Tag Archive for: homework help

Introduction

Professional practice necessitates the use of specialised skills to solve real-life challenges. In dealing with children and families, professional practice is further complicated by ethical scenarios that are ever present. Professional practitioners are from time to time entangled between justice-based ethics and care-based ethics (Johns, 2009). The responsibilities for children and families require a high level of skillset that is enhanced in several ways, professional refection being one of them. The professionals have to keep abreast with the most current legislation affecting children and families, as well as the changes in the professional code of practice. In dealing with children services, getting it right for every child (GIFREC) is a national program in Scotland designed to provide the guiding framework for professional practitioners with responsibilities for children working within this jurisdiction (Government of Scotland, 2018). The paperill explore the contemporary issues affectedn direct practice with children and families, how the early year’s practitioners use reflection to enhance their skills, and how they cope with ethical quandaries that arise in their line of duty.

The information sharing comes with a possible conflict between the ethical principle of confidentiality and the need to share confidential information regarding the backgrounds of the children in promoting their well-being. However, the information sharing policy is backed by a noble rationale in aiming at preventing some seemingly minor issues identified at early stages from turning into serious problems at later stages of life. To strike a balance between the two perspectives, there are rules that professionals are required to abide by during information sharing (Johns, 2009). The rules include the requirement that such information sharing must be done under the requirements of The Data Protection Act (2018) (Government of Scotland, 2018). The requirements are that such information must be used lawfully and transparently, and the subjects of such information must be protected. Also, the information to be shared must be that which is necessary and relevant to the nature of the child services. Also, there should be a record of the information shared and a clear justification of why such information has been shared. Finally, the child or the family, or the guardian of the child whose information is shared among the various child services must be made aware of the rationale behind such information sharing (Redmond, 2017).

Professional practitioners are by law required to consider whether it is suitable to share the information they have on a child with other professionals who may require it when performing other kinds of child services. For instance, a professional working in a foster home may identify that a child has undergone through some adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) such as violence and neglect, which affects their later growth and development stages.  ACEs affect how the child learns and copes with stress at later stages of life. Thus, such information should be shared with the early childhood development teacher to ensure that they understand the special education needs of the child. With such information, the teacher may recommend that the child undergoes counselling to help them build skills such as stress coping and how to socialise with their colleagues (Johns, 2009). The professional counsellor will also require to understand the child’s background in order to effectively provide the suitable guidance to support the child (Reamer, 2013).

The benefits of the bill include bringing about a level of consistency, coherence, and clarity in the nature of the services that are offered to the affected children all over Scotland. The law as spelt out in the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland), and the Data Protection Act (2018) provides the guiding principles of how the process should be conducted (Government of Scotland, 2018). The implication of the policy is that it promotes interoperability between different agencies offering various kinds of child services. Professionals are prompted to work together in sharing knowledge and information regarding the children with a combined objective of promoting the lifelong well-being of the child. Thus, professional practitioners are induced to embrace the principles of teamwork, as more positive outcomes are achieved through working together (Stanford, 2009).

Another contemporary issue affecting practitioners is the single planning framework that requires the children who require special attention to each have a unique “Child’s Plan”. The policy was captured in the Children and Young People (Scotland) (2014) and the implementation was scheduled to be conducted in the year 2018 (Government of Scotland, 2018). The Child’s Plan is targeted to the children who require some sort of special support that is not generally offered to all children. The children in need of special support include orphaned children, children raised by single parents, children with disabilities, and children who have suffered one or more ACEs. The components of a Child’s Plan include a highlight of the professional support that the child requires, explanations of the relevant actions required to provide the relevant support, the description of the professional services required by the child, the objectives of the support provided to the child, and a mechanism of how the outcome will be assessed and reviewed. Furthermore, the child’s plan details the lead professional who is responsible for monitoring the child’s development process (Redmond, 2017). The aspect of the Child’s plan affects how professionals work in fulfilling their responsibilities to children. The professionals must be familiar with such a Child’s plan where present, to ensure that the nature of the services they offer to the child is consistent with the particular needs of the child.

