Homelessness prevention policies in Florida - Research Paper Example

? LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION POLICIES IN FLORIDA Literature Review for the Analysis of Homelessness Prevention Policies in Florida In order to address the growing numbers of homeless people in Florida, the government provides assistance through provision of funding to homeless shelters, organizations and groups that cater to the homeless, medical needs, among others. Last year, an amendment to Statute No. 420.625 that focuses on Grant-in-Aid programs to generate additional funding for homelessness prevention was made through Senate Bill 1130, wherein contributions from different agencies are to be collected from applicants by allotting a certain percentage that would go to the care for the homeless and homelessness prevention programs sponsored by the government, as well as assigning agencies to track and monitor the progress of homeless families and their development towards achieving self-sufficiency (Florida House of Representatives, 2012). However, because the amendment was in effect less than a year after being passed, there are no current analyses on its increased efficiency in the prevention of homelessness or in increasing funds for these programs. Thus to be able to assess the effectiveness of amendments in homelessness prevention programs, studies that were already done in different states or under national levels regarding such issues would be presented, so as to see the potential impact of an enhancement in homelessness aid and prevention policies, as well as to find out if the cost-benefit analyses for such provisions could justify the amendment or not. Content Analysis The first federal law passed addressing the needs of the homeless was the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, which provides support to homeless persons through various programs for assistance (Burt, et al., 2002). The law was created in hopes of decreasing the number of homeless persons across the nation however it was hampered by the lack of properly structured programs and sustainable goals. Thus each state devised their own plans in homelessness prevention according to the needs of the citizens in need. Statute No. 420.625 aims to provide funding for private and government agencies that support and assist homeless shelters and prevention programs in Florida (Florida Legislature, 2013). The statute does not specifically mention as to how funding for homelessness prevention programs and aids would be allotted, how the programs would become sustainable over time, and how these sustainability programs would be monitored and by whom, which entails some amendments describing accountabilities. Senate Bill 1130 was passed as an amendment to Statute No. 420.625 in order to make the processes clearer, stating what would be changes in the budget allocations to increase fund allotment for homelessness prevention programs (Florida House of Representatives, 2012). Based on its content, applicants for registrations such as vehicle license renewals now have options to donate a fixed amount that would go to funds of homeless prevention and aids programs. Also, certain allocations for administrative needs would be diverted instead to funds that support homeless aids, as well as requiring agencies that receive funding to submit reports on monitoring families that were chosen as grantees for self-sufficiency programs. The amendment’s inclusion of clauses stating as to where the additional funds would come from, as well as which persons or entities shall be allotted funds with clarifies possible problems such as identifying who shall be accountable and responsible for the funds. Without a policy that assigns specific bodies accountable and responsible for execution of plans, problems such as fund allocations and an inaccurate selection process for grantees could make the system inefficient and costly. Impact Analysis Through a continuum of programs that ultimately prevent homelessness altogether, it is expected that there would be an improvement in the economy since productive and self-sufficient citizens would increase, and may even help in generating revenue in the future (Friedman, et al., 2007). However, the increase of fund allocations for homelessness prevention could also increase questions such as the necessity of even addressing the issue of homelessness in the first place, as well as finding out if ignoring homelessness is costly in the long run. In previous studies, there were indications that addressing homelessness could decrease hospitalization costs, since high inpatient and emergency admissions were recorded in communities with large numbers of homeless people, in comparison with communities that have less (Culhane, et al., 2007). The same is also true for homeless people suffering from any form of mental illness, and that there are less cases of them becoming homeless due to better health services as well as having a safe place to live in, in comparison to cities that ineffectively give away homeless aids and grants. If the implementation of the policy or program for the support of intervention programs for the homeless is effective, potential positive impacts of the rehabilitation of the homeless are the improvement of the overall well-being of people, increased productivity in certain areas that underwent self-sufficiency and rehabilitation programs, and possibly the decrease in emergency hospitalizations since more people reside in the safety of their own homes instead of out in the streets (Perl, et al., 2012). The homelessness prevention policies are not selective, and whether the homeless person has a family or none, in good mental health or not the needs are all covered under the law. However, whether or not the policies are able to indeed relieve their problems are of a different matter. This is because with regards to the output of researches studying the impact of effective policy implementations on the family and the