Make Your Voice Heard
Skidmore Public Policy Prize
Winner of 2021 Competition
Abby MacDonald
Winner of the 2021 Competition
Letter:
April 16, 2021
Dear Secretary Becerra,
I am writing to you today to urge that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) routinely collect sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE) data through the two primary national databases for foster care: the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). Without this data, the DHHS cannot ensure equitable care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) youth. The DHHS must see current, nationally uniform data about and hear the voices of LGBTQ youth in foster care.
I am passionate about this issue as a person who identifies as LGBTQ. I care about making sure that LGBTQ youth in foster care feel heard, respected, and are not afraid to be themselves. Furthermore, I am now researching the experiences of LGBTQ youth in foster care. I know that policy makers in child welfare must have good data and a deep understanding of LGBTQ youth in care.
This issue is urgent. LGBTQ foster youth have been seen to face compounded risk, receive disparate care, and experience poorer outcomes.[1] Furthermore, trans and non-binary youth confront unique challenges and exacerbated mistreatment.[2] The limited regional research that exists shows that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the foster care system and that LGBTQ youth of color make up the majority – reflecting the wider demographics of all foster youth.[3] Without national data collection, the DHHS has rendered this vulnerable population invisible[4] and made it impossible to implement policy and practice targeting LGBTQ foster youth and track their effectiveness.
Data collection is crucial in order to have a better understanding of the number of LGBTQ youth in the system, where they are concentrated, why they are overrepresented, risk factors of system involvement, and disparities in care and outcomes. Using this information, child welfare agencies would be able to implement thoughtful and informed policies designed to ameliorate the disparities and address their unique needs. Additionally, the collection of SOGIE data would ensure that this information is made public and would therefore result in greater accountability for the child welfare system in terms of ensuring proper care for these youth.
There has been successful national and state-level SOGIE data collection in other youth-serving systems such as in health care, education, and the juvenile justice system. Within the juvenile justice system, their data demonstrated the overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the system, revealed details around effective methods of administering the data collection, and was then used for the creation of a Whole Youth Model for justice stakeholders to adopt practices that help them understand and support all youth in their custody. Additionally, national SOGIE data collection for foster youth would improve cross-systems collaborations as the data could be shared with other systems. For example, preliminary research has shown that many LGBTQ youth are dually involved in both the juvenile justice and child welfare system.[5] Using national SOGIE data, these two systems could implement strategies to target this population together.
The benefits of national data collection within the child welfare system have been shown with youth of color. Both the AFCARS and the NYTD have collected data on race for many years. This data has meant that there has been far more research conducted examining this population that revealed overrepresentation and disparities in care and outcomes.[6] Through rendering this population visible, child welfare agencies have been able to enact policy and practice changes that can target this population and be adapted to their specific needs. The particular strategies employed by different agencies are able to be tailored to the disproportionality and disparities present in their jurisdictions. As well, implementing national data collection of LGBTQ youth will assist in further understanding the overrrepresentation of LGBTQ youth of color specifically and their unique needs.
Regional instances of SOGIE data collection in New York City (NYC) and Los Angeles (LA) County have further demonstrated the advantages of national data collection in the child welfare system. After LA County collected data, they were able to implement successful interventions that were designed to provide LGBTQ youth, parents, caregivers, and child welfare professionals with the support and education necessary to enable long-lasting connections. In NYC, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) created an LGBTQAI+ Action Plan that detailed their planned policies and practices moving forward targeting this population. Both LA County and NYC created these interventions with an intersectional lens, as their data showed that the majority of their LGBTQ youth are youth of color.[7]
As you know, in 2016 your department (DHHS) implemented a rule that added sexual orientation (excluding gender identity and expression) to the AFCARS alongside many other additions. However, the Trump administration never enforced this ruling, and eventually eliminated it and other new data points after proposing a rule that took effect in 2020. This was extremely disheartening and frustrating to see the progress made undone. The administration claimed that mandating states to report this information was not worthwhile and that it and the other new data points would result in too much increased cost. Other concerns cited in its elimination were the age at which this data should be collected, what questions should be asked, the issue with self-reporting, confidentiality, and the overall cost of the addition. This was one action in a long line of decisions made by the Trump administration to slowly but surely chip away at LGBTQ rights.
