Student wants improvements to Social Welfare Kinship Policy

The social welfare system has taken on more children than they have the capacity for. The agencies do not have enough workers for the children that need their help. Another factor for the workers being unable to take in all the children in need is the difficulty of the work itself. Working in social welfare can be a very challenging and mentally draining with the stress that is put on someone. This is why there should be a policy that makes it easier on the system and workers.

Dear ______________,

I am writing to you to direct your attention to the problem we face in Illinois due to lack of staffing in the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).  We do not have a sufficient number of child protection workers and child welfare workers, and as a result, the social workers in DCFS are given appallingly high caseloads—numbers that obscenely reduce the ability of those social workers to support the families and children. Social workers staffing DCFS already endure work that challenges their stamina and drains their energy, stressing and fatiguing even the most dedicated child welfare professional. You and your colleagues in the Illinois General Assembly must do something about this.  You need to make the system easier on DCFS workers.

Kinship care is a great concept, but it takes many steps and a long time for a child to be placed with a relative. Making a policy that allowed the process of children to live with relatives easier would lessen the number of children in the foster care system. With so many children in need of help and little space in the social welfare system to do so, many children do not end up getting the help and die from neglect and/or abuse. The process that relatives must go through to be granted the ability to care for a related child is extensive. It takes a long time for their application to be granted, meanwhile that child is either stuck in an unsafe home or in foster care with people they do not know. 

Does it really take a long time to place children with kin? I thought it was somewhat easier and swifter to find a family member who is willing to take a child.  But, I suppose it might take a few more days, as one needs to track down all the possible cousins and siblings and aunts and uncles and so forth, whereas if there isn’t a preference for kinship care, then whatever family is next in line to take a child can immediately provide a home.  But, wouldn’t it be the case that a child would stay as a “visitor” with a general foster care family while the DCFS workers try to find a kinship care placement?  What exactly could be done to make it easier to place children in kinship care? There are risks to consider when placing a child in someone related to the parents who had their child removed, although in general kinship care is safer and better than other foster care placements, it’s not always better. You say “it takes a long time” without saying anything about why it takes so long or how long precisely it does take.

There are both positives and negatives to this policy, just like any other. The positives would include that it will allow for more space in the system. The policy would make more foster homes available to children who may not have any relatives able to take them in. In 2018, there were almost 17,000 children in the social welfare system and many more that need the help of the agencies, but there was not a large enough capacity for them to do so (The Annie E. Casey Foundation). On the other hand, this would shorten the timeframe for background checks and home visits. With the process being quicker and easier, that would mean the relatives would not have as intensive background checks in the beginning. This could be combatted with more intensive background checks and visits once the child is placed in the home.

About 2.6 million American children live in kinship care type households (79,000 in Illinois). You could give him all the information from Annie E. Casey:

Foster Family Home - Non-relative: 7,719 in Illinois; 182,386 in the whole USA.

Foster Family Home - Relative: 9,045 in Illinois; 137,356 in the whole USA.

Group Home or Institution - 1,205 in Illinois; 38,799 in the whole USA.

Pre-Adoptive Home - 683 in Illinois; 16,559 in the whole USA.

Trial Home Visit - 736 in Illinois; 18,250 in the whole USA.

So, you are saying that the child protective worker who removes a child from a family should place the child in a sibling of one of the parents, or a parent of one of the parents, or a cousin, or an adult sibling, after some sort of cursory background check, and then do a thorough background check on that person after the child has been placed?  You need to be very explicit about this, and honestly explain that there are risks if the parents are emotionally or mentally troubled, that this may reflect a family pattern.  You then should say that despite that risk, you think the advantages of a quick and long-term placement with kin outweighs the risk, because even with a checked and trained and known foster care household, there is a risk of the foster parent maltreating the child.

From an ideological standpoint, the policy would allow an easier way for children to be taken care of by someone they may know better and be more comfortable with. The children are scared when being taken to a new place and this would allow for the process to be a bit easier for them. It would also allow for the child to not have to move around the foster care system and allow for less stress.

You might make this more persuasive and memorable if you gave this person a narrative story about two children removed from a home, with one going to a family member, and the other going to a foster care family they have never met, to help give the reader a very direct feeling about what this would be like.

Politically, this would allow for the government system to have an easier time finding staff. With the job being so stressful, there is often overworked staff and not enough people for all of the children. Placing the children would also be easier with a better ratio of workers to children since some would be going into kinship care quicker. The policy would also provide less backlash to the government because more children would be able to be placed into safe homes. One consequence that stands out is the safety with the background check being shortened for placement. If the relatives are not ready for a child or also neglect and/or abuse the child, that can become a major setback. This is why as soon as the child is placed, a more intensive background and home check should be started to ensure the child’s safety.

I do not understand how you are making a connection between streamlining placement with kin when a child is removed from a household and reducing the caseloads of DCFS workers.  Children in foster care, even if it is kinship care, remain on a DCFS worker’s caseload until they are either adopted or returned to a family, and even after being returned to a family or adopted they may remain under scrutiny of child welfare services. Is there a backlash against the legislature or the governor, and is that backlash based on children being placed (or left in) unsafe homes?  

I would like you to co-sponsor this policy. The action needed for this policy would be to come up with a quick and effective background check first. This would allow for a speedier and less stressful process of getting the child into kinship care. This would also allow for the system to start helping another child get into foster care if needed. After a background check is done, the child can move in, and a more intensive background check can start. Social workers should also make plans for home visits to ensure that the home is safe for the child and that they are being well taken care of. 

This is pretty much what child welfare social workers already do.  I think social workers make the plans for supervised visits with parents or guardians. I think your main point is that you want a change in policy to create two types of background checks, with one being a cursory and swift background check that allows DCFS to quickly place children in kinship care, before they have done a normal thorough background check.  You also seem to want the process of doing background checks to be streamlined or made speedier. You could, for example, suggest that DCFS social workers should have access to the same technology and databases used by law enforcement.  This is a policy that would achieve what you want, and I think it would be a good change.  

This policy would allow for the government to better their social welfare system and ensure safety for more children. The positives of the policy outweigh the negatives and solutions can be thought of for the negatives. Some solutions could be doing a house check right before placing the child or providing some necessary items for the relatives that are not prepared for a child in their home. The number of children dying from neglect and abuse would decrease due to the system being able to help more children. I think this policy could greatly benefit the social welfare system and allow for them to help many more children.

When you say the benefits or positives of a course of action outweighs the disadvantages or threats, and recommend the course of action, you generally ought to briefly explore the desirable and undesirable consequences of each of at least two actions. So, in a case like this, you want to describe the undesirable consequences of not changing the existing practices.  That is, you want to describe problems we have today.  Then, you want to stress that this policy would help us diminish the problems we have with the current situation. 

