If providing health care and a social safety net for citizens were an Olympic event, the United States would be in a dead heat for last among developed nations. Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Dennis Raphael a professor at York University in Toronto Canada. Dr. Raphael has done extensive study and research on social systems and health disparities on a global scale. I reached out to Dr. Raphael specifically for his international perspective and global research analysis because I was interested to see how the United States compared to other developed nations. It appears that my suspicions are worst than I had imagined.
Dr. Raphael goes in great detail and provides a host of resources for anyone who may be researching poverty and health care disparities. We have all heard the Liberal and Conservative view points for or against Obamacare, but what does the rest of the world see when viewing the normal course of business and politics in America?
As Americans, we are always ranking things in order to assign value, worth, and level of importance. One of the biggest revelations for me from this interview was seeing how the United States poverty rates compared to other countries. It’s astonishing! Here is what Dr. Raphael had to say:
SWH: Could you tell SWH readers about your background and your work on poverty and health care inequalities?
DR: I am a professor of health policy and management at York University in Toronto Canada. I was originally trained in child development and educational psychology and have come to have an interest in health policy as it became apparent that the health and well-being of children and families was tightly related to the public policies that are implemented within a society. These public policies affect the health of citizens through what have come to be known as the social determinants of health. These public policies shape social determinants of health such as income and income distribution, employment and working conditions, food security, housing, and the availability of health and social services.
My work and those of others have also demonstrated that these social determinants of health have a much stronger impact on health than does the usual villains of physical inactivity, excess weight, excessive alcohol use, and even tobacco use. These effects are especially great for those living in poverty.
It is very convenient for governments and governmental authorities to blame individuals for their own health shortcomings by pointing to these so-called lifestyle factors rather than the public policies that have much importance in shaping health. My recent work has focused on differences among nations in these public policies and the social determinants of health such as the USA, Canada, and other wealthy developed countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
SWH: How does the United States Model for Health Care and its social safety net compare to Canada and other developed nations?
DR: What has become apparent and is now well accepted in the literature is that the quality and distribution of the social determinants of health in nations such as United States and Canada lag well behind those seen in other wealthy developed countries. The United States is an especially great outlier as it is the only developed nation that does not provide citizens with healthcare as a matter of right. It also has the most unequal distribution of the social determinants of health and, not surprisingly, has the worst population health profile among all wealthy developed nations with the exception of Turkey and Mexico. US poverty rates are the highest outside of Mexico and Turkey.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that the reason for this has much to do with the dominant political ideologies of those who govern these nations. As unbelievable as it may seem for those of us who live in the United States and Canada, most developed nations are led by leaders who take an active interest in developing public policy that promotes the health and well-being of citizens. Most wealthy developed nations provide universal affordable childcare to all members of society, provide workers with legislative guarantees that provide some semblance of job security but also the availability of job training and if unemployment occurs, payments that allow them to live a life with dignity. For the last 20 years, the United States has been an exceptional outlier in providing people with virtually none of these social determinants of health, and the United States is the only nation that does not provide people with guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed supported maternity leave, and of course health care.
Unfortunately for us living in Canada, Canadian leaders have chosen to emulate the American model of public policy over the last two decades rather than the more sophisticated and helpful approaches adopted among European nations. The result is that Canada’s population health profile and the quality and distribution of the social determinants of health is increasingly beginning to look like that of the United States, with the accompanying expected declines in quality of life and overall health of the population. The primary factor that has become apparent is the nations that take seriously the provision of quality social determinants of health to its population are governed by political parties that are identified in the literature as being either Social Democratic or Conservative.
Despite what many people think, the so-called conservative parties of North America are not really conservative as much as “liberal”. This applies to both the Democratic and Republican parties in the USA. Despite the meaning of the word “liberal” in North America which many people think as meaning progressive, the term liberal in political science and political economy actually refers to a form of governance where governments take little if any interest in providing the population with the means of maintaining and promoting health. I’ve written extensively about the distinction between Social Democratic, Conservative, and Liberal welfare states, and I urge readers to take a look at some of these works. In essence, the approach governments have taken in the United States and Canada towards providing the means of their population to maintain health are incredibly undeveloped as compared to the nations of Europe.
SWH: Can you provide a snapshot of major social safety net programs put in place by the Canadian government to address income disparities and to assist vulnerable populations within your country?
