The EU Referendum: A Case for Remaining In

The debate on which way to vote in the EU referendum is building in momentum in the run-up to June 23^rd, with both camps advancing their messages through flyers and articles documenting what might happen should we stay or go. However, due to the complex nature of the European Union and a lack of easy access to information on how and why it does what it does, it is incredibly difficult to establish which arguments are based on fact and which are an example of political rhetoric. Here, I attempt to address some of the myths that are clouding our ability to make an informed decision in the EU referendum.

Myth 1: The EU is undemocratic and curtails British democracy

Much of the Leave campaign’s argument revolves around a future where Britain can regain control of its own democracy. According to Vote Leave Referendum Communication posted through letter boxes across the country a leave vote will result in the UK taking back control and once again making its own laws. It is argued that the EU is run by unelected elites that can overrule the UK government on policy decisions. However, this is untrue. Aside from the fact that in 2012 the EU won a Nobel Peace Prize for its contribution to “over six decades... of the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”, the EU is in itself a largely democratic institution. The European Commission is comprised of bureaucrats appointed by leaders of the member states and has only the power to propose and dispose of new laws and to oversee their implementation. It cannot create new laws. The European Council and Parliament are comprised of elected officials of the member states and vote on the creation of new laws. In that sense it works similarly to the UK Parliament where the House of Lords is made up of individuals appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister, and the House of Commons is comprised of elected MPs. British MEP’s represent British interests in Europe and our elected Prime Minister sits on the European Council with other elected heads of state. The EU, therefore, works as a pseudo-confederacy, a union of states that maintain sovereignty over their own laws, providing those laws fit within a framework decided by the states themselves. Rather than telling individual countries what they can and can’t do, the EU attempts to represent the interests of all of its member states in a fair and representative way. The EU Parliament is in fact considered by many to be more representative than the House of Commons, utilising proportional representation over the UK’s much-criticised first-past-the-post system. Far from being an impotent force in the EU, as Nigel Farage suggests, the UK is an active member of a democratic institution that seeks to increase international cooperation and solve issues through political means rather than military.

Myth 2: Membership of the EU increases Britain’s security risk

Sir Richard Dearlove, former Chief of MI6, suggests that “the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights” would be an important security gain for the UK. It is argued that the European Convention on Human Rights harms the UK’s ability to protect itself from a terror attack by reducing our capacity to use certain forms of security measures. The measures the Act prohibits include mass surveillance, torture and detention without trial. The argument regarding the necessities of these particular measures is a different one altogether but for myself and many others, the thought of a UK government with the capacity to engage in any of these activities without recourse or oversight is a scary one, and even outside of the EU it is likely that national legislation would regulate this sort of action.

The unification of Europe has allowed individual member states to spend less annually on their own military forces whilst maintaining a secure border around “Fortress Europe”. The thought of two European countries going to war against each other today is laughable, which is quite a statement for a continent that only 70 years ago nearly tore itself apart in the biggest war in recorded history. Today we solve our differences in boardrooms in Brussels rather than on battlefields, and the EU has a large part to play in that. The last two wars that claimed significant numbers of British lives and arguably made our homeland less secure were not led by our EU neighbours, but by the United States.

Myth 3: EU membership has led to unsustainable levels of immigration

Although the EU open-border policy has encouraged greater levels of immigration within the EU, the “uncontrollable” level of migration Boris Johnson fears will destroy our economy is simply not borne out by the evidence. Although 184,000 EU citizens arrived in the UK last year with the intention of staying for over one year, it should be noted that 188,000 arrived from non-EU nations. This suggests that simply leaving the EU will not curb the current rate of immigration to the UK as citizens of EU member states would still be able to move to the UK through our domestic immigration system. More importantly, though, fear over the number of immigrants arriving in the UK may be misguided. Far from being a ‘strain on public services’, as Nigel Farage claimed in a speech on the 3^rd of June, a recent report from HMRC stated that recently arrived EEA (European Economic Area) nationals paid £3.1 billion in income tax and national insurance in 2014, and took only £0.56 billion in HMRC benefits. With the aging UK population, immigration may be one of the only ways to ensure enough money is entering the state economy to keep national services afloat.