You have done that in this letter, but it would be better to organize such a letter this way:

1. Ask clearly for what you want from your audience, a member of the General Assembly or the Governor or someone who is an Executive Director of the DCFS. 
2. Explain what the problem is now.  You open with the problem of high caseloads and an insufficient number of social workers in DCFS to adequately handle the cases for which the DCFS is responsible.  Normally this would be solved by increasing salaries or improving working conditions for the workers, and doing more to recruit, hire, and retain them. There might also be efforts to train more social workers in preparation for working in DCFS. You, however, are suggesting mainly a way to make the work of placing children into foster families easier by streamlining the initial safety background check so that children can be more swiftly placed in a kinship care situation, and then that placement can be confirmed after a more thorough background check and interview is completed.  This does connect to the retention of social workers in DCFS, since this will presumably make their work easier. You should show some evidence that the current situation is burdensome, lengthy, and difficult.  You make that claim, but I saw no evidence for how bad the situation is.  Your argument would be stronger if you had provided some details about this.
3. Explain the benefits of the action you are proposing.  You do this fairly well.  
4. Consider the possible arguments against the course of action you have suggested, and counter those. 
5. Repeat the request. Works Cited

“Children in Foster Care: Kids Count Data Center.” KIDS COUNT Data Center: A Project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Apr. 2022, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6243-children-in-foster-care?loc=1&loct=2&msclkid=3931b6c5d82e144bb390d2dc07f8a711&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Foster+Care+-+Topics&utm_term=foster+care+questions&utm_content=What+is+Foster+Care#detailed/2/2-53/false/37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/any/12987. 

Student write a letter to state representative opposing a gun control bill

 The Honorable Amy Elik

192 Alton Square Mall Dr., Suite C

Alton, IL 62002

Dear Representative Elik:

I reside in Assumption in Christian County. I am writing to ask for your support in the lawsuit against House Bill 5471. I urge you to support all of the surrounding counties, citizens, and representatives that are participating in this lawsuit. They are fighting for their constitutional right. I urge you to communicate with your fellow Representatives and inform them of the unconstitutional things this bill evokes.  

This is a good way to open your letter. You explain who you are, and immediately ask for something.  Good approach.

One of the many things that HB5471 bans are assault weapons. As defined by the NRA-ILA, an assault weapon is any weapon used in an assault. Webster’s dictionary defines a weapon as "an instrument of offensive or defensive combat." This means that I could classify anything as an assault weapon. Whether it be a baseball bat, a car, a hammer, or even a shovel. My bare hands could be considered assault weapons. Hands are used as a weapon in many domestic violence situations. Of course, most people automatically assume a firearm, such as an AK-47, when they hear the term assault weapon. By signing this bill, Governor Pritzker has taken away our second amendment right; the right to keep and bear arms. Not only does this ban “assault weapons”, but it also takes away the right to own, buy, or sell .50 caliber rifles and ammunition, as well as large-capacity magazines. I believe that Governor Pritzker is trying to prevent mass shootings. I believe the recent school shootings had an impact on his decision. 

You move from your request to a justification for why it would be good for your audience to support the action you are requesting from them. In this case, you’re advocating for them to oppose a proposed law that would ban assault weapons, .50 caliber weapons and ammunition, and large-capacity magazines. That’s an odd choice in a policy and services class, since gun bans and the Second Amendment issues are rarely connected to social welfare issues, but let’s just go with how to argue against gun control of this nature. 

Your target audience here is a Republican, and in general we can assume Republicans are sympathetic to arguments against gun control measures. However, in this case, did you do any background research on your target? Amy Elik has been a 4H Club co-leader, and she serves on committees related to elementary education, and she is a Rotarian and member of a Catholic school board. Her background is in finance: she’s an auditor.  It seems to me that this particular person would be persuaded by arguments that were technical and empirical. She conducts audits.  So, shouldn’t you phrase your opposition in terms of evidence and research?  She also has children and cares about children (volunteering for 4-H), and wants her community to flourish peacefully and with prosperity (Rotary Club).  

So, arguments that might appeal to a conservative (a Republican) with a profile and background such as Amy Elik… what would those arguments be?  

In the first place, as a conservative, you probably need to make a stronger argument that a ban on a particular sort of weapon violates an essential right. You do this to some extent, when you complain about the vague wording in House Bill 5471.  You should at least say this directly: “the bill is flawed in that it fails to precisely define ‘assault weapon’ and should be amended to clarify what is meant by ‘assault weapon’ or else it should be opposed more generally, which is what I hope you will do” could be a clear statement of what you want.

She is an auditor and accountant.  Maybe you could have approached the ban on high-caliber ammunition with a suggestion that the state could raise revenue while thwarting disgruntled lunatics from stockpiling an arsenal of massive bullets by taxing at prohibitive rates all .50 caliber ammunition.  If the state took $4 for each .50 bullet sold in Illinois, wealthy gun hobbyists who enjoyed the thrill of shooting super-high-caliber guns could still indulge their pastimes in moderation, and enrich the state while doing so, but the causal madman out to purchase 100 rounds of bullets for his commando assault on the local Lincoln Elementary School might be forced to go for a lower caliber product. Let’s face it, no one buys .50 caliber weapons or ammunition for hunting or self-defense.  These are weapons for hobbyists and enthusiasts who like the thrill of flinging massive amounts of lead at their targets. Maybe they would be useful if you were hunting whales or bull elephants or polar bears, but really, .50 caliber weapons and ammunition must be defended on the basis of two arguments: the fundamental argument based on the Second Amendment or the argument that these sorts of weapons are so overpowered that people planning to use guns to make a killing spree statement will use smaller weapons with smaller bullets.  A list of criminal use of 50 caliber sniper rifles shows many crimes, but when you consider the tens of thousands of gun-related crimes committed each year, it’s clear that these sorts of weapons are not a gun of choice for most criminals. 

However, many of the people with “assault weapons” have no intention of doing any harm. I strongly believe that guns do not kill people. People kill people. These criminals will always find a way to get these banned weapons, whether legal or not. Drugs are illegal, but people still find multiple ways to get them. There are other ways to prevent school shootings, such as having trained guards at all entries, or security checks when entering the building. Another preventative measure would be to have teachers with conceal and carry permits that are able to be armed and ready. There is no need to punish innocent citizens that do not have the intent to harm others. I, as well as most of my family members, own guns. I do not have the intent to harm anyone unless I or my family were to be in imminent danger. My guns are used for hunting to feed my family. How is it constitutional to take away the guns of people providing for their families? Am I saying that these shootings are not detrimental to the state and country? Absolutely not, they are very horrible, and things need to change. However, I do not think that this was the right move. 

