Turning Broken Pieces Into a Mosiac

When I originally started my project, the problem I intended to focus on was as follows: Between in school and extracurricular activities, low-income students have less accessibility to resources that allow them to succeed. In the past week however, I have come to explore the issues associated with the redistricting of the Elementary Schools, which has spilled over into our small group.

Amherst has four Elementary schools: Crocker Farm, Fort River, Mark’s Meadow and Wildwood. Due to the economic crisis, Mark’s Meadow is closing and the town therefore must be redistricted accordingly. One thing to be said about the redistricting is that with the closure it is inevitable and must happen. It is how the issue is being conducted that is causing approval from some and disapproval from others.

Over the years, each school has developed a culture to it. Because of open enrollment, meaning you can choose which school your child attends, certain cultures have created communities within certain schools. Crocker Farm has developed a large Latino population, and an English as a Second Language program to serve them. Fort River has the Cambodian students. Wildwood held a majority of the Chinese students, prior to the creation of the Chinese Charter School. Mark’s Meadow was the most racially diverse school and many of the students there were the children of UMass graduate students. After attending the School Committee meeting on October 22nd, where they presented their final maps, the argument was made that this “language clustering” within the schools is illegal.

Another issue that families have is the redistricting is being done with the criteria in mind that all schools should be equitable. This equality means that all Elementary schools will have about the name percentage of children on free and reduced lunch. The School Committee has stated that this is because studies prove that when there are high numbers of children on free and reduced lunch, that children do not fare as well. Certain areas of town are being treated differently with a group of apartments going to another school, while the houses surrounding it going to another. Essentially an island has been drawn around the Boulders and all of those children will go to Wildwood while all the children around them will attend Crocker Farm. It is a combination of disrupting the language clusters within the schools and the idea of busing the poor children away that have upset some in the town.

This has caused our group to take a new direction regarding the achievement gap for low-income students. From the research I have found, there are five promising factors to closing the achievement gap: 1) alignment of standards, assessment, and curriculum; 2) teacher quality; 3) class size; 4) parental involvement; and 5) leadership among staff. Parental involvement is an important quality, and we looked at an dissected why parents and community members are not involved. As the school can often times be an uninviting place, or the first parent-teacher interaction is when a child is being disciplined, we needed to come up with a way to create community and welcome all families from the start. Therefore the problem will now be that there is too little community involvement in the school systems.

Now our group has taken the direction of picking up the pieces after the moving of students, teachers and resources is finished, with the hope that we can turn these pieces into a mosaic. We will focus on starting discussions in the Spring by inviting all students, parents and teachers to a dinner to talk about how to better the school system. Here is a blurb I wrote for the group about our mission for the discussion in the Spring:

“Dinner and Discussion: Setting a Tone for the First Day
A night of food and conversation welcome to all families, students and teachers in the Amherst schools. This will be an opportunity to engage with one another about how to build community and improve all students’ education. With the changes taking place next year, our thoughts about the direction we want to go in have never been so valuable. Now more than ever we need to come to together to talk about our vision of our school system and how we can make that a reality in this new school year. Let’s start the year off right by making the decisions for ourselves how our community should be. The event will be occurring at the Masonic Lodge located next to the Amherst Police Station and accessible by Buses 30, 31, 37, 38 and 42. Childcare and translation will be provided.”

Instead of writing improve all students’ education, I thought about writing about equity for all students education, however there are feelings in the group that we do not want this to be associated with the redistricting. We also do not want the event to see like the opening of old wounds but how we can heal this and start anew. This blurb outlines the role of the group from here. Most of my research will be situational, like learning the more about how things operate in the Amherst schools.

Another policy I have been researching is the First Day program, from the recommendation of a teacher within our group. First Day began in Vermont with the goal of increasing community support for education. In the program, on the first day of the academic year all families are invited to come into school to be with their child. They have assemblies, activities and even just go class to class to meet their child’s teachers. This brings in those families who are usually discouraged by parent-teacher activities, with the hopes that everyone will become more involved in the school system. Since this year will be such a new year for all parties involved, it is vital that we start strong in order to make the schools the best they can be.