According to the Financial Times, approximately 1.8 million Britons live outside of the UK in the EU, compared to 2.34 million EU migrants in the UK, meaning that the number of EU nationals arriving is almost completely offset by the number of Britons leaving, again disputing the idea that immigration is out-of-control and our public services are unable to cope. Britons living outside the UK are also often conveniently forgotten in immigration debates, and in the event of a Leave vote their future in Europe could be in question.

The debate over Europe has been unfortunately light on facts, and whilst this is far from exhaustive it has hopefully challenged some of the prevailing notions that are dictating people’s choices in the current referendum. The fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is a forgotten power, and outside of Europe we run the risk of fading into insignificance on the world stage. In Europe, we are a leading contributor to the greatest political and economic power in the world (with a larger GDP than the US and China), a champion of freedom of movement and the sharing of cultures, and a testament to the power that a multicultural society can bring.

The European Union has many flaws, but it is the first political experiment of its kind. Around the world other attempts at regional integration have followed in the footsteps of the EU, ranging from the African Union, Eurasian Economic Community and the Union of South American Nations, as well as many others. In a globalized world, integration is preferable to isolationism. None of these organisations are perfect, and in fact many require huge reform if they are to continue to work and do the best for the most people (the EU included) but we stand a better chance of having our say and making a difference within these communities rather than outside of them. The big world is getting smaller and we as a country need to learn to adapt.

I’m voting Remain in the EU referendum. Register to vote by the end of today and make your voice heard on the 23^rd of June.

https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/register-to-vote/

"They Got What They Deserved" - The Slippery Slope of Targeted Assassination

The Daily Mail front page on Tuesday 8^th September depicted the images of 21-year-old Reyaad Khan and associate Ruhul Amin, 26, accompanied by the headline “They Got What They Deserved”. The men were killed in an RAF drone strike in Raqqa, Syria on the 21^st August. They were fighting with ISIS. David Cameron announced that the fighters had been killed in a targeted attack, at the same time that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon threatened the UK would “not hesitate” to launch more secret airstrikes in Syria in order to tackle terror. This, it seems, is a “perfectly legal act of self defence”.

Whilst claims that one of the men was planning an attack on UK soil are as yet unconfirmed, this event signals what could be a new turning point in the struggle against ISIS. It is largely acknowledged that ISIS itself poses little direct threat to the UK, with its attention focused on the ongoing struggles for control of its territory in Syria and Iraq. What concerns UK politicians is the threat of radicalised Britons returning from ISIS training grounds and enacting terror plots using the skills they have learned abroad. This may be the most significant terror threat to the UK at the current time, but does that justify the killing of two young men?

These men had been identified and were fighting for ISIS in hostile territory against hardened soldiers. Their chances of returning home were slim, even if that was indeed what they wanted. If they had chosen to return it would have proven extremely difficult to enter the country without the authorities being aware. If they had committed crimes worthy of being killed, why could they not have been arrested and put on trial? They may have committed acts that are reprehensible to us as ordinary citizens. They may have been fighting for an organization whose ideals are very different to our own. And they may be guilty of crimes that deserve a punishment. But did they deserve this?

The UK justice system is based on ideals that do not fit with our expanding drone program overseas. A murderer at home can expect to receive a trial in which they must be shown to be guilty of their crimes beyond any reasonable doubt, and if this is the case they will receive a prison sentence. We do not believe in the death sentence in this country. But fighters who choose to commit their crimes on foreign soil receive the death sentence before any jury is consulted or facts of the case are discussed. They have no representation, no chance to explain themselves or to repent for their sins, no trial by jury, and no second chance.

What is left behind is a grief-stricken chorus of friends and families who never got to say goodbye to their sons or confront them for what they did. What is left behind is a sense that justice has not really been served, that maybe instead of trying to bring these men to trial we instead opted for the easy way out by striking them down without giving them a chance to fight back. What is left behind is an angry public that see two terrorists on the front page of their newspapers, and not two human beings who were not necessarily beyond salvation. Now we will never know. It seems that the War on Terror in its current form has become a points-scoring exercise rather than a real battle for peace. Kill one of ours, we’ll kill one of yours. Perhaps we are beyond rebuilding bridges, but it would be nice to see someone trying.