These concerns raised will certainly need to be addressed before going forward with SOGIE data collection, but they need not deter your department from starting the process. Various regional surveys have shown that surveying all youth about their SOGIE is low-cost, and the benefits of this data outweigh the minimal cost.[8] Furthermore, the data has the potential to lead to improved outcomes for LGBTQ youth which would lower cost and burden on the child welfare system in the long-term. There have been many successful implementations of SOGIE data collection that have shown that there are many ways to go about properly addressing these concerns.
In conclusion, it is the duty of the child welfare system to serve the needs of all its youth and the system is incapable of doing so unless there is national SOGIE data collection. A new rule must be proposed by the DHHS and then confirmed. I urge you to consider the many marginalized LGBTQ youth whose experiences will be rendered visible through this essential first step towards creating equitable care for LGBTQ foster youth. By not collecting this data, the DHHS is abdicating its statutory responsibility to promote the well-being of all foster youth. Given the current administration in Washington and its more progressive legislative agenda, this is a pivotal window in which to achieve this goal.
Sincerely,
Abby MacDonald
815 N Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
References
Capous-Desyllas, M., & Mountz, S. (2019). Using photovoice methodology to illuminate the experiences of LGBTQ former foster youth. Child & Youth Services,40(3), 267-307. doi:10.1080/0145935x.2019.1583099
Fish, J. N., Baams, L., Wojciak, A. S., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Are sexual minority youth overrepresented in foster care, child welfare, and out-of-home placement? Findings from nationally representative data. Child Abuse & Neglect,89, 203-211. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.01.005
Fluke, J., Harden, B. J., Jenkins, M., & Ruehrdanz, A. (2011). (publication). Disparities and Disproportionality in Child Welfare: Analysis of the Research. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/alliance/Disparities-and-Disproportionality-in-Child-Welfare_An-Analysis-of-theResearch-December-2011.pdf
Gallegos, A., Roller White, C., Ryan, C., O'Brien, K., Pecora, P. J., & Thomas, P. (2011). Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning adolescents in foster care. Journal of Family Social Work,14(3), 226-236. doi:10.1080/10522158.2011.571547
Irvine, A., & Canfield, A. (2016). The overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, gender nonconforming and transgender youth within the child welfare to juvenile justice crossover population. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24(2), 243-262.
Miller, O., Farrow, F., Meltzer, J., & Notkin, S. (2014). (rep.). Changing Course: Improving Outcomes for African American Males Involved with Child Welfare Systems. Retrieved from Center for the Study of Social Policy
Mountz, S., Capous-Desyllas, M., & Pourciau, E. (2018). 'Because We're Fighting to Be Ourselves: Voices from Former Foster Youth who are Transgender and Gender Expansive. Child Welfare, 96(1), 103-125.
Sandfort, T. (2020). (rep.). Experiences and Well-Being of Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth in Foster Care in New York City (pp. 1–71). New York City, New York: New York City Administration for Children's Services. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/resources/experiences-and-well-being-of-sexual-and-gender-diverse-youth-in-foster-car/
Wilson, B. D., & Kastanis, A. A. (2015). Sexual and gender minority disproportionality and disparities in child welfare: A population-based study. Children and Youth Services Review,58, 11-17. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.08.016
Wilson, B., Cooper, K., Kastanis, A., & Nezhad, S. (2014). Sexual and gender minority youth in foster care: Addressing disproportionality and disparities in Los Angeles. The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law website, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LAFYS_report_final-aug2014.pdf.
Project Proposal:
For my project proposal, I intend to create a LGBTQ youth in foster care visibility and advocacy campaign. The $500 budget will be used for the creation of a comprehensive website for the campaign and any other associated costs. As discussed in my letter, a lack of national data collection renders this marginalized population invisible. Therefore, it is important to raise awareness of LGBTQ youth in care and promote the necessity of national SOGIE data collection as a first step in addressing disparities they face. Furthermore, it is crucial that LGBTQ youth in foster care or formerly in care themselves are at the forefront of advocacy. Too often, the population actually affected by the issue is not included enough in organizing and advocacy, so my proposal would seek to change that and encourage resiliency among these youth. I would create a website for the campaign that would serve as a place where LGBTQ youth in or formerly in care could connect, organize, and campaign together for national SOGIE data collection. I expect that a website where LGBTQ youth can connect online will be particularly powerful as studies show that LGBTQ youth are highly digitally active and are more likely than their heterosexual and cisgender peers to seek out supportive networks online.
