Family Violence Prevention Services Act Social policy analysis must start with defining the problem that the policy is designed to address. For instance, Family Violence Prevention Services Act addresses the subject of family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence. A number of needs assessment have been conducted to establish the significance of the issue of family violence and to identify the effectiveness of numerous interventions addressing the issue. The existence of a defined social issue is the reason for the Family Violence Prevention Services Act intervention. Karger and Stoesz argue that the systematic investigation of a social policy must be purposeful and occur within a systematic and structured framework for policy analysis. They propose a model for policy analysis that comprises the following elements.

Historical background of the policy

The Family Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA) offers the main government-financing stream devoted to the assistance of emergency supportive and shelter services for domestic violence victims and their children. Introduced by Congress, FVPSA is intended to help states: raise attention about domestic violence: prevent its occurrence, and create, maintain, and increase services for domestic violence victims and their children. State level governments provided FVPSA operational funds. The intention was to address and prevent the occurrences of family violence across America. To date, this remains to be the primary source of devoted financing for family violence housing and support services. It helps finance core family violence services across the country, including safe housing, crisis response, counseling, advocacy, legal assistance, safety planning, and comprehensive assistance (Netting & O'Connor, 2013).

Describe the problems

Family violence is continually recognized as a significant factor in being homeless. At some point, Over 92% of homeless females have experienced serious physical or sexual attack in their lives. Besides, 50% of those affected consider the homelessness as a primary causative factor (Agere & Mandaza, 2009). Domestic assault is often life threatening; in the U.S., it is estimated that four women are murdered daily by a former or current intimate partner. Survivors and advocates recognize housing as a primary need of the affected and a crucial element in survivors' long-term stability and safety.

While secure shelter can give a victim a route to independence, many limitations prevent survivors from acquiring or maintaining affordable and safe housing. Many victims have experienced economic abuse as part of the assault. Such a happenstance indicates that the have limited or no access to family finances, are banned from working, or the perpetrators damaged their credit ratings. Victims often face discrimination in acquiring or keeping housing based on the aggressive and criminal activities of criminals. Additionally, survivors are restricted in the places and access to preferred housing types because of their unique protection and privacy needs, and many homelessness assistance programs have limitations that exclude survivors of domestic violence.

Policies addressing domestic violence do their best to serve those in need of transitional and emergency housing. From the scarcity of resources, thousands of abused children and adults are turned away from housing and declined housing services because of insufficient resources and financing. Daily statistics by the NDVC showed that over 6000 demands for shelter and housing were unmet due to resources deficiency (Hudson & Lowe, 2009). Finally, survivors experience the same economic limitations that eventually result in a deficiency of affordable housing, unemployment, limited safety options, deficiency of available living salary, deficiency of transport, and restricted childcare options. As a result, many survivors experience the impossible option between staying with or coming back to their abusers, or becoming destitute since they cannot afford a permanent shelter.

Describe the policy

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers FVPSA. FVPSA established the first and only devoted federal financing stream for community-based family violence programs and housing. Approximately 1,600 emergency family violence housing and programs across the country use FVPSA to maintain life-saving support to survivors trying to evade assault (Chalk & King, 1998). The funds are mainly allocated through the state system grant. In addition to life-saving emergency protection, FVPSA-funded programs provide crisis intervention, counseling, legal assistance and services for children (Alcock May & Wright, 2012).

Feasibility

The FVPSA is as risky and destructive as the Violence against Women's Act to the society and households. These very costly and expensive policies within our government and our constitution provide to channel immeasurable dollars to feminist agencies to serve and secure only one gender -- women. Aside from the fact that FVPSA is indeed an obvious breach of the American constitution -- the policy is worthless, discriminatory, and clearly make the following implications:

Always, males are the only...

This law is supported by incredibly highly powerful feminist agencies who benefit economically from the large amounts of federal financing that are channeled for these "women's only" projects. They have a significant interest in the reauthorization of policies like FVPSA. The contempt that these agencies and individuals have towards men is open. It is obvious that the lawmakers have continuously settled on poor choices on such issues that affect women and men as well. Family violence does not discriminate based upon sex. Policies of domestic violence like FVPSA discriminates and limits the availability of resources to the available to males. Some of the possible benefits include money, resources, housing, legal aid and many other projects that are now almost specifically availed to women only (Chalk & King, 1998). All this occurs despite the gender-neutral perspective in the FVPSA. The distribution of funds and resources is done unlawfully and in breach of the American constitution.
Alternative social policies

There are two major alternative social policies. They include Violence against Women Act (VAWA) and Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (VTVPA). VAWA has provisions developed to enhance both survivor services and police arrest and prosecution of batterers. As required by the National Coalition of Domestic Violence, VAWA established a hotline number to benefit the victims. It also increased its resources allocation to a number of projects and programs, such as housing and other solutions for battered women, legal knowledge and training programs, and initiatives to increase outreach to non-urban women. VAWA not only reauthorized funds, which support projects developed to enhance law enforcement and justice reaction to domestic violence, but also required that domestic violence supporters be involved in the planning and execution of these initiatives. VAWA also reauthorizes resources for Victim and witness attorneys, who work with domestic violence survivors in government courts (Netting & O'Connor, 2013).

Survivors often experience unjust denial and eviction of shelter benefits because of the criminal and violence activities of others. VAWA shelter protections authorize public housing agencies to focus on victims when their safety is threatened. Such circumstances may include protecting victims from being evicted just because of family violence and explaining that shelter vouchers are convenient for victims. VAWA defends victims of sex-related assault, covering victims in all government sponsored housing programs; and, delineates an emergency exchange plan process for victims who experience continued violence or threats.

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (VTVPA) create a new form of relief for survivors of family violence. The new law designed "U-Visas," that permit immigrants who are victims of certain illegal offenses, such as family violence, or have information about those illegal offenses, to apply for residence in America. Law enforcement authorities must approve that the individual's support is necessary for the investigation (Chalk & King, 1998).

Potential impact of policy

Research has revealed that domestic violence intervention policies are most efficient when combined with a synchronized community intervention that contains responsibility to legal systems. Professionals have performed a variety of research to figure out the potency of FVPSA. Most believe the fact that "effectiveness" means the cessation of domestic violence. This result has been calculated in different ways, among them: no further arrests or complaints; the perpetrator's representations during treatment programs; the victim's opinions to intervention policies. Studies conclude that FVPSA has a "modest but positive" effect upon domestic violence prevention. However, across all policies, men of color had a low score of program completion than white-colored men, and thus experts believe the fact that cultural competency is very important to FVPSA success. Recent studies indicate, " The extent of behavioral change brought about by FVPSA programs is modest. At best they control and reduce the danger of physical violence, but rarely eliminate the pattern of dominance behind it" (Chalk & King, 1998). An International viewpoint verified an average success rate, revealing that reviews of FVPSA found that about two-thirds of people who finish intervention programs remain non-violent for up to three years. However, from 22-42% of perpetrators analyzed in the U.S. did not complete the program (Ginsberg & Miller-Cribbs, 2005).