Daniel Blake and Getting Benefits

 After watching I, Daniel Blake in this class earlier in the semester I felt moved to take a deeper look into the welfare system. I became curious about some of the most typical reasons why people are unable to secure benefits when they need them. Some reasons that I found and will explain in this essay are that welfare services are too difficult to enroll for, some programs have biases against married couples, and will give them less aid than singles, or people who genuinely need aid but do not qualify for it. 

The social welfare system is meant to help those with financial instability, get them back on track and self-sufficient again. Still, it isn’t easy to receive aid if the person in need cannot figure out how to apply for benefits. Many who report struggling with their applications cite applying for food stamps, or SNAP benefits, as one of the most stressful because of the expensive fines and jail time associated with reporting false information on the form. Some Latina or Hispanic people also report difficulties with applying for aid, possibly due to language barrier issues or because they have to deal with different eligibility requirements as non-citizens. In the film I, Daniel Blake we see Daniel struggle to apply for his aid because he does not have easy access to a computer nor does he know how to use one very well. I am sure that there are many senior citizens like Daniel who also struggle to apply for their benefits because they cannot use a computer well either. 

People who are elderly, non-English speaking, and technologically inept are not the only ones who feel excluded from the welfare system. One complaint that I saw repeated throughout my research is that many couples would like to get married but chose not to because they want to maintain the benefits provided to them by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF. The specific policy that keeps most couples from tying the knot is the marriage promotion policy, which was created to promote marriage and strong families. If someone is receiving welfare benefits and then decides they want to marry someone who has a higher income than them, even if that “higher income” is still incredibly low, the person receiving aid will lose some—if not all—assistance they previously received. This leads to many couples living at or around the poverty line choosing to cohabitate unmarried instead of making it official. The policy is meant to encourage a lack of dependence on welfare for families, but it ultimately backfired. 

Like married couples, some people need benefits but do not receive them because they are not eligible. In the case of SNAP benefits, whether or not someone is eligible is typically based on their gross monthly income, net income, and assets being worth under a certain threshold. Some groups are never eligible for SNAP benefits regardless of their income or assets. Some of these people would include people who are currently on strike, undocumented immigrants, some college students who are taking slightly too many hours to be considered part-time, and in certain states people with drug-related felony convictions. While this is not always the case, many of these people are groups that are prone to poverty or financial struggles and would benefit greatly from the aid provided by SNAP. 

This was just a very brief overview of some of the obstacles that stand in the way of people receiving what could be life-saving services ultimately. I think it is important to note that while researching for this paper it was much easier to find information about reasons why it is more difficult to get off welfare than it is to get on. The system is inaccessible to some and hard to get approved for initially but it seems that it is not designed to be easy to quit either. The system typically gives people enough to get by but not enough to flourish. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/01/25/welfare-benefits-low-income-struggle-for-access/11069891002/Links to an external site. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/welfare-reformLinks to an external site. 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50591/311349-Getting-On-Staying-On-and-Getting-Off-Welfare.PDFLinks to an external site. 

https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=udclrLinks to an external site. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559763/Links to an external site. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits#:~:text=Some%20categories%20of%20people%20are,certain%20people%20with%20drug%2DrelatedLinks to an external site. 

That's a good collection of sources.  Because people at low incomes must have consumption levels that are significantly higher than their earned incomes, but persons with middle and high incomes must pay taxes so that their net consumption is significantly below their earned income (I’ll check my taxes, but last year our estimated total contributions to local, state, and federal governments was about 30% of our income), there is an income range (probably from about $30,000 to $50,000 where loss of benefits more-or-less matches increases in earned income so that there are very slight increases in consumption for increases in earned incomes. This is somewhat a mathematical necessity, but the ways income increases create benefit decreases ought to be structured so that you never have loss of benefits that exceed 66¢ for every $1 earned.

I think it's pretty easy to get off Medicaid.  Doesn't Medicaid send recipients a letter asking for proof that someone still qualifies, and if you don't respond with evidence of your low income within a certain time, you lose your Medicaid benefits?  That is how it used to work.  Other benefits may be more difficult to get off. 