In order to attract LGBTQ youth to the campaign website, I would reach out to various programs and youth councils in place for LGBTQ youth in care across the country and share the campaign with them. There are also many other existing organizations that have ties to LGBTQ youth in care that I could reach out to as well and ask them to promote the campaign. I also plan to reach out to professionals in the child welfare system that are known advocates for LGBTQ youth and ask them to share the campaign. I expect that the campaign will also spread through word of mouth between youth and child welfare professionals. Lastly, I will bring attention to the campaign through the creation of social media pages (i.e., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc.) given that social media has the potential to reach a wide audience and is commonly used by young people. It is important to consider the safety of LGBTQ youth online, so the website will require adherence to site registration, monitoring as a prerequisite to participation online, and would have thorough privacy rules in place.
This website would provide LGBTQ youth with the space and to organize effectively. They would be able to create a central council, subcommittees, hold open meetings, and have a large network of LGBTQ youth in or formerly in care. They would be able to design the campaign, what actions they would like to take, and how to raise more awareness of the issue through the website and social media. Furthermore, while the website is centered around LGBTQ youth, it will be possible for relevant professionals and stakeholders to become members of the campaign as well. I think that it is essential for child welfare professionals and foster parents to get involved as they are currently a part of this system that is not serving LGBTQ youth adequately. They can provide important support to the youth and can assist in advocacy efforts and planning. The website will also be open to the public and they will be able to get involved and participate in different actions organized by the campaign.
A key action that I think that the youth would be able to organize and have relevant stakeholders and the public participate in would be sending letters, phone calls, and emails to DHHS leaders and Congress members. It is important to advocate to both as while DHHS has the power to implement the rule, Congress has the power to pressure DHHS. As this is a national issue, there is no need to focus on specific Congresspersons and all would be encouraged to send letters, emails, or make phone calls to their local Congressperson. Furthermore, within DHHS the most impact would come from contacting the relevant key leaders such as Secretary Becerra, Commissioner Barlow, Chief of Staff McCluskie, and Assistant Secretary Tatem.
Another action that this campaign could perform would be to create a Visibility Series in which different LGBTQ youth anonymously (for their safety) discuss their experiences in care and why this issue is important to them. A potential slogan could be ‘I am not invisible’ or ‘Can you see me now?’. These could be multimedia stories that can be posted on both the website and social media pages. There is potential for interviews done to be compiled into a short documentary. This action will intend to raise awareness amongst the public of the issue and would lead in turn to pressure on DHHS and Congress to mandate a new rule.
Additionally, the campaign could begin an online petition for national SOGIE data collection that anyone could sign. Online petitions have proven to be effective and can reach a wide audience. As well, the campaign could organize direct action such as protests or rallies that would be the most impactful in Washington, D.C. as this is a national issue and data collection on foster youth occurs at the federal level through the DHHS. These protests and rallies would be led by LGBTQ youth themselves and would have the impact of raising awareness through media attention and putting pressure on the DHHS officials and Congresspeople. Lastly, I think that after the campaign is established and has received attention, the campaign could demand a meeting with key members of the DHHS or Congress to explain why a new rule implementing SOGIE data collection is necessary.
Also, the campaign would be able to connect to other organizations and groups concerned with this issue such as the Family Equality Council (advance legal and lived equality for LGBTQ families) and the Every Child Deserves a Family Campaign (composed of over 400 child welfare, LGBTQ, faith, and allied organizations). Through connecting with other organizations, this campaign would have the power to create collaborative advocacy actions and would enable them to access a larger coalition of groups fighting for this change.
I think that this proposal will be effective given that it will be led by those affected themselves, can be implemented at a national level, and has the potential to continue to grow from a small idea with a budget of $500 to a much larger campaign that advocates for LGBTQ foster youth beyond national SOGIE data collection once it is achieved. Moreover, I think that given the current federal administration, there is a high likelihood that putting this pressure on them would lead to positive results.
