) plan that calculates payments based on a borrower’s income and family size – not their loan balance – and forgives remaining balances after a certain number of years. The SAVE plan will cut many borrowers’ monthly payments to zero, will save other borrowers around $1,000 per year, will prevent balances from growing because of unpaid interest, and will get more borrowers closer to forgiveness faster.”. Making it more efficient for those with student loans and providing breathing room for families.  As for when it comes to income, the student aid site stated “To smooth the transition back to repayment and help borrowers at highest risk of delinquencies or default once payments resume, the U.S. Department of Education will provide up to $20,000 in debt relief to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education and up to $10,000 in debt relief to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 or $250,000 for households.”  Also the website mentioned that individuals working for nonprofit, military, government, federal, state, tribal, or local level may qualify for complete loan forgiveness through the public service loan forgiveness program (PSLF).  Seeing what it takes to qualify shows that there is room for a variety of individuals to receive this plan. 

Altogether, this policy is very complex and is not an easy one to have solutions for. There still needs to be some final adjustments overall for there to be improvements in not just the loan-borrower but the economy altogether. Student loan forgiveness is beneficial for students that have been stuck paying loans off instead of using money for other things.  It would have a major influence on those that want to go to college but can’t. However, it also raises questions about what the outcome would be from this. How would this affect the economy, and would it do harm or do good things?

Reference

https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/22/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-launches-the-save-plan-the-most-affordable-student-loan-repayment-plan-ever-to-lower-monthly-payments-for-millions-of-borrowers/

https://truthout.org/articles/democrats-tell-biden-to-deliver-on-your-promise-of-20000-student-debt-relief/

I realize that you are coming back to academic writing after some years out of college, so I'll work with you more on writing style, but this is really fairly good.  You had a lot to cover in this paper.  You might have organized the paper along these lines:

Opening paragraph about how Biden promised to bring debt relief to persons burdened with debt on student loans, but his methods for doing this were thwarted by a lawsuit brought by the State of Missouri, which gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to say that the White House didn't have the authority to cancel student debt.  But, since the Supreme Court's decision, Biden has found other ways to give some debt relief.

Then, you would have a paragraph (or two or three) about the problem.  People go to universities that are expensive, and they either have never had the financial resources to afford their costs of study, or they have simply not actively saved and planned for college.  You might say something about the human right to an education, and whether it applies to some persons who would like to attend a university. You could comment on the costs of study in a university, and discussions of how to keep costs low. The people who go to college and incur the loan debt were not responsible for deciding whether or not to save up for college because they were children without significant income before going to college. Perhaps half of the benefit of people gaining a college education is enjoyed by the wider public, and not merely a benefit to the individual who becomes educated. Student loans are not erased when a person goes through a bankruptcy. Student load debt may have high interest rates. Many people have this debt, and many of them have very high debt where their payments on student loans prevent them from purchasing homes, cars, or starting businesses.  

Then, you would summarize the arguments in favor of eliminating some or all of the student loan debt.

Then you would offer a paragraph summarizing the arguments opposing forgiveness of most student loan debt.

Then, you would use a paragraph to describe some loan forgiveness programs that have existed for a while. For example, in many cases social workers who pay their student loan debt every billing period without fail for ten years while working as social workers in non-profit or public entities will have remaining student loan debt remaining after 120 payment periods (ten years) wiped away.  

Then, you would have a paragraph about what the Biden administration tried to do.

Then, you would have a paragraph about the Supreme Court that blocked it.

Then, you would have paragraph about what the Biden administration has been doing to forgive some loans since the Supreme Court case.

Your eleventh paragraph could be a summary of where things stand now.  Maybe look at some polling data to see what attitudes are toward debt forgiveness.  Is Biden gaining credit among persons who've had their debts decreased or wiped out?  Are Republicans suffering a loss of support for thwarting the loan forgiveness policy?  