Just a week after Cameron said that instead of taking in more refugees from the Middle East we should instead focus on stabilising the situation in their home countries, he admits to the killing of two young fighters in an airstrike on a country that we are supposedly not at war with. This sort of mission creep is exactly the kind of destabilising force that we need to avoid if we have any hopes of pacifying the region. Attempts to understand the fighters and their struggle are non-existent, because it is easier to kill from a distance and claim a victory. Two British men have been killed by our government. If they are soldiers we should have fought them on the battlefield. If they are criminals they should have stood trial for their crimes. You do not have to agree with their ideologies to understand that this was a miscarriage of justice. And in the long-term this will only serve to destabilise the situation in Iraq and Syria, and turn more people towards the jihadist groups in the region. The refugee crisis will not be solved through increasing the violence currently ravaging the Middle East. Nor will relationships between clashing factions be mended through targeted assassination. It is time to rethink our strategies both at home and abroad when tackling the threat of terror globally.

Crisis Care and Policing Mental Illness

In 2014, 710 individuals sectioned under the Mental Health Act were detained by Sussex Police. This constituted one in every five individuals detained unduly by police under the Act across England and Wales. However, under a new pilot scheme being rolled out across the country, the force is looking to rectify this number. By paring police officers with mental health nurses, forces across the country are creating new ‘street triage teams’ to respond to crisis situations.

Historically, mental health issues in the UK have been dealt with through criminalization. The Mental Health Foundation reports that over 70% of the UK prison population has two or more mental health disorders. Last year alone almost 4,000 individuals were unduly held in police cells for mental health-related concerns and disturbances. The effect this has on an individual already suffering is undoubtedly negative. When police alone are used to diffuse crisis situations, mentally ill individuals are inherently criminalized through arrest and detention. This unnecessary involvement with the criminal justice system can worsen a situation through the emotional trauma associated with being treated as a criminal threat. What the inclusion of mental health professionals in the policing profession provides is an ability to judge what the best treatment for an individual in crisis is. Some individuals involved in potentially threatening or criminal behaviour may need medical treatment, whereas others may require arrest and detention. Police officers often lack the resources to establish the mental state of individuals, and are also viewed with suspicion by the people they may be trying to help. Trained psychological professionals can provide the guidance and care needed at an extremely difficult time. The inclusion of mental health nurses in the policing field is therefore a very welcome development, and one that will undoubtedly aid the improvement of both our mental healthcare and criminal justice institutions.

However, the news that crisis intervention programs are so desperately needed invokes a more instrumental question regarding attitudes towards mental health provision in the UK. Why are so many people in need of crisis counselling and intervention across the country? In 2013, there were 53,176 detentions under the Mental Health Act across the UK. Despite the myriad reasons that sectioning may occur, this represents an alarming number. Detention is usually a last resort for individuals considered a threat to themselves or others, so why is it being used so often?

Despite recent increases in mental healthcare funding under the new Tory government, NHS resources dedicated to mental health issues are still spread drastically thin. NHS practitioners are not equipped to deal with the sheer number of mental health cases reaching them on a daily basis. With an estimated quarter of all adults suffering some form of mental illness in any given year according to the Mental Health Foundation, more needs to be done to ensure we have the resources to provide good primary care to everyone suffering from a psychological disorder. The nation’s first line of defence against mental illness is insufficient, and this places undue pressure on the crisis counselling teams across the country. Sectioning and crisis counseling resources are therefore being stretched to near breaking point because individuals do not get the help they need to treat their illness before it becomes a life threatening ordeal.

