2020 High School Essay Contest

Read 2019’s winning essays here.

The annual CPR High School Essay Contest is complete!

It is part of our mission at CPR to cultivate the next generation of political writers. In that spirit, we started a high school essay contest in 2017, seeking to amplify the voices of talented high school writers from around the world. Despite the difficulties posed by this chaotic period of time in the world, the CPR editorial board continued this year’s competition as planned, and enjoyed reviewing your submissions.

Given the unique circumstances that have characterized 2020, our prompt was:

We thank all the students who submitted their work, and are pleased to have been able to consider a record high number of essays this year. Submissions were judged on their clarity, concision, force of argument, and effective use of evidence. The winning author will be awarded a $300 cash prize, and the two honorable mentions will each receive $100.

Submissions were due by 11:59 PM on Friday, May 1, 2020. Results were announced on July 1. The winning essay and the two honorable mentions are attached below, and—for the first time—the winning essay will also be published on our website as a proper article.

Each of the below essays have been lightly edited for grammar and consistency with CPR’s style guide.

Winning Essay:

COVID-19’s Shadow

by Sneha Mokkala, Clear Lake High School

May 1, 2020

At the Houston Area Women’s Center (HAWC), the rings do not stop, each one blaring with urgency and punctuated with fear. Filled to the brim with volunteers on the crisis hotline, the room is firm in its purpose and attuned to the gravity of each singular ring among the many. Today, however, Houston’s largest women’s shelter is facing a dangerous trend that it might not be able to keep up with—a rise in domestic violence.

Since early March, nearly every communication outlet globally has echoed the same words: stay home. While headlines list the mounting death toll of the COVID-19 crisis, home is the safest place to be for most, but not for all. The coronavirus pandemic uniquely threatens victims of domestic violence by placing them in their worst nightmare: lockdown with their abusers. 

COVID-19 is not the first crisis to bring about a surge in domestic violence cases in Houston, a city with a higher rate of intimate partner killings than the national average. After Hurricane Harvey, HAWC saw domestic violence homicides increase by 45%. COVID-19 is Harvey on steroids. Shortly after Houston issued a stay-at-home mandate, there was a 40% spike in domestic violence calls at HAWC. Local law enforcement felt the uptick of cases even earlier, with the Houston Police Department reporting 8.72% more domestic violence calls in March than February.

Not only has the number of cases increased; so has the variety of those cases. Prosecutor Echo Hutson noted that there was an increase in “pressure cooker” cases, incidents where people with no history of violence suddenly abused their partners. He also noted a greater intensity of violence in these new incidents. While COVID-19 did not singularly cause any domestic abuse cases, a mix of taxing conditions—such as a rise in unemployment, financial distress, and high pressure—laid upon unhealthy relationships could have contributed to this new wave of domestic violence cases.

Equipped with Harvey’s lesson, Houston’s city government did not ignore the issue. On April 22nd, Mayor Sylvester Turner announced a domestic violence awareness initiative as a component of the city’s COVID-19 response. The initiative is threefold: track, inform, assist. 

First, the local leadership partnered with the Houston Area Women’s Center to closely track the rise in domestic violence calls.

Then, to discreetly inform victims about how to reach service providers that can help while taking COVID-19 precautions, the city is sending information through several channels, including flyers tacked on to HEB and Houston Food Bank distributions, alerts on the Office of Emergency Management’s messaging delivery systems, and an active NoCovidAbuse website and social media campaign comprised of resources from HAWC and the Harris County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council.

Finally, to assist victims, the city government is utilizing HAWC’s expanded Safe Harbor program, which temporarily lodges victims in empty hotel rooms if they cannot gain access to a shelter. Uber partnered with Houston by providing a $50,000 grant of ride-sharing services for domestic violence victims, facilitating safe transportation to hotels and shelters.