Rationale:
I selected the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra. Secretary Becerra is the head of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States on all health matters. He is a member of the United States Cabinet. The DHHS have control over the national data collection for the child welfare system and they administer the AFCARS and NYTD alongside others. The DHHS has the power to propose a new rule that mandates the addition of SOGIE data to both the AFCARS and the NYTD and the power to then confirm it. As described in my letter, the DHHS has previously added sexual orientation in 2016 but was halted by the Trump administration. The Biden administration has shown that they are far more pro-LGBTQ and would therefore be extremely unlikely to shut down the new rule.
I chose Secretary Becerra specifically because he is the head of the department. He therefore has the most power to dictate the direction and choices made within the department. If he is swayed by this letter and begins to promote this important new change, he will be most easily able to encourage others in the DHHS that this is an important and necessary change in order to ensure equitable care of LGBTQ foster youth. Furthermore, Secretary Becerra also has access to President Biden and can advance this agenda with him as well - to guarantee that he understands its necessity as well and that the administration is fully on board with the new rule.
[1] Gallegos et al., “Exploring the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Questioning Adolescents in Foster Care”; Wilson & Kastanis, “Sexual and gender minority disproportionality and disparities in child welfare: A population-based study”.
[2] Mountz et al., “‘Because We’re Fighting to Be Ourselves:’ Voices from Former Foster Youth who are Transgender and Gender Expansive”.
[3] Fish et al., “Are sexual minority youth overrepresented in foster care, child welfare, and out-of-home placement? Findings from nationally representative data”; Sandfort, “Experiences and Well-Being of Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth in Foster Care in New York City”; Wilson & Kastanis.
[4] Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, “Using Photovoice Methodology to Illuminate the Experiences of LGBTQ Former Foster Youth”.
[5] Irvine & Canfield, “The overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, gender nonconforming and transgender youth within the child welfare to juvenile justice crossover population”.
[6] Fluke et al., “Disparities and Disproportionality in Child Welfare: Analysis of the Research”; Miller et al., “Improving Outcomes for African American Males Involved with Child Welfare Systems”.
[7] Sandfort; Wilson et al, “Sexual And Gender Minority Youth In Foster Care: Assessing Disproportionality And Disparities In Los Angeles”.
[8] Sandfort; Wilson et al.
Winner of the 2019 Competition*
Robbie Heumann
Skidmore Public Policy Competition 2019
Letter to Representative:
Brenda Kupchick
Legislative Office Building, Room 4200
300 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT, 06106
Dear Representative Kupchick,
I am writing to you today to support the proposed bill No. 5245 to reduce plastics
pollution. I am a citizen of Fairfield, CT, and a young environmentalist who has studied
solid waste systems for several years and seen the impact of solid waste on public
health and the environment, especially plastics. From the bottom of my heart I am
asking you to support the cause of banning un-recyclable plastics in Connecticut.
This cause is in complete agreement with the State’s Dept. of Energy and Environmental
Protection’s goal of “Transforming Solid Waste Management in Connecticut and Beyond”
and “diverting, through source-reduction, reuse and recycling, no less than sixty percent of the solid waste generated in
the state” 1.
I’m a senior at Skidmore College who has worked for the College’s Sustainability office
for two years. Some of my work has entailed conducting waste audits of the school’s
solid waste. This literally means I’ve had to dig through bags and bags of trash and
sort out items that are recyclable or not. It is scary to see how wasteful we are
and it is even scarier to see where the waste goes. We are polluting our own land,
our air and our water with our own waste. Landfills have to constantly be growing
to accommodate more waste, eating up more land, infringing upon neighborhoods, reeking
nasty odors and polluting the landscape, and sometimes leaching chemicals into waterways.
Incinerators burn our trash releasing hazardous pollutants into the air which we then
breathe in. We are literally killing ourselves with trash. It is quite staggering
but what is most amazing is how much people throw away that could otherwise be recycled.
The EPA estimates the about 75% of the American waste stream is recyclable but we
only recycle about 30% of it2 . We need to start evolving our production and waste management systems towards a
more cyclic state. By this I mean we need to get rid of materials that don’t serve
important purposes and cannot be recycled. Getting rid of such materials, like the
proposed plastics in Bill No. 5245, will relieve the financial burden that wastefulness
puts on municipalities and taxpayers.