Policies supporting services for domestic violence situations

 Victims of Domestic Violence 

In this paper, I will describe the people who suffer from domestic violence. There are not just women suffering from this, men also suffer from household violence. Social work suggests that society ought to pursue a policy to strengthen relationships, assist with counseling, understand mediation, and apply restorative justice practices, as treating domestic violence primarily as a mental health issue, and only secondarily as a criminal justice issue, offers a better chance to stop this scourge. Domestic violence, as it is associated with poverty and lower educational attainment, disproportionately affects people of color and minority cultural groups. Understanding the laws related to domestic violence, and how those laws may be changing, will help us to support victims of domestic violence.  In particular, I'm interested in policies concerning domestic violence that offer cash or in-kind assistance to those who are escaping from domestic violence.

Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)

This act is to assist the victims that have suffered from crimes, it and helps them restore their lives. The grant that is provided is in the amount of 2.7 million dollars, and this provides many supports for victims throughout different states. This provides shelter support, crisis counseling, referrals, and other services. Such services may be provided by volunteers or private agencies (often non-profit), and services cannot discriminate against the victims. There are VOCA funds that will provide financial assistance and reimbursement to victims of crime. 

These funds help victims that have suffered child abuse, sexual abuse, or spousal abuse. VOCA focuses on inventions that will strengthen relationships with people that combat intimate partner violence. This is a valuable source of support for the victims and will help strengthen them in their recovery. This is provided in each State Administration Agency across the country. 

Violence against Women Act (VAWA)

This act is to support women that have or still suffering from domestic violence. This provides legal assistance, training for law enforcement, transitional housing, crisis intervention, dating violence, domestic, sexual assault, stalking. The Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) provides funding directly to the states and they are responsible for distributing the funds to each program. 

The state is responsible for providing 25% of the funds to law enforcement and prosecutors, 30% for victims, and 5% to state and local courts. This act also focuses on engaging men and boys as allies to strengthen interventions under the discretionary grant program. OVW work towards improving services to underserved populations and this is a benefit to ensure everyone can receive this assistance. 

Barth and Jiranek states, “The OVW grant solicitation enumerates various practices and procedures that jeopardize victim safety each year. The 2022 solicitation explains that "OVW does not fund activities that jeopardize victims’ safety, deter or prevent physical or emotional healing for victims, or allow offenders to escape responsibility for their actions" (FY 2022 Solicitation Companion Guide, [82], p.17) (1)”. 

 

Family Violence Prevention and Services (FVPSA) (2019)

This act supports services to victims of domestic violence and survivors throughout the United States. In 2019 this act distributed $180 million to combat IPV, $10.3 million to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, $164 million to shelters and services, and $5.5 million to support the CDC’s DELTA Impact program. This was improved by Congress in 2019 increases funding, expand support to culturally specific, and invest in prevention programs.

  This act brings information into the communities throughout the United States to assistant in prevention initiatives. The funds that are distributed assist with promoting healthy relationships, positive development, and communities. 

Barth and Jiranek state, “On March 23, 2021, Congresswomen Lucy McBath of Georgia, re-introduced a bill proposing amendments to the FVPSA. Importantly, the Bill has put forth language stressing the importance of healthy relationship building, serving as a significant potential avenue to funding”.

Additional Avenues for States to Support Relationship Strengthening Programs 

There are categories that offenders are scored on based previous domestic violence. They 

are ranked by being examined to determine the level of risk such as: suicidal/homicidal tendencies, use of weapons, obsession with victim. This is determined through evidence-based research and the assessment tool is what assigns the offenders their score. 

Barth and Jiranek states, “The DVRNA is composed of fourteen domains of risk most predictive of future violence (1)”. 

[Under additional ways states support relationships and prevent violence, I was expecting you to mention the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). It seems that you instead are saying that many caseworkers and domestic violence interventions use the Domestic Violence Risk and Needs Assessment (DVRNA), a standardized tool where someone can rate various situations and determine the risk of violence. ]

In Conclusion 

I do support these laws: the reason is that I was a woman that suffered domestic violence. This is something that I did not know about—I had no idea that there were agencies that assisted people that suffered through domestic violence. This is a great opportunity for victims of violence to get back on their feet and restart their lives. Surviving through violence affects more than your physical well-being, it affects your mental state, as well. The bruises on the outside will heal but the internal affect is long standing. Depending on the amount abuse that you suffered, determines the amount of therapy that you may need. 