As a social worker, you ought to be basing arguments on evidence.  That’s part of our integrity and competence ethics.  So, is there evidence to support your point?  Hmm. Research on policies that might reduce mass shootings are suggestive that banning high-capacity magazines can reduce mass shootings (check out the work of David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center). The evidence doesn’t support your argument there, but perhaps the evidence is weak?  Yes, we don’t have randomized controlled experimental research, and it could be that states that ban high-capacity magazines are also more likely to have better supports for families, better mental health care systems, and violence-prevention programs in their schools, so the association between allowing high-capacity magazines and having more mass shootings in a state could be a spurious correlation. Your argument that having teachers carry weapons in the schools is also not supported by what research exists (e.g., by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions). Again, you can attack the quality of the research (always an option, since no research is perfect), but even mentioning that the evidence is against your argument probably makes the letter ineffective.

I think where you might be able to make a stronger argument, especially to someone who is a volunteer worker with youth (Elik is active in 4H), is a discussion of how the most effective way to prevent violence would be to have a robust system of anti-violence education in K-12 schools.  You could point out that whereas banning weapons gets into the questions of the Second Amendment, which are so important to you and many others, programs to improve the mental health of adolescent boys and create a culture of non-violence and mutual support in middle schools and high schools could be far less controversial and far more effective.  Here, you would have more evidence on your side. It is possible to reduce criminal and violent behavior in a community, school, or neighborhood, but the interventions that can achieve this involve significant work on improving the social relationships among young people, giving them skills to handle conflict peacefully, instilling in young people an ethic that opposes interpersonal violence, and screening young people, especially those with behavior problems, for conduct disorder—and then offering the best treatment available for every youth with conduct disorder. A significant investment by the state in adolescent mental health and non-violence education in schools would have many other benefits beyond an expected reduction in gun violence, and would not have the political controversies or legal costs associated with it that can be expected with any policies that conflict with the Second Amendment.  Also, as this is a social welfare policy and services class, suggesting such an alternative to a gun control measures would be more appropriate for this class.

You might even accuse proponents of gun control bills such as HBHB-5471, of looking for easy fixes that are actually superficial and only effective to a trivial degree, instead of going for the more expensive and comprehensive interventions that would make a significant difference in reducing gun violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and behavioral problems in schools. A conservative who volunteers at 4H and is active on a Catholic school board might appreciate an argument that gun control measures are more a form of virtue signaling than a real dedicated effort to help children.  

I am asking you to work with your legislation and fellow representatives to help expand the support for the lawsuit against HB5471, and to ensure that as citizens of the United States of America, our second amendment right is upheld. 

It is a good practice to repeat your request at the end of a persuasive letter, so the above paragraph is good.

The Land of the Free, Home of the brave. We should have the freedom to own our guns and feel safe in our homes. Without adequate protection, some people feel unsafe. Have you ever thought of veterans? They were the brave ones that fought with those assault weapons. I am sure many veterans own them. By taking them away, Governor Pritzker is wiping away the reminder of all of the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifices they gave to protect each and every one of us. I am calling on you as my elected representative to help expand and win this lawsuit against House Bill 5471. 

The allegation that a gun-control bill wipes away all the reminders of sacrifices made during war overstates the case to a point that undermines your argument. Why not simply point out that this bill ought to have made exceptions for veterans? Why not suggest an alternative that required extra licensing and training requirements for persons who want high-capacity magazines or assault rifles or .50 caliber guns, or a 21-year-old or 25-year-old age requirement? What about exemptions for muzzle-loading guns, which are often high caliber, but are hardly ever used (are they ever used?) in crimes these days? 

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please send your response to the address listed below. I will be watching to see how you advocate on this issue that means so much not only to me and my family but to gun owners everywhere.

Another good technique is to request a response.  So, bravo!

Sincerely, 

Student tries to persuade politician to take action on the issue of ACEs

Persuasive letter advocating for a policy with an audience of a politician or government administrator.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been studied since the mid-'90s and recognition of their importance has grown over the past two decades. Exposure to ACEs alters cognitive development of children and is associated with many lifelong issues faced in adulthood such as increased risk of suffering from chronic health problems, impairment of executive functioning, poor self-regulation, and mental illness. ACEs are categorized as potentially traumatic events that occur in a child's life, and there are three forms of experiences: abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Whether it be physical or emotional abuse and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, or violence in the family, these are all forms of toxic stress that count as adverse childhood experiences. One in six adults experiences four or more types of ACEs (CDC, 2021) and struggles as a result of trauma in their childhood. Exposure to adversities in their childhood is linked to increased health problems in their adulthood, including higher chances of heart disease, depression, cancer, and behaviors such as smoking, alcoholism, and drug use—all are linked with early death. While this affects many children and their futures, ACEs can be passed across generations, reaching beyond just themselves. 

The studies conducted about ACEs all conclude very similar results: despite the negative effects of adverse experiences, we can reduce their effects, and we have the power to prevent the outcomes by providing resources and educating health providers to recognize the risks of ACEs. I speak on behalf of those affected and call for action to prioritize preventative measures. You can do this by supporting passage of laws or regulations that require healthcare providers to become familiar with the research on ACEs and techniques for recognizing when children have experienced ACEs. Healthcare providers need to assess for ACES, know their potential impacts, and have the ability to provide resources to families and children to minimize the adverse impacts of ACEs.

We are facing a great healthcare crisis; studies done on adverse childhood experiences show the link between toxic stressful experiences and health issues later in adult lives. We see the connection between these experiences and risky behaviors. Exposure to violence and other adversities has a great influence on the cognitive development of a child, and effects on the mind show through the health of the body as well. The best course of action to reduce the number of individuals facing health issues (as a result of ACEs) is to prioritize preventative measures and screenings through healthcare providers and those who work with children. I propose that you sponsor or co-sponsor any sort of policy that requires healthcare professionals to be trained to screen for ACEs so that we can identify children who can be referred to the resources that support their needs. Policies need to recognize the correlation between these negative outcomes and the root of the issue. 

The Centers for Disease Control identify six strategies for preventing ACEs: 

1. strengthen economic support for families; 
2. promote social norms that protect against violence and adversity; 
3. ensure a strong start for children; 
4. enhance skills to help parents and youths handle stress and manage emotions and tackle everyday challenges; 
5. connect youths to caring adults and activities; and 
6. intervene to lessen immediate and long-term harms  (CDC, 2020). 

By supporting the needs of the families, we not only prevent an ACE, but also such supports would benefit the economy. As explained by the information provided by the CDC, stopping an ACE before it starts would "benefit the economy and relieve the pressures on healthcare systems. ACE-related illnesses account for an estimated $748 billion in financial costs in North America each year. A 10% reduction in ACEs could equate to an annual savings of $56 billion" (CDC, Oct 2018). Furthermore, we know that intervention programs are already seeing results. The ACE Response Organization has found that: "Intervention programs with disadvantaged children are already demonstrating significant benefit-cost ratios, with $5.70 for every dollar spent on a child by the time the child became an adult aged 27 and, when projected into the rest of their lives, $8.70 cost savings in crime reduction (see Schweinhart et al., 2011)." (Ace Response, 2020). As a legislator, I understand your concerns about the costs of a policy and whether it can be afforded, but I can assure you that all the benefits that come from these preventative measures are well worth the investment of time and resources.

