A Little Change Goes a Long Way: SCU’s Options for a Better Tomorrow

I. Introduction:

Santa Clara University (SCU) has the opportunity to reflect on the criticisms with which it has been faced recently, and reevaluate its approach to engaging with its student body. Caring for the mental health of an entire university community is an enormous undertaking, but it is far from impossible – it simply takes more intentional planning. If the University redirects some of the money that it puts toward offering mindfulness and meditation app-based programs to instead restructure its Counseling and Psychological Services program, it would likely see an increase in student mental wellness. 

As you might remember from my first post, we began our journey by evaluating what mental health looks like on the average university campus, and why it is important for universities to offer counseling and psychological services to its students. We then took a look in my second post at how SCU students are demanding better mental health services and how the system currently in place at SCU fails its students. In this final post, I will pose several alternative approaches to begin rebuilding the systems employed by SCU, so that SCU students will truly be able to thrive in a university setting that embodies the Jesuit value of “cura personalis.”  

Continue reading “A Little Change Goes a Long Way: SCU’s Options for a Better Tomorrow”

Fostering Belonging at SCU

“Traumatic events destroy the sustaining bonds between individual and community. Those who have survived learn that their sense of self, of worth, of humanity, depends upon a feeling of connection with others. The solidarity of a group provides the strongest protection against terror and despair, and the strongest antidote to traumatic experience. Trauma isolates; the group re-creates a sense of belonging. Trauma shames and stigmatizes; the group bears witness and affirms. Trauma degrades the victim; the group exalts her. Trauma dehumanizes the victim; the group restores her humanity.”

Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery

Introduction

This semester, my research has focused on mitigating the impact of the pandemic on college students. My first post explored the pervasive issue of loneliness and the toll it takes on physical and mental health. The severe consequences of loneliness were experienced by increased populations of people because of the isolation measures used to slow the spread of COVID-19. The pandemic was harmful for many college students who’d typically be experiencing an important developmental stage known as emerging adulthood, where young people explore their identities among other things. This period of time was repressed for some college students who were instead challenged with financial instability, household disruptions, mental health issues, social unrest and remote education.

At SCU, three students died, two of which were suicides, during the Fall of 2021. In response to student pleas about the inadequacy of campus mental health services, SCU’s Board of Trustees decided to devote increased funding to mental health. The funding is necessary and in my second post, I discuss why an approach focused on belonging would benefit SCU. Belonging is a fundamental human need. The absence of belonging is associated with poor mental health and decreased engagement in school among other things. The benefits of belonging include an increased ability to cope in difficult times, greater university retention and a greater sense of student satisfaction with universities among other advantages. 

This post seeks to discuss ways SCU can use this information to foster belonging on campus. While the pandemic created and intensified a number of issues for students, it can also serve as a catalyst for change if SCU takes action. 

Read more: Fostering Belonging at SCU Continue reading “Fostering Belonging at SCU”

Belonging. What is it Good For? Rebuilding SCU’s Community Post-Pandemic.

” Why do people have to be this lonely? What’s the point of it all? Millions of people in this world, all of them yearning, looking to others to satisfy them, yet isolating themselves. Why? Was the earth put here just to nourish human loneliness?” – Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart

Introduction

As you may recall from my previous post, the pandemic has challenged many college students’ mental and physical health. I previously discussed the epidemic of loneliness that predated the pandemic and how efforts to recognize loneliness as a pervasive problem were put on hold because of social isolation measures taken to slow the spread of coronavirus. Research conducted during the initial peak of the pandemic showed many students struggling with their mental health and basic needs. With the return of students back to campus, colleges must make an effort to recognize and address the toll of the pandemic. At Santa Clara University (SCU), the Board of Trustees has devoted more funding to mental health resources in response to student demands coming on the heels of several deaths on campus. As of now, SCU claims to have increased avenues for student mental health by providing students with programs that will help them identify other students in distress. (For more on steps SCU has taken, please see Cydney Chilimidos’ work). SCU has focused on implementing programs that encourage students to be responsible for their peers’ mental health, but it would be more effective to treat belonging. SCU should instead, prioritize students’ sense of belonging to advance their wellbeing. 


Continue reading “Belonging. What is it Good For? Rebuilding SCU’s Community Post-Pandemic.”