The lead professional is a practitioner such as a social worker who is assigned the responsibility of seeing that the child’s plan is properly managed as has been set. The lead professional is responsible for making sure that they inform the parent or guardian of everything that is happening at the various stages of the Child’s plan. As such they should strive to get the parents or guardians involved in the decisions pertaining to the welfare of the child (Johns, 2009). The lead professional is also required to be up to date with the progress of the child with respect to their plan. The professional ascertains that the program is up to date, accurate and is responsible for the regular review of the plan. Finally, the lead professional is required to work with the particular named person assigned to the child (Reamer, 2013). The named person refers to the particular chosen contact person whom the parents, guardians or other professionals dealing with the child can get in touch with for the relevant information concerning the support required for the child. The lead professional refers to a party chosen to oversee the services offered to a child based on their skill set and experience that gives them the know-how of how to assist the child. The lead professional works in conjunction with the named person, and parents or guardians of the child.The main challenge to the professional is understanding the child’s needs through interaction. Additionally, the family or guardians of the children might pose a challenge by proving to be difficult to work with. As such, the implication for policy is that professionals be trained on some of these difficulties so that they can learn to differentiate the difficulties posed by parents/guardians with identifying the needs of the child (Stanford, 2009).

The lead professional is normally appointed by one of the services providing support to the child. The most critical role of the lead professional is to ensure there is coordination and consistency in all the child services that are offered to the child (Banks, 2016). Thus, the lead professional acts as the link between the child and other various professionals offering different sorts of supporting services to the child (Banks, 2012). As can be observed, the professional practice for those involved with roles and responsibilities for children entails practitioners working more and more harmoniously and as a team. Contemporary early year’s care entails more than just the technical skills required to fulfil certain tasks but also involves managerial skills that help the practitioners work as a team comprising of the children, other professionals, and the parents or guardians. Practitioners also require management skills in the setting of the plans for support and services that the child requires, as well as coordinating and monitoring the support framework given to the child.

How do professionals with responsibilities for children use reflection as a tool to enhance their practice?

Reflection is an essential tool for enhancement of the practice amongst professionals in various fields. The professionals in their various areas of specialisation are able to apply reflection during the decision-making process. Reflective practice involves the synthesis of the experiences and routine occurrences in the past that gives an insight on how to approach a problem.  The practitioners dealing with minors deal with issues relating to how children understand different things differently from adults, and how they have difficulties processing information most of the timens, 2009). Reflection prompts a professional to make correct judgements concerning the desirable behaviours that should be imitated by children. Thus, desirable behaviours are shaped since the professionals realise what leads to unwanted characters amongst the clients. A deeper reflective analysis enhances effective learning process as the professionals learn how to extend the learners knowledge basing on the experiences.  The learning theory cycle proposed by Kolb (2014) describes the four stages of how the learning process is enhanced through experience and reflection (Wilding, 2008). The model stipulates that knowledge is attained through the reflection of the past events and forming conclusions. The practical approach to solve a problem links an individual experience with the theoretical knowledge.

The four stages stated by Kolb’s reflective cycle are Experience, Reflection, Conceptualisation, and Planning (Cheung and Delavega, 2014). Experience forms the basic foundation of the learning process as each individual encounter a unique circumstance that is directly or indirectly linked to future events. When professionals encounter a similar situation makes a reference to past events and come up with effective approaches to deal with the issue. The model by Kolbs acknowledges that the situations tend to rewind in the future.  The more experience a professional has reflects the strong capabilities to develop more effective strategies towards solving an issue (Kolb, 2014). Conceptualisation stage implies the development of a hypothesis from the past encounters that should be proven for future references. The hypotheses created in the mind forms a theoretical model of understanding why the situation happened. Planning is the final stage by Kolbs and entails testing of the hypothesis developed during the conceptualisation stage. However, one of the leading challenges of this cycle is that there are sometimes deviations which are created by unforeseen circumstances. As such professionals have a difficult time adjusting to these unforeseen issues. On the positive side though, the cycle acts as a model and a point of reference for the professionals and it helps childcare professionals compare the progress of the children under their care to the expected progress according to the cycle (Kolb, 2014). The future experiences can be against or in accordance with the hypotheses created in the mind (Cheung and Delavega, 2014). Appropriate and more relevant techniques are generated during reflections which leads to positive outcomes in intervention programs (Kolb, 2014). Thus, reflection provides a model for effective decision making and problem-solving approaches by the professionals.