A problem which I hope we will find a way to address is the underlying tones of classism within the town which cause a divide within the school community. It is important for this issue to be talked because it has created the elephant in the room. Therefore there is difficulty in bringing the community together, especially in the school systems where certain socioeconomic identities are more represented and advocated for than others. While this seems to be a problem among the parents, it is the students who lose. The students are in a difficult predicament because they do not have voting power and are often not given the ability to advocate for themselves.

Protecting Transgender People

Many consider the commonwealth of Massachusetts to be uncommonly accepting of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. After all, it was the first state to allow gay marriage, and the state has non-discrimination laws protecting the rights of gays and lesbians. However, rights and protections accorded to gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals have not been extended to transgender people. Transgender people may legally be fired, refused housing, and refused access to public facilities, among other things, as a result of their gender identity. This lack of protection leaves transgender people without any legal recourse against discrimination.

In order to discuss transgender issues, it is first necessary to understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Sexual orientation can be defined as the direction of one’s sexual interest: heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are all sexual orientations. Gender identity is not related to sexual attraction. It can be defined as a sense of oneself as a male or female regardless of biological sex. Although gender identity is related to sexual orientation, they are two different things. This means that Massachusetts laws which protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation do not protect transgender people, who have a different gender identity.

These protections are necessary because discrimination against transgender people is common in this country and in the state of Massachusetts. In six studies conducted nationally between 1996 and 2006, between 20 and 57 of transgender respondents reported having experienced employment discrimination at some point in their life. More specifically, 13% to 56% were fired, 13% to 47% were denied employment, 22% to 31% were harassed, and 19% were denied a promotion based on their gender identity. These statistics are significantly higher than reports from the same studies of discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Statistics from a report by the Williams Institute)

Transgender people are also a target for violence as a result of their gender identities, and yet they are not explicitly protected by hate crime laws in the state of Massachusetts. Transgender people are afforded some protection on the basis of existing hate crime laws for violence motivated by sex and disability, but they are not explicitly protected as a subject group and therefore the designation of an attack as a hate crime depends upon the decision of each individual judge. Transgender can report hate crimes though, and they do so in disproportionate numbers. Over five percent of reported hate crime victims between 2002 and 2005 were transsexual men and women, many times greater than their percentage if the Massachusetts population. These numbers do not include reports made to GLBT support organizations, which often cite harassment by the police themselves. This indicates that the threat of violence for transgender people is significant, and that more protection is needed in this area.

Employment discrimination and violence are problems encountered by many target groups, but transgender people also encounter discrimination in ways that one might not expect. For example, GLAD and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition reported that support organizations received thirty-seven calls in 2009 on transgender-related discrimination, harassment, and violence. One of these was from a transgender man whose legal name change was not recognized by a private insurer who refused to process his billing information. Another was from two transgender women refused access to restroom facilities. These often overlooked issues seriously affect the ability of transgender people to lead happy lives.

In order to end discrimination against transgender people in the state of Massachusetts, transgender people need more legal protection against discrimination based on gender identity. It is up to us, the residents of this state, to decide upon a responsible policy that will provide that protection and take the first step towards ending discrimination based on gender identity in Massachusetts.

Sources:

http://www.masstpc.org/publications/Trans_Bulletin_Oct09.pdf

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/programs/ENDA/10%20Survey%20Data%20with%20Brad%20Sept%2020%20%282%29.pdf

Compensation for All

When one is a victim of a violent crime, their entire world can be thrown into disarray. The physical injuries and emotional burden, along with loss of time at work or school, require time and money that most cannot handle on their own.

