Seattle's comprehensive policy approach to homelessness and affordable housing
This is a paper about the development and evaluation of a plan to either ease or eradicate Seattle's homelessness problem. The first step is to describe what the problem is, develop it, analyze it, evaluate it, and then suggest recommendations for further iimprovement. All of these elements are featured in the plan that is given in this write up.
✍️ How to write this paper — writing tools ▾
Policy Study
Seattle has been a leader in the United States in trying to eradicate the homeless problems that arise in every city. Since the 1970's, the citizens of the city have agreed to tax increases (more than four times (Farestart, 2009) to address this issue. The following case analysis looks at the city's policy regarding finding shelter for all homeless families and single women.
Major Policy Concepts
Most analysts agree that the primary reason that there is a great degree of homelessness in Seattle is the lack of affordable housing in the city (Kerns, 2011). The policy in the case suggests that the homeless be given greater access to affordable housing and shelters. However, there is a problem stated with this part of the policy also. Housing in Seattle is not just expensive for the citizens of the city, it is expensive to build for the city government (Tong, 2011). This issue has actually been solved, somewhat, by the housing bust of 2008, but it remains difficult to either build or rent new units for housing low income occupants.
One of the policy concepts has to be to increase the number of roofs and beds, but there is also a need for space. One way that Seattle has tried to solve the problem in the past is to allow homeless people to camp, either in vehicles or tents, in public spaces (Galloway, 2008; Kerns, 2011). This has been a problem for some Seattle residents because of the greater danger of theft and vandalism, but the policy has been to allow the usage while keeping police presence in these areas (Galloway, 2008).
Another method that Seattle has for keeping track of the issue is by counting the homeless population once a year during the winter (SKCCH, 2012). In some areas of Seattle, the number of homeless has decreased (Romero, 2010; Shay, 2011), but at other times there have been significant increases (Iwasaki, 2008; Kerns, 2011). The reason for the count is to determine if the policies implemented have been working and, if they are not, to redirect some of the efforts. This has been working to some degree over the past decade, but there remains a large number of homeless citizens in the city.
Thus, the policy has to include several elements. Funding has to be found that will cover the cost of adding new low income housing, shelters and alternative housing areas. The laws regarding the interment of homeless individuals have to follow the policy. Instead of arresting homeless individuals for vagrancy, police need to work with the housing authority to discover better ways of finding housing for homeless individuals. The count that occurs each winter needs to continue, but the numbers need to be adjusted to relate the number of people who are regularly getting shelter, and how that number is decreasing. Finally, there needs to be a better method for transitioning homeless people from the streets to homes. This will also mean an increase in funding for homeless counselors for the housing administration and better access for people who are seeking a means of getting off the street to see those counselors. Some of this funding can come from federal dollars, but some (a majority) has to come from the people of Seattle.
Evaluation of Policy
The prime means of evaluation is through the count that occurs every winter (McTiernan, 2011). This will allow the city to see if the policy is working, and it will help set goals to change the policy if needed. The city can also poll the people using the housing and camping sites to determine if they have any issues with the city's policy.
Recommendations
The policy as it has been designed can be effective, but involvement from every person in the city may be necessary. A more long-term solution is to put a tax levy measure on the ballot for Seattle. These have passed, almost every time (Compton, 1999), when they have been voted on in the past. The city may have a more difficult time getting approval this time because of the financial crisis, but if the people know what is already taking place and where the extra money will be spent it may work again.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.