Houston’s response set up a solid infrastructure which is proving effective in helping domestic violence victims secure an escape route, but it may not be enough as COVID-19 extends for more time. Despite Mayor Turner’s initiative, every escape route remains strained in some manner. Most shelters are full. Even without a pandemic, 78% of requests for emergency shelter in the Houston area go unfulfilled due to capacity issues. Emilee Whitehurst, President of HAWC, explained that “for every 10 people who turn to us in danger and need safe refuge, we can only house 3 on any given night. Typically, we refer 2, and tragically, we have to turn away 5.” Now, that issue is exacerbated by social distancing guidelines which reduce the capacities of shelters even further. Nonprofit shelters are struggling to acquire the usual funds since they can no longer hold large fundraising events. Victims could try to obtain a protective order against their abuser, which would make them 80% less likely to be revictimized, but courtrooms have closed, and virtual courtrooms are difficult for victims to use in earshot of their abuser. If a victim needs treatment, it is nearly impossible to receive medical care or counseling, considering that healthcare systems are overloaded. At this rate, many domestic violence victims will be caged in abusive dynamics, facing imminent injury and death. City action alone cannot fully strengthen their escape routes. State and federal actions are desperately needed, yet their responses have been grossly inadequate.

The state of Texas has fallen short in its response to domestic violence cases linked to the COVID-19 crisis. Texas’s failure to replicate Houston’s proactive response is problematic, considering that 42% of requests for emergency shelter in Texas go unmet due to capacity issues—without even accounting for new social distancing guidelines. Governor Abbott’s current focus is reopening the economy in phases, which could potentially facilitate routes to safety from domestic abuse, but more targeted action is still necessary.

The federal COVID-19 response may do more harm than good for domestic violence victims. While the National Domestic Violence Hotline is receiving and tracking thousands of calls where victims specifically cite COVID-19 as a condition of abuse, action to help those victims may be hindered by a strained budget. The pandemic’s blow to the economy is predicted to position social services first in line to suffer budget cuts, which could make an already overwhelmed structure even more unable to keep up with the influx of requests from victims. Thus far, the United States federal government has not incorporated action to address domestic violence in its COVID-19 response, but there are successful models to replicate. 

Several countries are exhibiting federal action to combat domestic violence right now, and it’s working. After Google recorded a 75% increase in online searches for help with domestic violence in Australia, the Australian government pledged $91 million to domestic violence support as a component of its COVID-19 response plan. The French government responded to a spike in domestic violence cases by funding 20,000 nights in hotel rooms for victims, implementing code word systems for victims to enter pharmacies and receive immediate help, and setting up popup counseling centers at supermarkets. The United Kingdom funneled 2 million euros into domestic abuse helplines and online support, donated 600,000 euros to charities which support victims, and is currently considering an emergency funding package that would remove prosecuting time limits and create more access points for victims to get help.

The first step for the United States is just acknowledging domestic violence publicly as part of the COVID-19 crisis, and as a part that is deserving of a response. Then, even if large-scale funding is not feasible, low-cost solutions such as implementing code words, setting up popup counseling in hotspots, leveraging technology to reach more victims, and making small donations to shelters could make a tremendous impact.

The United States has fallen behind, leaving an already vulnerable group with limited resources. Cities like Houston are not the anomaly; they are slowly becoming the norm. The United Nations warned that 6 more months of lockdown could mean 31 million more domestic violence incidents worldwide—a growth of pandemic proportions. Today, as we stand together to fight COVID-19, we must not forget the horrors multiplying in COVID-19’s shadow.

Honorable Mention:

The Impact of School Closures on Food Insecurity in the Time of COVID-19

By Jack Bourdeaux, The Hotchkiss School

April 16, 2020

As COVID-19 spreads across the world, the clearest indicator of its presence continues to be the closing of institutions, including offices, restaurants, stores, and, most notably, schools. These closings, though justified, have created a myriad of urgent problems that now face communities across the country, including the city of Hartford. One of the biggest problems that has arisen from the advancing pandemic is the issue of food insecurity. Hartford has one of the highest poverty rates in Connecticut, with more than 30% of the population living below the poverty line, and, as schools have closed, many children have been cut off from the meals that they receive daily while in school. The importance of these meals cannot be overstated, as 67% of all students in Hartford Public Schools use some type of food assistance program, and the food afforded by these programs often makes up as much as two-thirds of children’s daily nutrition intake. Those meals, often both breakfast and lunch, are extremely hard to replace at home. At a time when many people are facing extreme economic hardship, the added financial stress of feeding more mouths can quickly tip vulnerable families into economic catastrophe. In addition to these concerns, experts say that missing meals for even a short period of time can create long-term psychological damage, putting children at risk for a plethora of developmental problems. Yet despite all of this, Hartford has responded well, with school workers and administrators creating a viable and effective short-term solution to solve the food crisis created by COVID-19.