Fentanyl Crisis and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act

On April 25^th of 2023, the leaders of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs introduced a bipartisan bill regarding the current drug crisis occurring in the United States. This bill is called the FEND (Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence) Off Fentanyl Act. The bill, from what I have gathered, is aimed at stopping the flow of income that drug traffickers get from smuggling the deadly drug into the United States. It enhances current U.S law in order for U.S government officials to be better equipped at disrupting the fentanyl supply chain and penalizing those who are trafficking the drug. The bill will also ensure the sanctions on the money laundering that makes the drug trade possible. 

 For those unaware of the effects of the crisis fentanyl has caused, in 2021 over 100,000 Americans died from drug overdoses and over 60% of those overdose deaths were caused by fentanyl. In 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A) seized over 375 million deadly doses of fentanyl, which in theory is enough to supply a deadly dose to every person in the U.S. Earlier this year, there was a senate hearing regarding the bill and further action that could be taken in order to stop the devastating effects of this drug. It gained more popularity because of certain people speaking out against the drug, and in support of the bill while being televised. 

My personal thoughts on the fentanyl crisis in the U.S is that we need to be doing everything we can in order to stop it. I think that the FEND Off Fentanyl Act is a great first step in order to achieve this. However, I believe there are more steps that will need to be taken to get to a point where we can consider ourselves actively fighting the fentanyl crisis. I encourage students to read up on the drug and just how harmful it is, not only for those coming into contact with the substance, but for our country as a whole. 

Sources

Domestic and International Dimensions of the U.S. Fentanyl Crisis - United States Department of State

Banking Committee Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Address the Fentanyl Crisis | United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (senate.gov) 

Senator Brown chaired a hearing on this act back on January 11th of 2024. It's over two hours long, but you can get a good sense of what the government is hoping to achieve with this act. The three witnesses were Jason "Helly Roll" DeFord, (artist), Patrick Yoes (national president of the Fraternal Order of Police) and Christopher J. Urben (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration). Senator Tim Scott said during the hearings that preliminary CDC reports on 2022 suggested that 75,000 Americans were killed by fentanyl that year. 

As of late March, the committee had not voted on this, and so it hasn't gone to the Senate floor for a vote, and the House hasn't considered it. However, it has some overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, and hopefully the House will pass this. 

The bill seems to demand some reporting on money laundering in trade with Mexico and China. It seems mainly to be a bill going after suppliers and banks that help suppliers legitimate their profits. This reminds me of the old George Carlin bit from about thirty years ago. 

There are many sources with information about fentanyl, such as the Drug Policy Alliance,  the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

For ending drug abuse and addiction, I think the key is prevention and treatment, but it's harder to get bipartisan consensus on prevention and treatment laws. Attacking those who profit from dangerous drug supplies won’t hurt, and it’s easier to get agreement on such policies. To quote Edward T. Devine (1867-1948), “seek out and strike effectively at those organized forces of evil, at those particular causes of dependence and intolerable living conditions which are beyond the control of individuals whom they injure and whom they too often destroy” and to paraphrase him, ending illegal drug trade and addiction would be easier than it is “if there were not strong pecuniary interests at stake.”  That is to say, the corrupt bankers and politicians (especially in Mexico and China) have lots of financial gain, and are organized to perpetuate the flow of drugs (and their financial gain). 

Student wants Mental Health Crisis Training for First Responders

  I believe that first responders should undergo mental health crisis training. I believe this because there are so many circumstances in which this training could be crucial. Police officers in particular are faced with situations such as potential suicide attempts and/or people who could be having mental health episodes. They need someone who is going to be understanding and well trained on how to handle such situations. If first responders are not well-educated on how to handle persons who are experiencing suicidal or psychotic episodes, the resulting interactions could be traumatic for all parties involved. 

Unfortunately, people struggle with mental health on a daily basis. Sometimes, even those with proper training cannot prevent a suicide attempt. So, those who are going to be responding first should definitely have adequate training to mitigate the chances of violence or suicide from being higher in an encounter with a distraught or disoriented person in crisis. It is almost impossible for there not to be trauma and guilt associated with every suicide committed. If every first responder is well educated on how to respond well, they can at least have the comfort of knowing that they did everything in their power to prevent it. 

It would be a protection for everyone involved, and since it is a training that has already been established, it would not be hard to implement it in the police and first responder’s training. I also think that police officers and first responders need to be frequently checked up on especially after traumatic events happen to make sure they are mentally stable. They do not have to maintain a tough exterior. Time taken off and therapy should be a given after experiencing severe situations, especially one as severe as a successful suicide. 

