Comparing Social Welfare Policies and Programs - Research Paper Example

Comparing Social Welfare Policies and Programs al affiliation: The world is continually experiencing unending problems. Inresponse, the power of people to transform the society and induce greater ethnic, racial and gender equality manifests itself in a series of processes. Social welfare policies remain one of these techniques that have been employed by different countries to control the emergent issues. Arguably, governments have developed welfare policies and institutions responsible for challenging social eventualities. Homelessness in incessantly gaining mileage among the many social problems experienced in the society. This factor has attracted the attention of legal representatives, policy makers and most importantly scholars who have devised several ways of combating the rising situation (Bringle, 2011). Nevertheless, the dilemma surrounding the issue remains recognition and theoretical perception of homelessness. In this light, the paper compares and contrasts the theoretical understanding, policy developments and response to homelessness between America and Hong Kong. Homelessness Homelessness is a social condition where people lack housing because of the inability to pay or maintain a safe, as well as regular shelter (McNamara, 2008). Subsequently, a homeless person is any person who spends a nighttime residence in temporary living condition, institution or public places not designed for regular sleeping. Because of industrialization and globalization, both Hong Kong and America constitute multi-cultural, multiracial and multi-ethnic social groupings. Evidently, all these people require a good living environment surrounded by basic needs including proper housing, food and water. Despite this expectation, many people endure life in the streets without the ability to rent or maintain a good housing system based on the United Nations Commission on Human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights (article 25), states that all people have the privilege to a good standard of living in the event of disability, sickness, old age, unemployment, widowhood or circumstances beyond control. Homelessness in America After every ten years, welfare institutions and government bodies conduct remuneration of people living in transitional housing, streets or emergency housing. Based on the January 2013, survey every 19 people out of 10,000-experience homelessness. Nonetheless, before 1980, United States had no widespread homelessness as experienced in the contemporary world. Some of the major factors contributing to homelessness include escalated housing costs, outstripped income, declining housing stock and controlled support programs such as childcare. Theoretical understanding Durkhim (1982) call homelessness as a ‘social fact,’ while others regard it as an ideological construct; nonetheless based on research and reactions by the American government, the theoretical understanding of homelessness follows different theories. American system regards homelessness, as a societal problem rather than a system failure. The conflict theory contrasts with structural-functionalism in examining the society from different perspectives. In the context of the theory, a society remains a complex system in the process of gaining equilibrium. Interestingly, the process of gaining stability does not entail peaceful negotiations but exploitation. On the contrary, it assumes that the society comprises of individuals, each competing for resources such as leisure, sexual partners, and money. Arguably, competition for resources has delineated the society into different social groups. This social change has resulted into different social problems, ranging from poverty, unemployment, limited education and most importantly unemployment for families. Apparently, the conflict theory does more than explaining America’s condition of homelessness. Conceivably, this is because competition has dominated the American society leaving only the stronger in homesteads while, the weaker survive in the gutter. According to 2012 annual report by the United States Department of Housing and Urban development, more than 600,000 people are homeless in America. The United States conference of Mayors of 2004 identifies various factors responsible for homelessness. These include mental illness, substance abuse and most importantly unemployment. Based on the report, many services are required in America; however, limited people can afford to pay for the same utilities due to competition. In the context of a social conflict theory, competition for resources in the United States has delineated the society in terms of poverty, employment and economic welfare. Several questions are important when addressing the question of homelessness. For instance, do all people enjoy similar services of education and government services? Are the poor not favoured by the education system or does the vicious circle of poverty prevent them from a fair competition for resources? Conceivably, the function of education is to eliminate the conflict and inequality and not to favour the rich. Despite, several attempts to reduce homelessness, Americans view it as a natural process that does not need human intervention but only stimulation of the disadvantaged. Apart from the conflict theory, classical utilitarianism also attempts to capture the American condition of homelessness. A consorted data by the U.S. Census Bureau, US Department of Housing and Urban Development shows that 610,042 people were homeless in 2013. In as much as it decreased by 3.7%, 7% of the population represented families and 7.3 both veterans and chronically homeless people. Out of the total, 23% represented children between ten to 24 years raising fundamental questions. Many people who find themselves in these conditions are not coerced, but either suffers or are driven by personal pleasures. Social welfare policies in America Homelessness has retained a top priority in American policy agenda for decades. Evidently, solving a