Steps towards Liberation for Low-Income Black Residents through Anti-racist and Counter-Racial Capitalist Community Development Practices

Racial capitalism has historically and systematically disenfranchised Black residents in the United States of America. Racial capitalism perpetuates the racial wealth gap and continues to inhibit Black residents from accumulating wealth. I argue that the community development field must implement practices that address the disenfranchisement of Black residents by the systems of racial capitalism. This research aims to highlight community development processes and practices that counter the effects of racial capitalism on low-income Black residents. I conducted a case study on the City and County of San Francisco due to their anti-racist approach to housing and community development, specifically focusing on Black residents. The City and County of San Francisco explicitly acknowledged the historical and perpetual harm of systemic racism, mandated Racial Equity Action Plans, implemented anti-displacement legislation, and called for multiple forms of reparations. HOPE SF rehoused 76% of all original residents, and every department created a racial equity plan. The data demonstrates that Black households still comprise a disproportionate percentage of households affected by housing problems. Further study is needed to investigate the efficacy of the anti-racist and counter-capitalist initiatives

The equipping inclusion studies : assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria ; key findings and policy recommendations

Approximately one in five of the Australian population lives with disability (AIHW 2006a; ABS 2003). Of these, almost 1.9 million rely on assistive technologies to live independently (Hobbs, Close, Downing, Reynolds &amp; Walker 2009).Assistive Technology (AT) is defined as,&lsquo;any device, system or design, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified or customised, that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to do, or increase the ease and safety with which a task can be performed&rsquo; (Independent Living Centres Australia n.d).&lsquo;Assistive Technology solutions&rsquo; have been defined as entailing a combination of devices (aids and equipment), environmental modifications (both in the home and outside of it), and personal care (paid and unpaid) (Assistive Technology Collaboration n.d).Despite a large number of Australians relying on AT, there is little data available about life for these Australians, the extent of AT use, or unmet need for AT. Existing research in Australia suggests that aids and equipment provision in Australia is &lsquo;fragmented&rsquo; across a plethora of government and non government programs (AIHW 2006a:35). In Victoria, one of the prime sources of government funding for AT is the Victorian Aids and Equipment Program (VAEP) which is a subsidy program for the purchase of aids and equipment, home and vehicle modifications for people with permanent or long term disability. Recent research suggests that waiting times for accessing equipment through the VAEP are high, as is the cost burden to applicants (Wilson, Wong &amp; Goodridge 2006). In addition, there appears to be a substantial level of unmet need (KPMG 2007).Additionally, there is a paucity of literature around the economic evaluation of AT interventions and solution packages, resulting in little evidence of their cost-effectiveness credentials.<br /

The equipping inclusion studies : assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria ; key findings and policy implications, study 1 - the equipment study, study 2 - the economic study

Approximately one in five of the Australian population lives with disability (AIHW 2006a; ABS 2003). Of these, almost 1.9 million rely on assistive technologies to live independently (Hobbs, Close, Downing, Reynolds &amp; Walker 2009).Assistive Technology (AT) is defined as,&lsquo;any device, system or design, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified or customised, that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to do, or increase the ease and safety with which a task can be performed&rsquo; (Independent Living Centres Australia n.d).&lsquo;Assistive Technology solutions&rsquo; have been defined as entailing a combination of devices (aids and equipment), environmental modifications (both in the home and outside of it), and personal care (paid and unpaid) (Assistive Technology Collaboration n.d).Despite a large number of Australians relying on AT, there is little data available about life for these Australians, the extent of AT use, or unmet need for AT. Existing research in Australia suggests that aids and equipment provision in Australia is &lsquo;fragmented&rsquo; across a plethora of government and non government programs (AIHW 2006a:35). In Victoria, one of the prime sources of government funding for AT is the Victorian Aids and Equipment Program (VAEP) which is a subsidy program for the purchase of aids and equipment, home and vehicle modifications for people with permanent or long term disability. Recent research suggests that waiting times for accessing equipment through the VAEP are high, as is the cost burden to applicants (Wilson, Wong &amp; Goodridge 2006). In addition, there appears to be a substantial level of unmet need (KPMG 2007).Additionally, there is a paucity of literature around the economic evaluation of AT interventions and solution packages, resulting in little evidence of their cost-effectiveness credentials.<br /

Addressing liver disease in the UK: a blueprint for attaining excellence in health care and reducing premature mortality from lifestyle issues of excess consumption of alcohol, obesity, and viral hepatitis.