DR: The most apparent difference between Canada and the United States in terms of social safety net programs is that in Canada every Canadian is entitled to the provision of healthcare as a matter of right. While this may seem exceptional to Americans, this is also the practice in every other wealthy developed nation that belongs to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For people like me and others who work in health, it is almost unbelievable that the United States does not provide health care to citizens as a matter of human rights. It should not be surprising that this lack of any kind of coordinated system in the United States leads to the United States having the most expensive and apparently least effective health care system among nations in the developed world. The US also has exceptionally high poverty rates which are particularly ironic considering its overall wealth.
Canada provides other aspects of the social safety net that are not available to Americans. In Canada the so-called RAND formula stipulates that once a union is certified in the workplace, all employees must belong to that union. In the United States the so-called “right to work laws” actually weaken unions and the economic and social security Americans obtain and as a result, Americans have some of the lowest wages among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the highest poverty rates among virtually all wealthy developed nations. Only 7% of Americans belong to unions and as a result their job security and working conditions, as well as their wages, are among the lowest of those working in wealthy developed nations.
In contrast, in the Scandinavian nations over 80% of people belong to unions and an even greater proportion of them work under collective agreements. Even in the conservative nations of Continental Europe, when unions themselves have lower membership than in Scandinavia, virtually all workers are covered by collective agreements. As a result, they experience greater job security, more employment and training opportunities, and generally greater security which translates into better health, and their poverty rates are the lowest among wealthy developed nations.
In Canada, 31% of workers belong to a union and while this figure is low in comparison to other nations, it is of course rather high as compared the United States.
Other social safety net programs that Canadians have access to are guaranteed maternity leave that is supported through the employment insurance system. Women who have been employed are entitled to close to 60% of their average salary during the 12 months that constitutes maternity leave in Canada. In the United States there are no such provisions. Even then, provisions are stronger in many European countries where women are entitled to close to 100% of their average salary during their maternity leave. And even then there are nations in Europe when men are entitled to paid maternity leave.
SWH: Over the course of your work, have you done any comparisons of the Canadian and USA social security systems to those of other industrialized nations, and what were your findings?
DR: I have written numerous articles that have compared the differing situations between the United States, Canada and other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Two of these articles recently appeared in the journal Health Promotion International and these titles are appended at the end of this interview. In addition, I recently published a book entitled Tackling Health Inequalities: Lessons from International Experiences. This book consists of a number of case studies of differing wealthy developed nations and includes a chapter on the United States in addition to ones on the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. I urge readers to take a look at these documents and to consider the United States situation in relation to that seen in other wealthy developed nations.
To summarize the findings succinctly, United States is an incredible outlier in its approach to providing citizens with the conditions necessary for health. Canada does somewhat better and for many Canadians the comparison to United States gives cause for much satisfaction. However, when the Canadian situation is compared to the situation in other wealthy developed nations Canadians have much less to be happy about and there are many individuals, groups, and professional associations that are trying to move the public policy picture in Canada to that of these other wealthy developed nations and away from the United States model.
SWH: In your opinion, how has austerity measures implemented by various governments in developed nations contributed to or helped alleviate health inequalities of its citizens?
DR: In a nutshell, the austerity measures implemented by developed nations have served to contribute to the health inequalities that are apparent among the citizens. I direct your readers’ attention to three books in particular: To Live and Die in America, Class, Power, Health and Health Care by Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson (2013), Social Murder and Other Shortcomings of Conservative Economics by Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson (2007), and The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills: Recessions, Budget Battles, and the Politics of Life and Death by David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu (2013).
SWH: Do you have any current projects and/or publications that you are working on or recently released, and how does someone find more of your research?
DR: In addition to my recent book Tackling Health Inequalities: Lessons from International Experiences that was published in 2012, I have written numerous articles that document how public policy is related to the health and quality of life of citizens in wealthy developed nations such as United States and Canada. More recently I’ve been examining how differing ways of thinking about health among public health departments lead to different directions in approaching their mandate. I’ve also written extensively about the mainstream media and how these media think about health and means of promoting public education that can lead citizens to think differently about health and become more involved in the public policy process in order to create the conditions necessary for health. People can see some of these recent articles by going to this link, and I’ve also produced a primer that should be of interest to all readers entitled Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. This can be obtained online at http://thecanadianfacts.org.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this ongoing discussion that is of such importance for those of us living in North America.
Raphael, D. (2012). Tackling Health inequalities: Lessons from International Experiences. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Bryant. T., Raphael, D., and Rioux, M. (2010). Staying Alive: Critical Perspectives on Health, Illness and Health care, 2nd edition. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Raphael, D. (2013). The political economy of health promotion: Part 1, national commitments to provision of the prerequisites of health. Health Promotion International, 28, 95-111.