Living Our Jesuit Values: SCU’s Mission Prioritizes Profit at the Cost of Student Mental Health

Content Warning: This post discusses suicide and mental illness. If you or someone you know is suicidal, please reach out for help and call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255), or message the Crisis Text Line at 741741. Both programs provide free, confidential support 24/7.

I. Introduction

In my first substantive post, we started our critical examination of University mental health services by placing ourselves in the shoes of a Freshman university student who is experiencing mental health issues with very little meaningful support. This harrowing experience is one that is familiar to students across the United States, and Santa Clara University (SCU) is no exception. As it currently stands, the two main avenues for mental health intervention for SCU students are through the Campus Safety Services (CSS) and Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS). While these resources are helpful starting places for some students who are in distress, all too often SCU students find themselves alone and reaching out for a service that is insincere in its willingness to help these students through their experiences grappling with their own mental health. 

In this post, I will examine the promises Santa Clara University makes to its student body, emphasizing where the school is misleading its students. I will then highlight the general operations of the Campus Safety Services department, as well as its policies as they pertain to student mental health emergencies. Lastly, I will examine the purported purpose of SCU’s Counseling and Psychological Services program, setting the stage for my final post where I will provide solutions for the problems outlined in this post. 

Continue reading “Living Our Jesuit Values: SCU’s Mission Prioritizes Profit at the Cost of Student Mental Health”

Has the Pandemic Worsened an Epidemic of Loneliness Among College Students?

*Content Warning. This post discusses suicide and mental health issues. If you’re experiencing a crisis, please visit the National Alliance on Mental Illness. They offer 24/7, confidential, free crisis counseling and a HelpLine for phone calls.

Introduction

While many people began to struggle with social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of loneliness preceded the pandemic. College students were forced out of their physical schools and dealt with remote education. The pandemic has exacerbated several risk factors that may increase suicides. The impact of the pandemic, in addition to an epidemic of loneliness, alienated many students. With many students returning to physical classes, the psychological impact of COVID-19 must be understood by schools and addressed to aid students and prevent future harms.


Continue reading “Has the Pandemic Worsened an Epidemic of Loneliness Among College Students?”

Mental Wellness: A Complex Journey

Content Warning: This post discusses suicide and suicidal ideation. If you or someone you know is suicidal, please reach out for help and call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255), or message the Crisis Text Line at 741741. Both programs provide free, confidential support 24/7.

I. Introduction

Please engage with me in an exercise of imagination: You are 18 years old, freshly out of high school and setting out into the adult world for the first time. Prior to this, you’ve always had your family, friends, and community supporting you when times are rough, but now, you’ve moved away to a university campus where that built-in stability no longer exists. The first few weeks of university life are incredibly exciting, but soon after, the stress of keeping up with schoolwork, holding a job, and maintaining relationships with peers and family becomes overwhelmingly stressful. You remember that your school’s orientation leaders talked about the importance of caring for your mental health in college, and their encouragement to rely on campus mental health services in the event of a crisis, so when you begin to turn to self-harm and substance use as a coping mechanism for your stress, you decide to call those on-campus mental health services to get an appointment with a therapist. Upon calling, you are told that it will be at least a two month wait before you’re able to obtain an appointment with a therapist. Your depression cannot wait two months, but you don’t know what else to do, so you continue to lean into substances and self-harm to cope. A month before your appointment, you’ve indulged in too much alcohol and are awakened to campus security and emergency medical services surrounding you, getting ready to transport you to a hospital to get your stomach pumped. If you’re lucky, a referral to psychiatric services will be added, too. 

This scenario of mental distress leading to campus security involvement is not unusual on university campuses across the United States. The American Psychiatric Association defines mental illness as a health condition “involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior.” These conditions impact every facet of a person’s life, including work, social, and family activities. Nearly one in five American adults lives with mental illness, and more than half of those adults receive no medical intervention. This lack of treatment primarily stems from the fact that mental illness remains incredibly stigmatized and can lead to marginalization and discrimination.  

As I discussed in my introductory blog post, universities have an enormous need for re-evaluation of both mental health and campus safety services. Section II of this blog post gives a brief history of mental health services on university campuses, as well as a glimpse into the current state of student mental health. In section III of this post, I will tackle how mental health crises necessarily implicate the need for campus safety services to intervene, and how experts envision a campus culture that more adequately addresses the mental health needs of its students. 