Awareness needs to be raised of the counseling, medical and psychological services available to individuals who feel like they might need extra support if we are to reduce the pressure on the crisis care system. Individuals who get symptoms treated earlier require less treatment and have less long-term negative effects associated with their illness. Mass public campaigns have helped raise the awareness of the public on what signs to look for with strokes or heart attacks so that individuals can get help quickly and the emergency services can be alerted as soon as possible. The same should be done for mental illness, so individuals can spot early signs of depression or other illnesses in their loved ones and maybe encourage them to get help before it gets too much. Mental health in the UK needs to become a priority as our understanding of what affects psychological wellbeing develops. Crisis counseling is a necessary part of any system dealing with mental illness, as important as accident and emergency staff, but without general practitioners and primary care facilities provided by the NHS the UK would be a much sicker nation than it currently is. This is the situation we find ourselves in regarding mental health. Mentally ill people are not criminals. That this has been acknowledged is a good thing. It is also just the first step in reforming our healthcare system to ensure that every person is given the care they need to live healthy, happy lives with well managed mental wellbeing. 

Mental Health Services in Cameron's Second Term

The man that I met living rough on the streets of Chicago was one of the many victims of the city’s mental health service budget cuts. In 2012, 50% of the city’s mental health clinics were closed in cuts that saved just $3 million, but negatively impacted thousands of lives in doing so. His story was similar to many I had heard from other homeless people around Chicago’s downtown Loop neighbourhood. An uninsured schizophrenic who suffered from auditory hallucinations that made him paranoid and scared, he found it near-impossible to get the drugs that he needed to control his condition. Unable to hold down a job with such severe symptoms, he quickly found himself unemployed and incapable of paying his rent. And then, as is the story with so many of the mentally ill in Chicago, he ended up on the streets. Now, his main concern is finding something to eat. The voices in his head have not gone away. Daily, he stands on a corner next to a Swarovski jewellery store and is ignored by shoppers as he begs for money.

The healthcare system in the US is broken. Having dealt with it briefly myself, I was exposed in a small measure to the mental strain of worry about medical bills. As a fully insured foreign national I was well protected against unwanted costs, but an ambulance ride and a trip to the emergency room still kept me awake nights with concern that I would awake to a bill on my doorstep that I would have to conjure up the funds to pay. For someone suffering with a long-illness that requires extensive treatment the stress of simply affording life-saving medical care can be too much to handle. Make that illness a mental health related condition and the strain becomes immeasurable. Why do so many mental illnesses in the US go untreated? Because people simply cannot afford even basic treatment. The states cannot afford it. The federal government cannot afford it. And this is not because of lack of money; it is because mental health is not a priority (see my earlier blog post, The Mental Health Crisis in Chicago).

Which is why I am heartened to see the recent £85 million increase in mental health service funding in Scotland. This comes at a much needed time, when a recent Care Quality Commission review found that mental health crisis care services in the UK are ‘struggling to cope’ with emergency situations across the UK. In March, Nick Clegg pledged £1.25 billion to develop mental health services in England, and yet in the context of a shrinking NHS this still may not be enough. The same Care Quality Commission review, published in June 2015, found that 42% of patients in emergency mental healthcare situations did not receive the treatment they required.

Part of the problem with mental health issues is the continued stigma surrounding them. Illnesses such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and PTSD are not fully understood, and are often not considered illnesses in the same that cancer is. When these afflictions are not treated seriously by the medical profession or by lay people, a situation develops where it is difficult for individuals suffering from mental illness to get help. Our NHS is the only barrier preventing the UK from developing the same epidemic of homelessness and criminality within the mentally ill population that is currently gripping the US. Universal healthcare is a wonderful thing that should be protected, and in the age of austerity we must fight more than ever not to lose this vital lifeline.

Despite recent boosts to mental health funding, an investigation by the charity Young Minds recently found that over half of local councils in England had frozen or cut funding for child and adolescent mental health budgets in 2014/15. This is the most vulnerable time for victims of mental illness. The new Conservative government has started positively in its rhetoric surrounding mental health issues, with Care Minister Alistair Burt stating that “mental healthcare is [his] priority”, but it remains to be seen what reforms will come as the new cabinet establishes itself.

The Conservatives have previously stood in the way of meaningful mental health reform, with the previous Cameron government cutting many services nationwide. However, with the coalition dissolved and the Conservative party now established as the majority party in government a new era is beginning. Though no bill has been put forward regarding mental health, a further £8 billion has been pledged to fund the NHS and new mental healthcare standards have been promised. Whether this materialises remains to be seen. As individuals we must continue to fight for rights for the mentally ill, and continue to raise awareness to help end the stigma surrounding these life-destroying afflictions. And, in order to avoid us going the way of the American mental healthcare system, we must hope that the Conservatives stay true to their word. Lives very literally depend on it.