Childcare professionals are required to undertake an administrative role in addition to the intervention role.  An administrative responsibility is more of a managerial aspect as the professional needs to explore the various alternatives to approach an issue. Sharing the experiences with colleagues provides a platform to explore an issue in a critical and multiple dimensions hence narrow down the approaches (Kolb, 2014). The reflective cycle by Gibbs examines how situations in the future can be improved through reflecting on the past experiences (Gibbs, 1988). The theoretical framework explores six stages of how past experiences can be used as tools for approaching future problems. The six stages of Gibb’s theory are Description, Feeling, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion and Action plan (Wilding, 2008). Description stage entails answering the questions about what happened and the roles played by the individuals involved. The description of the problem leads to the identification and definition of the individual roles and responsibilities (Cheung and Delavega, 2014). The definition of the roles in the problem context leads to a self-assessment as the practitioners realise whether they acted in a competent manner during the situation. Linking the implications of the event with the roles played actualises mistakes and failure to accomplish individual duties. Therefore, the practitioners through the self-assessment formulate mistake avoidance and improvement plans during the reflection process. The Feeling stage entails a critical analysis of the implication of the actions taken by the practitioners that influenced the event in either way. This critical analysis involves the practitioners engaging in a process of asking questions on how to better understand the situation. The outcome from the feeling stage is that the practitioners understand the event more, and the direction they would take in future in case they were in a similar situation. It therefore acts as a learning experience to the practitioners. The positive thoughts lead to desirable outcomes and vice versa. The professionals acknowledge and uphold the thoughts that bring positive changes after a critical analysis of their actions (Johns, 2017). The negative and positive implications of the actions are thereafter evaluated to replace the approaches that lead to undesirable outcomes. Evaluation step prompts the professionals to view the problem in multiple perspectives in order to tackle the issue in a more strategic manner. The fourth step of the Gibbs reflective cycle involves the analysis of the lessons learnt in both the positive and negative experiences (Gibbs, 1988). Lessons learnt from positive encounters equip the professional with skills that can be applied to similar situations while those from negative experiences illustrate the need to improve. The conclusion stage entails a deeper view of the past situation and what else could be done to bring about positive outcomes. The final step of the reflective cycle involves the development of the action plans that will improve the events in the future (DuBois and Miley, 2013).  The Gibbs reflective cycle describes how professionals can shape their actions and those of their clients to achieve better outcomes to the puzzling circumstances.

Rational decisions are achieved when a professional integrates experience in the action plans. Rational thinking makes the professionals plan on how they will engage the clients in the problem-solving process (Cheung and Delavega, 2014). For instance, the children and families can be made part of the solutions to contemporary issues in the society which leads to positive outcomes. Schon model demonstrates how reflection plays a critical role in finding solutions to problems (Schön, 2017). The model suggests that reflection is a two-phase process that occurs during and after an event. Each phase illustrates how professionals exercise creativity to bring about positive outcomes of an event. The reflective-in-action phase involves the actions and decisions taken during an event. The actions taken by the practitioners during an event influences the outcomes either positively or negatively (Johns, 2017). An event translates to a positive outcome if a professional in the field take the necessary caution and avoid the actions that can lead to negative outcomes. Reflective-on-action is the second phase of the model that involves identification of the lessons learnt from the previous events (Schön, 2017). A professional is able to solve a problem more appropriately when they have an experience of a similar situation in the past.  In Scotland, the professional dealing with minors must have relevant experience to enhance positive outcomes of the intervention. GIRFEC requires the practitioners to exercise competency and rely on the past experiences for guidance on how to solve problems (Government of Scotland, 2018). The theoretical knowledge is given minimal consideration in the evaluation of the professional competency due to the dynamic nature of the society. The two phases of professional reflection by Schon nurtures the habit of behaviour monitoring amongst the professionals. A reflection during an occurrence encourages the professionals to be aware of the implications of their actions hence they develop a habit of situational monitoring of their undertakingsWilding, 2008). The practitioners are able to draw professionalism principles by upholding the actions that led to positive implications and eliminate those that resulted in negative outcomes.