Continue reading “Mental Wellness: A Complex Journey”

Holistic Community Building in the Time of COVID: Improving Students’ Sense of Belonging

Belonging is vital to safety. Having a sense of belonging refers to a feeling of connectedness, that one is important or matters to others. A lack of a sense of belonging is linked to negative emotional experiences such as anxiety, depression, anger, sadness and loneliness. The need for services like Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) on college campuses is high because the pandemic has worsened mental health. The pandemic exacerbated several risk factors for poor mental health. For instance, the physical isolation caused by social distancing enhanced feelings of loneliness. A sense of belonging is a protective factor that promotes resiliency. College students experienced higher rates of social isolation, anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in four people aged 18 to 24 seriously contemplated suicide in June of 2020.

Belonging is a fundamental human need but the infrastructure surrounding safety at Santa Clara (SCU) does not prioritize it. In 2020, an audit of SCU’s Campus Safety Services (CSS) was conducted by Judge LaDoris H. Cordell who recommended shifting CSS from a law enforcement focus to one centered around overall safety and student wellness. As an institution that promotes cura personalis or “care for the person”, SCU’s concern for student well-being should be prioritized but SCU has failed students by providing inadequate mental health resources in spite of student pleas.

As we work to rebuild our SCU community, the psychological impact of the pandemic must be acknowledged and efforts should be made to increase belonging among students. I propose: (1) allocating more resources towards CAPS to ensure the retention of staff, adequate availability of counselors, chronic care and accessibility; (2) including mental health care professionals on the CSS response team to promote a preventive approach; and (3) increasing transparency from SCU to ensure accountability with respect to actions taken and money allocated.

About Me:

My name is Rebeka Seleshi and I am second-year law student at SCU. Prior to law school, I received my B.S. in Justice Studies from San José State University. My work history ranges from medical device companies to expungement and immigration law. At the heart of all of my work, I’ve centered myself around helping others. My interest in changing things for the better is what led me to explore the mental health implications of the pandemic for college students. Over the course of the last semester, three SCU students died – two of which were suicides. As students at SCU struggle with inadequate mental health services, there is an opportunity to help shift policy to improve services for students. Students have mobilized and are demanding change. I want to advance their mission.

De-securitizing Mental Health on University Campuses

The mental health care currently offered by Santa Clara University’s Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) leaves many of its students desiring more comprehensive and meaningful support. ​​Students at Santa Clara University, like students at many colleges across the nation, face myriad mental health issues, which sometimes results in intervention by campus security due to substance use or self-harm. CAPS states that it is designed to provide the “short-term model of therapy” to help students address “issues common in a college setting.” However, inadequate staffing and difficulty accessing these services for students with disabilities leads to “public safety” issues, like substance abuse, self harm, and poor academic performance. The onus then falls on campus security to resolve situations better handled by mental health professionals. According to Campus Safety Data, campus security is responsible for responding to reports of alcohol or drug abuse, as well as mental health crises. 

I propose that to solve the problem of campus security failing to properly and effectively mitigate students in crisis, CAPS must hire more diverse counselors who are culturally and linguistically competent to allow for more meaningful service to BIPOC and international students. Additionally, it must develop alternative methods of requesting and accessing counseling services to promote inclusion within the campus’ disabled community. This proposal would be a first (albeit incomplete) step towards deepening a communal sense of belonging on university campuses, which is a vital component of students’ mental well being. Simply advocating for broader inclusion of minority students can have a positive impact on university-wide mental health outcomes. These solutions would facilitate early intervention to help students prior to the need for campus security involvement. 

My name is Cydney Chilimidos and I am a third-year law student at Santa Clara University School of Law. I was born and raised in Sacramento, California. In December 2016, I completed my undergraduate degree in Sociology of Law, Criminology, and Deviance at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities. Since then, I have focused my studies on disability access law, and have assumed clerkship positions at the National Association of the Deaf, as well as Disability Rights California. I intend to bring my experience working in disability advocacy and my experience as a disabled person to critically examine how we can reevaluate our school’s mental health services in order to best serve the larger SCU community. 

Suicide Decriminalization and Prison Abolition

Introduction

Until the 1970s, the Western world criminalized attempted suicide. It was decriminalized because of new theories of mental health, the eugenics and euthanasia movement, a shift in legal focus to individual rights and privacy, and a lack of justification for penalizing self-harm through criminal means. Today suicide is only a crime in the few states that follow criminal common law, however, it is rarely prosecuted.

