The Ministry Of Children And Family Development Document Writing Sample

The Ministry of Children and Family Development document is relevant because it highlights and advocates for matters related to health care, school, recreational activities, and family relationships. The article also provides some valuable information regarding the issue of advocacy which may be needed in particular circumstances that entail collaborative planning during which the youth or the child’s perspectives must be heard and considered to make relevant decisions. The views that the article highlights as critical for youth and children’s development include community and cultural activities, dynamism in living arrangements, and the number of visits with family. The document also provides essential information on what advocacy for the youth and children issues entails. Such advocacy involves assisting people in speaking out and using their voices to be heard.

The document states that being an advocate entails speaking on behalf of the vulnerable people in society, like children and the youth. In this case, an advocate has to ensure that such people’s rights, views, and interests are protected and respected. The article also emphasizes the role of a caregiver for the youth and the children, which should promote a collaborative mechanism with other team members to promote the welfare of such people.

When making a best interests decision for the youth and children, safety, continuity of care, and physical/emotional needs are the primary considerations to promote the welfare of the vulnerable people in society. In addition, the document is quite definite. It emphasizes that it is not always easy to promote the welfare of such people and that various obstacles are found on the way. The situations surrounding children and the youth are quite different, and all the cases require individual attention to be resolved. In this case, every situation may be different and will also need a unique solution.


Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2011). Advocating for children and youth in care: Your role as a caregiver. Advocating for Children and Youth in Care: Your Role as a Caregiver.

Is It Possible To Reduce Poverty In The United States?

Today, the United States remains one of the leading and richest countries in a world full of possibilities and resources. Many nations find it beneficial to establish friendly relationships with America, and most populations admire the American lifestyle. At the same time, it is hard to admit that despite a successfully created image, the country continues to face the problem of poverty. Compared to the U.S. Census Bureau’s findings in 2019, the number of Americans who lived in poverty had grown by three million and reached more than 37.2 million people in 2020 (Shrider et al. 1). Inequality, poor social services, and lack of safety contribute to the poverty growth in the country. People can hardly solve this problem in a short period, but they should know about the government’s responsibilities. Reducing poverty in the United States is possible if such areas as education, employment, and health care are properly examined and improved for the public’s good.

Appropriate education for children of all races and ethnicities is one of the main areas for improvement to combat the burning poverty problem for the American population. Most people realize that if they obtain high education, they will get more chances to find a well-paid job to meet their needs. A median income of a person with no high school diploma is about $30,000, while people with bachelor’s degrees could earn more than $100,000 annually (Shrider et al. 3). Educational attainments significantly define the quality of American life, and the government must provide children with equal educational opportunities. It is not enough for poor populations to develop their reading, writing, and numeracy skills as a part of primary education. To become well-educated and ready to contribute to local progress and development, they need more training to focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making. As soon as children have a solid background for their growth, they will be able to earn high incomes and create successful lives, free from poverty and inequality.

Another obvious solution to the poverty challenge is related to American employment and the conditions under which people are hired. During the last several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed millions of lives across the globe, and many Americans have faced one of the worst unemployment crises. If a person loses a job, he/she does neither have a regular source of income nor financial support. Although the U.S. government passed legislation to protect the population, like the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, it did not cover all human needs (Shrider et al. 1). Following social isolation requirements, vaccination, and other precautions provoked social controversies and misunderstandings. Thus, it is expected to improve employment ratings, offer new workplaces, and provide Americans with a chance to earn a living in this pandemic-damaged environment. Poverty does not stop growing because of the coronavirus but strengthens its impact on humans and destroys families where remote work is not an option. Job creation is a good way to reduce poverty, especially when most populations have faced the same pandemic burden and need to restore their employment situation.