Raphael, D. (2013). The political economy of health promotion: Part 2, national provision of the prerequisites of health. Health Promotion International, 28, 112-132.
Raphael, D. (2011). Mainstream media and the social determinants of health in Canada: Is it time to call it a day? Health Promotion International, 26, (2), 220-229.
Photo Credit: Picture of Family Courtesy of www.mlive.com
Grenfell Tower: Three Months On
If you aren’t still angry about the Grenfell Tower tragedy, you probably haven’t been listening. For (perhaps international) readers who have not yet heard this story – the story of an inferno in a London tower block. The story of a hellish injustice, and it both starts and ends with inequality.
The fire at Grenfell broke out back in June 2017. The nation’s horror was bright, the smoke still choking our words, and the broken building breaking our hearts. And yet, in the wake of Grenfell’s black ashes, the nation’s indignation has been sparked by other tragedies. However, Grenfell has not been forgotten.
Allow us to go from the beginning.
The affluent borough of Kensington, West London, is known for hosting numerous high-end eateries and shops, alongside the famous Royal Albert Hall. On average a person will pay a cool £2m for a house here – which suits those who earn the area’s mean salary of nearly £123k, but perhaps not those who earn the median (which is about a quarter of that). Kensington and Chelsea reportedly the most unequal borough in the country.
Grenfell Tower is – was – a block of 129 flats. Within it lived young artists, working adults, older adults (some with dementia), people with disabilities, schoolchildren. It housed the whole colourful spectrum of life, from infancy through to retirement. Read about the residents. Learn their names; learn their stories. The Grenfell Action Group, established in 2010 to defend “the rights of the residents of Lancaster West Estate”, repeatedly warned that the building in which these people lived was unsafe.
The Grenfell Action Group did the best they could – created a community collective, campaigned, gathered evidence and shared stories. Nobody listened. The tower, built in the 1970s, received a “refurbishment” in 2014. Cheap combustible cladding was used to cover the outside of the building – largely reported as a way to improve the appearance of the tower, for wealthier local residents. Their home was airbrushed with death.
Leaked documents suggest that the cladding was deliberately downgraded (from fireproof to combustible) to save £300,000, at a time when the council was actually in surplus of around £2.74 million. They had also recently given the rich (who payed full council tax) a £100 tax rebate in their “overachieving efficiency drive”. The cladding material is banned in continental Europe and the United States – in late June, Chancellor Philip Hammond suggested it may even be banned in the UK.
The Grenfell Action Group tried, again and again, to bring fire risks to the attention of those with the power to spare their lives. That particular post ends with chilling prophecy: “ONE THING IS CERTAIN – THEY CAN’T SAY THEY HAVEN’T BEEN WARNED.“A fire risk assessment back from 2012 noted a range of out-of-date fire safety checks. The cladding was unsafe. Rubbish and waste blocked fire exits. Reports to the government dating back to 2000 suggested that non-combustible external cladding should not be used on buildings. It’s all there.
The fire started in a flat on the 4th floor, apparently due to a malfunctioning refrigerator, around midnight on the 14th June. Approaching 1 AM, the first call to firefighers came in. Eventually, around 40 fire engines with around 200 firefighters were tackling the blaze. Despite their best efforts, it was not enough. Of course, the cladding was not responsible for the onset of the fire. However, it accelerated the blaze phenomenally. It wasn’t until 5pm the next day that firefighters reached the top floor.
However, it cannot be understated how much the power of the Grenfell community shone through – from offering shelter, food and taxi rides, to supporting grieving and traumatised individuals, to helping each other escape from the tower itself. Humanity was not lost from the side of the residents and locals. It wasn’t lost from the rest of the public. The Grenfell community was always there. It was never a blight. It was home.
The Prime Minister, Theresa May, initially suggested it would take three weeks for survivors to be found a new “home”. Later, this was recast as a promise offers that everyone would have offers of housing. As of 1st August 2017, only 45 “offers of accommodation” were made, with 12 families being rehoused. Some survivors ended up searching for private accommodation such as one man because his wife couldn’t leave the hospital until they had a home to go to. Others are now currently “bidding” for council housing.
As of the end of August, Freedom of Information requests have suggested that £4.2 million was spent by the council on hotels for survivors. And that’s not the only money in questionable status. Around this time, over half of the funds raised by charities after the fire were “available” for distribution. However, just over two-fifths of the money raised by charities to support survivors of the fire has actually reached the intended recipients. There was over a £16 million shortfall as of early August, but there have been some improvements since then.