Although attempted suicide has been decriminalized in the United States, suicides occur twice as often as homicides each year. Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States for the overall population and the second leading cause of death among people between 10 and 34 years-old. The suicide rate has increased for thirteen years in a row with the highest rate since World War II in 2017.

In this series of posts I will analyze the decriminalization of suicide in light of the prison  abolition framework offered by Allegra McLeod. McLeod is a legal scholar and abolitionist who defined the “prison abolition ethic” in the article Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice. The way attempted suicide changed in terms of criminal law is exemplified by two key concepts of prison abolition: decriminalization and  preventative justice. I want to explore why decriminalization of suicide has been unsuccessful in lowering suicide rates, whether implementing other strategies outlined in the prison abolition framework would improve the situation, and if this offers any lessons in how prison abolition framework could be successfully applied to other crimes.

In this post I will to discuss the idea of prison abolition, the history of criminalization of suicide, and decriminalization of suicide. I will begin by discussing the prison abolitionist ethic, as outlined by Allegra McCleod. Then, I will discuss how different cultures view suicide and the history of suicide criminalization. This post focuses on England because the United States adopted English common law at its inception. Finally, I will discuss how and why suicide was decriminalized and where suicide stands in criminal law today in the United States.

This series of posts will address the criminalization of suicide and attempted suicide only. It will not discuss physician-assisted suicide, suicide pacts, influencing someone else to commit suicide, or accidental killings of another during attempted suicide.

The Prison Abolitionist Ethic

According to Allegra McLeod, prison abolition is the ethical, institutional, and political framework that aims to demolish the current criminal law and police system in exchange for positive social projects and institutions that work to prevent criminalized conduct. Prison abolition is about more than just tearing down prisons, it is about rethinking justice, security, public safety, and criminality.

There are several key concepts that are necessary for prison abolition to be successful. The first, and most significant, is preventative justice, which “designates a range of measures aimed at reducing the incidence of harmful behavior, typically by targeting the risks posed by specific individuals and less often by addressing the potential harm posed by given social situations.” These preventative measures range from alternatives to detention to funding social programs that reduce crime. Other key concepts are decriminalization, justice reinvestment (meaning “reinvesting criminal law administrative resources in other sectors and also reinvesting the concepts of justice and prevention w/ more expansive meaning”), creating safe harbors for vulnerable persons and communities to care for themselves, alternative livelihood programs to prevent conduct that would usually be addressed by criminal law administration, simple design innovations that improve security, and urban redevelopment that engages community members in projects and populating urban areas.

The following sections outline the history of suicide and attempted suicide criminalization and decriminalization. An abolitionist framework would start with decriminalization, but it wouldn’t end there. It would extend to the root causes of suicide and build out programs to prevent it. Decriminalization does little to promote public welfare without the addition of the concepts laid out in the prison abolition ethic.

Suicide in Different Cultures

The different cultural views of suicide begin within the word itself. The term “suicide” connotes an active verb of “killing.” The root “sui” means himself or herself and “-cide” means to kill. The term suicide did not exist until the 1600s. The terms self-homicide, self-destruction, and self-murder were previously used in the English language. Many other languages did not have an equivalent term because they regarded the act as a passive dying, rather than an active killing.

In ancient Rome, suicide was commendable when it was completed by warriors in battle when defeat was inevitable. In ancient Japan, seppuku was commendable in certain circumstances. Suicide was also deemed honorable in war contexts in several cultures. Buddhists in China widely accepted immolation and it is still accepted among some Buddhists today. Some instances of suicide are accepted in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, but it is unconditionally condemned in the Quran.

Suicide Criminalization

Suicide was first criminalized by the Romans. The Roman Council of Arles “denounced suicide as a diabolical inspiration” and criminalized suicide of servants in the fifth century to prevent the significant number of slave suicides. Attempted suicide of a soldier was also criminalized by Roman military law. The punishment, ironically, was death.