As a politically involved social worker, the welfare of families is at the top of my list of priorities. When creating a solution to this issue, I cannot stress enough how important it is to look to the root of these adverse experiences. Rather than address the issue in the aftermath, we must allot resources to the prevention of ACEs in the first place. These adversities stem from strains in the family. For example, strengthening economic support for families was one preventative measure. Parents facing poverty are under immense pressure, and more often than not, the children feel the stress of that pressure on the family. In a much similar light, youth subjected to witnessing violence, substance abuse, and other negative exposures in their families are bound to be affected by the toxic stress of those experiences. The second and third strategies for preventing ACEs address these very issues. We need to promote positive parenting practices and help children experience a very strong and healthy start to their lives. In addition to supporting the children, providing resources and support for the parents is crucial as well. Healthcare providers who are trained to recognize the risk factors for ACEs must utilize their power to empower families to seek support and put to use the resources available. Not only should it be the job of healthcare providers, but any professional who works closely with children and families should be trained to evaluate and assess risk factors for ACEs—that should include staff at licensed daycare and early childhood centers, as well as all our elementary school teachers. Resources must be allocated to this cause, and training is so important because these professionals must be equipped and prepared to notice the potential risks. I believe the public has an interest in assuring that social workers, teachers, counselors, agency workers, and anyone who sees that they can make a difference in the lives of children receives training on ACEs and their prevention.

So much of our future is dictated and influenced by the experiences we have in our primary years; while these experiences do not cement the course of our lives, they do live with us and have a profound impact on our mental, physical, and behavioral health. There must be an intervention to lessen immediate and long-term harm from the adversities faced. While there is a lot of evidence showing the positive outcomes of addressing ACEs, there is some opposition to the use of ACE testing and screenings. Some studies argue that informing children of the adverse effects of ACEs in their lives will paint a bleak picture of their futures. It is argued that it teaches these children to anticipate the continuation of hardships. Research from the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University stated that "[I]n some cases, the cumulative burden of multiple risk factors early in life may limit the effectiveness of later interventions, thereby making it impossible to completely reverse the neurobiological and health consequences of growing up poor (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012, p. 2255)" (Winninghoff, 2020) . This completely disregards the power of prevention work early in a child’s life and even interventions made after. There has been an overwhelming amount of research done that proves the many positive outcomes of the intervention. Even if there is a late intervention for the child as an adult, it means a world of difference to provide that support. However, I do want to reiterate how crucial it is that we now focus on creating policies that implement these screenings earlier so that earlier prevention can be accomplished.

A policy for ACE prevention would realistically mandate screening in healthcare and child-family settings. There would also need to be mandated training for those workers to ensure their capability to identify these risks. This bill would enhance primary care and increase referrals to victim-oriented services and treatments. This would not only serve the children but also their families as well and bring awareness to the long-term potential risks of adverse childhood experiences. We must implement these risk assessments, screenings, and training in healthcare and family settings. This allows these professionals to notice the signs and intervene on behalf of the child and their families. By taking early action, we can minimize the effects of adverse childhood experiences. Not only will the mental, physical, and behavioral health of these individuals be positively affected, but we will also nurture better habits for future generations and educate and spread awareness of the effects of adverse childhood experiences.

As policymakers and legislators, I am confident you can now see the significance and value of addressing this concern for the public health and safety of children and families now and in the future. If you choose to support a policy such as this, you are supporting a momentous movement—a policy that applies the knowledge we have now to better our society and care for future generations of leaders and citizens. By not being in support of this bill, your decision would be greatly consequential. It would mean the continuation of a toxic cycle now that we have the research and proof to show the repercussions of these realities. We have the power to reduce the number of children dealing with the aftermath of their adverse childhood experiences, prevent further hardships, and create a better future. I urge you now to take action and strongly support policies that implement ACE screenings in the previously mentioned areas. I even urge you to cosponsor this bill and work directly with it to make the change. With your support, we can begin to heal and proactively help the children in our society to become greater than their situations and help nurture better practices in policy that will make a real and significant change.

 

Works Cited 

Bowen, E. A., & Murshid, N. S. (2016, February). Trauma-informed Social Policy: A conceptual framework for policy analysis and Advocacy. American journal of public health. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815621/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, October 19). Preventing adverse childhood experiences. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/aces-training/#/resources

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, September). Retrieved March 9, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/priority/ACEs-Strategic-Plan_Final_508.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, August 23). Adverse childhood experiences (aces). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/aces/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, April 6). Fast facts: Preventing adverse childhood experiences |violence prevention|injury Center|CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html 

Winninghoff, A. (2020). Trauma by Numbers: Warnings Against the Use of ACE Scores in TraumaInformed Schools. Occasional Paper Series, 2020 (43). DOI: https://doi.org/10.58295/2375-3668.1343

www.spiraldesign.com, S. D. S.-. (n.d.). Give your support. Policy. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from http://www.aceresponse.org/give_your_support/Policy-Examples_52_pg.htm#:~:text=Adverse%20childhood%20experiences%20(ACEs)%20are,high%20individual%20and%20societal%20costs. 

You are being very thorough in this policy paper.  I have some recommendations:

1) in addressing a political leader or executive in an agency, it is important to make your request right away.  In this case, the letter sometimes refers to a bill, and sometimes just outlines a problem and suggests generally that certain types of bills or regulations are necessary.  If you were to write an actual letter advocating this, I would start with:

I write to you with the intention of encouraging you to support legislation, or introduce legislation, that would require state licensing examinations and state university curricula for certain professions to require content ensuring a range of professionals understand the concept of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), research about the ways ACEs harm individuals and society, prevention of ACEs, and how to help children who have been exposed to ACEs.  Prevention of adverse childhood experiences will improve our society in many ways, and we need the state to use its regulatory power to encourage a widespread understanding of this topic.

Or, something like this:

I write to you to share with you some information about the concept of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and what research tells us about the ways we might prevent ACEs, and what price we pay as a society if we fail to intervene to identify who has experienced ACEs.  As a legislator, I hope that you will find this information inspiring, and since you serve on the House Health Care Licenses Committee and the Higher Education Committee, I hope that you will propose, co-sponsor, support, and advocate for any legislation that might address the concerns I raise in this letter.

It's really important to do three things in most persuasive communication or assessments with people: identify yourself, establish some credibility by explaining what you are associated with or whom you represent, and explain what you are doing—describe what is your purpose and motive in the communication that follows.