GIRFEC requires the practitioners dealing with minors to exercise competency and ensure that the action plans developed results to positive outcomes (Government of Scotland, 2018). The professionals need to engage the parents and the children as part of the solutions for the effective delivery of the services. The practitioners are required to have relevant skills and experience in handling the issues relating to children. Experience is derived from the past encounters hence the need for individuals to exercise reflection. The professionals learn to accept the positive and negative feedback by evaluating the implications of their action (Johns, 2017). Reflection enhances the integration of theoretical knowledge with the beliefs and experiences in order to find the most appropriate solution to contemporary issues. Thus, professional reflection provides an essential platform where the practitioners recognise their identity and perform an actual diagnosis of their approaches to practice.

Ethical issues affecting practitioners with responsibilities for children

Confidentiality is a common dilemma faced by professionals dealing with the minors especially those handling teenagers (Reamer, 2013). Confidentiality is defined as the state of keeping private the personal information concerning the clients (Duyvendak, Knijn, and Kremer, 2006). The practitioners are entangled in an ethical quandary when the personal information concerning the children needs to be shared to the parents for effective practice.  The practitioners in Scotland are required to integrate the parents and the children in the intervention plan so as to enhance positive outcomes. The Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill formulated in 2017 by the Scottish government requires the practitioners to share information concerning the children for effective results (Government of Scotland, 2018). Confidentiality integrates the ethical values and principles such as dignity, integrity and the human relationship (Redmond, 2017). Information privacy assures the children of their dignity and positively influence their willingness to be part of the intervention plan. Self-determination and high esteem results when the practitioners are able to confine the information from the public (Reamer, 2013). Practitioners are required to be transparent and gain trust from the children, parents, and society at large for positive outcomes (Acquisti, Brandimarte, and Loewenstein, 2015). However, it becomes a challenge to keep information private due to the conflicting demands of the laws, children, parents, and society. The laws require each stakeholder to have a certain responsibility when it comes to keeping the information private. Sometimes the lines, which need not to be crossed by the government when using this private information for the benefit of the children becomes, blurred especially when the parents are not well informed. This could result to violations because basically the demands are based on each party using the information while respecting the rights of the other. Therefore, practitioners should be competent and exercise creativity when entangled in the confidentiality trap.

The paradoxical change theory by Beisser (2004) holds that a positive result occurs when an individual accepts the current situation.  The theory recognises that humans are unique and possess the abilities that are hard to be imitated (Beisser, 2004). The theory explains the minimal role of the professionals and states that change can only occur when individuals recognise their unique identity. The clients by seeking the therapy from professionals experience an intrapsychic conflict.  The dilemma is a result of the conflicting interest between the clients and the professionals (Acquisti,  Brandimarte, and Loewenstein, 2015). Therefore, the professionals should encourage their clients to accept their current situation and take up full responsibilities in order to change for the better. The theory suggests that the practitioners and patients should have equal roles during the practice. Professionals by playing the role of an expert in the situation lead to a top-dog situation where the patient is viewed to be helpless and hence relies on the change agents (Paterson and Chapman, 2013). The practitioners are entangled in the situation where the interest of the patients contradicts their interests when a top-dog scenario is created. For instance, a patient might be in a situation where they do not understand whether or not they should progress with a medical procedure but then the interest changes when a family member or their insurance company is involved since the situations change. The practitioners should hence encourage the patients to accept the current situation in order to enhance the positive outcome of the intervention.  Encouraging patients to believe that they are the change agents helps the professionals to uphold integrity in the duties since they will avoid ethical dilemmas brought by the conflicting demands (Johns, 2017). The theory further states that personal experience plays a critical role in bringing positive change during an intervention. An effective therapist tends to nurture his skills and competency by accepting whom they are rather than trying to be something different (Banks, 2016). The experience and knowledge to approach a problem are nurtured through the individual reflection of past events and developing effective action plans that can be applied in the future. Therefore, engaging the clients and parents in the action plan helps to solve the confidentiality dilemma amongst the professionals.

