Social Policy in the Eyes of Social Workers

Executive Summary

Terminally ill patients should have the option to request a physician assist them in ending their life. Only the patient knows what they are going through physically, mentally, and emotionally so why should we deprive them of aid in dying.

Why it is important

Aid in dying gives terminally ill patients another option in their end-of-life care. I have witnessed two very close family members die of aggressive cancers. They went from being fully functioning to losing the ability to eat or speak within a matter of weeks. By the end, they were given high doses of pain medication so they would not suffer. There is a concern that it is unethical for a physician to assist in ending a life, but the same can be said of allowing a person to suffer for 6 months. The top three reasons for requesting AID are “loss of autonomy” (87%), “loss of dignity” (80%), and “loss of the ability to enjoy the activities that make life worth living” (84%). As future social workers it is important that we advocate for the dignity and worth of all people.

Facts

• AID is currently legal in only 5 states (not including Illinois). Canada recently made it legal because they believe it is a human right.
• There are strict regulations that have to be followed when using AID. The current laws all have similar components.

-The patient has to be terminally ill and expected to die within 6 months

-The patient has to make 2 oral requests that are 15 days or more apart

-A written request that includes signatures from witnesses

-Mental health evaluation

-The physician has to provide the patient with information on all their options before they can choose to use AID

• One main concern is that vulnerable populations would use AID more frequently because of lack of education or funds for other end-of-life options.
• In Oregon in 2014 less than 100 people requested to use AID.

Conclusion

Aid in dying should be legal in all states for those that choose to use it. It is important to some terminally ill patients to die with dignity so we should provide them this right. There is no reason why they should have to move to a state that provides this option. With strict protocol and regulations, we can try to ensure AID is administered properly. Physicians should be trained to handle AID just like they are trained to address other medical issues.

You can help

Contact state representatives about the importance of the Illinois Patient Choices at End of Life Act.

Join and donate to Final Options Illinois an organization that supports legalizing AID in Illinois http://www.finaloptionsillinois.org/

Jane experiences an overwhelming sense of anxiety that makes it difficult to complete her schoolwork, attend class, and some days makes it difficult to go about her day-to-day life. She knows she needs help and reaches out to her college counseling center. Since she isn’t considered an “emergency case,” she is told there are no appointments available that day and waits three weeks to see a therapist.

Unfortunately, this is a story that currently happens all too often on college campuses. Thanks to an increased need met with a lack of funding, we are currently facing a mental health crisis on college campuses.

The Facts About Mental Health

• 1 in 5 college students have a mental health condition.
• Nearly 3/4 of mental health conditions arise by age 24.
• Many college students are facing mental health concerns for the first time.
• There are also an increasing number of students entering college with diagnosed mental health conditions, as 3 million adolescents ages 12 to 17 in the U.S. experienced at least one major depressive episode in the past year.
• Students seeking help on college campuses for a mental health condition has been on a steady rise.
• The most common mental health conditions on college campuses are anxiety, depression, and an increasing amount of suicidal ideation and self-harm.
• In 2015, 35.3% of college students felt so depressed it was difficult to function, 57.7% felt overwhelming anxiety, and 9.6% seriously considered suicide.
• Colleges are understaffed when it comes to mental health concerns.
• Students with serious symptoms but are not considered in an emergency situation (typically when the student’s or another person’s life is in danger) may wait days or weeks before they see a therapist at their college’s counseling center.

Where Is the Funding?

•  Many public universities across the country are experiencing budget cuts, leaving many departments strapped for funding.
• Increases in mental health funding have not kept up with the increasing number of students enrolling in universities and students reaching out for help with a mental health condition.

 What You Can Do

•  Ask your Senator to support the Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act, a piece of bi-partisan legislation currently assigned to a congressional committee.
• The act would help ensure college campuses have the funding and support to help their students as well as help educate the broader community about mental health concerns.

Executive Summary

As you read this, tens of thousands of inmates are being held in solitary confinement in our federal and state prisons. Solitary confinement, also known as restrictive housing, administrative segregation, protective custody, or the hole, is often used as a form of punishment for inmates. Not only is this practice inhumane, but it is also costly to taxpayers as it can cost up to three times more to hold someone in solitary. The United States prison system should stop the overuse of solitary confinement and rely on more humane forms of punishment to control prison populations.