Another thing is that you repeat yourself on a few points in this letter, which is a great technique in persuasive oral communication, but doesn't work as well in written communication.  On a few occasions you mention the consequences of exposure to ACEs.  Once might suffice.  On a few occasions you explain that certain professionals need to be familiar with ACEs, know how to recognize risk factors, know how to prevent ACEs, know how to refer families or children exposed to ACEs to help, and so forth.  The letter would be more persuasive and have a greater impact if you had edited and organized the paper so that this suggestion was clearly made once.

I think the overall letter follows a good strategy.  You explain what ACEs are and describe how they damage people.  You refer to research and scholarly sources with authority.  Good techniques!  You might have said something about the duty of government to promote the general welfare and promote domestic tranquility, and therefore the state should have policies to reduce exposure to ACEs.  You do mention the cost savings projected from interventions to prevent ACEs, and that could have been done in close proximity to the moral argument made around assumptions of the purpose of government (promoting general welfare), since the cost savings are related to the duty of politicians to use wise policies that are efficient and spend revenue (taken coercively from the public through taxes) in ways that are clearly going to benefit the general public in significant ways.  

It would help if you had decided for yourself if you were going to write about the general problem, go over the suggestions from the CDC, and then say some general things about the types of legislation or policies that would help implement the suggestions of the CDC. Such a letter would have taken a general concept or problem and helped the politician audience understand how the ideas from the CDC could be translated into policies or laws a legislator in the General Assembly could vote to enact. Alternative, you might have stuck to one policy, such as mandate that higher education institutions in the state who offer degrees leading toward professional qualifications and licensure provided by the state teach particular subjects.  You might have merely suggested that requirements of licensure require testing on the topic of ACEs, and assumed that this policy change would motivate the universities to cover ACEs in their curricula.  It's easy to argue that the state should not tell teachers exactly what they need to teach their students, but it's difficult to argue that a state has no business setting up standards of competency and knowledge when conferring licensure through professional examinations. The state board of professions and licensure might defer to committee of academic and administrative experts in a field (professions should be self-regulating), but I believe the governor of the General Assembly could push regulatory boards to incorporate certain areas of assessment and requirements for competence in some subject areas.

There is a counter-part to ACEs, which might be called a "Developmental Asset" approach (https://searchinstitute.org/). It seems to me that people in government need to be concerned with preventing children's exposure to ACES and also promoting children gaining access to the developmental assets.  Prevent the bad; promote the good.

The intervention of screening to asses for risks of experiencing ACEs would be a good policy, I suppose. You are suggesting health-care professionals do this, which works to the extent that children see nurses or doctors.  But, it seems to me the six preventive strategies suggested by the CDC imply a wider variety of interventions, and if you kept the letter in the realm of "explaining a problem, suggesting what might be done about it" you could have written about a wider variety of desirable policies.  The letter comes off more as in the style of "explaining a problem and advocating for one particular technique to address the problem", which in this case, is the approach of mandating that people become better informed about the problem.  This has been used in several issues in our state.  There was a problem with unethical behavior by state employees, and so now all state employees are mandated to take an online ethics training course each year.  The problem of child-maltreatment was identified as one that needed greater attention, and so the scope of who is defined as a mandated reporter of child abuse was greatly expanded, and a law or policy requires all the mandated reporters to receive training on recognizing child maltreatment.  Sexual harassment and discrimination in workplaces worry us, and so the university has a policy that all employees must each year take an online course on sexual harassment, discrimination, sexual assault, and so forth. So, there is a precedent for this sort of policy that you are advocating.

I appreciated the effort you put into the paper, the way you cited good sources, and the passion with which you wrote. I hope my comments can assist you in communicating with decision-makers in ways that will see your excellent ideas and suggestions catch the attention and support of your audience, because we really do need to go beyond this clichéd support of well-worn phrases such as "the children are the future" or "children are most important" and replace such blather with policies related to what you are trying to push in this letter—policies that directly address the things we know have the greatest detrimental (or positive) influence on human development. 

Local police shooting of man suffering from mental illness inspires student reaction

  On March 5^th of 2021, police in Chatham, Illinois, responded to a call that a mentally unstable man was wielding a knife. During the interaction, the police officer shot Gregory Smalls, leaving the 30-year-old black man in critical condition. This senseless tragedy, which took place a stone’s throw from our own community in Springfield, illustrates the desperate need for reform in law enforcement policy and practice.

One policy that I think should be implemented to prevent similar tragedies involves adding a mental health department to the police force and changing how officers are outfitted during routine patrols. Police officers are armed with guns but sorely lacking in the kind of training needed to deescalate volatile situations. While police officers do face danger situations, most of their interactions in the community would be better served by providing them with nonlethal means of subduing suspects. Instead of ready access to guns, police should be outfitted with Kevlar protection to minimize their risk. Possession of a gun does not actually reduce their risk; if their assailant has a weapon as well, they have no protection against the bullets. Thus, having a gun available in the vehicle as a last resort and body armor for protection is likely to result in less danger to both officers and suspects.

However, no amount of body armor can provide the kind of training that would enable them to handle situations such as Gregory Small’s. Instead, trained social workers or other mental health professionals should be available to respond alongside their militant counterparts. If someone had been present who had knowledge of mental illnesses and how to resolve conflicts safely, Gregory might have ended the night in a mental health facility, getting the help he needed, rather than in critical condition in the emergency room.

However, I also think that police training needs to focus on serving the community and bringing suspects to justice rather than the current mentality they seem to express, that of viewing members of the community as potential criminals to be uncovered rather than citizens who deserve respect and protection. Another important element to include in this new training is anti-bias education. I believe that many police are unaware of the implicit biases they hold that cause black citizens to be targeted and incarcerated at disproportionate rates as compared to their white counterparts. 

As a member of the African American community, the discrimination rampant in our criminal justice system is a source of anxiety and fear for me. Although I am lighter skinned and rarely experience being targeted by law enforcement, I have a family that is not. My brother, my nephews, and my cousins all have darker complexions, more obviously African hair textures, or both, and each news article reporting the assault or murder of Black citizens fills me with fear for my loved ones, and empathy for the survivors. Although being a target is rare for me, I too have been singled out by police in small rural towns. Black Americans face discrimination in many forms, and one of the single best ways America could show its commitment to ending racism would be to take decisive steps to prevent more black deaths at the hands of police. 

It needs to be said: the treatment your brother, nephews, and cousins have experienced is wrong, and we should not accept it, and law enforcement professionals who care about their mission of protecting the public and the Constitution should also not tolerate this.  You have been singled out by authorities because of your background, and that is wrong.  

The situation of Greg Small, Jr. hits close to home.  He and his brother and dad were active in the Scout Troop I've volunteered with, and my sons camped with him and his little brother on many occasions. 