Finally, poor health and inadequate care access become the reason for poverty in the United States, and it is important to analyze the healthcare field and stabilize financial well-being. When people are sick, they do not complete their work and become a dysfunctional element in society. Today, the number of people with medical insurance has increased due to Medicare and Medicaid noncash benefits (Shrider et al. 22). However, the Affordable Care Act and other reforms have to be amended to ensure the protection of all citizens. Many people are still obliged to deal with out-of-pocket costs because health coverage does not solve their problems. It is an individual responsibility to invest in personal health, which requires additional expenses that lead to poverty. Women cannot use their maternity leaves because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Men need to put their health at risk and choose dangerous work environments to earn more. Children who want to escape from the poverty burden prefer to be employed at an early age, risking their health and emotional well-being. Thus, healthcare benefits are necessary and significant means to reduce poverty in the American population.

People cannot ignore poverty as a serious problem for Americans and worldwide today. There are many solutions to be considered to reduce poverty ratings and provide individuals with equal opportunities to improve their lives and cover their basic needs. Increasing access to education and health care and creating new workplaces would help Americans deal with poverty at some levels. The U.S. government takes multiple steps to offer appropriate programs and policies to support citizens. However, poverty is not only a governmental problem, and it is high time for every individual to consider his/her contributions to the current situation.

Work Cited

Shrider, Emily A., et al. “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020: Current Population Reports.” United States Census Bureau, 2021.

Response To Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

The idea of advanced technology simplifying the process of interacting with information as something to be aware of has been around for centuries, creating a divide within communities. Thus, the pushback that innovative digital technology received at the time of its conception and introduction into the market was to be expected. However, even though substantial time has passed since the emergence of the Internet and the design of the Google Search Engine, debates concerning the ostensible threats that it poses to people’s analytical and data-processing skills remain robust. In his 2008 article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Nicholas Carr posits that the pace of progress might be a bit too fast for general audiences and that making the wrong turn becomes an exceedingly plausible threat. Despite having been written more than a decade ago, Carr’s (2008) article provides grounds for a robust argument, pointing out the mismanaged adjustment to innovative technology and the subsequent loss of essential information management skills.

The change in data perception and processing, which Carr (2008) touches upon when examining the effects of digital technology and Google Search, particularly on people’s cognitive abilities, is among the key incisive observations. Indeed, with the rise in popularity and accessibility of digital tools and information repositories, an evident shift in data processing has been observed. Specifically, instead of thoughtful and considerate reading, skimming has been regarded as the most efficient way of information analysis, which has entailed several crucial consequences. Specifically, Carr (2008) asserts, “For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.” The specified observation proves the existence of an inevitable change in the speed of information processing and, therefore, a shift in the cognitive analysis paradigm in most readers.

Furthermore, one must credit Carr (2008) for eliciting two essential points from his observation. Apart from recognizing the effects that Google tools and algorithms have on how people perceive data, he also identifies the restrictions that the said algorithms impose on people’s ability and attempts to deviate from the proposed pattern of thinking. Specifically, the statement in question represents a twofold argument, explaining that the Web as a newly designed universal medium not only filters types of data and methods of their analysis but also blocks the paths to other analytical approaches as a conduit. Moreover, the probability of failing to notice numerous nuances of the message and the desire to grasp the core idea without delving into much detail should be mentioned first as the essential outcomes of the observed change. Indeed, to his credit, Carr (2008) confirms that the process of reading online has turned into skimming, which leaves a substantial amount of useful details unnoticed.

However, where Carr’s (2008) essay falls flat is the development of understanding why the observed phenomena occur. Specifically, Carr (2008) provides the essential statements for the conclusive statement concerning the main problem with the Internet as a repository of information. However, in his analytical attempts, Carr (2008) refrains from making the final step and defining the core of the problem. Specifically, Carr (2008) never states that the internet changes the speed with which people process data, thus, increasing the volume thereof and, consequently, making general audiences prefer quantity over quality. The concept of a change in the pace and velocity of information processing in most people due to the introduction of Google and the related tools into their lives appears to be missing from Carr’s essay, thus, making it thought-provoking yet preventing it from reaching the logical conclusion.