Bringing Out Unity Through Interactive Transformation

BOUT IT (Bringing Out Unity Through Interactive Transformation) is a program developed and run by Roosevelt University professor Dr Melissa Sisco that is designed to help mentor at-risk youth in the Chicago area. Dr Sisco has previously mentored youth in foster homes and behavioural health facilities (most notably at the University of Arizona in the form of a mentorship program run jointly with Dr Julie Feldman) but the BOUT IT approach differs from previous approaches to mentorship in various ways.

First, it focuses on youth-to-youth mentorship by taking students from Roosevelt University and exporting them from the classroom into the field of practice. Through her relationship with the Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network (UCAN), Dr Sisco found a space to take undergraduate students off campus and place them in an environment that would enable them to develop their skills as future psychologists and professionals working with at risk youth. UCAN is a facility dedicated to housing and caring for youth that have had a rough start in life, and many of the youth at the Chicago facility have suffered abuse and gang-related neighbourhood violence from a very young age. The BOUT IT program (the only program like it in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin) brings university students from Roosevelt to UCAN and pairs them with an at-risk youth for a semester-long mentorship program.

The mentorship is focussed around the concept of SMART goals. Dr Sisco states that the most important thing to instil in a youth that has suffered trauma is the ability to dream. Youths that are a ward of the state are entitled to free college tuition, but many of them are unaware of this fact or simply cannot see themselves ever going to university. The SMART goals framework enables them to visualise a dream, and then begin to take the steps required to achieve it. Through making small steps one at a time, these youths can find a way to achieve something they never deemed possible. The goal of the program is to show that not only are these dreams possible, but that we can take steps on a day-to-day basis that get us closer to reaching them. There are now two UCAN youths that have graduated the BOUT IT program and attend Roosevelt University. The mentors, current Roosevelt students, facilitate the development of these goals by being a positive role model and helping to provide a framework that enables the youth to take the necessary steps to achieve them.

Many of the youth at UCAN are unwilling to discuss their past, but one of the methods through which they can express themselves is music. In particular hip-hop and spoken word can be used as a tool for tackling their emotions. The newest BOUT IT project for these kids involves a partnership with Chicago-based spoken word group Row Cypher. Established by Dr Sisco, this partnership is hoped to help provide the youth at UCAN further positive role models that can demonstrate how these kids can use their skills to develop themselves and tell their story.

In the city of Chicago as a whole it is estimated that 1 in every 1000 people will be in contact with police regarding a violent crime, either as a victim, perpetrator or witness. In certain gang-infested neighbourhoods such as Humboldt Park this figure can reach as high as 1 in 4. Youth that grow up in these communities are at a very high risk of entering criminality themselves, especially if their home life is unstable. UCAN hopes to provide a sense of stability for these at risk youth but it can only provide shelter for a 3 month period before funding for the youth is cut. What programmes like BOUT IT hope to do is provide that stability through the establishment of SMART goals, allowing the youth to make sense of their own life story and take control of their future by providing them positive role models and a means by which to achieve what they want to achieve.

As a mentor in this program I have been consistently impressed with the professionalism of both the BOUT IT team under Dr Sisco and the UCAN staff who go above and beyond to foster good relationships with youths that can at times be difficult, for understandable reasons. I have similarly been blown away to see the resolve of so many of the youth in the program that have overcome all the odds and made it to a point where they are ready to move on with their lives and begin to think about a future away from violence and crime. Programmes like BOUT IT, though few-and-far between and desperately underfunded, are essential to instilling a sense of hope in youth that may have none. But more than that, BOUT IT takes college kids who have had little to no experience in the field of practice and throws them into a real world situation that is both challenging and incredibly rewarding. For me, it has been perhaps the most educational experience of my time in Chicago and that is solely down to the perseverance of the youth at UCAN in the face of unbelievable hardship, and the effort put in by Dr Sisco to enable us to take part in a program that is unlike any other I have ever seen.