There are a variety of biases that come into play in police interactions with persons who experience mental illness and also have African heritage. Anti-bias education that is based on good scientific evidence that it can reduce bias should certainly be part of training and professional development for law enforcement personnel. I think we also need to change the way police create a professional self-image.  If they had more focus on "protect and serve" and a deeper ideological commitment to public safety, I think that would help. Other goals and ideals seem to be too powerful in may law enforcement sub-cultures.

Here are some good articles about this issue:

https://policy-class.blogspot.com/2023/04/reaction-essay-on-child-poverty.html

https://www.wandtv.com/news/springfield-police-department-begins-new-co-responder-initiative/article_76c8a624-9774-11ed-98f3-8b6e05363ae0.html  and https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/15pbja-21-gg-04324-ntcp describe the new initiative in Springfield, Illinois

Peoria is doing something similar: https://www.wcbu.org/local-news/2022-02-14/peoria-police-unitypoint-mental-health-staff-could-respond-to-911-calls-together 

Here is what is going on in Nashville, TN: https://www.nashville.gov/departments/police/executive-services/alternative-policing-strategies/partners-care 

Eileen Molloy Langdon wrote an article about this for an Illinois law-enforcement trade magazine (see page 12: https://www.ilchiefs.org/assets/Command/2020_November_Command_FINAL_optimized.pdf 

VICE did an article on this a few years ago: https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3zpqm/these-cities-replaced-cops-with-social-workers-medics-and-people-without-guns  

Reaction Essay on Child Poverty Documentaries

 After watching the documentaries regarding child poverty in America, I had a lot of strong emotions. My first emotions had to do with the most obvious issues of children being poor, hungry, and homeless. Nobody, especially children, should have to experience those kinds of things in a developed country like the U.S. I also got strong waves of emotion watching children take on adult stress and roles. Shaun, for example, admitted that at age 13, he had already taken on a father figure role in his home. He, as well as some of the other children across the documentaries, also admitted to suppressing their feelings when it came to their hardships. These children felt not only the stress coming from their parents, but also took it upon themselves to hold in their own stress in order to save their parents from that added despair. You could just see how pained their parents’ pain made them. It was also striking to hear these children describe adult things such as making money/food stretch and timing and foregoing bills. The children’s stress was so visible, and it hit home. 

When thinking of solutions to the issues surrounding child poverty, child tax credits come to mind. While I’m sure these provide periodic bursts of relief for struggling parents, I also realize that the money they are refunded cannot be saved and applied to the coming year’s worth of expenses. There are bills to pay, necessities to buy, etc. Even more, the child tax credit program was implemented far before either of these documentaries were filmed, and not one person mentioned them as being helpful at all. In my opinion, families, especially those headed by single parents, need a more frequent, reliable form of stimulus. For families such as the ones featured in these films, anything helps. An extra $50…$100…$300 dollars would’ve kept food on their children’s plates, or maybe it would’ve kept the hot water on. I truly believe that families below and near the poverty line need more of a cash safety net. Not only could it help provide life’s necessities, as people in a developed country should have, but it can also help stimulate the economy. More cash means more dollars spent in the market. 

Speaking of the market, I also couldn’t help but notice the fact that some of the families in the documentaries lived in what appeared to be ghost towns. One of the children walked through her town scrounging up aluminum cans for money, and she could point to countless empty buildings and say, “this used to be…”. As she did this, I realized that the absence of businesses in her town also meant the absence of jobs. This child in particular talked a lot about how her mother had to be very careful when it came to using her car’s gas, but what if she didn’t have to go far to make money? Similarly, another family drove two total hours a day to get their father to his job. Unsteady unemployment is a huge contributor to poverty. We need more well-paying jobs, especially in under-stimulated areas of society (which also happened to have the most poverty). 

We’ve talked about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and how detrimental they can be on a child’s development into adulthood. The children in these films dealt with bullying, food insecurity, housing insecurity, and parents’ tempers. These children had already experienced as much, if not more, stress than others see over the course of their entire lives. It was clear, to me at least, that these children were extremely pessimistic about their own life outcomes. In the film that revisits some of the children 5 years later, not a single one showed up happy and full of life. They were tired. They wanted out. They hadn’t seen success. Having a happier, healthier society begins with improving the lives of children. And to do this, I think we need to offer families and local economies more support. 

Documentaries we watched included:

Growing up Poor in America (2020)

Poor Kids (2017)

Poor Kids (2012)

I am so glad you mentioned the child tax credit.  Increasing that and making it refundable was done as the 2020 documentary was being filmed, so the documentary did not capture the way this increase in consumption affected the lifestyles of those families. We know statistically that the increases in SNAP benefits and the child tax credit made a tremendous improvement (decrease) in child poverty (if we use the measure of poverty that examines post-tax / post-benefit actual consumption).  Having been in farmers markets selling produce in the summer of 2021 I can testify to the huge increase in purchasing power the benefits created (money that partly came to me as I was selling expensive peaches, berries, and cherries to families that now could afford them for their children). 

You also point out the importance of considering the environment and community economic life. As social workers who are interested in ending poverty, we must be concerned with the well-being of employers, businesses, entrepreneurs, local banks and credit units, and we must support main street civic boosters and chambers of commerce (up to a point), because we have common interests in the well-being of our local economies, for it is the local economy that offers a good chance for people to find their way out of poverty. 

You also paid attention to the way poverty inflicted ACEs on the children, and you are aware of how this torment and stress experienced by the children degraded their quality of their human existence. By tolerating the existence of poverty for children in our society, we are stealing years of life from them.  The stresses of poverty raise health problems, which in turn shorten the lives of adults who experienced poverty as children. 

When our society finished the project of defeating the ethno-nationalist imperialism of the Nazi and Japanese empires, there was a near consensus that we should create a world in which all people would be free from the tyranny of poverty and deprivation (one of the four freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear). We have lost our way, and instead of conquering the belligerent dictator "poverty" and his goons "want", we accept them as useful allies in our society to compel workers to take unpleasant jobs and submit to the caprice and whims of their employers or would-be employers.  We have the power to end poverty in our society, and with it, we would end a significant portion of the social ills and medical or behavioral problems our citizens face. The quality of our workplaces would improve, and our tax burdens would not substantially increase in a way that altered our standards of living.  Yet, we lack the vision and political will to end poverty, and the children in these documentaries damn us all by the tragedies we force them to experience by our unwillingness to restructure our economy to remove the scourge of poverty.

The End of the Pandemic

 On January 30th of this year the Biden administration announced that COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) and national emergency declarations would be ending on May 11, 2023. These pandemic declarations were announced at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. They helped with various policies such as the expansion of telehealth and free COVID testing. It helped with coverage with Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP, as well as private insurance, speeding up the acceptance of medications and treatments so that patients can be treated.