The Metropolitan police have confirmed that the Grenfell Tower “tragedy” amounts to corporate manslaughter. Note how the “tragedy” is referred to as an “incident” or “disaster”, because heaven forbid we actually mention the people who created this situation.
Sir Moore-Bick, Judge presiding over the inquiry into the fire has suggested that his work will not give survivors the justice they deserve. The scope of the inquiry is only allowed to ask questions about the fire, but not the context of how flammable cladding was purchased for prettiness). Residents have not been consulted on the inquiry, and the – despite promises from the Prime Minister that they would be. So what now? How do we help?
We have the charity football match Game4Grenfell, the “Bridge Over Troubled Water” charity single with various celebrities and other public characters offering their support, condolences, and sympathies. We have empathetic stories about the futures missed, the A-levels passed, the art displays. We also have first-person accounts bluntly calling out what amounts to a context social cleansing which created this tragedy.
“I want to urge everyone in the media with the power to do it to give the individuals who work with and for you the space to do something, anything, in the wider community we communicate with.” – Journalist John Snow
What you are reading, then, is an article trying to harness media power. Firstly, it’s an article trying to prevent Grenfell’s ashes fading away in the wake of other, more recent tragedies and governmental abuses. Secondly, it’s an article to say: charity intervention is still not going to change the underlying causes.
When we do our post-mortem, we can’t just think about the specifics of the blaze. We need to include the socio-cultural fuel: poverty, inequality, contempt for the poor, an ignorance of people’s lived experiences. For example, the Grenfell Action Group documented first-hand what was going on, yet their stories which still has fewer views that mainstream second-hand sources.
Do we live in a country where tax rebates are paid for in blood money? Do we live in a country where we unashamedly let empty, million-quid houses lounge comfortably next to our crowded, deathtrap towers? Do we live in a country which still has nearly 230 other high-rise buildings at risk due to cladding?
Are you angry now?
Follow Grenfell Media Watch online, write to your MP, keep tabs on what the people in power are doing. Keep asking where the charity money has gone. Stop demonsing the poor, and/or immigrants, and/or people on benefits. Accept that, through no fault of their own, whole swathes of our society need a bit of a leg-up. If you hear other people doing the demonising, call them out. Read people’s own stories, in their own words, and believe them. Amplify the voices of people who are perfectly able to speak for themselves.
Grenfell is cold, but our hearts aren’t. Let us show more solidarity and support than just our sympathy and disbelief. Let’s continue to stand alongside each other.
Britain: We Need to Talk About the Benefits System
Whether we want to admit it or not, the benefits system is hurting people. It’s killing people, and something has to be done.
Examples of how the benefits system can kill include incidences of people starving to death in their own homes to the 600 benefits-related suicides that have been reported so far (and this is a conservative estimate). The suicides and other deaths related to benefits have been reported again and again. Reportedly, over 200,000 have been physically attacked as a result of claiming benefits, and, although it is not easy to unpick the reasons for this, approaching two and a half thousand people have died after being deemed ‘fit to work’.
A 2016 conference, Psychologists and the Benefits System: Time to Get Off the Fence was dedicated to just this topic. The British Psychological Society is also one of five official therapy/mental health organisations which have signed a statement opposing welfare sanctions due to the lack of evidence that they work, and the potential for harm.
After all, mental health has always been a social and political endeavor. If mental health professionals stay silent about our deadly benefits system, so deadly that the UK has been investigated by the United Nations for grave and systematic violations of human rights, are they not siding with the status quo?
A report from Cradle2Grave, a campaign against the abuse of human rights of people who rely on the state for financial help, highlight the shocking number of suicides which have been linked to welfare cuts.
In more than one case, it was the coroner themselves who suggested that the main cause of death was worry about benefits. A 2015 report from mental health charity MIND found that, as a result of the benefits system, job centre, and “help to work schemes”, around eight out of ten people:
- Felt less able to work (76%)
- Required more support from mental health services/GP as a result (86%)
- Had worse self-esteem (83%)
- Had worse confidence (82%)
And nearly a quarter of people were hospitalised or sectioned (i.e. legally detained) for mental health crises whilst on such schemes.
If this is the case, why is the rhetoric (and indeed, “commonsense”) view of people on benefits so at odds with reality?
One theory suggests that ordinary, compassionate people are able to stigmatise others because they feel that stigmatisation is justified (Crandall, 2003). British media has long been complicit in creating a culture whereby it is easy to stigmatise people on benefits, which creates fertile soil for this kind of thinking.