Chicago is a great city with a great potential to help its poor and disadvantaged, but the current administration shows little interest in tackling the gang issues in the South and West sides. With little to no government help, programmes like UCAN aim to intervene in the lives of damaged youth and change their lives for the better. This would not be possible without the input of BOUT IT, which both relieves the staff and gives the youth a release where they can hang out with similarly aged individuals who can act as role models and hopefully provide an example of what is possible with a little hard work and perseverance. These services for underprivileged youth are essential to ensuring our continued success as a society, because these kids that have survived unbelievable hardship and come through the other side are our future, and they have the potential to make an incredible difference to the city, the country and the world.

So what can we do as bystanders to help these programmes continue to function? The simple answer is to get involved. Fundraise, show an interest, become a mentor, tell people about these amazing things that are happening. Running a program like this is a constant tight-rope walk of trying to balance the needs of the kids with the available budget and volunteer resources. If you believe in this sort of transformational experience as a way of changing the lives of both disadvantaged youth  and college students who are gaining an experience they can get nowhere else then take the advice of Dr Sisco and the BOUT IT team: don’t just talk ‘bout it, be BOUT IT.

For more information on any of these programs please visit their websites:

http://boutitlifecoaching.webs.com/

http://www.ucanchicago.org/about/

http://www.rowcypher.com/

The Mental Health Crisis in Chicago

In 2012 Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel closed 6 of the 12 public mental healthcare facilities in the city. It was estimated at the time that around $3 million would be saved with this move, which came at a time of extreme fiscal insecurity. Today, the Chicago Tribune estimates that the city owes $33 billion dollars in pension pay and obligation bond debt. The Illinois Policy Organisation estimates the total city debt at $63 billion. 3 years after the closure of 50% of the city’s mental health facilities, serious questions are being raised over the efficiency of this move. The $3 million saving equates to far less than .1% of the city’s total debt, and has damaged the chances of thousands of individuals of getting adequate medical care for mental illness.

A recent Vice documentary estimates that around 30-40% of the inmates processed at Cook County Jail at 26^th/California are suffering from mental illness. Cook County sheriff Tom Dart notes that this makes the jail the largest mental healthcare provider in the state of Illinois. Why are we criminalizing the mentally ill in this way? A coherent mental health policy focused on treatment would surely reduce the number of crimes committed by the mentally ill, and eliminate the need for our jails and prisons to bear the burden of providing mental healthcare at a time when they too are strapped for cash. One of the most obvious reasons for this is that in passing the buck on mental health provision, the indebted city can shift the cost of treatment up to the county level, with Cook County taxpayers footing the bill rather than Chicago residents. With this highly political move, Emanuel can continue to push his low-tax policy in downtown, attracting business to the city.

But prison is far from the best place to treat a mentally ill population. For one, people do not get treatment until they have committed a crime. This leaves individuals suffering from deteriorating mental health without access to treatment. For someone suffering with a mental condition without access to health insurance or ObamaCare, the most likely end point is either in the prisons or on the streets. At this point in time, the city of Chicago is failing its mentally ill population.

And yet, despite these cuts to services and the handing off of much of the burden to the county level government, Chicago’s debt continues to increase. Emanuel’s policy has focused largely on austerity measures in the periphery of the city (leaving Downtown largely untouched by the cuts) and the increase of property taxes. However, there are other options. Roosevelt University professor Stephanie Farmer calls for the institution of a financial transaction tax on the city’s stock exchanges. This tax would be applied to financial exchanges on the stock market (currently Illinois’ most profitable economic sector) and encourage investor responsibility when trading by applying a cost to each transaction. This could cut the current unhindered ‘cowboy’ trading that was in large part responsible for the 2008 economic crisis by encouraging investors to be more sensible with their exchanges, and the Chicago Political Economy Group estimates it could raise $11-12 billion annually in Chicago alone, putting a much larger dent in the $63 billion debt than the £3 million saved by cutting mental health facilities.