The Massachusetts Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Act is in place to provide financial support for those victims affected by violent crime. A victim can receive a maximum of $25,000 for their suffering. However, certain requirements must be met. First, compensation must be applied for within three years of the crime. Victims under 18 years old have until they turn 21 to file. Also, the crime must be reported to the police within five days of the incident and the victim must cooperate with both the investigation and the prosecution of the crime (www.mass.gov). For some, these are simple requirements, but for sexual assault victims, they may not be so easy.

Sexual assault is the most underreported violent crime. Though various estimates exist, an average statistic states that only 16 percent of rape victims report their attack to police (Jane Doe, Inc.). Sexual assault is accompanied by a large amount of shame; victims commonly blame themselves and worry others will do the same. These worries are quite justified. In our current society based on a “just world”, people find it hard to believe that bad things happen to good people and try to blame flaws in the victim for the crime. In addition to being blamed, victims fear others finding out and their assault being made public. Seeking out family and friends, let alone police, is no easy task.

With such a low percent of victims reporting, what is a sexual assault victim to do? Do they deserve to be cut from financial assistance because the nature of their crime? Shouldn’t Victims Compensation have requirements that enable these victims to receive restitution? To an extent, there is.

If a victim has a rape kit done or files a restraining order, this may count as ‘reporting’. However, these documents are not accessible to all sexual assault victims. One major issue is that restraining orders are only available to those who had an intimate or familial relationship with their attacker. This leaves a large amount of victims out. Also, not all forms of sexual assault require a rape kit. If no physical injuries or assault occurred, one would not seek out such a test. Even looking past these possible options, should victims of sexual assault even have to report? Is it possible to completely eliminate this requirement instead of simply finding substitute reports?

Some states have made this requirement completely unnecessary. In Indiana, reporting to the police is required within three days of the crime except for victims of sexual assault (www.in.gov). It should be noted that their maximum award is lower ($15,000) and the application is due within 180 days of the crime (compared to Massachusetts’s three years). Looking at this option, some would argue that eliminating this requirement for some is unfair and will result in higher costs or lower payouts (since it will become more accessible). However, isn’t it unfair now? Think about how much easier it is to report a car accident or a homicide. Both involve police interaction with little to no question about their presence. Sexual assault is a very personal crime and is very different from other violent crimes, especially in terms of blame and societal attitudes. Few people would blame someone who was robbed at night, but many find fault in someone raped at night. Also, would an increase in cost really result? Funding for Victims Compensation comes largely from criminal fines and penalties. By widening the range of people able to receive compensation and showing increased support, an environment of trust can result, which may lead to increased police reporting and prosecution.

We need to help all our victims, not just some, and adjust the policies in place to accommodate their needs. Our assistance should not be as victimizing as the crime.

Sources:

Supporting Survivors of Sexual Assault: A Journey to Justice, Heath, and Healing. Jane Doe, Inc.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Victim+and+Witness+Assistance&L2=Victims+of+Violent+Crime&sid=Cago&b=terminalcontent&f=victim_Victim_Compensation&csid=Cago

http://www.in.gov/cji/2348.htm

Bringing Health (and hope) to the Hungry

In these troubling economic times, it’s easy to forget the little things. People all over the country are struggling with car payments, credit card and student loan debt, job losses, inadequate or missing health care, and foreclosures. With huge issues like these casting a shadow over our nation, it seems that there’s always more to worry about—and that sometimes means that other issues, particularly those which affect communities who are already under-served by government policy, often get lost in the shuffle.

But it’s also in times of struggle where there is perhaps the most fertile ground for innovation. One such area of potential innovation that I would like to propose deals directly with a community of people who have been particularly hard hit by the recession—the poor, namely those who are at or below the federal poverty line and receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or Food Stamps) benefits. With my project, I aim to expand the current SNAP benefits to farmer’s markets, so that individuals on limited budgets can still afford nutritious, healthy, and sustainable food—while also supporting another struggling industry: local agriculture.

