The average American citizen assumes that because we are a wealthy nation, most children live in safe, healthy, and supportive environments. As was apparent from the lecture by Dr. Sites, this is not true. First, what was your reaction to the data you heard in class? Second, if you were running for political office what type of a platform might you have concerning child welfare issues and how would you convince the public to support your ideas.

The data Dr. Sites cited - in effect, that American policies are destroying women and children in poverty - are for some reason not surprising to the very cynical me. For the average America citizen, I think the data would be surprising retroactively - the sort of thing that people know, vaguely, is true, but do not actively process until it is pointed out to them. That idea goes hand-in-hand with the idea of campaigning for public office on a platform for child welfare issues.

The primary focus on a political campaign platform on children would be to improve child welfare - not Child Welfare, the organization set up by the government, but the abstract concept that every child should have the best environment possible. Dr. Sites cited data indicating that 25% of all children live in families below the poverty line, and ten percent of them live in "extreme" poverty. Getting a majority of the public behind me is simply an issue of raising public awareness of that fact, and having evidence to prove it. I believe an adequate foundation for the platform would be these facts.

My answer to this problem would be almost exactly what Dr. Sites recommended: a higher minimum wage, improved public education, and improved health care. A higher minimum wage not only helps to decrease poverty, and thus improve the well-being of the children living in poverty, but would also decrease several other negative factors correlated to low income, such as crime. If at all possible I would cite the examples of those places Dr. Sites mentioned as having enacted a similar law - if the data we heard were correct, and these places benefited from decreased crime and poverty rates without job loss, then the situation is ideal.

Naturally some people would still oppose this sort of plan for whatever reason. But, as Dr. Sites said, the cost of an increased minimum wage now is significantly less than the cost of all the programs necessary to repair the damage of poverty and its associated troubles. Less poverty means less crime, which means less expensive criminal justice and enforcement; less poverty means less child abuse or neglect, which in turn means less expensive Child Welfare divisions. A few simple numbers and projected expenditures should suffice to prove the point adequately, and as an added bonus the money saved could be spent in other places such as education, or returned to the people.

Having brought up Child Welfare, I would then proceed to address the controversies surrounding it. Dr. Sites mentioned several in the lecture. State intervention in family has always been a sticking point for several people. The criteria for an acceptable intervention, along with the connected problem of how to determine parental competency in such a diverse nation, can be vastly divisive topics which undermine the program. I would campaign towards establishing a clear set of circumstances in which intervention was acceptable, while being sure to include input from various cultural perspectives. A firm and reasonable list will improve public perception of the program and make its interventions seem more justified and palatable. It would also cut down on unnecessary public reports, while increasing reports of situations that do need to be addressed, allowing for reductions to be made to the current $15 billion budget allocated for investigations. In addition, an evaluation of current Child Welfare operations would be necessary.

However, in my opinion, the best solution to any Child Welfare controversies is to make the program completely unnecessary. Child Welfare is a solution to problems; the best way to deal with these problems is make sure they don't come up in the first place. As Dr. Sites said, poverty seems to have a greater impact on abuse and neglect than any other common factor; thus, the answer to addressing abuse and neglect is to address poverty. Again, this ties back into the program to reduce poverty.

The best way to address the issue of child welfare is not to attempt solve the problem, but to prevent it from occurring entirely. To that end, any political platform I might pursue would focus on reducing the circumstances that result in child welfare issues - and, as is evident, these changes would benefit both individuals and society as a whole.