Developing an Effective Housing Policy Strategy

1 Housing Policy Social inequality is an issue that has plagued societies for ages, and despite great advances in certain areas, it continues to be a problem today. Some people or groups make much more than others, defining income disparity as the uneven income distribution among a population. This issue is damaging to social cohesiveness because it fosters anger, perpetuates poverty, and impedes social mobility. This study aims to examine the societal issue of income disparity and the many responses to it over time.

Many federal, state, and municipal policies have been introduced to combat economic disparity. Although some measures have been effective, others have made the situation worse.

This paper hypothesizes that the most effective policies to reduce economic disparity emphasize access to excellent education, inexpensive healthcare, and affordable housing. By tackling these fundamental areas, policies may assist in breaking the cycle of poverty and foster more social mobility, building a more just and equitable society for everyone. This article will investigate the efficacy of these programs and their influence on social inequality.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2

Many policy strategies have been used to address the issue of housing instability and homelessness. With the growth of affordable housing initiatives, governments have sought to solve this problem. For instance, the 1986-created Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program incentivizes private developers to construct affordable housing units. The LIHTC program has successfully increased the availability of affordable housing units, particularly for persons earning less than 30% of the median income in the region. The LIHTC program tries to prevent homelessness before it starts by addressing the core cause of the issue, a shortage of affordable housing.

Housing First Approach Housing First is another policy solution that has been used to address the issue of homelessness. Housing First is a concept that emphasizes providing rapid access to permanent homes for those suffering from homelessness, followed by supporting assistance. The Housing First method addresses the urgent demand for secure housing and prevents persons from going further into homelessness by emphasizing housing provision.

The strategy has effectively lowered homelessness rates and increased health outcomes for homeless individuals.

The third policy approach to combat housing instability is the expansion of rental assistance programs. The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP), generally known as Section 8, assists low-income families, the elderly, and those with disabilities with their rent.

People must have access to secure, quality, and affordable housing to avoid homelessness, and this program helps ensure this. The HCVP program tackles the housing affordability problem and prevents persons from becoming homeless by providing rental assistance(Calder et al., 2023). The Housing First strategy has shown the most promising outcomes in tackling housing

3 instability and homelessness among these three policy approaches. Thus, the rest of this study will assess the efficacy of the Housing First approach in tackling the issue of homelessness.

Evaluation of the housing First strategy The Housing First strategy is a policy that prioritizes the provision of permanent homes to those facing homelessness without requiring them to achieve specific prerequisites such as sobriety or treatment program compliance. The policy acknowledges that secure housing is a basic human right and a prerequisite for tackling other complex socioeconomic concerns experienced by homeless persons, such as drug abuse, diseases, and mental health difficulties. In examining the policy from an equality standpoint, evaluating who benefits from the program, the eligibility requirements and benefits, and any possible hurdles that may prohibit some groups from receiving the policy is essential.

The Housing First method emphasizes persons facing chronic homelessness, defined as individuals who have been homeless for a year or longer, have suffered numerous episodes of homelessness during the preceding three years, and have a disability. This strategy emphasizes people with the greatest housing need, but those not satisfying the eligibility requirements may be ineligible for the program. In terms of fairness, assessing whether the eligibility criteria match the policy's objectives and appropriately target those with the greatest need is essential.

Several elements affect access to the Housing First strategy in terms of possible obstacles to participation. For example, persons who do not have a disability or who have not been homeless for at least a year may be disqualified for the program, which might disproportionately affect particular groups that are more prone to undergo shorter-term homelessness episodes (Peng et al., 2020). In addition, linguistic and cultural challenges, immigration status, and

4 prejudice based on color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation may hinder persons from accessing the program.

To overcome these possible obstacles, it is necessary to examine strategies to guarantee that the policy is accessible and inclusive for all homeless persons. This could include targeted outreach efforts to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds are aware of the program and its eligibility requirements, as well as the provision of language translation services and culturally sensitive services to ensure that all individuals have equal access to the program. Moreover, structural concerns relating to discrimination and inequality must be addressed to ensure the policy is fair and equitable for all persons.

Effectiveness of the housing First strategy The Housing First strategy is a policy-based, evidence-based response to homelessness that emphasizes providing secure, permanent homes to those experiencing homelessness. This policy offers housing, case management, and support services to homeless people and families and those at risk of becoming homeless. Housing First attempts to stop the cycle of homelessness and create stability for people, which may lead to increased health, employment, and well-being.

As offered by the Housing First strategy, permanent and secure housing was selected above vouchers or cash since it has been shown to be the most effective method for alleviating homelessness (Loubière et al., 2022). This sort of assistance is consistent with how the issue of homelessness is recognized and treated since it acknowledges that housing is a fundamental human need and that permanent housing is required to eliminate homelessness. Individuals are allowed the opportunity to choose their own home and are not compelled to satisfy specific requirements, such as being "housing ready," following the social work concept of selfdetermination.

5 The advantages of the Housing First strategy, especially the provision of permanent housing, address the issue of homelessness outlined in Paper 1 by providing a stable and secure living environment. This stability may enhance the mental and physical health of homeless persons, minimize the danger of violence and trauma associated with street life, and increase the likelihood of obtaining and retaining work. Many studies have shown the usefulness of the Housing First strategy in combating homelessness (Baxter et al., 2019). Research has shown that the Housing First strategy may considerably decrease the number of individuals suffering from homelessness and the duration of their homelessness. The housing First method was related to higher home stability, lower rates of drug misuse, and lower rates of mental health symptoms than typical shelter and treatment programs, according to a meta-analysis of 11 research.

In addition, research has shown that the Housing First strategy is cost-effective. It is less costly to provide housing and support services to homeless people than emergency medical treatment, jail, and other crisis interventions often required when people lack secure shelter.