Introduction

Although it varies from prison to prison, solitary confinement usually consists of removal from general population and 22 to 23 hours of the day are spent in a small cell. Some remain in solitary for short periods of time but there are others who spend years in isolation. Prison guards and administrators determine the length of stay. They argue that solitary confinement is an essential aspect of keeping order in their prisons. Although the use of solitary confinement might solve some short-term problems, it can have long lasting psychological effects on the inmates. Solitary confinement is linked with depression and the potential for violent behavior in the future. The chances of an inmate committing suicide are higher for those who have spent time in solitary, especially if they are a juvenile or have a mental illness. When their sentences are over, these inmates often have a hard time transitioning back into their communities at home. They served their time but their punishment might last long after they are out of prison.

Devastating Consequences

In January of 2016, President Barack Obama published an op-ed in the Washington Post about the overuse of solitary confinement. In it, he told the heartbreaking story of Kalief Browder. When he was 16, he was accused of stealing a backpack. While Browder was awaiting trial at Rikers Island in New York, he was held in solitary confinement for almost two years. After he was eventually released, he struggled to return to a normal life. At the age of 22, Browder committed suicide. The overuse of solitary affects all of us because these released and traumatized people are part of our communities. In the article, President Obama also laid out new regulations based on the recommendations of the Justice Department. These reforms include banning the use of solitary confinement for juveniles and low level offenders, expanding treatment for inmates with mental illness, and increasing the amount of time prisoners in solitary can spend out of their cells.

What Next?

President Obama has taken positive steps in the federal system to end the overuse of solitary confinement but there is still so much more to be done. The reforms that President Obama laid out are just recommendations for state prisons. States that have already reduced the use of solitary have had positive results so it is up to us to encourage our state Senators and Representatives to keep making changes to our criminal justice system.

The Issue: 

The Facilities Action Plan will be a ballot-item in the upcoming November 8^th election in Champaign County, IL.  It is straightforward, transparent, and deserves your “Yes” vote.  It is a suggested plan to raise sales tax by one quarter-cent on items other than food or medicine in order to fund the continued operations of different facilities (Champaign County Jail, Nursing Home, Court/Legal System, animal shelter, and several others) which serve the people in our community.  As the date approaches, there’s a lot of misinformation circulating out there.

The Facts:

This is a plan that has been put forward with strong endorsements from all parties. 

On top of that, both parties are actively working towards making much-needed improvements to our criminal justice system.  In fact, this plan actually reduces the capacity of jail inmates from  313 beds to 252 beds.  It provides 30 beds for a medical unit, as well as space for behavioral health programs to be implemented and offer services.  This is a plan that will repair jails and build programs at the same time.  This will include approximately 5 million dollars allocated towards behavioral health services.

What This Means:

Voting ‘Yes’ will save you money, while still ensuring that a minimum level of services will continue to be provided.

The Facilities Action Plan is the product of a very long and well-documented process, and the details have all been made available on the official site: http://www.co.champaign.il.us/2016FacilitiesProposal/PDFS/Facilities_Action_Plan.pdf .  You can find out exactly what is being funded, a plan for when the projects will be done, as well as thought out explanations why.  If you’d like, you can even watch footage of the plan being developed  through the County Clerk’s Website!

A vote of ‘No’ may save you a little money in the short-term, but will cost us all much more in the long-run.

This plan is largely about addressing the neglected state of essential buildings in our community.  When investigated by state authorities, conditions in the jail were rated as “deplorable”.  This is one of many such buildings that simply require maintenance.  Voting ‘no’ on this plan is a vote to postpone the repairs and updates required to prevent huge, additional, expenses in the coming years.  A vote of ‘no’ will subject individuals in the jail to even worse conditions than they already endure and the nursing home will continue to suffer.

What should you do?

Consider your sources and get informed with the direct links above.  Remember that even news articles online and yard signs have their own, differing perceptions of the matter.  Avoid paying many millions over the long-term in our county, and ensure that necessary services continue in the short-term. The only way for you to know how to vote on the plan is for you to read the plan itself!