Conflict of interest is a major ethical issue affecting professionals as they conduct their duties. Conflict of interest refers to the aspect where a particular decision by a professional is influenced by a personal benefit in a way (Duyvendak, Knijn, and Kremer, 2006). For instance, a professional involved in a particular child care service may have an attachment with a particular child through being related or knowing the family at a personal level. Also, the professional practitioner may also receive a gift from the child’s family causing him/her to treat the child differently from the other children. Conflict of interest is a serious concern since it adversely affects the quality of service delivered (Redmond, 2017). Conflict of interest is prevalent for professionals with responsibilities for children since many of them work in environments where they have relations with the children’s parents or guardians. These professionals know these parents personally and most of the time understand the challenges they go through and as such they might be biased in their approaches. Thus, it is quite crucial for social workers to have the ability to recognise the existence of a conflict of interest and have the skills to deal with such situations.

The professional code of conduct does not allow practitioners to accept any kinds of gifts from the people they serve (SSSC, 2016). The rationale between these ethical principles is that the exchange of gifts between practitioner and the parent or guardian of the child eliminates objectivity and can cause biases in how the practitioner treats different children (Banks, 2008). For instance, the practitioner may devote more time and resources to the child whose parents he knows personally and understands the financial challenges they go through. Such biases may develop consciously or unconsciously (Stanford, 2009). The aspirational of the professional code of conduct is that all the children should be treated fairly and equally regardless of their background. With a conflict of interest brought about by the monetary or other forms of reward given to the practitioner, it becomes almost impossible for all the children to receive the same level of service as is desired by the professional code of ethics (Paterson and Chapman, 2013).

When there is unequal treatment of the children, the objectives of the particular support are defeated and the situation may even become worse (Duyvendak, Knijn, and Kremer, 2006). The children receiving less favourable attention from the practitioner may develop negative feelings and may therefore be affected in regards to their relationships with their practitioners. For instance, in a class environment, the children may feel less obligated to participate in classwork because they have an idea that their teachers have their own favourites (Reamer, 2013). .o avoid such eventualities, professional practitioners must always aspire to be fair and rational in conducting their mandate (Reamer, 2013). Thus, conflict of interest must always be avoided at all costs by practitioners to avoid disentrancing the children involved.

From the theory of paradox and change, the conflict of interest manifests itself when the roles of the practitioners, the children, and the parent or the guardian are not clearly defined. The practitioner may be overly focused on how they want to change the children according to their experience and vision (Beisser, 2004). Such a scenario may thus be a source of conflict between how the child or the parent of the child aspires them to be and how the practitioner intends to change them. To maintain a high level of integrity in such a scenario, the practitioner must abide by the ethical principle of autonomy. With the principle of autonomy, the professional acknowledges and respects the child’s right of self-determination (Banks, 2016). Thus, the practitioner should always involve the child, the named person and the parent or guardian in situations that require important decisions to be made. The decisions made by the child or their legal guardians should be given a higher preference.

Conclusion

Professionals dealing with minors are required to perform self-assessment of the past events in order to improve the outcomes in future situations. Experience is one of the requirements when dealing with minors in Scotland due to the existing complexities during practice. Problem-based knowledge is enhanced when the professionals share their experience with colleagues. Kolbs, Gibbs and Schon theories demonstrate how reflection enhances the development of positive outcomes. The theoretical models propose that the professionals are exposed to multiple techniques of handling a situation through the experiences. Reflection enhances the effective knowledge acquisition since the professionals inspire the learners to base their conclusions and arguments from what they have ever encountered. Professionals perform an accurate assessment of their work through the reflection process. The practitioners are able to distinguish their roles and those of the clients through assessment of the past events. The professionals learn to be accountable for their actions through a critical analysis of their actions in regard to the implications of the situation. The ethical dilemma faced by the practitioners can be handled effectively through the integration of the past encounters with theoretical knowledge.

 

 

References

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L. and Loewenstein, G., 2015. Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), pp.509-514.

Banks, S., 2008. Critical commentary: Social work ethics. The British Journal of Social Work, 38(6), pp.1238-1249.

Banks, S., 2012. Ethics and values in social work. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Banks, S., 2016. Everyday ethics in professional life: social work as ethics work. Ethics and social welfare, 10(1), pp.35-52.

Beisser, A.R.N.O.L.D., 2004. The paradoxical theory of change. International Gestalt Journal, 27(2), pp.103-108.

Cheung, M. and Delavega, E., 2014. Five-way experiential learning model for social work education. Social Work Education, 33(8), pp.1070-1087.