Stigmatising other people can be justified in two main ways. The first way is through the acceptance of a natural social hierarchy. The idea of a natural hierarchy is based on evolutionary theories, and is known as Social Darwinism – some people are intrinsically ‘workshy’, maybe worklessness runs in families (spoiler: it doesn’t), and so on. This image of the ‘benefits brood’ is designed to create a culture where an anti-welfare stance is the commonsense, rational way of seeing the world.
Secondly, stigma can be justified by suggesting someone is to blame for their own circumstances. This can include believing that the world is fundamentally just (i.e. people get what they deserve), and victim-blaming (poor people are lazy, make bad decisions and can’t plan properly, have too many children, spend frivolously, and are a burden on society). All of these stereotypes play out in empirical research into the matter.
Societal stigma can also lead to people who are on benefits repeating the same debunked myths about benefits, in order to distance themselves from the stereotype (i.e. “I’m a real/good/proper claimant”). This means that from all angles, this dangerous welfare narrative is being played out.
Better information and awareness may be one way to dispel these harmful stereotypes (necessary, perhaps, but unlikely to be sufficient). For example, people usually that ‘benefits’ means out-of-work, disability or child benefits. Newspaper stories reinforce this image. So do TV programmes such as On Benefits, Benefits Street, Benefits: The Millionaire Shoplifter, Skint, Dogs on the Dole, Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole, Undercover Benefits Cheat, Myleene Klass: Single Mums on Benefits and Benefits: Too Fat to Work (yes, they are all real programmes). As such, government welfare figures can be easily misconstrued and used to political advantage.
Contrary to the popular image, benefits as an umbrella term include fuel payments, cold weather payments, carer’s allowances, bereavement benefits, over-75 TV licenses, Income Support and more. Notably, the bulk of Income Support being towards lone parents and carers, and less than 10% of Income Support is made up of incapacity benefits. Benefits are mostly spent on pensions (approaching half of the welfare budget, at 42%), whereas unemployment benefits account for 1% of welfare expenditure.
There is an entrenched public understanding that the benefits system is riddled with fraud. The public believes that 24% of benefits claiming is done so fraudulently. Interestingly, ‘benefit fraud’ is only used as a term for people claiming benefits. When companies assessing fitness to work make fraudulent claims that someone is fit to work in one in five assessments, or three out of four assessments for people with mental health problems (these are researched facts), we do not call this ‘benefit fraud’.
So, given ‘fraud’ as a term applied solely to the individual claimant, data suggests that there is no widespread issue with fraud in the benefits system. According to the government’s own statistics, benefit fraud by claimants is 0.7% of total benefits expenditure (£1.2bn). The public belief that around a quarter of benefits claims are fraudulent is, therefore, a 3329% overestimation. Benefits-related administrative errors, to give some perspective, take up double the amount of money spent on claimant fraud. The figures for tax evasion and avoidance can also be used for comparison here: the cost of the ‘tax gap’ in the UK reaches £122bn per year (over 10,000% the cost of fraudulent benefits claims).
Another myth is that benefits are ‘too generous’. In 2013, a study from the University of Edinburgh found that there is no link between the wellbeing of people without paid employment and the amount of money they get in benefits. Additionally, it is not the first study to reach this finding (see Veenhoven, 2000). In fact, cultural factors such as perceptions of people on benefits (i.e. stigma) have a much bigger impact.
Rather than being ‘too generous’, for years now multiple organisations have been stating that benefits cuts are causing material harm, especially to the most vulnerable of society. This includes housing charity Shelter, disability charity SCOPE, domestic violence charity Women’s Aid, child abuse charity NSPCC, a whole host of mental health organisations, and anti-austerity organisations such as UK Uncut, Sisters Uncut, Disabled People Against Cuts, Black Triangle, and Psychologists Against Austerity (now Psychologists for Social Change) to name but a few.
These ideas – the poor are deserving, benefits claimants are fraudulent and the whole system is a drain on society, the benefits system is too kind and generous, most of our welfare system is spent on people too lazy to work, have to to be quashed. People’s health and mental health is suffering. People’s lives are being destroyed. People are dying. People are killing themselves.
Is this the kind of world we can live in, with good conscience?
We do not have to accept things the way that they are. We can join or support the organisations mentioned above. We can join in talks, discussions, marches, and events (or publicise these events when we can’t go to them ourselves).