Most police departments, sheriff departments, and fire departments in Illinois have serious training requirements, and have all their staff engage in on-going training to keep up their skills and build their expertise. Suggesting that professionals in these occupations have a certain number of hours of theory and simulation practice to enhance their ability in handling people who are suicidal or suffering a mental health crisis makes sense. That training would not be too difficult to implement, in the sense that this sort of training could be incorporated into existing training programs.  After the two deaths in 2022 where emergency medical technicians essentially killed persons they were supposed to help (Leonardo Guerrero killed in Chicago on August 31st and Earl Moore Jr. killed in Springfield on December 18th) I looked into the training that EMS workers must have, and I read the minutes and agendas of the advisory board that advises the Department of Public Health on certification of EMS staff and ambulance services in Illinois (there is an administrative code for emergency services and it dictates the level and scope of training for EMT and EMS system professionals). I had my students join me in sending letters to the members of the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council urging them to mandate training that would help EMS workers avoid the sort of burn-out and demoralization where they would become abusive against people in mental health crisis or intoxicated people.  I spoke with people who worked as first responders, including Kainan Rinaberger (president of Springfield Firefighter Local 37) about the issue. 

Leo Guerrero and Earl Moore Jr. both had problems with mental illness and substance addiction. Police and EMT workers who encountered them did not treat them as they should have done. I can think of other examples. Greg Small, Jr. (of Chatham, Illinois) was suffering a mental break-down related to schizophrenia, and he had a knife in his hand, so his mom called for help, but officer Adam Hahn saw that Greg had a knife and would not drop the knife when ordered to do so, so when Greg approached Hahn, Hahn shot him several times. The Sangamon County State's Attorney Dan Wright charged Greg Small, Jr. with aggravated assault for approaching Officer Hahn with a knife in his hand, but Greg was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The fact that Officer Hahn hadn't received specialized training in dealing with a person in a psychotic crisis holding a weapon led to Greg Small suffering four gunshot wounds and Officer Hahn becoming a public example of incompetence. Dan Wright said he had to bring charges so that the courts could order Greg to get mental health treatment he needs.  

Generally, what I gather is that first responders are, as you suggest, traumatized through their work.  I’m told firefighters tend to encounter two or three dead persons each month, and I suppose the EMT workers and police would see a similar number.  Any encounter with a victim of an accidental death, a suicide, or homicide, or even just a natural death can be traumatic, but imagine encountering such situations on nearly a weekly basis!  And a significant number (although a small minority of all cases) of persons who need emergency medical or police protection will be hostile, abusive, or even violent against their rescuers and helpers. It can wear down people.  In Springfield, the police and firefighters are well-trained, and I think that some of them would accept referrals to professional counseling as a way to help them cope with the stresses of their jobs. As for the EMT staff in the private ambulance services, that is often a transitional job for young people who aren’t old enough to become firefighters or police, and the pay is very low, the training requires dedication, and the job can be dangerous and stressful.  

It seems to me that law enforcement professionals facing the anti-police bias widespread in the community (and sometimes well-founded on experiences with unprofessional or brutal/corrupt police) and dealing with regular exposure to traumatic situations and people engaged in anti-social or threatening behaviors could easily turn some fraction of the workforce into an us-versus-them mentality where suspicion and contempt would inform their interactions with the public.  Not only do police, firefighters, and EMT professionals need help dealing with the traumas and stresses of their job, they need idealistic rituals or processes to help them commit themselves to their missions. They need help feeling the support that comes from actually committing to service to others, and respect for human rights. 

Without help and training, first responders may easily dehumanize difficult patients and members of the public (e.g., persons freaking out and having a suicidal attempt, or just generally disrupting the community as they suffer from severe intoxication or a florid psychotic episode). What do we do with people who wander around in a busy area during a community event screaming and shouting threats and obscenities and generally making a nuisance of themselves as they act in a disorganized fashion?  The impulse to treat such people harshly, locking them up and removing them from the community, may appeal, but harsh treatment can exacerbate the problem. You can see how mental health professionals help the angry and violent man (Todd) threatening the doctor in the documentary "Bedlam" (you'll watch it later this semester). 

A Student Is Concerned About a Michigan State Representative Who Contemplates Banning Hormonal Contraception

  After doing some research, I discovered that a Republican suggested the idea of banning birth control. In 2024, I didn’t think that would even be an idea. This Republican is Josh Shriver. He reposed a tweet from Elon Musk about how birth control “makes you fat” and doubles the risk of suicide and depression. While the side effects of birth control do include those, he should take some time to consider the alternative. 