Indeed, the argument that Carr (2008) seeks to introduce appears to be meandering. Specifically, while it is understood that Carr strives to prove that the new format of reading encouraged by Google prevents readers from sharpening their critical thinking faculties, the actual mechanics behind the specified process remains mostly under-discussed. Specifically, Carr insists that the emphasis on a new mode of reading minimizes people’s ability to interpret the text to its full extent, instead making people resort to selecting scraps of ideas. Carr (2008) states, “When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image.” Therefore, Carr’s argument implies that the Internet and Google, in particular, limit the field of the reader’s vision, offering only the opportunities that the search engine and the relevant automated processes defined as worthwhile. The specified assumption could be considered true. Indeed, reports show that search algorithms are easily manipulated and can be shaped in a way that narrows down the process of exploration to a fairly limited range of results that appear on the first pages of the search tab.

However, Carr’s (2008) article appears only to scratch the surface of the problem. In addition to the outlined issues, one should also recognize the changes to people’s perception of information that have occurred with the introduction of digital opportunities and the creation of the Web. Specifically, data has gained a self-contained value, becoming an objective in itself and having been turned into a valuable currency (Carr, 2008). The specified change in the understanding of information’s role in people’s lives has led to preferring the quantity of obtained band consumed data over quality. As a result, in the online setting, people tend to become oversaturated with data, which leads to the inability to discern minor details and approach information critically with enough incision (Carr, 2008). The described situation clearly represents one of the more adverse effects of digital technology development, google being its pioneer and active promoter.

Furthermore, the fear of artificial intelligence becoming the overpowering force that will drive the cognitive perceptions and processes in its users, which Carr (2008) explores in his essay, sounds farfetched currently. Despite the evident advancement of digital technology, particularly Google and its services, including the development of AI functions, the creation of “a HAL-like machine” currently does not seem plausible (Carr, 2008). Thus, by referring to popular sci-fi tropes that have been cemented in popular culture, Carr (2008) makes his argument slightly less convincing. Though being articulate and having an understandable premise behind it, the idea of AI being created by Google running amok and controlling its users seems to be slightly panicky. Therefore, the abundance of popular science references diminishes the concept of AI as a potential threat to people’s cognitive processing skills as a viable threat.

Thus, when exploring the capabilities of the Internet, one will have to concede that the fear of it reducing people’s cognitive faculties is slightly exaggerated. Despite being driven by the algorithms that are primarily used as marketing tools and Big Data collection devices, Google and its services should be perceived primarily as an opportunity that can be used in multiple ways. When approaching the use of its services with enough responsibility and a full understanding of the effects that it has on one’s perception of data, avoiding the harmful side effects becomes possible. Specifically, studies indicate that Google and its tools can be used as learning options when approached purely as instruments as opposed to considering them as tools for mindless and aimless browsing of information. Specifically, a recent study mentions that “We are witnesses of the appearance of a new phenomenon, that is the global virtual educational community, which comprises more than a billion people, and the number is continuing rigorously to increase” (Liu, 2019, p. 5). Therefore, unlike other sources of information, Google and the relevant digital tools need to be utilized with a specific objective in mind. Thus, the skills of thorough and profound reading and data consideration will remain among the range of its users’ skills.

Though Carr’s (2008) statement was made quite a while ago, it still offers a platform for a thorough and nuanced discussion since it addresses not only the disadvantages of digital tools, particularly Google, but also the manner in which most people accept it. As a result, instead of sounding panic-mongering or preachy, the article warns about an actual problem and invites the audience to suggest solutions to it. Thus, Carr’s (2008) argument concerning the adverse effects that Google-assisted technology has on people’s cognitive skills, particularly their ability to perceive and analyze information, becomes legitimate. While one could argue that the deterioration of certain skills as a result of introducing digital technology is a natural process, Carr’s (2008) statement still provides a basis for a robust conversation.


Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic.

Liu, Z. J., Tretyakova, N., Fedorov, V., & Kharakhordina, M. (2020). Digital literacy and digital didactics as the basis for new learning models development. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(14), 4-18.

error: Content is protected !!