References

Barth, Richard P. and Jiranek, Harriet C. (2023). Strengthening Relationships between Couples to Respond to Domestic Violence: a Commentary on Policy Changes Needed to Support this Evolution.  Journal of Family Violence. May2023, Vol. 38 Issue 4, p761-774. 14p.

 

Improving Health Care for Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals Act (2021)

 In this paper, I will be providing an explanation and overview of the Maternal Mortality Omnibus Bill, and how it has aimed to affect maternal health. This bill (which will be referred to as this MMOB for short from here on) may also be referred to as the, “Improving Health Care for Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals Act,” as that is a more specific name for it, whereas MMOB is a much more generic term. It was introduced by the Illinois General Assembly in 2021 and its main goal is to target concerns of high maternal mortality/morbidity rates in Illinois. Particularly, the bill is also meant to decrease the amount of obstacles that are in the way for some people to actually access care. In 2018, a report from the Illinois Department of Health demonstrated exactly that; the rates of maternal mortality and morbidity—especially among Black parents giving birth—were noticeably high, which prompted this bill to be written and passed.

This bill was specifically introduced by Senator Cristina Castro in February 2021, and signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 27th, 2021. This bill demanded the Department of Human Services put more manpower and focus into its maternal child health programs to benefit pregnant and postpartum people, especially those considered high-risk. All of the services this bill outlines were designated to be distributed by licensed social workers, registered nurses, and/or other health professional staff with training in behavioral health.

There are several different specific goals this bill sets out to accomplish. One of which is making it easier for people to access long-acting reversible contraception in the hopes that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, which would also have the effect of decreased mortality rates among birthing mothers. The bill outlines that it will force insurance plans to make the cost of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) isolated from that of other postpartum services, which makes LARC more accessible for people to receive after having given birth. Another thing this bill aims to improve is new parents’ access to case management services, especially those of low-income or high-risk pregnancies, particularly relating to that of mental health and substance abuse treatment. These services include parenting guidance, teaching parents on child development, and exposing them to other resources that may be beneficial to them.

Guaranteeing coverage over needed in- and outpatient treatment services is yet another primary goal of this bill. The idea here is that it will help pregnant parents get the care that they require to have a healthy delivery, which will decrease the chance of her mortality. The last goal that will be covered here is the provision of 48-hours of inpatient treatment without any waiting times. This means that if a pregnant person needs to go to the hospital and get treatment right away, whether it be for detoxification or managing withdrawal, she may be able to, which will help treat and/or prevent many conditions or symptoms that could contraindicate pregnancy.

Through these goals alone, it is evident that this MMOB plays a massive role in progressing maternal health and survivability, especially in women of higher risk (whether biologically or systemically). This includes many women of minority ethnic and racial groups, as they are more often low-income and/or systematically disadvantaged compared to whites (especially relevant to note is worse healthcare). Because Black women are about six times more likely to experience maternal mortality than white women, this Bill aims to make that disparity a little less sizable. Especially by providing those case management resources and more forgiving access to inpatient hospital care, African American women, Hispanic women, and women and families of other racial backgrounds will face less adversity in getting adequate prenatal and postnatal care.

To add to this, unintended pregnancy rates are also much greater among women with lower income than those of middle or higher socioeconomic class. This bill’s focus on also improving accessibility to contraception and the affordability of it through insurance has played a role in making these rates go down. Greater unintended pregnancy rates equate to greater maternal mortality rate, so lowering the former will likely be successful in lowering the latter. Thus, the bill’s targeting of making contraception more available not only makes low-income individuals less likely to get unexpectedly pregnant via unprotected intercourse, but it also allows them to avoid deliveries carrying even the slightest bit of risk to the mother.

In conclusion, this Maternal Mortality Omnibus Bill is a policy change that has had the primary goal of improving the survival rate of women before, during and after childbirth. There is an apparent particular focus on women of low-income and women of color, as their maternal mortality rates are especially high, some of the provisions this bill includes are targeted towards benefitting them for the most part. Overall, by providing better means of obtaining contraception, immediate inpatient and outpatient treatment, and case management services, this policy change’s objective is to reduce the uneven differences to access to prenatal/postnatal healthcare in women of different demographics and to substantially improve the chance of survival and prosperous post-delivery health for all pregnant people in the state of Illinois.

