The policy brief first describes the nature of the problem to be discussed in the paper – homelessness. The policies analyzed are those that attempt to reduce the level of homelessness in the United States. The current policy selected is the rapid re-housing policy, which relocate homeless people from the streets, emergency shelters or transition housing programs and place them into permanent housing as soon as the resources and time available allow. The alternatives included in the paper are monetary assistance, transitional housing and supports, and modified therapeutic communities (MTCs). Of these alternatives, the one that the study finds to be the most useful is modified therapeutic communities because they tend to be less costly as compared to the other options and that they also teach the participants to lead more productive lives. The most likely objection to this selection would be that MTCs do not actually provide permanent housing for participants.
Background
On any given night in January 2015, more than half a million people were going through homelessness in America. These homeless people spent the night outside, in emergency shelters or transition housing programs. Even though these statistics represent a drop of 2% from 2014, the problem of homelessness continues to be a critical social issue in the United States and demands appropriate policies and programs to help mitigate it (Cunningham et al., 2015; Culhane, 2008 ). Most communities and states try to address this problem in a manner that they deem to be most effective. Some of the housing and services programs used today include emergency shelters, transition housing, rapid re-housing, and permanent supportive housing ( Minnery and Greenhalgh, 2007 ). Since the inception of the 21 st century, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have focused almost entirely on rapid re-housing since they consider this policy to be the most effective (Evans et al., 2016). While the national objective is to eradicate family homelessness in the United States by the year 2020, achieving such a goal seems somewhat an uphill task for the parties involved. This paper analyses the rapid re-housing policy as well as three alternatives to this policy in order to arrive at a decision regarding which one of them is the most effective in eliminating homelessness in the United States.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rapid Re-housing
As the name suggests, rapid re-housing programs are formulated to relocate homeless people from the streets, emergency shelters or transition housing programs and place them into permanent housing as fast as possible (Cunningham at al., 2015). The main purpose of this policy is to remove the challenges experienced when moving households rapidly into permanent housing by providing financial support for the costs linked with housing location services. What makes rapid re-housing stand out from the rest of the transitional housing programs is that if does not offer services to help homeless families get ready for permanent placement. Regardless, it is the most used policy for eliminating homelessness in the United States. The strategy used by rapid re-housing programs is that of “housing first,” whereby the households are initially placed in permanent housing then they are stabilized to avoid the possibility of a return to homelessness. In this way, a rapid re-housing program can focus on the main objective of the transitional housing, which is to provide housing for homeless households.
This policy was first designed and executed by local service provider groups who were try to address the issue of homelessness in their respective communities. These groups found that there were thousands of households living in shelters, transition housing, or other temporary types of housing due to financial constraints. The groups realized that the common problem among these households was that they were incapable of raising the money required to secure and maintain permanent housing (Cunningham at al., 2015). While such temporary housing programs were found to be effective in reducing the number of homeless households throughout the country before the 21 st century, the rate of homelessness increased drastically between 2006 and 2010. It became apparent that these programs were inadequate for accommodating homeless households, thereby leaving rapid re-housing as a critical means of eliminating homelessness in the country. After the initial trials in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and California were found to be a success, other communities throughout the country decided to put in place their own version of the policy.
It is important to note that the rapid re-housing policy provides help according to one’s or a household’s “deservingness” (Cunningham at al., 2015). The determinants considered for a recipient’s deservingness are being reviewed constantly to avoid instances where the policy is accused of promoting unfairness in the society. Some of the bases of such accusations would be race, disability, and gender ( Cameron et al., 2016 ). Thus, it is the responsibility of those who provide this assistance to comply with the guidelines of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Policy Alternatives
Monetary assistance
A monetary assistance policy provides such support as housing subsidies directed to landlords or rent subsidies for tenants. This policy can be effective, especially if there is a particular target group for such assistance (Evans et al., 2016) . For instance, monetary assistance can be offered specifically to HIV/AIDS positive individuals, veterans, people with a history of substance abuse, or single parent households who are homeless.