The issue of school lunches was on the forefront of everyone’s mind when Governor Ned Lamont made the decision to close schools statewide, and it was this preparedness that allowed school workers and administrators to react in the short period of time they were given. By the time Hartford Public Schools closed on March 16, most school districts across the state had already closed their doors. While some might say that this move put children at risk, in the end, the time proved to be invaluable. The days they were afforded gave them just enough time to prepare for feeding children outside school, all the while avoiding a serious outbreak the likes of which was seen in other parts of the state. That crucial time made all the difference, and in just a matter of days, schools were able to make hundreds, or in some cases even thousands, of lunches for students to pick up at one of the 16 locations across the city. Those locations, which were all schools, would be open every other day during a three-hour window in which any student under the age of 18—no matter what school district they were from—could come and pick up food. There, they would be given enough meals for that day and the next, making sure that children’s food supplies could last between pick-ups. This timing was implemented to minimize any possible exposure to COVID-19 in an attempt to protect both the children and the people who were distributing the food.

The implementation did not come without drawbacks, however, and questions have been raised about the safety of the plan, with its inherent risk to both children and distributors. Some might point to the fact that Hartford has still avoided the worst of the pandemic so far, but other places across the country and the world have shown just how quickly things can turn around for a community. Another potential issue with the implementation of the plan is that of sustainability. One of the biggest reasons Hartford schools were able to prepare so quickly was that they were able to divert food from summer school programs. This supply of food was meant for a much smaller student population, and although they’re still not feeding the full student body, it won’t last forever. It does, however, give school officials vital time to regroup and try to create a solution that will last through the end of the crisis. There are also concerns with the nutritional value of the food being served, as nutrition standards for summer school programs are a lot less stringent. What’s more, there have been no governmental guidelines on how to safely handle and distribute the food, leading to a situation in which schools must take a do-it-yourself attitude to food safety.

For the most part, however, efforts to feed financially vulnerable children while schools are closed have gone well, with many communities around the country adopting the same general plan that Hartford has. Some have gone farther in their attempts to protect students and distributors from exposure to the virus, with some school districts giving out enough meals to last students for up to five days at a time. In other school districts, the meals are being bussed out to students’ houses, erasing the need for a pick-up location that could potentially become dangerous. This method also allows adults to check in on students’ well-being, creating some semblance of the emotional support that students often get from school.

On the whole, Hartford’s handling of this crisis has been good, but there is still much to do. School administrators and city leadership have succeeded in mitigating the worst of the crisis, continuing to feed children from low-income families in the weeks since schools closed, but they could learn from other communities around the country, using other districts’ ideas as a blueprint moving forward. There are certainly drawbacks in the system, particularly as it pertains to safety, but even with much work still ahead of them, Hartford Public Schools have created an effective short-term solution that protects financially vulnerable children from food insecurity and protects their parents from financial disaster.

Honorable Mention:

Worry For Arizona

By Suhan Kacholia, BASIS Chandler

April 25, 2020

Every year, my city of Chandler, Arizona looks forward to a rather unique event called the Ostrich Festival. A weekend full of ostrich races, exhilarating rides, and unusual food, the Ostrich Festival summons nearly everyone in Chandler, and is a major source of revenue for the city government.

This year, however, the Ostrich Festival, did not inspire any excitement, and instead, inspired dread. COVID-19 was rapidly spreading in the United States, and many feared that the event could significantly accelerate its growth in Arizona. Most people recognized that it would be a difficult decision to cancel the event, but also recognized the overwhelming risk it now posed. And yet, organizers long hesitated taking any action to stop the event, only postponing it after a headlining performer pulled out, and on the day before it was set to occur.

This situation is emblematic of the nature of Arizona’s response to COVID-19 as a whole. While state leadership has no doubt taken action, their response has been delayed and not nearly aggressive enough. Prioritizing short-term economic benefit over public safety, they have been unwilling to make the difficult, but necessary, decisions necessary for a crisis of this magnitude. And as a result, the most vulnerable populations in Arizona are suffering and dying. However, local governments have often taken initiative where the state government has failed.

The COVID-19 outbreak in Arizona began in January 2020, when a man from Tempe, Arizona returned home from a trip to Wuhan, China. Before the end of the month, he was confirmed as Arizona’s first case of COVID-19, and the fifth case in the nation. Arizona received the disease far earlier than most other states, which should have alarmed state officials to take preventive action before it spread further. Other states prove this was possible to do: in Ohio, where there was not a single case confirmed until March 9th, Governor Mike DeWine had already begun canceling large events by March 5th.