According to research conducted by the Canadian government, the Housing First method lowered the expenses of emergency services, hospitalizations, and contact with the criminal system, resulting in substantial cost savings. However, several studies have produced contradictory findings about the usefulness of the Housing First strategy. For instance, a Department of Veterans Affairs research revealed that although the Housing First method helped reduce veteran homelessness, it did not substantially improve mental health outcomes or drug abuse. These disparities in results may be attributable to variables such as discrepancies in measurement, data quality, ideology, or politics.

The efficiency of the housing First strategy

6 Efficiency refers to a policy's cost-effectiveness in attaining its stated objectives. In examining the Housing First method, we will analyze the financing sources, the sufficiency of money, and if the program is worth the expenses. A mix of federal, state, and local government funds and private contributions finances the Housing First program. The federal government's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides financing, while state and local governments contribute via their budgets. Via contributions, private groups and philanthropists may offer money.

According to the research, the Housing First method is cost-effective for managing chronic homelessness. According to studies, the strategy reduces healthcare expenses, jail rates, and emergency service consumption, resulting in total cost savings for the community. In addition, the approach is more cost-effective than conventional models like shelters or transitional housing, which need considerable case management and support services.

Nonetheless, obstacles and hazards are linked to financing the Housing First strategy (Loubière et al., 2020). One of the key issues is the sufficiency of funds to satisfy the demand for affordable homes. The availability of affordable housing units has been a significant barrier to the Housing First strategy's adoption. The program depends on the availability of cheap housing units to shelter the homeless population, yet defective units are often available. Hence, boosting the supply of inexpensive housing units should be a priority for policymakers to guarantee the strategy's effectiveness.

Another area of improvement for the financial data is diversifying the sources of financing. There is an opportunity to investigate alternate financing sources for the policy, which is presently supported by a mix of federal, state, and municipal government funds and private contributions. For instance, public-private partnerships might be established to leverage private

7 investments in affordable housing projects. The data indicates that the policy's benefits outweigh its expenses. The economic benefits associated with the Housing First strategy, such as decreased healthcare expenses, emergency service use, and imprisonment rates, exceed the costs of affordable housing and supportive services. In addition, housing for homeless persons and families is a human right, and the Housing First method is consistent with this notion.

Policy Alternatives Based on the assessments undertaken on the Housing First strategy, there are a few ways the policy may be enhanced to address the issue of chronic homelessness. One viable policy approach is expanding the availability of affordable housing choices for those facing homelessness, especially those with low to moderate incomes. This might be accomplished by boosting financing for current affordable housing programs, such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), or by developing new programs that incentivize developers to construct additional affordable housing units.

By increasing the supply of affordable housing, those suffering from homelessness would have more alternatives, hence decreasing the possibility that they would be homeless for an extended period. This would also decrease the need for emergency shelters and other costly interventions, resulting in long-term savings for taxpayers. Providing secure and inexpensive housing may also have a favorable effect on people's mental and physical health, as well as their capacity to get and keep work, which can further minimize the likelihood of chronic homelessness (Clarke et al., 2020). Increasing financing for supporting services, such as mental health and drug abuse treatment, case management, and job aid, is an additional policy choice for those enduring chronic homelessness. This might be accomplished by reallocating money from

8 other programs, such as emergency shelters and transitional housing, or by boosting financing for homeless services overall.

By offering extra supporting services, persons facing chronic homelessness may treat the underlying conditions, such as mental illness and addiction, that led to their homelessness and acquire the skills required to sustain permanent residence. This may lead to better outcomes, such as enhanced home stability, less emergency service use, and improved physical and mental health. Both policy options can potentially increase the efficacy of the Housing First strategy by addressing the core causes of chronic homelessness and decreasing the need for emergency interventions. Nevertheless, both alternatives need help in terms of practicability. Raising financing for affordable housing projects may require substantial political will and a willingness to prioritize housing affordability over competing objectives. Increasing financing for supportive services may need a change in emphasis from emergency interventions to longer-term solutions, which may necessitate buy-in from stakeholders used to conventional responses to homelessness.

Conclusion This paper identifies the Housing First strategy, which tries to house homeless people and families without asking them to engage in programs or satisfy particular requirements. The review focused on the policy's fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness, as well as alternative policies. The housing First method was determined to be fair regarding qualifying requirements and benefits, successful in eliminating homelessness, and cost-effective. The program could be improved by boosting financing for supporting services and extending eligibility to additional people. The viability of these options, including the necessity for political and societal backing, was also examined. The Housing First strategy offers a potential answer to homelessness, but more effort is required to solve the problem effectively.

9

References Baxter, A. J., Tweed, E. J., Katikireddi, S. V., & Thomson, H. (2019). Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Epidemiol Community Health, 73(5), 379-387.

Calder, V. B., & Gygi, J. (2023). In Houston, Housing Affordability Helps Reduce Homelessness.

Clarke, A., Watts, B., & Parsell, C. (2020). Conditionality in the context of housing‐led homelessness policy: Comparing Australia’s Housing First agenda to Scotland’s “rights‐ based” approach. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 88-100.

Loubière, S., Lemoine, C., Boucekine, M., Boyer, L., Girard, V., Tinland, A., ... & French Housing First Study Group. (2022). Housing First for homeless people with severe mental illness: extended 4-year follow-up and analysis of recovery and housing stability from the randomized Un Chez Soi d'Abord trial. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 31, e14.

10 Peng, Y., Hahn, R. A., Finnie, R. K., Cobb, J., Williams, S. P., Fielding, J. E., ... & Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2020). Permanent supportive housing with housing first to reduce homelessness and promote health among homeless populations with disability: a community guide systematic review. Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP, 26(5), 404.