The number of teen pregnancies would increase drastically. The way that Josh Shriver is looking at this is from an entirely misogynistic perspective. The way he is afraid of birth control users gaining weight, is most likely coming from a place of fatphobia. I know a variety of women, myself included, that got off of birth control because of the terrible side effects. However, women should have access to contraceptives if they wish to. If a man impregnates a woman, he does not have to deal with the toll a pregnancy takes on the female body. Therefore, men should not speak on the usage of birth control. Furthermore, birth control is not only used to prevent pregnancies. It can also be used to treat certain health conditions and painful periods. 

The topic of a birth control ban had me thinking about the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The majority of the supreme court justices who made this decision were male. As mentioned earlier, I don’t think that a man should be able to speak on a woman’s reproductive rights. In Illinois, abortion is still legal. However, people from Republican states should be worried. What’s even more worrying is riots outside of Planned Parenthood sites. My sister works nearby one of these locations, and the rioters harass and belittle those who enter the building. If this is happening in Illinois. I can’t imagine what’s going on in Republican states. 

The rioters don’t understand that Planned Parenthood doesn’t only support abortions, but they also educate young people on sexual health and the use of oral contraceptives. These people that riot at Planned Parenthood are members of the local church. They claim that abortion is against their religion. While this may be true, harassing women for exercising their reproductive rights is not very Christian of them. I respect everyone’s religion and what they believe in, but I will not respect people becoming violent and forcing their beliefs on others. 

This had me thinking about the women who will need to terminate the pregnancy for their health, or those who get pregnant from a rape. But unlike some people, I don’t believe that these are the only instances in which terminating a pregnancy is okay. Women should be allowed an abortion just because they don’t want a baby. 

I often hear the rebuttal from the pro-life community: “Women use abortions as a form of birth control.” This statement does not apply to the majority of women who have experienced an abortion. People don’t realize the toll an abortion would take on someone. Even if that woman was 100% sure that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy, she may still feel some sort of guilt or remorse. 

The fact that women’s reproductive health is still a topic debated in 2024 is baffling to me. Oral contraceptives were invented in the 1950s and it has become widely accepted compared to when it was first introduced. However, Republican’s still act like reproductive health is still up for debate. 

Reference: https://michiganadvance.com/2024/02/20/reproductive-rights-advocates-blast-schriver-for-floating-birth-control-ban/ 

Thank you for alerting me to to the existence of Representative Joshua Schriver.  I looked him up on social media and saw the sort of stuff he was posting.  He fits in with Mary Miller, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and so forth. He seems concerned that people in power are bringing in many immigrants from Latin America and Asia and Africa to replace Americans, and he seems to desire that America become a Christian nation. He also makes many claims that don’t seem to be rooted in any empirical evidence. His suggestion that lawmakers should consider banning hormonal birth control seems rooted in a belief that such hormonal treatments increase risk for depression, suicide, and unhealthy weight gain. 

I have nothing against religious politicians. I personally would like to see more people involved actively in faith congregations or groups like that, because I think prayer and pursuit of spiritual growth is very good for individuals, and involvement in a religious congregation usually corresponds to greater civic involvement in practices such as philanthropic giving, volunteering, and cross-ideological friendship. Loneliness and depression also seem to decrease with engagement in faith communities. But, naturally, I don’t favor any religious group setting up laws to encourage a particular faith or enforce one faith’s religious teachings on everyone. And, I have reservations about some sects and congregations, which seem to become mind-control groups that constrain the thinking and social lives of members. 

There are many available forms of birth control.  The associations between hormonal birth control use and suicidality and depression seem statistically significant but there are also mental health risks from pregnancies, whether desired or undesired, and possibly from abortions (more controversial), so it is probably not a good public health policy to discourage hormonal birth control for women. But, social workers who see female clients with depression or suicidality should probably assess hormonal birth control use, inform clients of the connection, but warn them that cessation of use may take months to result in a mood improvement, and that their suicidality may not be influenced at all by the hormonal birth control they have been using. 