DuBois, B.L. and Miley, K.K., 2013. Social work: An empowering profession. Pearson Higher Ed.

Duyvendak, J.W., Knijn, T. and Kremer, M., 2006. Policy, people, and the new professional: de-professionalisation and re-professionalisation in care and welfare. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.

Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit. Oxford Polytechnic: Oxford.

Johns, C., 2009. Guided reflection: Advancing practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Johns, C. ed., 2017. Becoming a reflective practitioner. John Wiley & Sons.

Kolb, D.A., 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press.

Paterson, C. and Chapman, J., 2013. Enhancing skills of critical reflection to evidence learning in professional practice. Physical Therapy in Sport, 14(3), pp.133-138.

Reamer, F.G., 2013. Social work values and ethics. Columbia University Press.

Redmond, B., 2017. Reflection in action: Developing reflective practice in health and social services. Routledge.

Schön, D.A., 2017. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.

SSSC., 2016. SSSC Codes of Practice for Social Service Workers and Employers [online] Available from: < http://www.sssc.uk.com/about-the-sssc/multimedia- library/publications/37-about-the-sssc/information-material/61-codes-of-practice/1020- sssc-codes-of-practice-for-social-service-workers-and-employers >

Stanford, S., 2009. ‘Speaking back’to fear: Responding to the moral dilemmas of risk in social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), pp.1065-1080.

Wilding, P.M., 2008. Reflective practice: a learning tool for student nurses. British Journal of Nursing, 17(11), pp.720-724.

Www2.gov.scot. (2018). Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC). [online] Available at: https://www2.gov.scot/gettingitright [Accessed 28 Nov. 2018].

 