youth, there is a lack of bulk in this area due to the lack of balance and interventions addressing the different types of homeless persons, and most are focusing on the impact of policies in the mentally-ill members of the homeless population as well as the chronically-homeless ones (Culhane, et al., 2007). It is thus important that newer studies delve into how effective the policies are such as finding out the number of people who successfully transitioned from homeless and dependent to self-sufficient with a home within a certain region and under a specific timeframe (Perl, et al., 2012). This is to generate new information that could be helpful for agencies in managing the different kinds of homelessness, as well as informing policymakers on whether the amendments for the statute were indeed able to help significantly more people or not. Cost-benefit Analysis It was previously mentioned that implementation of homelessness intervention and prevention methods proved to have noticeable impact with regards to the quality of health of the homeless (Culhane, et al., 2007). To support the positive effects of well-implemented policies, some studies generated cost-benefit analyses to promote continuing the implementation of effective policies, as well as amending ineffective ones. Cost-benefit analysis is done to critically and objectively weigh in the costs of not conducting these programs and comparing these against the impact of current implementation (Culhane, et al., 1997). One example is by using caseload size and its dynamics for assessing the impact of policies among the homeless, and observing whether the caseload increases or not during a certain timeframe. The evaluation of the fluctuations of the population numbers included in a caseload analysis is a good way of checking whether the policies have actual impact to the homeless or none (McAllister & Berlin, 2004). If the policy does nothing to reduce caseload size, or if the caseload size increases as opposed to what is expected to happen, it can be said that the policy needs revision since it has no positive impact in improving the state of homelessness, and that the state continues being liable in spending additional dollars without decreasing the number of homeless people. Another example of studying the impact of grant-in-aid programs for the homeless is by studying the model of cost-by-volume serving system for housing. It was found out that there is a greater cost in keeping the homeless in shelters as compared to house-rental assistance programs, mainly due to higher costs in long-term shelter operations, going higher than $3,000 per month, as compared to house rentals which costs relatively lower at $1,000 per month (Culhane & Metraux, 2008). Housing for families under transitional housing from shelters to rental homes also cost lower, with costs of up to $1,000 per case or family, which is still lower than $3,000 and above being expended in long-term shelter programs. It is good to know that most families are amenable to pursue transitional and rental programs as well as community-based assistance and services rather than shelter programs, and most are able to successfully grow into self-sufficient community members. However, the numbers of homeless persons are still increasing, which creates a need to evaluate the policies and programs not just on their impact on the lives of homeless persons, but also whether the positive effects outweigh the amount of expenditures in actively keeping these programs. Conducting cost-benefit analyses of policies, utilization patterns of persons under homelessness intervention programs, and whether or not they enter become fully self-sufficient from could give a clearer image of the effectiveness of policies and grant-in-aid programs being implemented, which in turn could assist policymakers in deciding whether to continue with the program or to improve the intervention methods available for homeless citizens. References Burt, M., Pollack, D., Sosland, A., Mikelson, K., Drapa, E., Greenwalt, K., et al. (2002). Evaluation of continuums of care for homeless people. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Contract. Culhane, D., & Metraux, S. (2008). Rearranging the deck chairs or reallocating the lifeboats? Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(1):111-121. Culhane, D., Eldridge, D., Rosenheck, R., & Wilkins, C. (1997). Making homelessness programs accountable to consumers, funders, and the public. National Symposium on Homelessness Research (pp. 1-19). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Culhane, D., Parker, W., Poppe, B., Gross, K., & Sykes, E. (2007). Accountability, cost-effectiveness, and program performance: progress since 1998. National Symposium on Homelessness Research (pp. 1-43). Abt Associates Inc./Policy Research Associates Inc. Florida House of Representatives. (2012). Florida House of Representatives - SB 1130 - General Bill on Homelessness. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from Florida House of Representatives: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=48096& Friedman, D., Raymond, J., Puhala, K., Meschede, T., Tripp, J., & Kala, M. (2007). Preventing homelessness and promoting housing stability: a comparative analysis. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation. McAllister, W., & Berlin, G. (2004). Policymaking and Caseload Dynamics: Homeless Shelters. New York: Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. Perl, L., Bagalman, E., Fernandes-Alcantara, A., Heisler, E., McCallion, G., & McCarthy, F. (2012). Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation. Congressional Research Service. The Florida Legislature. (2013). The 2012 Florida Statutes & Constitution: Social Welfare, Housing. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from Statutes & Constitution: View Online: Online Sunshine: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=homelessness&URL=0400-0499/0420/Sections/0420.625.html Read More