I do not doubt your conjecture that Joshua Shriver has misogynistic motives in suggesting that hormonal birth control ought to be banned, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he also has paternalistic good will mixed in as well, since there does seem to be some increased risk of suicide and depression for women who use hormonal contraceptives. Most people support specific policies or programs based on a mixture of motives, and when we engage with someone, it is usually best to assume that their motives are motivated by the best intentions, although it is wise to keep in mind that the worst intentions may also be motives.

There are two fundamental disagreements at the level of assumptions that divide those who want the state to be most restrictive about abortions and those who want the state to be most permissive.  The first disagreement assumption involves the beginning of life deserving protection from the state. Almost everyone would support a ban on abortions for viable and healthy fetuses/babies after twenty weeks of gestation when the mother’s health is not at risk. Very few would oppose pregnancy terminations that took place before the blastocyst burrows into the uterine wall (implantation). But, between those extremes, where we draw the line on the sacredness of life or the duty to protect the life of the developing entity that would become a person (or is already a person?) cannot be informed by empirical evidence and argument, and so people argue about the assumptions they make—usually fruitless arguments. 

The second disagreement about assumptions comes with the duty of the state to interfere in moral and medical questions made by pregnant women and their doctors.  Some prefer to allow women and doctors to consider the moral consequences of pregnancy termination, and then come to terms with the spiritual injury they may suffer by making a bad decision.  Others prefer to “protect” the women and doctors by imposing the state into the moral decision-making, and not allowing women and doctors to weigh the consequences of their decisions. Disagreements here involve assumptions about the state's duty to impose moral rules on everyone, and which source of moral insight ought to inform legislation.

There are many laws to protect us from self-harm or taking risks, especially risk-taking that could harm others. Safety regulations, rules against use of intoxicants and addictive substances, laws about use of motor vehicles, and laws forbidding dangerous recreations all involve the state imposing moral judgements about safety and risk-taking on citizens. Some of us are skeptical about many of these laws, and we prefer that in many cases people should be able to choose their behaviors and suffer the consequences of bad choices. When the consequences of bad choices are likely to be expensive medical care or permanent disabilities, the community has a legitimate interest in preventing self-harm, since we all share the costs of medical care or disability benefits. But when the consequences of bad choices may be only spiritual damage, feelings of guilt and remorse, or stupid behaviors, I find it difficult to understand why the state should intervene and attempt to control or guide behaviors of citizens.  It’s especially alarming to think that specific religious perspectives on desired behaviors might be imposed on a general public where religious beliefs are diverse and often agnostic. 

A Student Despairs that Partisan Politics Block Good Policies

 

For this free writing assignment, I chose to write about and focus on how politics influence policies made. In today’s society I think that politics influence a lot of things that they shouldn’t, but it is just how the world seems to function. When it comes to making policies regarding social work, mental health, homelessness, or anything related, it should have nothing to do with politics, but rather the best interest of the people. The world is in the biggest and worst mental health crisis that it ever has been, but instead of focusing on that, we focus on whether or not it fits into a left or right leaning stance. Personally, I find that ridiculous because it should be about these people who are struggling with their mental health each and every day. Some of these people cannot get out of bed in the morning, cannot feed their kids, cannot get a job, or maybe can’t even get a roof over their head, but instead we focus on who is “right.” When neither is right. The only right is fixing the problem these people face. Bringing politics into the mix completely throws the human right purpose out the window because it brings in nothing but selfishness. If we left politics out of making policies, I believe that the world would be a better place. We could solve issues much easier and without so much hate and discrimination. Homeless people would not be homeless, mentally ill people would have the help they need, and the social workers would make the money they deserve to make without working well beyond their hours.  

This is a persistent problem.  According to some perspectives, conservative voices ought to be offering cautious perspectives, eager to find the way of accomplishing social welfare and domestic tranquility with minimal regulation, most efficient (requiring the lowest possible taxes and spending) policies and services that remain effective, and respect for historical precedent and experience. Along this line, the liberal voices ought to be more interested in innovative or transformative perspectives, seeking similar effective policies with similar goals, but more willing to tolerate regulation, and more willing to redistribute resources through more generous public spending.  In essence, conservatives would prefer a society where the welfare system and all the other things the government does would take up about 25% to 35% of the economy, while liberals would prefer about 35% to 45% of the economy to be in the public realm, and radicals would perhaps prefer 45% to 55% of personal income to end up in public projects and the welfare system. If people saw things this way, would they really hate someone for thinking the governments at various level needed to control 40% of the economy when they personally preferred a figure of 30%?  But instead, tribal cliques form and partisan loyalties and power-seeking block good policies. Since all social policies and government programs are vast and complex, and will always contain errors, gaps, and imperfections, the tribes of political parties seek out only those flaws when the policies or services are recommended by the other tribe, and deny or hide all the flaws when the policies or services “belong” to their own tribe. 