Executive Summary

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a specific type of legislation that bans a specific  dog breed(s) to ensure the safety of the community. It is believed that by banning certain breeds, such as the “pit bull,” dog bites will decrease and overall safety will increase. Let me tell you why this unscientific approach is wrong.

Introduction

BSL is a very hot topic right now. Just this past month, we saw Montreal pass BSL against all dogs that look like “pit bulls.” Thankfully, the ban was suspended after hearing the case presented against it by the Montreal SPCA. When banning a specific kind of breed, or a dog that happens to look similar to the breed, this means you must give up your beloved dog to either relocation or euthanasia, a.k.a., to be killed. Also, this is supposed to decrease dog attacks and promote our safety. So, we see that BSL has a particular impact on us. I mean, how many pit bulls do you know of just inside your own community? Imagine they are sentenced to death, because they have a certain physical characteristic. Also, is using BSL an effective approach to keep us safe from dog attacks? No, it is not. I invite you to continue reading on to hear my explanation.

Approaches

We see there is one piece of evidence that steers the conversation towards enacting BSL. On DogsBites.org, they have statistics illustrating that between 2005 and 2015, “pit bulls” killed 232 Americans, or 64% of all dog bite deaths. When digging deeper into this statistic, there are a number of concerns. First, this data is based strictly on news reports. In 2008, there was a report completed to illustrate media news bias. Over the course of four days in August 2007, we saw two children attacked by dogs (one fatally), and one elderly man attacked. They each received one local article in the local newspaper. On the fourth day, two “pit bulls” attacked a woman, hospitalizing her. It received “more than 230 articles in national…and on major cable news networks.” The media bias plays a significant role in these statistics. Secondly, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), an organization that strongly opposes BSL, the “pit bull” is not a registered breed and can encompass several breeds, making it difficult to reliably identify one. This leads to a false perception of whether the dog is a pit bull or not. This is highlighted in a study when animal shelter staff were asked to identify the breeds of 120 dogs. They said 55 were “pits,” while only 25 truly had any sort of “pit bull” descent. 8% of the “true pit bulls were identified by all staff members.” These two reasons above make one strongly question the reliability and validity of this only piece of “evidence” backers of BSL have.

Conclusions

BSL has been an ineffective measure to decrease dog attacks and promote safety. The AVMA, American Kennel Club, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, American Humane Association, Animal Legal Defense Fund, numerous reports highlighted in the Animal Legal and Historical Center, Best Friends Animal Society and many more animal organizations all oppose BSL. Instead of looking at the statistics of a “breed,” we can instead look to more promising statistics such as: 97% of dogs that attacked people were not spayed or neutered, 84% were abused or neglected, and 78% were “guard, breeding or yard dogs.” If Montreal looked to Calgary and their Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, they will see that they can achieve results like a 20% reduction in euthanasia in shelters, instead of the regular effect BSL has for a community: nothing.

What Can You Do to Help?

To help eliminate any potential chances for BSL, a specific type of legislation that has no benefit in saving costs, promoting safety, or effectiveness, then please perform these steps:

• Start a petition to demand BSL is not enacted.
• Send letters and/or emails to your local representatives asking them to consider the facts and professional recommendations by animal organizations.
• Ask to meet with local representatives to discuss this issue in person.
• Spread the word via mouth and/or social media.
• Share cute videos of “pit bull” dogs. Bonus points if it’s your own! (Seriously, this works. And who doesn’t love a cute dog video?)

Finally, enjoy this video of a previously abused “pittie.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzZAJG7TT4s

Introduction

One in three Americans have a criminal record, which produces several lifelong restrictions, such as barriers to employment, housing, and education, making it much more difficult to refrain from reoffending. Currently, 1 out of every 2.3 inmates return to prison within three years of being released, which directly contributes to the issue mass incarceration in the United States. As an effort to reduce these alarming recidivism rates, the United States Senate is currently amending a bipartisan bill, The Fair Chance to Compete for Job Act of 2015. If passed, this bill would prohibit employers from requesting an individual’s criminal history until the job’s final offer stage, which would force employers to base hiring on qualifications and eliminate the possibility to be immediately dismissed due to past criminal involvement. This bipartisan effort fights to remove unnecessary barriers for ex-offenders by creating a more equitable job hiring process and providing resources that will decrease the likelihood of reoffending.