The SNAP program, which serves over 35 million people every month (USDA Food and Nutrition Service website), is a critical resource for many low-income individuals who would be otherwise unable to provide adequate nutrition for their families without sacrificing other needs, such as health care, heat, and rent. Since its inception with the Food Stamp Act of 1939, the SNAP program has been a source of much-needed assistance for families and individuals in both obtaining affordable food as well as working on the path towards self-sustainability. Never in the history of this program, however, have there been more people in need of this critical assistance. In the state of Massachusetts alone, the number of households receiving SNAP benefits has gone up dramatically—from 197,562 in June 2006 to now an estimated 364,590 in June 2010 (Mass Office of Health and Human Services). Clearly, these increasing numbers necessitate a continuing commitment to funding this program, but also encourage us to examine how to make the program more effective in serving this growing community’s needs.

One way in which I believe the SNAP program can sustain both low-income families and local economies and businesses is by allowing food stamps as a form of payment at farmer’s markets. There are currently 200 farmer’s markets in Massachusetts (Mass Dept. of Agriculture), a number which is growing seemingly by the day. Farmer’s markets not only provide healthy, fresh, and sustainable local food, but they also provide a community gathering spot and a source of economic stimulus that’s grown at the local level. According to Jane Black of the Washington Post, who recently did an article on food stamps at farmer’s markets (and profiled Holyoke as an example of why this idea works), “Doubling food assistance money helps needy families afford fresh fruits and vegetables and eat more healthfully, and the money they spend goes to another struggling x population: small farmers. Moreover, studies show that the food stamp program (recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and similar forms of aid are among the most effective ways to stimulate the slumping economy, creating $1.73 worth of economic activity for every dollar spent.” Though there is already a stated program in place which technically allows individuals receiving SNAP benefits to use their EBT card (the form of payment now used for food stamps) at these farmer’s markets (like they do in Holyoke), only 35 out of 200 do offer this as an option. The question we all should be asking is: why?

The answer has to do with something we all take for granted as being there to solve our problems: technology. However, in this case, technology is the barrier to enabling this program to reach wide-spread implementation, because the costs of EBT machines (about $1000 each) are unfunded by the federal, state, and most local governments. Though grants have enabled communities like Holyoke to fund these machines, we cannot rely on outside funding or individual markets alone to solve this problem. Interestingly, though the federal SNAP program does subsidize these machines at retail-chain supermarkets (where individuals and families often end up choosing unsustainable, less healthy, pesticide-ridden foods due to lack of education and access), but has not yet adopted a strategy for funding the machines at farmer’s markets. However, due to the comparatively low cost for the machine versus the high benefit of increased access to healthy, sustainable, local food, it makes it even more critical for us to discover a solution to this problem.

Beyond the obvious benefit of allowing low-income individuals and families increased access to healthier and more sustainable food choices, there are also measurable benefits for the farmers at markets that fund the EBT machines as well as the towns where the markets are located. For example, in Ms. Black’s article, she later describes how Holyoke’s EBT machine has improved low income families’ quality of life, quoting Daniel Ross of Nuestras Raices as saying “We've found in all our research that low-income people know what healthy food is, but because of price, they can't afford it. This helps them get the food they really want for their families." Later, she quotes the head of a Washington farmer’s market, who states that "By implementing these programs, a single dollar of stimulus impacts nutrition, helps farmers, stimulates the economy and provides a direct investment in reducing health-care costs."

Clearly, there’s incentive all around: for low income households, there’s access to better food for their families. For farmers, it means additional revenue at their weekly markets. For towns, it means more visitors to their town’s markets over other towns, which means increased foot traffic and often leads to more money flowing into local businesses. There’s also that little issue of one dollar spent in food stamps creating $1.73 in economic activity, a figure which makes sense when considering where that dollar goes—directly back to the community it comes from, plus tax, increasing the dollar value while continuing to circulate money into the pool of local revenue. This is something that’s not only laudable, implementable, and impactful, it’s also attainable—the main question is how to find the funding, considering the struggling economy.