As the city’s downtown continues to reach skyward and the periphery continues to descend into gang violence and disrepair we must begin to look for new ways of investing in the human capital that Chicago can offer. Chicago is not the Loop; it is 234 square miles and over 2.5 million people’s worth of largely underutilised resources. These people are worthy of investment, and in order to do so we must veer away from the current focus on finance capitalism that has facilitated the increasing inequality gap in the city. A 1% tax on each financial transaction that takes place in the city’s stock exchanges will be hardly felt by the million and billion dollar companies operating in downtown, but the loss of such a huge chunk of the city’s mental healthcare facilities has harmed, and will continue to harm, a significant section of the population that are being prevented from contributing to their communities by the incapacitating nature of mental illness and an inability to find treatment. Solving city level public health problems with mass incarceration at the county, state and national level is unsustainable. Cook County Jail is the largest prison complex in the US and the courtrooms at 26^th/California are overrun with minor cases. This strain on the criminal justice system breeds a mechanism that is neither morally just nor viable economically or socially. For Chicago to continue to grow it needs to invest in its citizens, and this in part can be achieved through providing help to those who need it most. The Emanuel administration has a duty to address these issues as it enters its second term.

The cutting of mental health services in the city is emblematic of Emanuel’s slash-and-burn approach to social services city-wide, with 54 Chicago public schools closing down on his watch and replaced by privately-owned charter schools. This wilful neglect of education and mental health provision may save money in the short-term, but it lays the groundwork for a full-scale crisis of humanity in the not-too-distant future. With a five-year high school graduation rate of only 69% in the 2013/14 school year (compared to the 80% national graduation rate) and an ever-expanding prison population, many Chicago residents are being set up for failure. Early intervention, better schooling and easier access to healthcare providers should be a starting point to mending the lives of an increasingly disenfranchised majority of Chicago citizens that reside outside of downtown. This is not a burden on the taxpayer, but an investment in the people that shaped, and continue to shape, one of the most vibrant cities on Earth. 

Helping the Homeless of Chicago: The South Loop Campus Ministry

The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless estimates 138,575 Chicagoans were homeless in 2014. This number was up 19.4% from just one year earlier, and is expected to rise again in 2015. The evidence of this growing homeless population can be seen in the streets of the Loop, the university and business district of the city. Hidden beneath the skyscrapers, university campuses and expensive Magnificent Mile designer stores are hundreds of homeless individuals that have fallen through the cracks of the same society that built the city to its heights.

It is all too easy to ignore these individuals and walk past them – something we are all guilty of doing on a daily basis – but it takes a different kind of person to stop, take notice, and try to make a change in the daily lives of the people the system forgot. The South Loop Campus Ministry started life as an organised community meal for students at the Roosevelt, DePaul and Columbia university campuses surrounding Grace Place, an Episcopal church at 637 South Dearborn, in 2007. However, after a while it became clear that many of the individuals that arrived to take advantage of the free food and drink served at these community meals were not students but homeless men and women that lived in the streets of the Loop. Reverend Tom Gaulke shifted the focus of the ministry from feeding students to developing a community meal for the homeless at Grace Place in response to this and it proved incredibly successful. Excess food was taken to the streets and handed out to anybody who was hungry, and with that the current South Loop Campus Ministry was born. Today, under the leadership of Pastor Benjamin Adams, the ministry takes a shopping cart filled with packed lunches, soup and clothing to the streets every Sunday, other than the last Sunday of the month when a community meal is held at Grace Place for anybody who is hungry.

Although run by Ben and seminary intern Joe Hopkins, the SLCM is reliant on volunteer work from individuals in the local community in order to continue to feed the needy in its community. It receives help from students at Roosevelt University through APO, a service-based fraternity at the school. In addition local churches and youth groups lend a hand, as well as residents who want to help make a difference. The work done by SLCM feeds dozens of needy individuals on a weekly basis, and provides a time for them to talk with individuals who otherwise may have simply walked past. But Ben is aware that work like this, though absolutely necessary as a lifeline for people with nothing else, is insufficient in battling the epidemic of homelessness spreading through the city.