If a good policy is recommended, and it would be efficient, highly effective, fair, and provide huge improvements compared to the costs associated with it, we professionals would hope that all politicians would take it seriously and support the policy if no better (more effective or more efficient) policy was available or feasible. Instead, we see that when a policy is supported by Democratic Part members, many Republicans will be biased against it, and if Republicans like a policy, Democrats will probably reject it. Many Democrats will insist on superior policies according to their ideology, even when there is no feasible way those policies can be enacted, given political realities, and they will fight against half-way measures; and we see the same thing among many Republicans, who demand policies or actions that have no chance of passage, and will reject any compromises. 

The key to policy practice for social workers is to try to frame issues in a way that will appeal in a non-partisan way to any politicians who care about solving problems and putting forth some effort to enact laws that will improve a situation. There are members of both parties who do care, and will listen, and will try to work to get good legislation passed.  There are also members of both parties who don’t really care much, who will be willfully ignorant, and who care mainly about their power or their appearance, and not so much about what they actually do.

Social Worker Safety After the Murder of Deidre Silas

 Deidre Silas was a social worker working at The Illinois Department of Children and Family services in Springfield Illinois. On Jan, 4, 2022, Silas was stabbed to death while making a home visit by someone staying in the house. Safety has always been a concern regarding Social Work and the murder of Silas has encouraged people to advocate for policies to protect social workers. 

Despite state officials’ pointing out changes they plan to make to protect workers, little difference has been made a year after Silas’s death. Those in the field state that one of the main issues that causes social workers to go to visits alone, is there are too many cases and not enough workers. A study done in 2020 showed that more than 73% of public child welfare workers had been verbally abused, 36% have been threatened, and about 50% have experienced symptoms of PTSD (Gerstein). Illinois has a policy that states that a social worker may delay a visit until they can have another person with them if the situation could be dangerous. Although this is ideal, it is not realistic for the oversized workload most social workers have to deal with. 

Policies suggested include providing bullet-proof shirts to social workers, cell phone signal boosters, and panic buttons for investigators to contact law enforcement. Another controversial policy signed into law by Governor Pritzker, requires departments to provide their employees with pepper spray. Unfortunately it is widely reported that these changes are not happening soon enough. A lobbyist for the Illinois chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, Kyle Hillman states, “DCFS was not interested in things that were going to cost them more money; they’re interested in things that would make good media reports…We’re going to see more tragedies.” (Gerstein).

Works Cited:

Gerstein, M. (2023, February 22). Murdered on the job: A year after a child welfare investigator was killed, little has changed. Youth Today. https://youthtoday.org/2023/02/murdered-on-the-job-a-year-after-a-child-welfare-investigator-was-killed-little-has-changed/

While it has not been a statewide change, the Sangamon County DCFS Field Office where Deidre worked has had two deputies from the Sheriff's department assigned to work with social workers since shortly after her murder. They often go out on child removals, and they help research people in households since the law enforcement database they use is much quicker than the national child abuser databases social workers use. This change has been welcomed by the social workers at the office. When I visited the office about ten months after her murder, her cubical was pretty much untouched as she had left it, and posters asking for justice for Deidre were abundantly posted around the office.

The man who killed Deidre was allegedly suffering from a psychotic disorder, and possibly not understanding the situation when he stabbed her. My sources in the county jail described the man as being “crazy” ever since he became a guest of the county. Mental illness and substance abuse are frequently present as parental situations in the appendices of the annual report on child deaths from our state’s inspector general. That is, social workers covering the most difficult cases where children’s lives may really be at risk are often encountering adults who may be intoxicated of suffering from psychosis during a home visit. In the case of the DCFS worker Pamela Knight, who was also murdered in the line of work a few years before Deidre, the father who beat her up was just an angry and violent person. He took a plea deal and will serve 21 years incarcerated.

Social work is a dangerous job, but not as dangerous as commercial fishing, forestry, law enforcement, truck driving, construction, and a few other occupations like that. The Department of Labor has estimates of the number of injuries and deaths per hours worked in various occupations. Social work is more dangerous than most jobs, but not among the very worst (most dangerous) careers.

