Introduction
Policy-based interventions are the most effective measures to address systematic issues. A wide range of administrative policies directly or indirectly tied to homelessness affect the homeless population to the extent that there can be artificial barriers to receiving benefits in the United States. Therefore, understanding and analyzing these administrative policies, which influence the well-being and survival of homeless individuals, is critical. In addition, it is critical to assess the underlying principles of these policies’ impact on the target population. The most effective solutions to the problem include the affordability of private-market houses, permanent assistive housing, facilitation of low-cost home development, and voucher-based housing.
Main body
The issue of homelessness needs to be addressed with the use of national and state policies. The current administrative measures are composed of a combination of both harmful and beneficial policies, which results in an unsubstantial change. When it comes to the policies, there are ones that benefit the homeless population and reduce homelessness rates. One such policy is permanent housing assistance or permanent supportive housing, which operates on the principle of‘ housing first.’ Research suggests that “permanent supportive housing is negatively associated with homeless counts” (Corinth, 2017, p. 69). In other words, providing homeless individuals with a permanent house can be an effective solution for both prevention of homelessness as well as the repeated occurrence of homelessness. It is stated that “strong empirical evidence confirms that homelessness is essentially a housing problem,” which is substantiated by the fact that “rates of homelessness are greater in cities, towns, and counties with low vacancy rates and high rents and lower in cities, towns, and counties with relatively high levels of housing assistance targeted to people living in poverty” (NYU Furman Center, 2021, para. 3). In other words, the issue is not rooted in certain factors of the homeless population but rather the housing imbalances.
Moreover, four categories of policies can help to resolve the problem of homeless, but they require combined implementation. Firstly, it is critical to “create and preserve dedicated affordable housing units” through policies, such as low-income housing tax credits and voucher-based measures (NYU Furman Center, 2021, para. 10). In other words, these steps prevent repeated homelessness among people with low income. In addition, it is important to “promote affordability by reducing barriers to new supply” by facilitating the construction of low-cost houses as well as decreasing the barriers to the development of such buildings (NYU Furman Center, 2021, para. 11). Since the current administrative policies do not ensure that homeless individuals and households can reenter the housing market, the policies, such as housing choice vouchers, help people to access private-market homes (Shinn & Cohen, 2019). It will ensure that the permanent housing units will not hold homeless people for extended periods of time. Lastly, policies, such as “Just Cause,” are needed to protect the influx of newly homeless individuals, where these measures protect renters against unjustified evictions.
In the case of policies, which negatively impact the given population, it is important to analyze their underlying mechanisms. The policies which criminalize homeless people are the most harmful when it comes to being counterproductive to the proper resolution of the problem. It is stated that “the criminalization of homelessness refers to measures that prohibit life-sustaining activities such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and/or asking for money/resources in public spaces. These ordinances include criminal penalties for violations of these acts” (NCH, 2020, para. 1). Such policies not only discriminate against the given vulnerable group but also violate a number of their constitutional rights. For example, restricting beggars’ communication violates their 1st Amendment protection of free speech, whereas vague and improperly defined statutes diminish homeless people’s “14th Amendment protecting citizenship, due process, and equal protection” (NCH, 2020, para. 6). In addition, any form of criminal record or other forms of punitive measures against the homeless population essentially worsens their experience and ability to recover through the acquisition of employment.
There is a growing marginalization of homeless individuals as a way to protect the private lives of the unaffected majority. At the state level, one can see a wide range of social policy directions at the local level in this matter. Such responses range from complete disregard and police harassment to the provision of a whole range of services that are not always effective in facilitating adaptation. The state, in its social policy, still does not give an answer to the question of how society should treat such people. Social exclusion is also a dynamic process, as a property inherent in a certain type of society, just as marginality is a dynamic property of an individual or a social community. Social exclusion is a process of marginalization associated with limited access to social institutions of integration. Therefore, social exclusion is the process of excluding an individual from society, while marginalization is the process of an individual leaving society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the issue of homelessness is a complex problem that requires systematic solutions. The administrative policies which benefit homeless people include permanent assistive housing, voucher-based housing, facilitation of low-cost home development, and affordability of private-market houses. However, any form of criminalization or discrimination against the homeless population can further burden these vulnerable groups, which counterproductively hinders their escape from the homeless state.
References
Corinth, K. (2017). The impact of permanent supportive housing on homeless populations. Journal of Housing Economics, 35, 69–84. Web.
NCH. (2020). Civil rights. National Coalition of the Homeless. Web.
NYU Furman Center. (2021). Reducing homelessness and meeting the emergency needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Local Housing Solutions. Web.
Shinn, M., & Cohen, R. (2019). Homelessness prevention: A review of the literature [PDF document]. Web.