social problem significantly relies on perception and root causes. America’s response to the classical utilitarianism and conflict theory perception of homelessness has taken different routes. Undeniably, many people wish to leave the street and gain descent housing; however, they face different deficiencies. On the other hand, youths brake away from their parents for autonomy. In the process, they end up being homeless in order to meet their wants of drinking, smoking or visiting different places that their parents do not approve. Based on the same argument, United States policies to curb homelessness have been based on curbing the adamant competition within the society while at the same time encouraging alternative sources of pleasure. HHS strategic plan (2003) The US department of Health and human services in 2003 developed a strategic action plan to end homelessness. In the framework, it was to identify health risks and protective factors necessary for different surroundings. Additionally, it was to help the eligible families and individuals, while empowering the community towards flexible as well as succinct approaches towards reducing homelessness. According to the strategy, between 2 to 3 million people experienced homelessness every year (NCH, 2009). The high number presented the institution with a challenge of easing the delivery of essential services. While recognising that many people re disadvantaged the department of Health and Human services (HHS) sponsored a number of programs through the tribal, county and state agencies. It also involved faith-based agencies and private sector alliances towards reducing philosophical underpinnings surrounding homelessness. Evidently, the strategy covered various life pillars including grants, health care, transitory programs (runaway and homeless youth) and other mainstream challenges of access. Open door policy (2010) The unprecedented effort to control and end homelessness prevailed in June 2010 when a federal strategic plan came into light. In his 2009 campaigns, president termed homelessness as unacceptable especially to the veteran families. The Opening Doors policy aimed at reducing and ultimately ending homelessness within five years. To ensure the plan bore fruit, the social welfare program pivoted on increasing institutional capacity while enhancing access to affordable and stable housing. Most importantly, was to enhance economic security, health and introduce crisis response systems. Apparently, the open door strategy attempts to reduce competition by providing assistance for the underprivileged. Based on existing data, the program has reduced chronic homelessness by 16%. To date, USA has a homeless policy academy responsible for providing technical assistance for all social welfare institutions. In essence, America’s homelessness has been profiled into common problems of competition and access hence the policies aimed at creating access while also enhancing capacity. Apart from legislative attention, empowerment strategies like the City-Youth Empowerment project and community organizations have also formed part of the welfare institutions. Homelessness in Hong Kong The disastrous fire incident on the Christmas Day of 1953 traces the origin of modern housing problems (Culhane, Metraux & Hadley, 2002). Despite showing signs of development, permanent squatter resettlement failed to materialize hence leaving over 100,000 people shelter less. Nevertheless, Hong Kong journey towards establishing a consistent and stable structure. Theoretical understanding Contrary to USA homeless people that are on a continual decline, the number of shelter less in Hong Kong is likely to double. Evidently, this is a higher figure compared to the 674 government estimate in the past 15 years. Notably, the last citywide count happened in 1999 assisted by the Social Welfare Department. As opposed to United States views that picture homeless ness as a result of competition and alternative demand for pleasure, in Hong Kong the two do not play any role. As a matter of fact, no law exists to protect the shelterless right from the Asian financial crisis of 1997 (Kao, 2014). Interestingly, the entire Hong Kong fraternity view the shelter less to be lazy. In as the values may not present the true picture of the entire city, considering mobility, it requires attention and action. Based on the current setup, Hong Kong’s neo-liberalism is more clear than ever. Evidently, it suggests that governments reduce spending, open up the market, reform taxes and allow private players into the industry to create equality and prevent social conflict (Harvey, 2005). The laissez fair condition tend to leave issues solve themselves in the economic world. Arguably, Hong Kong, partly takes this approach in viewing homelessness. Social workers estimate that few Hongkongers receive lunch boxes from non-profit organizations while a major segment of the society does not give them attention. Many homeless people in Hong Kong have personal problems of addiction and mental illness. Indeed, this is contrary to America population where the majority of people constituted veterans and children with misplaced priorities (Maggie, 2011). According to Gov. HK, (2014), Homelessness is continually becoming one of the serious problems within Hong Kong. Nevertheless, human rights and criminalization are some of the strategies employed by the government to contain the emerging population. In as much as much research is underway, identification of appropriate resources and preventive measures have manifested dedication towards solution. Therefore, the real needs of the homeless have remained obsolete in various planning matrices. Nevertheless, aspects such as rising poverty and most importantly unemployment have greatly contributed to the stalemate. Instead of formulating different welfare programs such as the open door policy of America, the government use tactics that monitor to evict and prosecute. Street slippers registry exists to account statistically for people; however, the data fails to include over 100,000 