That’s where you come in—what are some suggestions? Possible funding sources, new ideas, criticisms, comments? Please email me at heatherm@student.umass.edu if you have any questions, concerns, or (hopefully) suggestions as to how to achieve this goal. I appreciate it—with your help, we have the potential to make Massachusetts (and with it, the country) a healthier, greener, and ultimately more hopeful place.

Heather McCormack

'Tis the Season to be Merry

This time of the year is especially beautiful and makes many of us rejoice about life, the beauty of the world and the upcoming holidays. The foliage even attracts tourists from nearby states to come admire our local towns. However, this time of year is also tragic for many. The weather is getting colder and we must bundle up before going outside. It represents the end of a harvest and the oncoming death of nature through the winter. As such, it is vitally important that we all have a warm place to go, eat and relax after a long day. But are we all safe and secure? Are we forgetting about others who may not be so privileged and instead must endure the frosty nights in a tent or on a park bench? These people are also members of our community and we cannot forget or simply ignore them but rather we must supply them with at least the most basic needs so that they too can hope to enjoy the season.
Contrary to popular belief, homelessness is not due to laziness. The homeless are often placed in extreme circumstances that prevent them from retaining or gaining housing. A local shelter collected reasons such as being kicked out by parents for homosexuality, having abusive parents, and enforcing a foreclosure on the house of the father who passed away leaving overdue taxes as responsible for putting people out on the street. Certainly these people did not choose to end up on the street and likely could not have prevented it from happening. I would hope that if this happened to me or anyone else, we would have some help to get us back on our feet. Even worse is the fact that our own communities, including Amherst, Springfield and Holyoke, show pockets of people with as much as 30% of the population living under the poverty level. A recent study has shown that Amherst actually has the most homeless individuals, 16, of any other local towns, including Northampton. These data indicate the necessity for action and our responsibility to help our own community members.
Unfortunately, shelters in the region are few and far between. The closest to Amherst are in Greenfield, Holyoke and Springfield, all of which are quite distant for residents. On top of that, early entry times prevent the homeless from making money during the precious daylight. This situation is not endurable and we must change. Therefore, the town of Amherst is looking at several options. The best current possibility is to create emergency programs that deal with the consequences of homelessness rather than address the problem. Still, this remains the best option for people forced to spend long winter nights outside. One proposal is to use a portion of a public Amherst building to create a “warming-space.” This allows homeless individuals to spend the coldest hours inside a heated room. However, the room is not equipped with showers, a kitchen or cots to sleep on. The facility has a bathroom and a sink and would be staffed with competent workers to supervise and help. This option allows the homeless to stay warm but does not supply a place to sleep. This set-up would be a temporary crutch effective almost immediately and only until another solution is readied. However, it represents an effective way to help the homeless under the current circumstances.
Another option being considered is to pay rent for two apartment units and a corresponding staff person for each. These would be available for the homeless and could house 3 individuals each, for a total of 6. This option is favorable for the 6 individuals, who will have access to showers, a kitchen and mattresses, but leaves many others left out. The apartment units will also represent a large cost to the town that is spent on rent. This option allows for greater comfort for fewer individuals and a greater cost but it does not depend on the agreement of the Town of Amherst to allow use of a public building. Therefore, it remains a veritable emergency option.
On the other hand, a much more long-term option has also been proposed but this issue has already met resistance. A shelter for the town of Amherst would be an ideal solution, providing a place to sleep for many and an investment in a public building that will be favorable in the long run. However, residents have already looked unfavorably upon the project, imagining that properties around the shelter would lose value.
In the end, the important facts remain. We are currently grappling with homelessness, especially in Amherst, and we must all act as decent citizens to stop it. These dire economic times could also worsen the situation and we must therefore be prepared to handle a larger traffic. I demand that we be vigilant and not forget about our less fortunate community members as the cold creeps in.

Sources:
"All Roads Lead Home: The Pioneer Valley's Plan to End Homelessness" February 2008.