“Without service ministries people would go hungry,” he says, highlighting the simple need for charity work to help people on an individual basis, “you have to keep applying pressure to the wound so that you don’t bleed out.” But the eventual goal of the ministry is to sew the wound up by ending homelessness as we see it on the streets of Chicago. As a member of many community-based organisations focused on raising awareness of issues and mobilising force to tackle the injustices in society, Ben is aware of the need for social movements to make change. “In a capitalistic society, homeless people are devalued as human beings because they cannot produce or consume” he says, “but this is not the way that God looks at people. The image of God is in all of us, regardless of our situation.” The issue facing the homeless in Chicago today is that they are viewed by the city administration as a nuisance and something to be covered up, rather than people that have been failed by our system.

“The way we deal with mental illness is homelessness and imprisonment” says Ben. As a volunteer who has spoken to some of the individuals we have served on the street, I was struck by how many were suffering from a mental illness or addiction. In particular, many of the homeless men residing on Lower Wacker Drive (sleeping directly beneath the tourists and shoppers on the Magnificent Mile) were veterans suffering from some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. Is this really the way we want to treat our returning heroes? If these individuals are devalued because they have lost their capacity to produce or consume, as Ben suggests, then the question that I have struggled with is why do we not attempt to restore them to health by giving them the medical care that they need? Rather than wait for someone with a mental illness to harm themselves or others before intervening, why not be proactive and treat these illnesses in the ways that we can in order to give that individual a chance to function as a valuable member of society? In 1960, 400 per 100,000 mentally ill people were hospitalized, by 1990 this had fallen to 50 per 100,000. In 2012 there were an estimated 356,268 mentally ill prison inmates in the US, compared with only 35,000 in state psychiatric hospitals. With the advancement of modern medicine there is no excuse for the criminalization of the mentally ill.  Rahm Emanuel and Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner continue to cut funding for mental healthcare at a time when mental health services are already feeling the pinch. We are expecting seriously ill individuals to be able to pay for their own treatment when they often cannot work because of the affliction they suffer with.

Ben notes the emergence of a new breed of homeless individuals, lower middle class families that have been forced out of their homes by debt, largely as a result of medical bills. The middle class is vanishing in America as a result of the increasing polarization of income and wealth distribution. In 1968 the top 10% controlled 50% of the nation’s wealth, today that number has increased to 80%. Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing as more and more families fall below the poverty line. There is no safety net for families that are barely treading water anyway when someone in that family falls ill. This is leading to an increasing number of couples and children who are finding themselves homeless. Chicago Public Schools identified 22,144 homeless students in the 2013-14 school year. Usually the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) takes homeless children away from their families and puts them into foster care, but with the number of homeless families increasing this is becoming a bigger concern that is putting DCFS under strain.

It is time to stop ignoring the homeless population of the city of Chicago, and of the US as a whole, and acknowledge that this is an issue that is not going to go away. These people are like you and me, and given the chance they can teach us so much about how to survive true hardship and overcome even the most hopeless situations. Some have made mistakes, and some are suffering with mental illnesses and afflictions that we may not fully understand, but they do not deserve to be forgotten in a society that has the power to lift every individual out of poverty and chooses not to. Individuals like Ben Adams and the SLCM dedicate their time to helping the most disadvantaged members of society in whatever way they can. The work done by SLCM provides a lifeline for people that often have no other means of getting food or clothing to survive Chicago’s bitterly cold winters, but it should not be necessary. It should not require an army of volunteers to take to the streets to help human beings that have the potential to make real change and improvements to our society. It should be a priority to fix the poverty-stricken neighbourhoods of a city that I consider to be one of the best in the world before we try to increase the wealth of the already-rich. Unfortunately it is not, and that makes work such as that done by SLCM absolutely vital to ensuring that some of the 138,575 Chicago homeless have food in their bellies and clothes on their backs.

SLCM is a faith-based organization, but it welcomes volunteers of all faiths and beliefs. We are all human, and we all deserve a chance to better ourselves. For many of the homeless people sleeping on the street beneath the bright lights of America’s third largest city their situation can seem hopeless. But nothing is hopeless, and organizations like SLCM help to reignite that hope in people that might otherwise have none. Until we can make a bigger change, we should feel obligated to continue applying pressure to that wound while we enjoy the privilege that we have.