Liver disease in the UK stands out as the one glaring exception to the vast improvements made during the past 30 years in health and life expectancy for chronic disorders such as stroke, heart disease, and many cancers. Mortality rates have increased 400% since 1970, and in people younger than 65 years have risen by almost fi ve-times. Liver disease constitutes the third commonest cause of premature death in the UK and the rate of increase of liver disease is substantially higher in the UK than other countries in western Europe. More than 1 million admissions to hospital per year are the result of alcohol-related disorders, and both the number of admissions and the increase in mortality closely parallel the rise in alcohol consumption in the UK during the past three decades. The new epidemic of obesity is equally preventable. Of the 25% of the population now categorised as obese, most will have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease many (up to 1 in 20 of the UK population) will have ongoing infl ammation and scarring that fi nally leads to cirrhosis. Of those patients with cirrhosis, 5-10% will get liver cancer. This increasing burden of liver disease is added to by chronic viral hepatitis; annual deaths from hepatitis C have almost quadrupled since 1996 and about 75% of people infected are estimated to be still unrecognised. The same applies to chronic hepatitis B infection, in which progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer also happens. The number of silently infected individuals in the UK is increasing every year as a result of immigration from countries with a high prevalence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C infections. Costs to the UK's National Health Service are equally staggering, with estimates of £3.5 billion per year for alcohol-related health problems and £5.5 billion per year for the consequences of obesity. Obesity costs are almost certainly an underestimate now that the disorder is recognised as an important factor in several common cancers, including breast cancer and colon cancer.1 Obesity is a factor in metabolic disorders-the basis of diabetes, hypertension, cardiac diseases, and strokes. Furthermore, the poorest and most susceptible in society have the highest incidence of liver disorders, making liver disease a major issue for health inequalities. Of particular concern is the 2013 National Confi dential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report,2 which showed that the care of patients acutely sick with liver disease dying in hospital was judged to be good in less than half of patients; other unacceptable fi ndings were the inadequate facilities and lack of expertise of those caring for patients. Also, it is increasingly evident that defi ciencies exist in primary care, which has crucial opportunities for early diagnosis and prevention of progressive disease. The aim of this Commission is to provide the strongest evidence base through involvement of experts from a wide cross-section of disciplines, making fi rm recommendations to reduce the unacceptable premature mortality and dsease burden from avoidable causes and to improve the standard of care for patients with liver disease in hospital. From the substantial number of recommendations given in our Commission, we selected those that will have the greatest eff ect and that need urgent implementation. Although the recommendations are based mostly on data from England, they have wider application to the UK as a whole, and are in accord with the present strategy for health-care policy by the Scottish Health Boards, the Health Department of Wales, and the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland. Our ten key recommendations are based on the strong evidence base and are in line with reports in 2014 of several other enquiries, including from the 2014 All Party Parliamentary Group on Hepatology3 and the All Party Parliamentary Group on alochol misuse. Results showing the value of a minimum unit price policy in targeting heavy drinkers were published in The Lancet in May, 2014, and the European Observatory on Health Polcy, together with the Department of Health and NHS England, has drawn attention to four areas of premature mortality, including liver disease, in which the UK lags behind other European countries. Such stark contrasts with our European neighbours are unacceptable and in this Commission we give clear, evidence-based policy proposals for the UK Government to use in closing the gap in liver disease