Sources:

• Illinois Policies Affecting Public Health - EverThrive Illinois
• IDHS: Family Case Management (state.il.us)
• Maternal Morbidity and Mortality (illinois.gov)
• ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/102/PDF/102-0665.pdf
• Bill Text: IL SB0967 | 2021-2022 | 102nd General Assembly | Engrossed | LegiScan
• Chapter 2: Advancing Maternal and Infant Health by Extending the Postpartum Coverage Period (macpac.gov)

Student recommends parenting classes to families investigated by DCFS

 Honorable State Senator Doris Turner and State Representative Michael J. Coffey, Jr.,

As my elected representatives in the Illinois General Assembly, I know that you are concerned with the well-being of Illinois Children.  I’m writing to you to make you aware of the benefits of parenting classes that help prepare adults for de-escalation in emotional conflict situations and help them understanding how to help children who have been traumatized. You may have opportunities to advocate for policies that would make this sort of training available to families that need it.

I believe that our community should offer parenting classes that teach parents trauma based care, to those who need them. These classes should be optional for those who want to better their parenting styles and they should be mandatory for parents who have had a legitimate DCFS claim against them but want to continue to have custody of their children. We have a lot of children who are living in unsafe homes but are being overseen by a caseworker, this is due to a high volume of abuse cases and the low availability of foster placements. Mending the biological home will deplete some of the need for foster placements by making the biological home safer. 

These classes should include an overview of trauma based care so that these parents know how to help their child heal rather than worsening their situation. This would be difficult for a lot of parents because, in many cases, it means accepting that they have caused their child trauma. This is a necessary step because these parents need to accept that mistakes have been made in order to move forward and heal from them. 

The classes should also include deescalation techniques. Deescalation techniques are used to defuse an intense situation—the type of situation that has the potential to become violent. This would be useful in preventing arguments from getting out of hand. This is used when someone is starting to exhibit defensive or aggressive behaviors, such as breaking things or hitting. When a child gets to this point, it can be very frustrating and scary for a parent. Therefore if they have the tools to talk the child down, the adults are much less likely to resort to yelling and even hitting. I believe putting parents through this training would lessen instances of child abuse because the parents would have a safe and effective way to deal with difficult family situations.

The classes should also include education on proper nutrition and hygiene. Many of these parents miss out on teaching their kids about the basics of life. This may be because they were never taught or because their lives are so hectic that the basics fall to the sidelines. Either way children need to be taught how to properly care for themselves and in order to do that, the parents need to be taught how to teach these basics. 

I work in a local elementary school and I have several students who are being managed by a caseworker, but it's not enough. Take “Jaiden” (not the child’s real name for confidentiality)  for example, he is living with his mother and step father and has a severe emotional disability. The parents both work full time to provide for the family and seem to care greatly for the child. Every night the stepfather drinks after work and then becomes violent with the mother. The mother is frustrated with doing all of the household work and working a full time job, along with caring for her disabled son and being physically assaulted every night. She lets this frustration lead her to handle behavioral issues with her son by striking him. She also recently stopped doing any laundry or bathing the child. I truly believe that these parents love and care for their child, but the situation in their home is no longer a healthy one to raise a child in. This could be solved with parenting classes. Knowing how to deescalate themselves and each other could prevent the abusive situations from occurring, and knowing how to talk to the child about why the previous situation was not a healthy one can help them heal from the trauma already caused. With these situations taking less time and energy from the adults of the family the household basics, such as food preparation and laundry, can start taking place again.

For families like Jaiden’s, these classes could mean the difference between children staying in their homes and children being pulled into the foster care system. I think it is only fair that we give these parents the tools they need to raise their children in safe, loving homes. While we should give these parents the chance to grow, we also need to give their children a chance to have a happy and safe childhood, therefore I believe the best solution is to provide community parenting classes.

These classes would require funding from the state, but eventually it will save the state money by lessening the amount of children who need to be overseen by a caseworker. It could also cause these children to grow up to be productive members of our community, rather than growing up to be in a mental hospital or prison, which would also save our communities money in the long run. 