people living in substandard housing (Cage homes) (Gov. HK, 2014). The United Nations Committee responsible for Economic, Social and Cultural rights have been on the forefront in urging Hong Kong to eliminate inadequate housing since 1994 (Kennett & Mizuuchi, 2010). However, the government does the contrary. Cage dwellers rent per square foot exceeding luxurious apartments, a factor that gives the streets a better look. From this perspective, the Hong Kong people picture homelessness as a social fact that does not only require external intervention but most importantly internal attention. Social welfare policies The Bed space apartment ordinance was a legislative response by the government after pressure from different human right organizations. In the policy, Cage homebuilders have operation license that allow them to build more affordable rooms. In as much as different critics viewed the move as a move to legitimize substandard structures, it assisted in providing homes for few people. Notably, the secretary for transport and housing is responsible for coordinating, monitoring and formulating different laws. As part of the long-term welfare program, the government intends to increase housing supply, Home Ownership Schemes, Public rental housing and most importantly connect the housing ladder to free HOS flats. The 2014 policy address puts the government in the spotlight for promising over 470,000 housing units within the next ten years (Gov. HK, 2014). Despite promising a bright future, several questions arise on the future of shelter less. Even if the government increases the number of housing units, how many people can afford? Consequently, does the high unemployment rate warrant increase of more houses or creation of jobs? If this is not the case what are the government strategies failing to incorporate while addressing the issue of homelessness. Answers to these questions unveil things like the PRH rent that have significantly increase the price of accommodation (Kennett & Mizuuchi, 2010). Apart from direct build-up of housing structures, social security assistance also plays an imperative role in elevating the life of the shelter less. According to a 55-year-old Hung, HK $2,000 and an extra HK $1265 for house allowance from the social security does little in offering accommodation (Maggie, 2011). Certainly, this is evidence that Hong Kong is doing little. For instance, instead of increasing allowances or providing alternative housing, the government replaced benches by low stools. The move aimed at depriving the homeless sleep did not work as they could sleep anywhere under the excitement of drugs. Social work perspective Social justice requires equality in the distribution of opportunities, privileges and most importantly wealth (Miller, 1999). Despite this expectation, many societies have fallen into the hands of inequality corruption, racism and competition for resources. These aggressive changes have subdivides the society along social lines, geographical boundaries, language and even race. As a result, many fail to attain the required service because of their colour language or financial stability. In United States, the conflict theory and classic utilitarianism overcame social justice. Rich people possess a majority of America. They control politics, education system and to some extent the justice system. On the other hand, the poor compete for the little resources with some opting for the streets where there is little to spend and the government does not demand more. Policy response to the problem has been swift. The government has recognised the social reality of homelessness providing welfare strategies like the open door policy that has accounted for a 16 percent drop since conception. Contrary to America that attempts to control external forces to social justice, Hong Kong believes competition is mandatory. As a result, everybody has equal chances, and nobody should be staying in the streets unless one is lazy. In response, they prosecute and make street life uncomfortable, as part of the policy mechanism to control homelessness. References Bringle, J. (2011). Homelessness in America today. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., & Hadley, T. (2002). Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Housing policy debate, 13 (1), 107-163. Gov. HK (2014). Hong Kong: the facts. Retrieved on 29th Nov, 2014 from, http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/housing.pdf Kao E. (2014). 1,400 homeless sleeping on Hong Kongs streets, double government estimates. South China Morning Post. Retrieved on 29th Nov, 2014 from, http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1461195/1400-homeless-hong-kong-double-government-estimate-study Kennett, P., & Mizuuchi, T. (2010). Homelessness, housing insecurity and social exclusion in China, Hong Kong, and Japan. City, Culture and Society, 1(3), 111-118. Maggie C. (2011). The homeless dilemma in Hong Kong. Maggie press. Retrieved on 29th Nov, 2014 from, http://maggie4jour.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/homelesss-dilemma-in-hong-kong/ Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. McNamara, R. H. (2008). Homelessness in America. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. National Coalition for the Homeless. (2009). How many people experience homelessness? National Coalition for the Homeless: Washington, DC. Rahman M. (2010). The Rising Number of Homeless Students, their Social Condition and its Impact on their Education. Proceedings of the May 2010 Conference of the Global Awareness Society International in San Juan, Puerto Rico The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office Of community Planning and development. The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress Retrieved on 29th Nov, 2014 from, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf The United States Conference of City Mayors. (2007). A status report on hunger and homelessness in America’s cities: 2006, A 23-city Survey, The United States Conference of Mayors: Washington, DC. Read More