Christianity also played a part in suicide criminalization in Rome. St. Augustine condemned suicide as violating the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”) unequivocally but excused it for the rare virgin suicides that resulted in sainthood, such as with Samson or Pelagia. The Council of Braga in the sixth century denied funeral rites to those who committed suicide. Dishonoring the corpses of persons who completed suicide became customary and then codified into law. Then forfeiture of a victim of suicide’s property to the lord later became codified. The exception was if the suicide was committed as a result of madness or illness. In the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas further condemned suicide in his Summa Theologiae. The Catholic perspective of suicide condemnation became the dominant view across Europe.

Suicide Criminalization in England

The Catholic Church’s perspective most likely led to criminalization of suicide and attempted suicide in England. In the thirteenth century, Henry de Bracton considered suicide a felony and wrote that committing suicide resulted in a forfeiture of goods. By the fourteenth century, suicide was called felo de se and treated as a felony. In order to be considered a suicide, the self-killing had to have the legal element of “malicious intent.” Courts would hold post-mortem jury trials to determine intent. The criminal stigma and forfeiture of property could be avoided by a finding of insanity. Either way, there was a customary practice of driving a stake through the corpse’s heart and dumping the body in a pit near a crossroads. This was to prevent the spirit from returning, and ensure that, if the spirit did return, it would be confused as to which direction it should go.

William Blackstone believed that suicide was: “[a] double offence; one spiritual, in invading the prerogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who hath an interest in the preservation of all his subjects; the law has therefore ranked this among the highest crimes, making it a peculiar species of felony committed on one’s self.”

Suicide Criminalization in America

Suicide criminalization practices varied in the early colonies. Although the colonies adopted English common law, they did not adopt all aspects of it. Suicide was rampant among indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans. Along with the mass deaths of indigenous peoples due to diseases carried over from Europe and conflicts with colonizers, there were also numerous acts of suicide. Enslaved Africans often committed suicide on ships but this was soon prevented by force-feeding and nets which prevented jumping overboard. In the colonies, legislation provided state compensation to slave-owners for the suicide of slaves who were accused of felonies.

Early on in colonial America, Massachusetts adopted the impaling and burial by a highway law from England. However, none of the states considered suicide a crime by the nineteenth century. The colonies decriminalized suicide to set them apart from England during the Revolution and after, with no penalties remaining in the thirteen colonies by 1798. However, attempted suicide was considered a crime at common law. It was treated as a misdemeanor since it was considered an attempted felony. Some states have enacted legislation that expressly rejects common law crimes. If these states did not codify attempted suicide into their criminal statutes then attempted suicide would not be a crime in those jurisdictions. Some states did codify a criminal statute. Most of them mandated that attempted suicide is punishable by up to 2 years in jail, a $1000 fine, or both.

Suicide Decriminalization in England

Ideas about the criminalization and condemnation of suicide began to shift in the seventeenth century as a result of progressive intellectual, scientific, and cultural thought of the age of the Enlightenment. Non compos mentis, or insanity, jury verdicts rose in postmortem suicide trials, which protected families from being forced to forfeit their property. Before the seventeenth century, 2% of suicides had non compos mentis, or insanity verdicts. 42% of verdicts were non compos mentis in 1700 and they rose to 80% in 1750 and 97% in 1800.

In the eighteenth century, society became more secularized and the medical profession emerged. Public perception of suicide became more tolerant. Two suicides in the early nineteenth exemplified the shifting attitudes. The British Foreign Secretary committed suicide in 1822 which put his post-mortem jury in a tough position. They had to decide whether an esteemed member of government was a felon or insane. They returned with a verdict of temporary insanity, meaning that his property was not forfeited to the king and he did not have to have a crude burial by impalement at a crossroads. The next year, in 1823, a law student committed suicide and was subjected to a crossroads burial. There was public outcry and the practice was outlawed the same year by the Burial of Suicide Act.

The property implication of suicide, escheating to the king, was outlawed in the Forfeiture Act of 1870. Although there was no way to penalize completed suicide anymore, attempted suicide began to be considered a misdemeanor. Attempted suicide was officially decriminalized by statute by the Suicide Act of 1961.

Suicide Decriminalization in the United States

The nineteenth century brought the emergence of psychoanalytic theory, social science theory, social Darwinism, and the industrial revolution. Privatization of family life and urbanization created a new disaffected isolation which resulted in a rise of suicide.

The eugenics movement, which evolved from the ideas of social Darwinism, in combination with the creation of morphine, led to the rise of the euthanasia movement,  which was a social movement that lobbied for the legalization of euthanasia. Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is “painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures.”