There is also a chance that people who need the class will not sign up on their own. I think this class should be open to anyone who would like to attend, but the majority of attendees would probably be required by the state to complete the class. This would be established by requiring parents who reported to DCFS and it is found that the claim is legitimate, being court ordered to attend the class.

Student hopes mayor will support a local detox center

To the Honorable Misty Buscher, Mayor of Springfield, Illinois

As someone who has gone through withdrawal alone several times, we definitely have a huge gap in care in Springfield. We are sorely lacking and in desperate need of a detox facility in Springfield. As a leader in city government, I hope you'll work with others to address this gap in services and facilities in our city.

I work at Family Guidance Centers and we work with a vastly underserved community. When someone is finally willing and wanting to get help for their substance use disorder, my heart drops every time I have to tell them they have to go through detox before we can admit them into our facility. I help them make calls to detox centers outside of town, sometimes in Decatur or Shelbyville, sometimes even Champaign. Often these places don’t answer, or they tell you that they have to call you back. So, what if these people don’t have phones? Then, even if they manage to get through somewhere and get accepted and get a time to come in, they don’t have transportation. 

My facility can organize for us to pick people up once they’ve completed detox, but we can’t transport them to detox. How are they going to find a way, so far out of town? This issue comes up often. When someone is in such a fragile place, when that window is finally open for them to want and be ready for help, such a huge roadblock as this can be all it takes for someone to give up. This is a real problem in our community, and I can testify that I have seen it happen. We’ve had patients detox on their own because they had no other choice, and they were really that committed to getting clean. 

This is unnecessarily cruel and awful for people to go through. Not to mention, self-managed detoxification could be very dangerous. I, myself, suffered a small stroke once when I was detoxing from alcohol on my own. I’m hoping the community can come together to help fill this huge gap in care, and I would appreciate your support in the matter.

Transgender protest about YMCA locker rooms

  The article “State Freedom Caucus holds presser, blasts YMCA over transgender policy” described one policy issue that caused a lot of controversy. This was a locker room policy at the Kerasotes YMCA. Two months ago, a 16-year-old girl Abbigail Wheeler and her family protested over the fact that the YMCA allow transgender people to use the same locker room that matches with their identity. And this issue came across due to an incident of when Wheeler went into the locker room and saw a transgender woman there, and was uncomfortable about potentially seeing that person change out of their swimsuit. Although she was not exposed to the transgender woman’s genitals, the situation did make Abbigail Wheeler uncomfortable. 

Abbigail’s father, Dan Wheeler spoke at the rally and was quoted in news media as saying: “ Rather, we stand here today in unity to advocate for all the families that drop their children off at the YMCA in Springfield, by bringing awareness to a flawed policy based on, my opinion, of improper interpretation of current state statute that allows children to be potentially exposed to individuals of the opposite biological sex in the girls’ locker rooms.” On the news, after mentioning the rally, the coach was quoted as saying that there “was nothing they could do by Illinois state law.” Also, someone from the YMCA said that if she was uncomfortable then she could use the family locker rooms or she could change at home, and that she did not need to use the facilities used by the trans woman. The Illinois human rights act prohibits businesses or in this case recreational centers, from denying or refusing the “full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, and services” solely based on someone’s gender identity according to the Illinois Department of Human Rights website.” On the other hand, Abigail and her teammates did send a hate speech message towards the trans community by posting signs like “Biological women only” and “men are not welcome here” on the door to the women’s locker room. That is showing bad behavior on their part as well. 

Both the news and the article showed how there are major flaw in the YMCA policy, specifically when it comes to both women’s privacy and safety. Even though, I agree that any sort of discrimination towards the trans community is wrong and should not be tolerated as stated by the federal laws. “There are still policies that need to be put in place. Overall, one policy to avoid more outcomes and or issues of this from appearing could be by giving transgendered persons their own bathrooms based off their identity. So, it will allow them to feel comfortable in their own spaces and for the biological sex to not be uncomfortable as well. Or another way to solve this without it being overly expensive is to have personal stalls in locker rooms for the protection of others’ privacy. 