But Arizona Governor Doug Ducey only announced that he was instituting a public health emergency on March 11th, over a month after the initial case. While this action had multiple benefits, such as by providing $500,000 in emergency funds to health authorities and requiring insurance companies to cover out-of-network providers, it still did not limit large gatherings. As the situation worsened, Governor Ducey closed schools statewide on March 15th, but did not institute a statewide shelter-in-place order like most other states, drawing widespread criticism. Additionally, he prevented cities and counties from instituting their own, creating conflicts with local governments, who might have taken more aggressive action had they been able to. But as the cases rose to over 400, Governor Ducey finally relented, implementing a stay-at-home order on March 30th.

However, even this order, already too late given the severity of the crisis, was largely an unavailing policy. The list of essential services included golf courses and hair salons, and there was a lack of communication and transparency regarding its different provisions. The confusion and mismanagement created by the Arizonan state government grew to such a level that its own emergency management director resigned. City leaders, however, chose to act decisively while the state government failed to do so. For example, Flagstaff mayor Coral Evans, in defiance of Governor Ducey’s executive order, still closed hair salons in her city, a move that even salon owners recognized as being necessary.

The inaction and ineptitude of the state government has affected already underprivileged groups the most. The Navajo Nation, for example, is home to 1.4 percent of Arizona's population, but now has slightly more than 13 percent of the state's current COVID-19 cases. 44 people have already died. In the Navajo Nation, as well as in other rural communities in Arizona’s north, people have less access to medical care, have health factors which heighten their risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19, and do not have adequate access to running and drinking water, preventing basic hygienic tasks. And yet, the state and federal response to COVID-19 has largely ignored this community, with the tribe stating that they have still not received the federal money promised to them.

Additionally, Arizona has the 4th highest incarceration rate in the country, and the over 42,000 people in Arizona who are currently in prison are especially vulnerable to COVID-19. The overcrowding, lack of access to quality medical care, and poor sanitation in Arizona’s prison system make the situation particularly concerning, and an outbreak would be devastating for inmates and their families. With 28 state prison inmates already having tested positive for the virus, however, a large outbreak becomes more and more likely everyday. Many other state governments, including Washington and Kentucky, have announced they will release hundreds of nonviolent inmates because of the crisis. 35% of Arizona prisoners have no record of violence, and releasing them would pose little to no danger to public safety. And yet, Governor Ducey has announced he has no plans to release anyone, even if they are more at risk for COVID-19 or have serious medical conditions. In this regard, local government has again proven more effective, with Maricopa County having released 159 inmates so far, and planning on releasing more.

Migrant communities in Arizona are also suffering because of the poor statewide response to COVID-19. The federal government has not helped, and rather, has deliberately made conditions worse for migrants and undocumented immigrants in Arizona. For instance, on April 20th, the Trump administration appealed a federal court order requiring the U.S. Border Patrol to provide basic supplies, including beds and medical evaluations, to migrants in Arizona facilities. Asylum-seekers, including those with serious medical conditions, are still being held in Arizona detention centers, where there has already been a confirmed case of COVID-19. These asylum-seekers have already suffered immense hardships, with many facing persecution and death in their home countries, and will now needlessly suffer—or die—because of the federal government’s refusal to release them.

Additionally, the number of COVID-19 cases among the over 200,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona is largely unknown, because of both federal and state policies. Many undocumented immigrants might exhibit symptoms of COVID-19, but are afraid to seek treatment because of the federal government’s “public charge” rule, which denies green cards to immigrants deemed likely to use Medicaid. While the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that this rule would not apply to immigrants who undergo medical testing for the coronavirus, Governor Ducey did not reiterate this message, which created unnecessary confusion and fear, and likely prevented some immigrants from seeking necessary help. Again, local government has taken action, with Maricopa County having provided comprehensive information about COVID-19 to immigrants in Spanish.

Arizona has undoubtedly had successes in battling COVID-19, and new hospitalizations are slowing. But the actions of the state and federal governments have largely been untimely and ineffective. While the actions of local government do give me hope, a response cannot be successful without cooperation on all levels. As a result, already disadvantaged communities in Arizona are dying. And so, I worry. I worry for indigenous people and immigrants, for inmates and their families, and for asylum-seekers held in detention. I worry for Arizona.