Why is this Important?

The American criminal justice system is undeniably flawed and broken. The United States comprises of 5% of the world’s population, but holds 25% of the world’s incarcerated population, making the U.S the global leader in imprisonment with 2.2 million Americans currently in prison or jail. Since 95% of inmates will be released at some point, it is critical to implement policies that will reduce recidivism and assist ex-offenders to successfully reenter society with support and resources that help improve one’s functionality in the community. According to the New York Department of Labor, 83% of reoffenders were unemployed at the time, which shows that employment is key to reducing recidivism rates because it provides stability and accountability. Ex-offenders face multitudes of employment discrimination, and almost every state permits employers to discriminate based on criminal history. In an economy that already makes finding employment extremely competitive, criminals face even more barriers in accessing employment, and employers are more likely to throw away an ex-offenders application if they check “the box” for a past criminal offense. Inmates who reenter society do not deserve to be legally discriminated against and stigmatized because they are human beings who made mistakes, just like everyone has done at some point. Ex-offenders should not receive lifelong punishments, judgments, and labels for past mistakes, and The Fair Chance to Compete for Job Act of 2015 carries the potential to alleviate some of this legal discrimination.

Conclusion

Jails and prisons’ failure to provide sufficient reentry planning, discriminatory social attitudes towards criminals outside of prisons, and the lack of legislative protection for equal job opportunities all combine to make prison reentry very problematic and nearly impossible for ex-offenders. The Fair Chance to Compete for Job Act of 2015 is an effort to reduce recidivism rates and give more equal and just employment opportunities to ex-offenders in order to allow these individuals to build a stable, healthy, and happy life.

Recommendations

• Within jails & prisons:
  • Improve rehabilitative and reentry programs by implementing policies that offer incentives for participating in work programs, educational class, and/or occupational trainings
  • Create specific, detailed reentry plans that make housing and employment arrangements prior to release
• Outside of Prisons/Jails:
  • Pass legislation to reduce housing and employment discrimination, starting with The Fair Chance to Compete for Job Act of 2015
  • Eliminate stereotypes and misconceptions regarding criminals by raising awareness and knowledge through educational and outreach efforts
• How YOU can help:
  • For employers: be mindful of biases towards ex-offenders in the hiring process
  • Get informed:
    • https://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry
    • https://www.justice.gov/publications/usdoj-resources-publications-alphabetical-list
  • Get Involved: http://www.coalitionforpublicsafety.org/

 

Executive Summary

In spite of the historic 2015 Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, one group of Americans is still denied marriage equality under the law: people with disabilities. The “marriage penalty” faced by people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) must be abolished in order to achieve true marriage equality.

What Are Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid?

• Medicaid is a means-tested public health insurance program covering low-income Americans and people with disabilities.
• Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a monthly cash benefit for people who are elderly, blind, or disabled.
• The resource limit for SSI is $2000 for individuals and $3000 for couples
• In most states, the resource limit for both programs is the same– eligibility is linked

Why is Medicaid Important?

• Medicaid provides services for about 10 million people with disabilities
• Medicaid offers a range of services not usually covered by private insurance
• Medicaid is typically the only affordable insurance provider of personal care assistance for people who need help with activities of daily living like eating, dressing, and bathing

Why is SSI Important?

• Living with a disability is costly and SSI provides extra support for 8.3 million people with disabilities
• For about 60% of recipients, SSI is the sole source of income

Impact of The Marriage Penalty on People with Disabilities

• If an SSI recipient marries a spouse also receiving benefits, the benefit is reduced by 25%
• If an SSI recipient marries a non- beneficiary, the spouse’s assets are counted toward the resource limit
• Marriage can cause people with disabilities financial hardship or deem them ineligible for services
• Even unmarried couples who live together can be considered “married” by program standards
• People with disabilities are often forced to make a choice between marriage and healthcare

Policy Implications

• The marriage penalty deters people with disabilities from getting married
• People with disabilities are denied the 1000+ privileges granted in marriage

Recommendations

• The SSI marriage penalty must be eliminated to ensure marriage equality for people with disabilities

What Can I Do?