Reference

https://www.nprillinois.org/equity-justice/2023-07-14/state-freedom-caucus-holds-presser-blasts-ymca-over-transgender-policy

https://www.nprillinois.org/equity-justice/2016-07-14/illinois-issues-the-battle-over-transgender-rights-in-the-bathroom-and-beyond 

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpringfieldIL/comments/14yx9e2/some_truth_comes_out_about_the_y_scandal/

This seems like an ethical dilemma. Abbigail Wheeler and her parents and politiicans of the Freedom caucus are appealing to a purity ethic about two things: they are claiming that transgender women are still men, and they are saying that women in changing rooms and showers of a YMCA have a right to be in sex-segregated situations where no men will be mixed with them. The law and most of us are claiming that transgender women are essentially women, and should be treated no differently from other women. We are saying that excluding transgendered women from women's locker rooms and showers and bathrooms would violate their human rights and civil rights. 

There are a variety of circumstances that give rise to persons who are not easily placed into categories of male or female (e.g., intersex conditions at birth).  Likewise, slight mutations in a fetus can alter how they respond to certain hormones, so that persons with a brain of one gender might have genitals of another gender. One project embraced by most progressive people is to reframe the categories and constructs related to male and female, masculine and feminine, suggesting these can be vague or flexible. A counter project embraced by many conservative people is to claim that gender is immutable and clearly defined, so that everyone (or nearly everyone) belongs in one of two categories, and will remain in whatever category they were born into for their entire life. 

Most of the conflicts arise from assumptions and definitions about what we mean when we say someone is a "female" or a "male" person. 

At any rate, I prefer private stalls for changing and so forth.  It's slightly awkward in a gym or pool locker room when taking showers in a communal shower or changing out of a swimsuit with other people around. I only find it slightly awkward, and have never been particularly uncomfortable about it, but I can tell that some people find this sort of thing extremely disturbing, and if they happen to fear that someone of the other gender will see them, and they old traditional binary attitudes about gender, they are going to be feeling hurt by policies such as we have in Illinois. Perhaps the solution is the one you suggested, where we use private stalls for changing. 

Student who works in school for children with special needs has insight about crisis prevention intervention training

    I work in a school with children who interact a lot with social services. I have several students in foster care homes, but usually when they are put into foster care they get bounced from house to house and school to school. This is unhealthy for the child because they never have a chance to form meaningful relationships. The students I work with have behavioral disorders, so they are not typical foster children; they require extra resources and care. Most times these kids are removed from their biological home and placed into a foster home. 

Once they get to the home they have a grace period where they are not comfortable enough to display their typical behaviors. After this period they start to display their behaviors, which can be violence or running away, and so forth. A lot of times when a child has a burst of violence or displays aggressive behavior, the foster parents give up on fostering the child. I think this could be avoided in most situations if people were properly trained and educated on how to deal with these situations. 

As a requirement for my job I have to attend CPI training every year. This is Crisis Prevention Intervention training. It teaches people how to deescalate others in times of emotional crisis. It also teaches how to block most physical attacks (from children) and how to safely restrain a child if necessary. It also touches on trauma-based care. All of these things would be very helpful for a foster parent dealing with aggressive behaviors. 

I knew a foster parent who had a foster son for over a year and they were both very good for each other, but one night the foster son lost his temper and started hitting and kicking the foster mom, she was afraid to do anything other than call DCFS for fear of being accused of doing something harmful to him (he has been known to make false abuse allegations). The foster mother was a DCFS worker and if she were CPI trained she probably could have safely deescalated the situation without fearing for her own safety or livelihood. One big thing CPI training teaches is to take a step away from your emotions and assess what the risks are of the child’s behavior, this lessens the risk of the foster parent losing their temper or becoming overwhelmed and responding to a situation in an unsafe or abusive way. 

I think this training should be required for all foster parents who take children with behavioral/ emotional disorders, and maybe all foster children (considering that they have all experienced ACES). I think providing this training would not only keep children in foster homes longer, which is better for the child’s mental wellbeing and financially beneficial for everyone, but also it could make foster homes into a healing place. If the foster parents learn how to properly support and care for their foster children, they can be the positive caring role models the child needs in their life. The longer a foster child is with a good foster parent, the better off they will be. If they do not get bounced from house to house, the child is less likely to be funneled into an institution. Most children will be much better off if they can stay in a home setting rather than being put in an institutionalized setting.