Amherst Homelessness Committee. October 22nd 2009.

"Feasibility Study: For Homeless Individuals in the Town of Amherst" October 1, 2009.

The Privilege of Protection Against Criminals

Under current Massachusetts state law it is impossible to get a restraining order against a perpetrator of sexual assault or stalking unless the victim is related to, or has been in a long-term relationship with the perpetrator. In order to change this law, Jane Doe Inc. (The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence) and others involved with Rape Crisis Centers have been working on a bill in the state congress to change the law to include all victims of sexual abuse and stalking.

There is a need for these legislative changes because there is currently not enough protection in the law for people who have been abused by acquaintances or people that they did not know. According to research done by Joe Doe, people can only receive restraining orders if their perpetrator is
· A spouse or former spouse
· Someone the survivor has lived with
· A family member (by blood or marriage)
· A parent of the survivor’s minor child
· A person with whom the survivor had a substantial dating relationship (over 6 months) (Jane Doe)
This is problematic because of the number of people who are assaulted or stalked by people that have not had this type of relationship with the perpetrator. This means that sixty-six percent of people who have been abused are restricted from obtaining a 209A restraining order (Jane Doe Inc.). When searching the internet in fall 2007 for possible action steps to take after stalking has occurred, the majority of the accessible information was from Criminal Defense Attorneys who make it appear that the likely punishment for a convicted stalker is up to two years in prison and/or a fine. While this may seem to some as an acceptable punishment, for victims of stalking, this action provides little protection. Many stalkers act violently when they are not provoked and to criminally charge them with a crime could potentially lead them to more acts of violence against their victims. If anyone were allowed to get a restraining order against their perpetrator, then at least they would have an enforceable means of keeping distance between themselves and the criminal. This bill will also simplify the process of receiving a restraining order so that the victim would be able to get one without requiring a lawyer. It seems strange that there are restrictions on who can receive protections against violence, but this bill has been circulating around the state house for a number of years.

It is believed by some legislators that changing this law would add extra punishments to crimes that already has a punishment, or that too many people would take advantage of a systems that allows “anyone” to get a restraining order. With this is mind, it is important to remember that only six percent of rapists will ever spend a day in jail (RAINN.org). Violence, specifically against women, is that clearly a policy area that needs reform. While Massachusetts has been experiencing some difficulties passing this bill, many other states have developed methods of protection for the people denied by the law in Massachusetts. Thirty-eight states have civil restraining orders for victims of stalking and harassment and seventeen have civil restraining orders for victims of sexual assault (Jane Doe Inc.). Fortunately, this bill, 1611, had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on September 17, 2009 and has since been released from said committee with a favorable report and will now move on to be heard and debated by the Senate. The bill is being sponsored by Senator Chandler of Worcester and had many co-sponsors. Before moving out of the Judiciary Committee, the bill was redrafted and renamed “An Act to Prevent Harassment,” though, in essence, is the same bill.

While this bill seems to be moving in a positive direction, there is still much to be done to keep the bill moving though the State House. Some actions that are required are writing and speaking to your state Senators who will be voting on this bill next. This may seem like a fairly straightforward bill, but many legislators have concerns, which can be addressed by us, the constituents who understand the problem. It is important to remind our legislators of the importance of this bill, which will not require money from them and is necessary especially when they may be cutting funding to crisis centers that could be assets for survivors. If these assets are being cut, then something must be done to protect victims. It is also important to gather stories to share with the legislators; if you do not feel safe telling your own story but want it to be told, you can submit it as a testimony to be read by someone else. You can find more information at www.janedoe.org.