To say that the last 3 years have been hard is an understatement. 2020 was one of the roughest years of my family’s life. We tried our best to stay safe. We stayed home that whole year except for trips to the grocery store. The following year I lost my mother due to complications resulting from COVID-19. Shortly after she died, my brother died similarly. As vaccines began to roll out, we became more and more comfortable out in public. We finally got COVID at the end of 2022. The recovery was not bad and we were testing negative relatively quickly. In 2023, my family and I are so ready to move on and live our lives. We wear masks less often. We keep them close by for trips to the store or if we’re not feeling safe in our environment.

Despite being fed up with COVID-19 and the precautions, ending emergency declarations is scary. Sure, if I only account for how my family is doing, it makes sense. We are well equipped to deal with our health thanks to our insurance and decent jobs, but only considering my family would be short-sighted. The problem is, there are plenty of people out there who cannot get insurance. There are plenty of people out there who either cannot get the vaccines available or flat out refuse them. People who mask in public are in the minority. I cannot count how many times I’ve heard nasty coughs around me. I’ve had that nasty cough. We are living in highly infectious times and the people who will be most affected by the end of these declarations will be the poor. All of this is scary. We need to support each other as we continue to live with COVID-19.

I had hoped that the pandemic would change our culture so that persons suffering from cold symptoms (or any signs of illness) would adopt the habit of wearing facemarks to protect those around them from the particles exiting their bodies as they exhale, sneeze, or cough.  Sadly, the pandemic seems to have made many people lose their rational faculties (or did they ever have any?), and the wearing of masks became a political and identity issue. 

One thing I learned from the pandemic was that medical science isn't nearly as good as I had supposed, and the tribal cognitive biases that make people dismiss any facts or findings that contradict their beliefs are strong within the scientific community.  I used to have respect for editorial boards at top medical journals, but they published some fake articles in 2020, and had to retract those.  Faculty at Stanford University were publicizing so many findings based on ridiculously bad studies that I started to think Stanford must now be a joke. With Ivermectin, there were many promising studies and findings, and people rejected those as if they were 16th Catholics rejecting some heresy (faith and tribal loyalty guided their rejection of the evidence, I believe).  But then, as the evidence for Ivermectin weakened to a point where it now seems to have generally only a trivial benefit, if any, the true-believers in Ivermectin continued to hold to their faith. With masks, there was likewise a tribal division. Even the Cochran Collaboration, for which I had previously held the highest respect, published a review led by Tom Jefferson that was of very dubious quality, showing us that we don't really know what effect wearing masks has.  People who supported Ivermectin and were opposed to masks then started saying things like, "there is no evidence that masks work" when in fact there is quite a bit of evidence that they do, just as there was for a time quite a few promising studies about Ivermectin. They hated it when people ignored the evidence in favor of Ivermectin or cited flawed studies to claim Ivermectin was useless, but then did exactly the same when it came to considering the evidence for the benefits of masks.  My conclusion is that people's attraction to tribal identities around controversial issues clouds their judgement even more than I had assumed, and I've always thought of myself as fairly doubtful about the rational abilities of humans (I always look both ways when crossing 6th and 5th, although they are one-way streets).

  I'm so sorry about your loss of your mother and your brother in the Pandemic.  Many students in my classes lost family members to COVID, and my friends in some of the hardest-hit areas (like New York City in the first months of the Pandemic) lost a huge percentage of their friends and acquaintances.  It was like the AIDS thing in the 1980s, but compressed into weeks rather than years.  I think of the over 1 million extra deaths we had in the USA from COVID and medical complications related to the pandemic, and the scale of the pain is beyond my comprehension.  I liked listening to those obituary stories NPR and the PBS News Hour was providing to look at the lives of people who were lost in the pandemic, and hear about all these wonderful people and the grieving relatives who mourned them. COVID was a horrible way to die, and my tendency to approach the problem as an intellectual game of numbers and forecasts helped distance me from the horror, and these stories on NPR and PBS helped bring me back to my humanity.

Student is alarmed by child welfare inadequacies

 I began doing research on the social welfare system’s policies and practices out of curiosity and found some interesting information. As the system is growing, the agencies are failing to meet the demands to provide the services needed. The Child Welfare Information Gateway says that the “system was never intended to serve the vast numbers of children and families that are involved in the system today” (Chibnall et al., 2003). The number of children that are being neglected and abused are increasing each year.

With the child welfare system not being able to fulfill the needs of the number of children who are neglected and abused, children are suffering and dying. The system needs to find a solution and provide better practice due to them reaching their capacity of the children they can help. I believe more policies must be put in place to better the chances of more children being helped. The Child Welfare Information Gateway believes that the difficulty working for the agencies plays a role in the issues of the system (Chibnall et al., 2003). The system needs to be further looked into and given more attention for them to better their agencies.

If the system got more attention, I believe the policies and practices could be much improved. A possible policy that could help better the system is having improvement on the ability for relatives to care for the children. This would allow for less children to enter into the system and be taken care of by relatives that they may already know. This would also benefit the children because it would make them more comfortable and in a less intimidating environment.

Works Cited

Chibnall, Susan, et al. “Children of Color in the Child Welfare System: Perspectives from the Child Welfare Community.” Implications for Policy and Practice - Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2003, https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/otherpubs/children/implications/. 

Your key point is that we do not put enough public attention on the situation in DCFS, or child welfare and child protection services in general. Yes, the people of Illinois essentially have custody of the 19,000+ children in foster care within Illinois. These are our children.  And, we should all be concerned that we have problems attracting and retaining child protection and child welfare workers. I wonder how we can make more citizens care about this issue? How would public concern manifest?  Would public alarm lead to an increase in funding for DCFS so that that agency would be staffed with 3,400 social workers instead of 2,900, and salaries would increase and caseloads would decrease to make the work more attractive? Could DCFS hire 100 specialized child carers to act as foster parents for children who have such extreme behavior problems that only specialized and highly trained persons should serve as foster parents to these children? I wonder what the target should be for improving the child welfare system in Illinois, and more widely throughout the nation.

There are some good resources for finding some facts about the child welfare system.