We can write to our MP’s, sign petitions, talk to our friends and family, support films such as the recent I, Daniel Blake, avoid reality TV demonising people on benefits, call out the false narratives when we hear them. We can be aware of the facts (and ideally, share the facts!) to reduce stigma. We can offer a helping hand, we can be aware of the impact of losing benefits and try to offer a listening ear to someone who feels like a drain on society. We can look after each other.
Perhaps is it is not just psychologists who need to ‘get off the fence’. We all do, for humanity’s sake.
Crandall, C. S. (2003). Ideology and lay theories of stigma: The justification of stigmatization. In Heatherton,T. F., Kleck, R. E., Hebl, M. R. & Hull, J. G. (eds.) The social psychology of stigma (pp. 126-150). New York,NY: Guildford Press.
Scotland National Poet Encourages Looked After Children to ‘Get Write In’
Scotland’s national poet, Jackie Kay, has today (Tuesday 15 August), announced the winners of a new national competition for all school-aged children in Scotland who are looked after or have experienced care. The competition aims to show how writing can enhance creativity and give a voice to young people who are looked after.
Get Write In! has been launched by CELCIS (the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland), and supported by The Scottish Book Trust, Who Cares? Scotland, the University of Strathclyde, and the world-famous Edinburgh International Book Festival.
Participants from throughout Scotland were encouraged to submit a 500 word creative story in either English or Scots, capturing the theme of ‘Random Moments’ about an unexpected surprise, a moment that was a turning point, or a fork in the road, which could be transformed into an inspiring story.
There is one overall winner in each age category: one for primary aged children (under 12); and one for secondary aged young people (12-18). The junior winner is Joseph Ness for his entry ‘Dumb’, and for the senior category it’s William Cathie for ‘New Life’.
The winners were presented with their prizes by Jackie Kay and Mark McDonald, Scotland’s Minister for Childcare and Early Years, at a special event at Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh this evening. The fantastic prizes included: a trip to the Harry Potter Experience in London with overnight stay and travel; a storytelling and creative writing workshop; and tickets for Scottish Book Trust Authors Live events.
Jackie Kay, who chaired the judging panel, commented: “We were moved by these extraordinary pieces of writing, both the poetry and the stories. Young Scots lives came shining through, the very tough times and the good ones. We were blown away by the talent that emerged, and by the openness of so many young Scots to share their stories. They struck a chord with us. We hope many more will continue to enter next year. For the young Scots this year who did, it has been a validating and uplifting experience to have their voices heard and appreciated.”
Minister for Childcare and Early Years, Mark McDonald, said: “It is inspiring to see young people take such an interest in creative writing, and this competition is a brilliant opportunity for care experienced young people to develop their literacy skills and to gain confidence in expressing themselves. I have been so impressed by the quality of the competition entries and I’m sure that for many, this is just the beginning of their creative journey.”
Professor Jennifer Davidson, Executive Director of Inspiring Children’s Futures which CELCIS is part of, commented: “We were thrilled with the response that we had to the competition, and it’s been a real pleasure to read the rich creativity within the stories and poems from across the country! As we all know too well, the challenges faced by children and young people who are looked after, and their families, are many; we are hopeful that by encouraging young people to draw on their inner creativity through writing, this will contribute to building a positive sense of their power to influence the world around them, as well as strengthening their literacy for their future.”
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Change Never Ages
As the second-oldest state in the nation, West Virginia is in dire need for professionals who can work with its...
Offhand Comments Can Expose Underlying Racism, UW Study Finds
Blatant racism is easy to identify — a shouted racial slur, a white supremacist rally, or the open discrimination, segregation...
How New Digital Technologies Make It Possible to Privatize Censorship and Manipulate Citizen-Users
For most Americans, protecting free expression means countering threats from government. Private corporations are not usually seen as threatening free...
Food For The Poor Rushes Emergency Supplies to Caribbean Islands Destroyed by Hurricane Irma
COCONUT CREEK, Fla. (Sept. 13, 2017) – Food For The Poor is rushing emergency relief to Barbuda, St. Maarten, the U.S....
Why Social Workers Should Care About DACA
The announcement made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions regarding the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program...
Elder Care3 weeks ago
Stressed Out Caregivers Are Using ER Visits for Respite, Study Finds
News1 month ago
5 Ways White Social Workers Can Respond to the Charlottesville Aftermath
LGBTQ4 weeks ago
Military Service Boosts Resilience, Well-Being Among Transgender Veterans
Global3 weeks ago
Britain: We Need to Talk About the Benefits System