The SAFE-T Act

 Bail in the United States is a very controversial topic. While the idea behind it is logical to an extent, being that people will be less likely to just ditch court and other post-jail time proceedings if they’ve already invested something; it is not fair to those who may not be able to afford it, whether or not they desire to. With Illinois becoming the first state to remove bail, an interesting opportunity arises, to finally see how a bail-less environment will impact things like jail-time and crime rates. It will be interesting to see if it has any significant impact, positive or negative, on the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

I personally believe that this can most likely only be beneficial or neutral in terms of the statistics mentioned prior. I had previously done a project on a possible bail removal in Illinois, and I was very intrigued and pleased by the idea. Bail inherently affects jail-time, especially for lower income families. A rich person may commit a crime worse than someone of lower socioeconomic class, but spend virtually no time in jail because they have a greater wealth to spend on bail. Now, obviously just because you are able to pay bail does not mean you are free or off the hook. However, this still matters because of the unfair level of freedom between socioeconomic classes that this causes.

In the past, I’ve seen documentaries on bail (specifically pertaining to low-income households and how they are affected by bail) and on other topics where bail would be brought up. In them, the true tragedy that bail can cause was well illustrated. For example, in the one focused on bail in particular, someone had committed a petty crime, and in another family someone got committed for a crime they possibly did not even commit. Despite this, the families could not see their respective beloved family members, since they could not afford the bail. Imagine not being able to see your mother or father, your daughter or son, or another close relative outside of a cell the government is keeping them in because you do not have enough money. That, to me, sounds absolutely gut-wrenchingly vile, that a government would keep a system in place where it is easily possible and not uncommon for this to happen.

What surprises me the most is that nothing like this has been truly attempted before in the US on this scale, at least not from my recollection. I was ecstatic hearing that this was finally being realized, but I still worry it may not last, and that Illinois may be the only state to try this to this extent. A decision like this is clearly a very big one to make, one with risks, but I firmly believe it is worth it to have a good chance at making the criminal justice system more fair. Considering all of the other terribly unjust aspects of it – the greater incarceration rate for people of color and the many innocent people who are convicted and imprisoned being prime examples – I think we truly need a law or policy like this as a great step towards a more free and fair nation.

The fact that our country’s incarceration rate is one of the highest in the world should be a wake-up call in and of itself; we need to focus on that much more than we already do. Especially since many of the issues surrounding it, much like this one, can repeat themselves and become perpetual if nothing is done. For example, if a very young child’s poor single mother has to go to jail for some minor crime, but their family cannot afford the bail, so they must simply wait out the time, the child may grow up for a substantial portion of time without a parental figure. This could lead to the child growing up without certain values or manners instilled in them. Combine this with the fact that the family is low-income to begin with, they may end up not learning or understanding how to be a stable, secure, and independent adult. They may end up committing crimes and/or staying unemployed because they do not know better. Stories akin to this one are all over America, and it’s one of this country’s greatest failures in my eyes. Hence, this bail removal in Illinois is a wonderful change that ought to have some significant impact, and I hope other states consider adopting it as well.

I like your open-mindedness and curiosity about ending cash bail. There are obvious problems with the bail system, and your characterization of some of those systemic problems being “gut-wrenchingly vile” seems appropriate. The problem of inevitable error (all social welfare policies have errors, and changes that reduce one sort of an error will usually increase some other type of error) applies, and there are risks of problems with ending cash bail.  At least Illinois is working as a laboratory, and talking about the desire to end a system that inflicts harms of injustice and unfair treatment based on income/wealth. If the problems resulting from ending cash bail in Illinois are not too egregious, perhaps other states will follow the Illinois example, and this will be a step toward a more perfect union, with more freedom and justice, and less unfair discrimination against persons lacking wealth or well-paying employment. I personally communicated with my representatives in the General Assembly endorsing the SAFE-T Act, but I studied criticisms of the act as well. I’m pretty confident the new practices will have more benefits than harmful consequences, but if significant problems emerge, I think and hope that the state government will be able to solve them without returning to systems of cash bail.