Sources:
http://massdrivinglaw.typepad.com/massachusetts_criminal_de/stalking/
http://www.janedoe.org/involved/involved_policy_legislative_SSARO_2009.htm
Interview with Rep. Daniel Webster’s aide
www.rainn.org

More Pie Please

Massachusetts has a longstanding tradition of supporting its public institutions, and we rely heavily on these institutions in our lives today. Schools, roads, bridges, fire, police and countless other vital services are paid for at least in part by the state. We have invested in these institutions over the course of decades; they are what have made our commonwealth a leader in many fields and a desirable place to live. However, over the last two decades we have turned away from our commitment to these vital public institutions. We have left vital public services without adequate public funding rendering them unable to provide the services they are designed for.

The University of Massachusetts receives less and less money from the state government. The appropriations for the Amherst flagship campus are down from $223 million in Fiscal Year 2009 to $214 million in Fiscal Year 2010 and projected to drop again in Fiscal Year 2011. This drop in state funding correlates with sharp increases in student fees; last semester the Board of Trustees voted to increase student fees by 15%. An educated work force is the backbone of the Massachusetts economy, and the University of Massachusetts is vital to that educated work force. We cannot let a lack of state funding and an increase in student fees price students out of an education. This year marks the first year that more of the University’s budget will come from student tuition and fees than from the state. Some of this money will get kicked back into financial aid, negating the cost increase for the lowest income students. This will help affordability for some students, however for me this begs the question; what does it mean to be a public university?

Often the discussion about funding centers around many important organizations and fighting for what seems like an ever shrinking pool; K-12 education, heath care, soup kitchens, public transportation, local aid, and many other things are pitted together to try to garner just a little bit more funding for their specific cause. However, what we have not been able to realize is that social services and higher education are in the same boat; they are major public goods that allow for the function of the state, and they are all severely under funded. And their funding, especially in this economic crisis is, decreasing.

We stand here now with three choices, reinvest in our public institutions, move towards an increasingly privatized and fee for service model, or let our public institutions suffer. In an ideal world I would like to see quality higher education fully funded by the state. However, do I also realize we do not yet live in an ideal world and that the university in order to survive must find new and innovative revenue sources. But, even in these hard financial times we can move towards our vision. As a public land grant university, the University of Massachusetts has, along with other state-supported institutions, the opportunity and the obligation to bring together people from across the state to advocate for a renewal of all the public institutions that make our Commonwealth strong.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts cut forty-two different taxes during the economic boom of the 1990’s. These cuts have left us with a structural budget deficit which leaves public services in danger. In FY09 the state is half a billion dollars short of what it needs in order to complete its budget, and in FY10 the projected short fall is 2-3 billion dollars. The state budget typically runs at about 27 billion dollars, but state government officials only have control of a small portion of that money; the rest has state or federal mandates and must get spent on specific items. This means that 2-3 billion dollars is a huge portion of the money that is available to be available for legislators to allocate for public services and local aid.

Eventually we must ask the question what kind of commonwealth do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a state that makes it a priority to adequately fund the public services that we rely on, the services that make sure the people of the commonwealth are safe, educated and healthy? Or do we want to live in a state that makes is more and more difficult for us to get the services we need and creates an increasing division between the quality of private goods versus public goods? I certainly know which I choose. I want to live in state that has enough resources to fund the public goods that are so important to our communities.

I believe that social service agencies along with public education and all other organizations and services effected by the harsh realities of the state budget have got stop fighting for the few crumbs left of the too small pie and join together to ask the state to raise revenue in a fair and responsible way. We need a bigger pie. This can be done by increasing the state income tax and raising the deductible (income that can be brought in before it is taxed). Restoring the income tax to the 1992 level of 5.95% and increasing the deductible to spare the lowest income families would be a good start to making sure that Massachusetts can continue in its long tradition of support the public institutions which allow the Commonwealth to thrive.

sources:

"Citizens for Limited Taxation." Citizens Economic Resource Foundation. Web. 26 Oct 2009. .

"One Massachusetts." The Public Policy Institute. Web. 26 Oct 2009. .

Representative Ellen Story's Office, Interview. 10/20/09.