First of all, since you mention children dying and suffering, you should consult the most recent Inspector General's Report on child deaths in Illinois. Last year (2022) had a huge spike in children dying while being involved with DCFS. There were 171 such deaths, but 134 of those were just the normal deaths attributable to disease and accidents that you would expect anyway.  However, in 37 cases, the child welfare system did something wrong that may have contributed to the situation. Between July 2021 and June 2022 the DCFS examined 97 child deaths in Illinois and found that 18 of those children were murdered and 30 died in accidents.  By the way, the state spends about $1.5 billion on DCFS, and the agency has approximately 2,900 employees. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/dcfs-inspector-general-report-child-deaths/

https://dcfs.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/dcfs/documents/about-us/office-of-the-inspector-general/documents/oig-annual-report-2023.pdf

The Annie E. Casey Foundation seeks to maintain its strong reputation for having good information about indicators of children's well-being in the United States, and you can examine the situation in each state.  I see that their most recent count of children in foster care showed 376,926 children in foster care in 2021. That is the lowest number since 2012, so the trend is for fewer children to be in foster care (in 2017 there were 428,133 children in foster care). We're back down to about 1 in every 200 children in our society living in foster care. 

 https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/6242-children-ages-birth-to-17-in-foster-care?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/1/any/false/2048,574,1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868/any/12985,20455

The Children's Bureau at the Administration for Children & Families hosts the website you mentioned: the Child Welfare Information Gateway.  It doesn't have so many statistics and facts and figures, but you can find many reports on children welfare services and protective services. 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/catalog/topiclist/?CWIGFunctionsaction=publicationCatalog:main.dspTopicsDetail&topicID=6

Student Reflection: I, Daniel Blake

 So far, this semester has been packed full of very useful information. We have read a lot of different information this semester. We have also watched multiple videos and films. However, the thing that stood out most to me of all was I, Daniel Blake. This was a film about an older gentleman named Daniel Blake. Daniel had lost his beautiful wife. Daniel had also suffered from some health issues such as heart problems. Daniel had to take quite a bit of time off of work per doctor’s orders. Therefore, he was struggling a little bit financially. He went to apply for benefits to help get him through this time. At the time he was going to apply, he saw a younger woman with her two children getting kicked out of the office. She was a little bit late to her appointment, so they told her that they could not help her. Ultimately, she would have to come back at a different time. This really upset Daniel, so he ended up talking to this girl. Her name was Katie and her children were Daisy and Dylan. Katie was struggling. She had to move away from her family and they were new to the area. Daniel and Katie formed a bond, and he helped her fix up her house. He got to know her and her children more. They both struggled to get the benefits they needed. Daniel did get the help of a lady named Ann; however, she got in trouble for helping him. He had to fill out the information and go hand it out to employers just to get benefits. We see Daniel and Katie go to the food bank at one point. Katie was so hungry that she just opened up a can and started eating. This seemed like a breaking point for her. Daniel was always there for her. She ended up shoplifting feminine products because those were not available at the food bank. Ivan was the security guard who caught her. He said he could help girls like her. He ultimately got her to be an escort. When Daniel found this out, he did not take it lightly. He confronted her about it and did not want her doing this at all. She got upset and did not want him to come around anymore. However, Daisy came to Daniel’s apartment and wanted him to come back. Katie and Daniel ended up talking again and she was going to his appeal with him. As he was in the bathroom he collapsed and died. The ending showed Katie reading Daniel’s testimony at his funeral. 

This film was extremely eye-opening to me. I was skeptical at the beginning since it was a British film, and things are different there than in the United States. However, this film was so good. I never really thought of older widowed people struggling to get benefits. Daniel did not really know how to use the Internet. He struggled a lot in that aspect and had to ask for help more than once. The social worker that made Daniel look for all of those jobs knowing he could not work was really horrible. Ann was so helpful to him. The rest of them however were not. They were hostile towards him for no reason at all. I felt so terrible for Katie. She was trying so hard to be a good mother. She even made Daniel a plate instead of herself. She just ate an apple. She was starving herself to make sure that her kids were fed. It broke my heart to see her break down in the food bank. Then Daisy told her that the kids were making fun of her for that. Katie was really struggling, but Daniel was always there just out of kindness. The fact that Katie resorted to stealing feminine hygiene products was absolutely heartbreaking. As a woman, I hate to think about all the people that cannot afford those products needed. When Daisy told Katie that her shoes were broken, she knew she was going to have to find the money somehow to get her a new pair. Seeing the paper say escort was so sad. She knew she somehow had to provide for her babies. I could not imagine feeling like that. I think she was so embarrassed that Daniel found out. Daniel’s statement was so powerful. The system is so BROKEN, and this shows that is not just in the United States. 

I actually loved I, Daniel Blake. This film gave me a much better understanding of how difficult it truly is to get benefits. These benefits are not just handed out as easily as people think. I am so lucky that I do not relate to either of these stories. However, I know as a social worker, I will have to see situations like Daniel and Katie’s all of the time. I think that this film did a wonderful job of preparing me a little bit more for my future as a social worker. I would definitely recommend it to anyone pursuing a degree, or interested in, social work. 

I hope that the persons in the welfare office portrayed in I, Daniel Blake were not supposed to be social workers. I think one point of the film is that persons with skills and knowledge who could have helped Daisy or Daniel are often not present.  Instead of a nurse or physician assessing Daniel's disability in the opening scene with the phone call, a “qualified medical professional” who is clearly not qualified for any sort of interaction with a client is pushing Daniel along through the survey in a confrontational and dehumanizing manner. Instead of social workers with ethics and a client-centered approach in the welfare office we have officious bureaucrats who offer no sign of compassion or concern for the people they serve. 

People seem to hold either of two types of approaches to the welfare safety net: one approach is to deny benefits as much as possible, and be very strict.  The assumption is that people probably do not deserve benefits and many of these people need to be pushed to become self-supporting and independent, instead of demanding that they ought to be supported through the work of others (taxes redistribute money earned so that it can go to the public benefit such as welfare services, right?).  The other approach is to point out that most people seeking benefits genuinely need help, and the economic system and health care system cannot offer some of these people any decent opportunity to become self-reliant. Therefore, we ought to be generous and meet people's needs with courtesy and respect.  The film is trying to point out that the abstract idea of being "tough on people who are relying on welfare" so that they can "achieve self-reliance and independence and get jobs" may sound laudable (surely when possible for adults, being self-supporting is better than being dependent on others), but in practice is inflicts brutal attacks on the dignity and human rights of suffering souls. 

Daniel has been ordered by doctors and real health experts to avoid stress or exertion.  He certainly must not work.  But Daniel was for years a care-giver to his wife, who evidently had a long decline in her health, and he spent his life savings taking care of her, despite living in a country where health care is provided by a National Health Insurance scheme. He is a hard-working carpenter and care-giver, and he can't help himself but use his skills and labor to help others (like Katie and her children). He is clearly deserving.  Yet, the system torments him with rules and requirements that make no sense in his circumstance.  Katie is caring for two children, and seems to have little education (she has tried to attain a university degree, but has been thwarted by lack of support for that endeavor) or any special skills beyond housekeeping and cleaning. She is honest, clever, and hard-working, but cannot find a job because the economy does not offer her any work that would suffice to support her family. Both Katie and Daniel clearly deserve the benefits of a social welfare system.  Both are willing to work, but are unable to do so because of forces beyond their control (health problems for Daniel, and a bad economy without opportunities for Katie).  Rather than helping them achieve a dignified life or recognizing the equal value and rights of these two, the welfare system denies either of them the access to basic human rights or dignity.  The system essentially kills Daniel.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is worth recalling here:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.