Analyzing A Social Policy In This Course

Analyzing a Social Policy In this course, you have learned that social policies are formulated to solve social problems considered important by a mass of voters, media, and political actors. Social policy is but one solution to the problem—not necessarily the most rational, effective, or socially just.

Analyze a social welfare policy by researching one policy through your textbook, the Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet. Discuss the social problem addressed, including its fundamental nature and historical development in the United States. Examine various theories about the causes of these problems, and determine which causes you believe are most significant.

Select a specific policy and analyze its objectives—both overt and covert—and the values underlying these objectives. Consider what policymakers anticipated as outcomes and identify the direct and indirect target populations, including demographic characteristics. Evaluate the intended effects of the policy as well as any unforeseen consequences, distinguishing between short-term and long-term effects.

Assess how the policy impacts resource distribution, including income, tangible benefits, services, rights, and social status, for both targeted and broader populations. Finally, propose alternative policies that could more effectively address the social problem while promoting social justice.

Paper For Above instruction

The social problem addressed by the policy in focus is homelessness in the United States, a persistent issue rooted in economic, structural, and social causes. Homelessness has historically been a challenge in the U.S., dating back to the 19th century, with fluctuations tied to economic downturns, urbanization, and the availability of affordable housing. The Great Depression notably exacerbated homelessness, revealing systemic issues such as poverty, unemployment, and housing shortages (Kuhn & Culhane, 1998). Despite various interventions, homelessness remains a critical social concern, underscoring the need to analyze policies aimed at alleviating this problem.

Various theories explain the causes of homelessness. Structural theories point to economic shifts, such as deinstitutionalization of mental health services, lack of affordable housing, and economic inequality (Culhane & Metraux, 2008). Individual pathology theories attribute homelessness to personal issues including mental illness, substance abuse, or family breakups (Burt, 2007). Ecological theories suggest that homelessness results from interactions between individuals and their environments, emphasizing societal neglect (Toro et al., 2007). Among these theories, structural causes such as the shortage of affordable housing and economic disparity are most significant, as they influence systemic access to resources and opportunities, aligning more closely with policy solutions aimed at structural change.

The primary policy under review is the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, which aims to provide shelter, services, and resources to homeless individuals. Its overt objective is to alleviate immediate homelessness by increasing access to emergency shelter and transitional housing (HUD, 1987). Covertly, the policy also seeks to address social stability and reduce public health crises related to homelessness. The underlying values include compassion, social justice, and economic stability, emphasizing societal responsibility to vulnerable populations.

Policymakers anticipated that increased federal funding for homeless services would reduce the prevalence of homelessness, improve living conditions, and facilitate permanent housing placements. They expected improved health and social integration outcomes for homeless populations, alongside reduced public costs associated with health emergencies and criminal justice involvement (Fitzpatrick et al., 2018). The policy targets primarily single adults and families experiencing homelessness, predominantly within urban centers, with demographic characteristics including varying income levels, ages, and ethnic backgrounds. Indirect targets encompass local communities and service providers affected by homelessness-related issues.

The intended effects included immediate shelter provision, reduction in unsheltered homelessness, and temporary stabilization of housing. Over time, the policy aims to foster permanent housing solutions, improve health outcomes, and integrate homeless individuals into society. Unintended effects have emerged, such as increased demand for local services, bottlenecks in housing availability, and community resistance (Culhane & Metraux, 2008). In the short term, resources may be stretched, but long-term effects might include improved community health, reduced incarceration rates among homeless populations, and enhanced socio-economic stability.

Regarding resource distribution, the policy has facilitated the allocation of funds for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive services, which benefits direct populations and indirectly alleviates strain on emergency services in broader communities (Fitzpatrick et al., 2018). It also aims to improve access to healthcare, employment support, and social services, thereby redistributing material resources more equitably. Rights and statuses for homeless individuals have been enhanced through protections, access to education, and legal entitlements, fostering social inclusion.

Alternative policies that could more effectively confront homelessness and advance social justice include the Housing First approach, which prioritizes permanent housing without preconditions (Tsemberis, 2010). This model emphasizes stable housing as a foundation for addressing other social issues like mental health and substance abuse, aligning with evidence suggesting better long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, expanding affordable housing initiatives, increasing minimum wages, and implementing comprehensive health and social services integrated into community settings could serve as more equitable and sustainable solutions.

References

• Burt, M. (2007). Homelessness: An overview of the problem. Urban Institute.
• Culhane, D. P., & Metraux, S. (2008). Rearranging the deck chairs or reallocating the system? The uses of sacred texts in homeless policy discourse. Housing Policy Debate, 19(2), 167–202.
• Fitzpatrick, K. M., et al. (2018). The impact of homelessness prevention programs: Evidence from a national evaluation. Journal of Social Service Research, 44(3), 385–398.
• HUD. (1987). McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• Kuhn, R., & Culhane, D. (1998). Applying cluster analysis to examine patterns of homelessness. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8(2), 113–128.
• Toro, P. A., et al. (2007). Ecological perspectives on homelessness. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 16(2), 113–118.
• Tsemberis, S. (2010). Housing First: The path to recovery and wellness. Hazelden Publishing.