• Write to your Congressperson- demand marriage equality for people with disabilities
• Visit Marriage Equality for People with Disabilities on Facebook
• Spread the word- tell your family and friends about this issueSource: Dominick Evans, https://www.facebook.com/MarriageEqualityForPeopleWithDisabilities

The Issue

As adolescents enter puberty, part of their transition includes becoming sexually active. Because this is a natural developmental milestone, it is imperative that adolescents receive proper sex education to avoid the unfortunate byproducts of sexual activity, specifically sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

This topic requires discussion because not all states currently mandate that school districts administer sex education classes to their students in either high school or middle school. In fact, Illinois is one of those states. It is important that states do provide sex education to their students because research has found that adolescents who received sex education in school, compared to those who relied on receiving this information from their parents, participated in unprotected sex less frequently. By using protection during intercourse, the participants in this study reduced their chance of contracting STDs.

The Stats

The need to reduce the number of STDs in the United States in an extremely urgent one. According to the CDC, each year, 20 million new cases of STDs are reported in the U.S. What is even more shocking is that 50% of those new cases come from individuals ages 15 to 24. A few reasons people in this age range are contracting half the new cases of STDs each year are that:

• Young women are biologically more susceptible to STDs
• They do not know where or how to get tested for an STD
• They do not feel comfortable talking about their sex lives with doctors or nurses
• They have multiple sex partners.

What does this mean?

By looking at the explanations the CDC provides demonstrating why young people are more susceptible to STDs, the role that a sex education class plays in eliminating these factors becomes very clear. Since young women are inherently more likely to contract an STD, a sex education class will provide this demographic with knowledge on how to prevent contraction. Additionally, part of the curriculum for sex education classes should be to provide students with information on where and how to get tested for an STD. By sharing this knowledge, schools will give their students the tools they need treat any disease they may have contracted, improving their health. Finally, the CDC mentions that young people contract so many STDs because they do not feel comfortable talking about their sex lives with their doctors. By providing sex education, schools can initiate discussion regarding these difficult topics, making future conversations students need to have regarding their sexual activity even easier.

What can you do?

Each individual school district is responsible for deciding whether they will include a sex education course as part of their curriculum. In districts where sex education is not required, you can attend school board meetings where you can present the facts shared in this post. Another plan of action would be to contact the policy makers in your district directly. Those individuals who influence the creation and implementation of policy within a school include the Superintendent, Principal, and Social Worker. By promoting sex education in schools, you are promoting the health and safety of its students during their adolescent years and beyond.

 

Executive Summary

With an increasing frequency, someone in the United States is affected by an act of gun violence. All too often, the response is an immediate jump to one side or the other of the political spectrum. Some voices call for gun control, while others call for more guns to be used. No matter how you feel about gun control, the topic of gun violence itself is something that needs to be addressed. It’s very difficult to know what should be done when politics are taking over the conversation. If you are concerned about gun violence and looking to learn more, read on.

Introduction

Some are starting to call the gun epidemic in the United States a public health crisis. Just over one week ago in our community of Champaign, 4 people were struck by gunfire. One of these individuals was killed. This would be referred to as a “mass shooting.” A mass shooting is defined as four or more shot and/or killed in a single event, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. While mass shootings have received the most attention in the media, they fail to reveal the full picture of gun violence. We must also think about suicides, domestic violence incidents and accidental shootings.

 Despite America’s gun problem, Congress has failed to pass any sort of legislation. The divide between the Republicans and the Democrats is huge, and prevents any action from being taken. Still, there have been many explanations and/or solutions offered for the gun epidemic. Some say that it is caused by mental health problems in our country. Others say that terrorism is one of the major issues contributing to the violence. Some say that the violence would be prevented if citizens had more guns, yet others say that guns should be more strictly monitored and controlled. It is extremely hard to know who is correct, however, without research. In 1996, Congress took funding away from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for gun research through the Dickey Amendment. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, President Obama tried to correct this by issuing an executive order for gun violence research. However, Congress has continued to block funding. Without large-scale research, it cannot be conclusively said what is contributing to the gun epidemic. The CDC could ultimately help discover the answer to this question, and reduce the rate of firearm-related deaths. This requires action from the government.

Facts on Gun Violence

• There are more civilian-owned guns in the United States than any other country
• From 2001 – 2013, there have been 406,496 deaths in the United States due to firearms. This includes homicides, suicides, and accidents. In this same time period, the number of deaths due to terrorism were 3,380.