Monetary assistance tends to be beneficial in helping classes of people who require more assistance as compared to those of the excluded group. For instance, it is more difficult for an individual who is HIV/AIDS positive and homeless than their HIV/AIDS negative counterparts. Thus, in such a case, it would be more helpful to channel more resources on the former (Evans et al., 2016) . The problem with monetary assistance is that it is limited to only a fraction of the homeless people in the country. Only the category of homeless people stated in the terms of these programs receive assistance.
Transitional Housing and Supports
These are programs that offer temporary housing or supports, though some of them provide both. The exception for this program is that recipients gradually shift to permanent housing and a high self-reliance (Evans et al., 2016) . Over the years, this policy has been found to be considerably effective in the case of veterans, low income households who are homeless or at risk of being so, or people with a history of substance abuse.
The most attractive aspects of the transitional housing and supports policy is that participants can worry less about where they lay their heads and focus on a means to be self-reliant. Given that they are given temporary accommodation, they can look for employment and even some money for the future. However, transitional housing initiatives do not take up the responsibility of facilitating the employment of participants (Evans et al., 2016) . As a result, many participants stay in these housing schemes for extended periods. Also, this free and guaranteed housing tends to make some of the participants languid when it comes to seeking employment.
Modified Therapeutic Communities
Modified therapeutic communities, commonly referred to as MTCs focus on building a supportive social community via self-help, a structured daily routine to bring about change in social behavior, psychological functioning and substance use, and role modeling (Evans et al., 2016) . The ultimate goal of this policy is changing the behavior of participants so that they would drive themselves out of homelessness and embrace self-sufficiency.
Modified therapeutic communities are beneficial to many homeless people because not only does it present the possibility of permanent housing, but also brings about a situation whereby the main reasons for homelessness are addressed effectively. For instance, an individual who has been rendered homeless as a result of substance use can go through a process whereby they lose the drug addiction and therefore, focus on being self-reliant (Evans et al., 2016) . Additionally, MTCs are less costly than the other options since in most cases they involve individuals who are in institutions already and the fact that they do not spend the resources required to place participants in permanent housing. On the other hand, MTCs limited in their impact on homelessness since they are only aimed at helping given categories of homeless people.
Recommendations
From the three alternatives highlighted in the previous section, the one recommended to the decision-maker is modified therapeutic communities . They are relatively inexpensive, considering the amount of resources that would be required to implement the other two policies. Also, by teaching the participants on ways to better living and being self-reliant, they prevent a situation whereby the participant returns to homelessness. Even though the target of these initiatives is limited to a certain group of homeless people, its effectiveness in helping this group is unmatched by the other options.
Anticipated Opposition
The most likely objection to the choice of policy would be that these communities do not actually provide permanent housing for participants. These MTCs typically teach the participants to earn their own living and live a better life than they do currently. However, some of these participants, given their history, find it difficult to find employment even though they have been taught how to lead more productive lives. Thus, the only effective MTCs in this case would be those that provide the participants with valid recommendation letters to take to their potential employers.
References
Cameron, A., Abrahams, H., Morgan, K., Williamson, E., & Henry, L. (2016). From pillar to post: homeless women's experiences of social care. Health & social care in the community , 24 (3), 345-352.
Culhane, D. P. (2008). The cost of homelessness: A perspective from the United States. european Journal of Homelessness , 97.
Cunningham, M., Gillespie, S., & Anderson, J. (2015). Rapid Re-Housing: What the Research Says. Journal of Social Issues , 63 (3), 641-655.
Evans, W. N., Sullivan, J. X., & Wallskog, M. (2016). The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness. Science, 353(6300), 694-699.
Minnery, J., & Greenhalgh, E. (2007). Approaches to homelessness policy in Europe, the United States, and Australia. Journal of Social Issues , 63 (3), 641-655.