"Sources and Uses FY09-FY12." Budget Task Force. Office of Administration and Finance . Whitemore, Amherst. Sept, 2009. Address.

Do Newcomers "Deserve" Life?

The 1996 Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), or “welfare reform” (which repealed federally-funded social services for millions of people), was a turning point in health access for many populations in the U.S. In particular, title IV restricted access to federally funded public services for immigrant populations, by changing eligibility requirements. This policy shift changed the way newcomers to the U.S. (people who may asylees, refugees, immigrants, legal or illegal aliens, migrants, international adoptees, and others) accessed healthcare, by creating new barriers.

State governments began taking up health care as primarily a state-issue during the Regan administration, an era of relinquishing federal responsibility for many public goods. State, local governments and private insurance companies became primarily responsible for health care innovation and access schemes for their populations, including newcomers. These actors functioned with funding from the federal government’s Medicaid and Medicare programs. When waiting periods were introduced for documented immigrants under PRWORA, and undocumented immigrants and other newcomer populations were not addressed at all, the federal government provided a patchwork model of care for these populations. Most of the aspects of this patchwork program report to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) runs preventative and treatment programs for infectious disease (partially funded by the Office of Refugee Resettlement), the Migrant Health Program provides a limited number of vaccinations and preventative services, and the Office of Minority Health distributes a few grants to subsidize the cost of healthcare providers. With the eradication of Medicare and Medicaid as viable options for many newcomer populations, specifically undocumented and documented immigrants residing in the country for under 5 years, there is no specified stream of funding. Indeed, many states have taken issue with the federal government for not counting immigrant populations in the federal census (which determines funding levels), and thus, states are not able to provide adequate services to their actual population. Federal funding for immigrant health care is then a cornerstone of the policy issue.

The health care options for newcomers and immigrants are then restricted almost entirely to emergency care. The emergency model of care (barring access to preventative treatment), has cost many states millions, and has worsened and jeopardized the health conditions of newcomers, based on a policy funding issue.

The passage of PWORA allotted newcomer populations essentially no access to healthcare (other than emergency rooms) any healthcare would need to be funded by the state, and they could not use federal block grants to provide this care. With the exception of refugee populations who have been in the country less than 5 years (the time they can receive Medicare and Medicaid was slashed dramatically in most cases), newcomers would need to achieve citizenship before they could access healthcare. There are a variety of barriers to achieving citizenship, namely, learning English, history and government to pass the citizenship test (a test many studies have shown is not passed by most U.S.-born citizens). Additionally, some states have long waiting lists for applicants to take the test (some as high as 18 months). The barriers to newcomers who have just become citizens and wishes to benefit from federally-funded public services, do not end there. Sponsors are required to sign a legally-binding affidavit of support, newcomers undergo verification requirements and an FBI criminal background check.

The political (xenophobic and racist) desire to restrict immigration through the vein of public health concerns began when newcomers were rejected at Ellis Island, and either detained or sent home. Physicians, nurses and public health officials had the power to name who was “desirable” and who was not. Today, our public policies say the same things. By restricting preventative and adequate medical care to newcomers and eliminating entire pools of public funding for this, the government literally funds the lives it deems worth treating and saving.

While there are many issues with immigration policies in this country (citizenship test, as one example), the primary issue being explored here is health care. For this to be a country worth coming to (and staying in), health care must be a quality good that is accessible to all. This means a cost-effective and accessible system, interested in administering a public good and not creating self-contained profit. Health care needs to be public, and universal. Most studies show that single-payer healthcare is the most cost-effective way of providing health care to the entire population, and this is the policy I propose, without restrictions to any populations (especially newcomers).

(Sources: Smith, Linda S. “Health of America's Newcomers”. Journal of Community Health Nursing, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 53-68 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3427865> and Fuentes-Afflick, Elena, Nancy A. Hessol, et al. “Use of Prenatal Care by Hispanic Women After Welfare Reform”. Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 107 Issue 1 (Jan2006) p 151-160 )