Growing Old in America

 The baby boomers are growing older and starting to enter the Social Security age range. Social Security doesn’t pay enough to cover all living expenses. The costs of housing are rising, as well as the costs of everything else. Unfortunately, the pay is not increasing to meet the costs of living. As you age it becomes harder to do things for yourself and to maintain a household. This requires additional help which costs additional money. Ideally by the time you reach the age of eligibility to draw Social Security, you should have your home paid off. However, that is not the case for most Americans. Many of the boomer population that I know still owe tens of thousands on their mortgages or they rent or have lot rent. Lot rent on a trailer park has gone up, and is now the price of what rent for a one-bedroom apartment used to be. The costs associated with maintaining a mobile home are also high, and typically don’t qualify for any type of repair assistance through local home maintenance programs sometimes available to older adults. For those that own their homes and still owe a mortgage it’s nearly impossible to pay the mortgage on the wage of social security. If you add a job to supplement the income, it can cause you to make too much money, and rules and case managers will subsequently decrease your benefits. 

Medical costs are also obnoxious. As you grow older, more health issues come out, and you typically require more medications, more appointments, and more assistance. These are all costly, so insurance is important. There is a gap in coverage with Medicare, and the costs of Medigap coverage can be out of reach for many people. I know some people who, in lean months, must choose between paying a bill or eating or paying for their medications or paying the mortgage. It’s a tough situation without much room for any change. 

Many people who receive Social Security are considered “over income” for SNAP benefits., and if they do qualify, they don’t receive nearly enough to be able to make ends meet each month. Many of our senior citizens rely on the food pantry for assistance each month. Our food pantries are a great resource, but typically only help a limited number of times per month. There also aren’t usually many choices for someone who has health conditions that require a special diet. This leaves many of the aging population in a tough place. 

The government has a responsibility to provide for its citizens, especially to those who have worked most of their lives to help pay taxes, etc and are no longer physically able to. Our country needs to do something different to help fill these gaps. 

The Baby Boomers are about 60 to 78 years-old. Probably most have retired by now, but no doubt a sizable minority of them still haven’t started collecting their Social Security or Medicare benefits.  My generation is 44 to 59 years-old, but there aren’t very many of us. 

About 37% of the population 65 or older is still paying off a mortgage. 

I wonder why Congress and the White House aren’t trying to raise the payroll tax to 7% (14% including employer contributions) from the 6.2% (12.4%) people currently pay into Social Security. The trust fund is rapidly depleted each year as expenditures for benefits exceed payroll tax collections by hundreds of billions, and in less than ten years, when the Social Security Trust Fund is exhausted, we will suddenly need to choose between a much steeper increase in the withholding tax, a significant (a quarter to a third) drop in benefits paid out, or a sudden increase in the budget deficit to cover the gap that the trust fund has been covering. 

You mention that Social Security benefits are not very generous.  Yeah, I think average monthly benefits are about $1,800 these days.  So, for most retired workers, the Social Security benefits are giving them about 37% of what they had been earning before retirement (see this report). So, consider that for about 40 to 45 years workers (and their employers) are paying about 12.4% of their incomes into Social Security, and then for 15 to 25 years in retirement they are getting about 37% of their former income back. Also, 

Your essay got me thinking about the Baby Boomer generation.  The Census Bureau says they were born between the summers of 1946 and 1964. Curiously, those of us in Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) do not include those born in late 1964.  So, what about people born in late 1964?  Are they neither Baby Boomers nor Generation X?   Also, what was the best song by Generation X? Was it “Kiss Me Deadly”? Or, more likely, “Your Generation”?  And, since Billy Idol, (the toxic singer frontman of Generation X) was born in 1955, and his song is clearly a response to “My Generation” by The Who, whose members were mostly born before 1946 and are thus members of “The Silent Generation” rather than Baby Boomers, then isn’t the band “Generation X” really a Boomer band and their rebellion against the rock’n’roll of the 1960s an attack on the Silent Generation rather than the Boomers?    Also, which band is better, “The Millennials” or “Generation X” or “Generation Y”? Generation Y seems to play emo metal.  Generation X was a punk band, or new-wave, or something close to those genres. The Millennials do lots of covers of classic rock. I guess the answer depends upon musical genre preferences.