Suicide rates spiked during the Great Depression, sparking public awareness and conversations about death and suicide. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938 by a majority of eugenicists. Euthanasia had significant lobbying efforts and began to grow public support.

Then World War II stopped the euthanasia movement in its tracks. The Nazis murdered nearly twenty million people and committed mass atrocities. People were outraged and disgusted by the crimes of eugenicists written about in the newspapers. They began to equivocate the euthanasia movement with Nazis. After the war, law began to change in the United States, with a focus on individual rights and privacy exemplified by the Warren Supreme Court, which issued a series of landmark rulings in the 1960s.

By the 1970s most states with statutes criminalizing attempted suicide had repealed them. Today, only states that follow criminal common law have the ability to criminalize suicide. This is only a handful of states and attempted suicide is rarely prosecuted.

Suicide and Prison Abolition

The history of suicide criminalization and decriminalization demonstrates that ideas about crime have more to do with politics, religion, and the voices of those in power than it does about rational assessments of the public good. The logical response to preventing suicide or any other behavior looked down upon by society is to investigate why the act was committed and address the root cause. The historical response, however, was to criminalize suicide and punish it after the fact. This did not act as a deterrent but it did have the effect of punishing the family of the victim and enriching the government. This could be said for most crimes that are still criminalized. The root cause of criminal acts is not being addressed and crime continues to occur. The only difference is that suicide is no longer considered a crime. This is largely because of changing attitudes towards suicide that began to consider it a private issue rather than a public one and the fact that the government could no longer profit from suicide in the form of escheatment.

However, suicide rates have only risen since it has been decriminalized. In the last 50 years since decriminalization began, no one has called to criminalize it again to prevent suicide. Since we know that criminalization does not impact the rate of suicide then it probably does little to prevent other acts that are considered crimes. So why do we still punish crimes when this method is ineffective? Suicide is a good example to test out the prison abolition ethic because it was decriminalized even though its prevalence has not changed. Decriminalizing suicide illustrates the importance of the positive project of abolition. Without the society-building features, decriminalization does very little to promote the public welfare.

The next post will discuss how decriminalization has not been successful in lowering suicide rates, if implementation of any of the other key concepts of prison abolition would be effective, and whether suicide decriminalization offers any lessons for how the prison abolition ethic could be applied to other crimes.

Access to Health Care and Criminal Justice Reform – Part 2

“America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.” – Walter Cronkite

A Universal Wraparound Program Available to all Minors Would Break the Cycle of Poor Health, Poverty, and Incarceration.

Too many people fall victim to cycles of poor health, poverty, and incarceration. In this post, I will demonstrate the ways in which the provision of universal wraparound health care services for minors is the best way to break this cycle.

Wraparound services are comprehensive, integrated, community-centered health care services, and meet all four components of sufficient health care access –– coverage, services, timeliness, and workforce. Thus, they address all of the factors contributing to poor health. The National Wraparound Initiative (NWI) service model, combined with the National Wraparound Implementation Center’s (NWIC) implementation strategy, is the ideal model from which a comprehensive, universal health care system for all children should be built.

I am proposing universal wraparound health care services for all individuals in the U.S. from birth until they reach 18 years of age. This will entail providing a health care team to every minor in the U.S. This team will address, at minimum, the wellness needs of every child in the U.S., including physical, emotional, intellectual, social, occupational, and spiritual needs, where appropriate and desired. Wellness needs, however, will act as the floor, not the ceiling, as my program will be modeled on the NWI’s program.

This program will not be means-tested but will require a significant new tax. This tax should be levied progressively against higher-income individuals and families. Within the program itself, efficacy will be measured by the NWI and NWIC’s evaluation protocols. The external success of this program, however, will be measured by the reduction in use of emergency health care services, decrease in preventable disease and associated comorbidities, lower rates of intergenerational poverty, and reduction in future levels of incarceration.

Developing a modified model of wraparound services that is available to all minors would be effective because early intervention is a proven generator of long-term socioeconomic benefits. These benefits will accrue to individuals and society. Individuals will experience better health, economic, and carceral outcomes. Society will benefit through long-term savings on various public programs and institutions. While a universal wraparound program would require enormous front-end investments, the benefits on the back-end could be transformative for individuals and save taxpayers trillions of dollars.