The proposed bill would reduce un-recyclable waste at its source by prohibiting the
use of plastic straws, stirrers, single-use plastic bags, polystyrene packaging, helium
balloons and products that contain micro-plastics. All these items are incredibly
hard, if not, impossible to recycle, nor can you burn them at resource recovery facilities.
Therefore, all these items are either landfilled in Connecticut or shipped out of
state to other landfills. Because they cannot be recycled and have to be landfilled
in or out of state, these products create a significant strain on Connecticut’s municipal
waste management budget. The 2014 CT DEEP report stated about 9.48% of all Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) is disposed of in or out of state3 . Of that percentage, about 15% was plastic4 . Prohibiting the use of plastic straws, stirrers, single-use plastic bags, polystyrene
packaging, helium balloons and items containing micro-plastics will help reduce that
percentage of waste that has to be landfilled in or out of state. By reducing that
percentage, it will save taxpayer dollars. This would occur because reducing the amount
of these unrecyclable plastic in the municipal waste stream, would cut down the cost
that communities would incur from paying to bury their waste in a landfill. This would
also slow the rates at which land is being used for landfills.
Banning the proposed plastics would propel Connecticut’s economy towards a more cyclic
state. By this I mean, having prohibited the use of such un-recyclable plastic, recyclable
plastic could then take their place. This would then positively contribute towards
Connecticut’s s goal of increase their recycling rates to above 60%. They are currently
at 34.4%5 . Increasing recycling rates would stimulate Connecticut’s economy. At 2012 Study
done by the Connecticut Economic Resource Center on the Economic Impacts of Recycling
in Connecticut found that the recycling industry in Connecticut accounted for a combined
direct and indirect generation of $738 million in total sales and created 4,790 jobs
per year from 2006 to 2012. This is a growing industry. Banning un-recyclable plastics
and encouraging the use of recyclable materials will only create a more economically
and environmentally beneficial waste stream.
Please, for Connecticut’s economy, for Connecticut’s environment, and for Connecticut’s
future generations, support Bill No. 5245.
Sincerely,
Robbie Heumann
[1] CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. 2016 Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy. The CT Solid Waste Management Plan.
[2] US Environmental Protection Agency. “Municipal Solid Waste”. March, 2016.
[3] CT Dept. Of Energy & Environmental Protection. “Estimates of CT Municipal Solid Waste Generated, Disposed, and Recycled FY2014”.
[4]Northeast Waste Management Officials Association. December 2012. “Transforming Solid Waste Management in Connecticut and Beyond”. Prepared for the CT Dept. Energy and Environmental Protection.
[5] CT Dept. Of Energy & Environmental Protection. “Estimates of CT Municipal Solid Waste Generated, Disposed, and Recycled FY2014”.
Project Proposal:
My first order of business would be to compile a list of state bills proposing the banning of plastics and/or implementing better recycling. The list would then be compiled into an online website that would send letters to state representatives. I would then send out a mass email to all Skidmore students. The email would include a short blurb about plastic pollution and the importance of improving waste management nationwide and banning un-recyclable plastics. The email would then ask the student if they wanted to send a letter to their state representative about banning plastics and/or improving their state’s waste management. If yes, the student would click on a link in the email which would take the student to the website where they click on whatever state they are from and then enter their zip code. Having clicked their state, the bill for banning plastics of that state, if any, would show and with that a letter addressed to the appropriate representative. The letter would contain a short description of the bill and why that representative should support the bill. The student would then sign the letter and click send and the email would be sent to that representative. This would be just like the action letters that activist organizations provide to interested individuals who want to take action. This would cost around $300. The first 50 people to write letters would then be given 1 dollar each as a reward.
The second phase of my activism project would be to set up two-hour tabling events in Case center and/or Dhall during lunch time, and when its warmer out, a table outside the library. I and maybe one or two other concerned students would talk to students about banning plastics in their state and we would provide them with physical letters to send to their representatives. This would happen two to three times a week from after March break until finals week. The cost of 300 letters plus two poster boards and fliers about the issue would cost around $150.
Any leftover money would be spent on more cards to give out to people to write to their representatives.
*Please note: There was no rationale section for applications in 2019. This component was added to the application for the 2020 competition, based on the judges’ feedback.