Graph from CDC.gov

• Gun deaths are almost as frequent as deaths from traffic accidents
• 3 of 5 gun deaths in the United States are due to suicide
• CDC funding for firearm injury prevention fell 96%, down to $100,000, from 1996 to 2013

Conclusion

Clearly, our country is in the midst of a public health crisis in regards to gun violence. Despite the statistics which showcase this issue, our country is failing to take charge and address the safety of its citizens. I believe it is necessary for research to begin immediately that directly focuses on the causes of gun violence. Research is a slow process in order to be done correctly, and we should not be wasting time. In order for this to happen, Congress needs to move beyond their political divide and provide funding for the CDC. Congress would be able to make a difference if they so choose. Additionally, we should all aim to have more open and constructive conversations about gun violence. If we focus more on the word “violence” and less on the politics behind the word “gun,” we could work toward a solution together.

Call to Action

If this issue is important to you, let your representatives know. Tell them that gun violence prevention is something that must be on their radar. Let them hear your voice. Visit the following link for contact information of our elected officials:
https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

To learn more about the incidents of gun violence, please check out the following link:
Gun Violence Archive
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

Introduction

We have always been told to eat our fruits and vegetables. Not only are they the source of many nutrients, but they also have been shown to reduce risks of several chronic diseases. Despite the many benefits that fruits and vegetables provide, they often can be unattainable to many due to their steep prices when compared to other processed foods. On average, a healthier diet that is full in vegetables and fruits can cost about $1.50 more per day when compared to a less healthy diet. This can equal to about $550 per year per person. This kind of a sum can be astronomical and impossible to many families, especially those who receive SNAP benefits. Since healthier food choices are more expensive, it is not surprising that many SNAP recipients might choose quantity over quality when trying to feed themselves and their families. This does come with a cost, as a recent study found that 40% of SNAP recipients are obese. While some might be quick to judge and criticize these individuals, it is imperative to keep in mind their circumstances, which very likely limit their access to healthy food choices. Not getting essential nutrients can lead to detrimental health outcomes, which can only further worsen the quality of life of those who get SNAP benefits. Thus, something needs to be done to make healthy dietary choices more accessible to SNAP recipients and their families.

Results

In the past few years there has been a movement to increase the availability of local fruits and vegetables to SNAP recipients by allowing farmers markets to accept SNAP. In 2008, there were about 750 farmers markets that accepted SNAP. That number increased to 3,200 in 2012. While this certainly increases the amount of healthy choices to people in the SNAP program, it does not guarantee that SNAP recipients will be more likely to buy fruits and veggies. Although having access to healthy food choices is definitely one part of the issue, it is not the most important one. As I mentioned previously, eating healthy is expensive. If a family has a limited grocery budget, they will not run to the farmers market every week to get quality vegetables. However, this issue has been address recently with a new program that doubles the value of SNAP benefits at farmers markets. In short, using SNAP benefits at participating farmers markets will result in the recipient getting more money to spend on additional healthy purchases. In Illinois, the SNAP recipient will get a $1 coupon for each dollar they spend at the farmers market. They can then use these coupons on fruits and vegetables at the market. In fact, surveys have shown that 87% of Illinois SNAP recipients have increased their fruits and vegetable consumption due to the Double Value Coupon Program.

Conclusion and Recommendations

While allowing Illinois SNAP recipients to double their benefits at farmers market is a great step towards making healthy foods more accessible to them, there is still more that can be done. As of right now, not all farmers markets participate in doubling the value of SNAP. Furthermore, not all SNAP recipients might have access to a farmers market. I believe that in order to really allow Illinois SNAP recipients access to healthy and affordable foods, it would be ideal to implement the Double Value Coupon Program in grocery stores as well. As can be seen from the success with farmers markets, when actually given the opportunity, people will buy healthy foods if they can afford them. Thus, having more stores involved in the Double Value Coupon Program will result in an even higher percent of SNAP recipients eating healthy and nutritious.

If you want to learn more about this topic, then visit the following link: http://experimentalstation.org/linkup-overview/

Remember to stay informed and to support your local farmers market for all the good that they’re doing!