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhpd20
Download by: [Harvard Library] Date: 21 November 2016, At: 12:45
Housing Policy Debate
ISSN: 1051-1482 (Print) 2152-050X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpd20
Comment on Chester Hartman’s “The case for a
right to housing”: Housing is a right? Wrong!
Peter D. Salins
To cite this article: Peter D. Salins (1998) Comment on Chester Hartman’s “The case for
a right to housing”: Housing is a right? Wrong!, Housing Policy Debate, 9:2, 259-266, DOI:
10.1080/10511482.1998.9521294
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1998.9521294
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 88
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Housing Policy Debate • Volume 9, Issue 2 259
q Fannie Mae Foundation 1998. All Rights Reserved.
Comment on Chester Hartman’s ‘‘The Case for a
Right to Housing’’: Housing Is a Right? Wrong!
Peter D. Salins
State University of New York
Abstract
Although currently neither politically nor fiscally feasible, the notion that access to
inexpensive, presumably high-quality housing should be a government-guaranteed
universal right would be a terrible idea even if it were popular and affordable. The
proposition fails on three counts. It isn’t necessary. It doesn’t make economic sense.
And, most compelling, were such a policy to be implemented, its putative beneficiaries
would not thank us.
Even if we should not promulgate ‘‘a right to decent, affordable housing,’’ we want
to assure that all Americans have access to decent, affordable housing. Happily, we
can count on the private housing market (coupled with rising prosperity) to serve
95 percent of the country’s households. Serving the remaining 5 percent requires
concerted measures to scale back onerous housing regulations that prevent the private
housing sector from meeting the needs of lower-income and untypical households.
Keywords: Housing; Affordability; Markets; Policy
Introduction
For the better part of the twentieth century, liberal housing advocates
in the United States (and their counterparts in other industrial
countries) have asserted that inexpensive, high-quality housing
is a birthright of all citizens in an affluent, modern, and
enlightened society and that it is government’s obligation to fund
and implement that birthright. Chester Hartman’s article is only
the latest in an exceedingly long catalog of such assertions. But although
the arguments Hartman makes in recapitulating the case
for a housing guarantee hardly differ from those of earlier passionate
housing reformers such as Catherine Bauer Wurster, the contemporary
context in which he makes them is radically different.
Public confidence in the ability of government programs to solve intractable
societal problems is at an all-time low. Taxpayers are increasingly
disinclined to support existing costly entitlements (other
than those intended for the middle class), let alone add new ones.
And the fruits of six decades of government subsidization and sponsorship
of low-cost housing—efforts that never made housing an
entitlement but that were nonetheless grounded in the premises of
260 Peter D. Salins
housing advocates—have been largely disappointing. Against this
backdrop it is easy to dismiss Hartman’s proposition as not only
anachronistic but laughably quixotic (a term that even he applies to
the effort). Nevertheless, because Hartman’s clarion call may still
ring true for a sizable minority of well-meaning people—especially
among the ranks of planners and social welfare professionals, not to
mention judges—it deserves a thoughtful response.
Although currently neither politically nor fiscally feasible, the notion
that access to inexpensive, presumably high-quality housing
should be a government-guaranteed universal right is a terrible
idea even if it were popular and affordable. The proposition fails on
three counts. It isn’t necessary. It doesn’t make economic sense.
And, most compelling, were such a policy to be implemented, its putative
beneficiaries would not thank us.
Why a government-guaranteed housing entitlement is
unnecessary
Housing conditions in the United States have improved steadily
and inexorably during this century, especially in the five decades
since the end of World War II, the period in which nearly 80 percent
of all currently occupied dwellings were built. It is not hyperbolic to
assert that today American housing conditions are not only better
than they ever were but that they are the best in the world. Virtually
all of this improvement has resulted from a combination of rising
household incomes and the dynamics of the private housing
market. The historical indicators of housing inadequacy were overcrowding
(which Hartman still alludes to), dilapidation, and lack of
private plumbing facilities. By none of these measures do we have a
serious housing problem today. In 1940 more than 20 percent of all
dwellings were overcrowded (occupied by more than one person per
room). Fewer than 5 percent are today. In 1940, 18 percent of all
dwellings were severely deteriorated physically. Only 2 percent are
today. In 1940 over 45 percent of all dwellings lacked a complete set
of plumbing fixtures in bathrooms and kitchens. By 1990 only 1
percent suffered from such deficiencies (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1990).
Few Americans even judge their housing conditions by these antiquated
standards any more. Most Americans are no longer satisfied
with merely adequate housing. They want luxurious housing, and
they are getting it. Even as American households get smaller, their
homes are getting larger. In 1960 the typical dwelling was 1,200
square feet and occupied by 3.1 persons. By 1990 the typical home
had grown to more than 1,700 square feet, occupied by only 2.4 persons.
Practically all homes have refrigerators (most self-defrosting).
Comment on Chester Hartman’s ‘‘The Case for a Right to Housing’’ 261
Eighty percent have washing machines and 70 percent have clothes
dryers. More than half have dishwashers. At one time the lack of
central heating was a housing concern. Today, central heating is
universal (and mandated by local housing codes), and air conditioning,
once a true luxury enjoyed only by the affluent, is now nearly
as ubiquitous. More than 44 percent of all dwellings have central
air conditioning. Most of the rest that need cooling have room air
conditioners (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). Not only dwelling
interiors have improved. Increasingly, homes sit on large, welllandscaped
properties, often with swimming pools and other site
amenities. Even apartment and town house complexes are often set
among luxurious grounds and include extensive communal recreation
facilities. Hartman is concerned about housing tenure. But the
most secure housing tenure is homeownership, and—at the rate of
65.4 percent—more Americans than ever before own their homes
(Joint Center for Housing Studies 1997).
Hartman and other reformers would likely counter that not only
have many Americans not benefited from the general trend, but
such improvement in housing conditions as has occurred is attributable
to a partial implementation of the housing reformers’ agenda.
But if any government programs have contributed to the massive
upgrading of American housing conditions in the last half century,
they have not been the ones that are the prototypes for Hartman’s
housing entitlement. Arguably, the Federal Housing Administration’s
and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ trailblazing in making
homeownership more available and affordable in the decades
immediately after World War II may have played an important role
in fueling postwar suburban housing development, the major arena
in which Americans found better housing. The income tax deductibility
of homeowners’ interest and property taxes—a subsidy frequently
disparaged by Hartman and other housing reformers—may
be a factor in sustaining the high level of homeownership. And
government-initiated development of secondary mortgage markets
(i.e., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have greatly expanded the
volume of housing finance.
But whatever the contribution that these nonmeans-tested housing
programs may have made, the traditional government housing programs
aimed at low-income households—the ones that Hartman
would expand in fulfilling his housing entitlement—have at best
contributed only a small increment of housing improvement, while
trapping their poor and near-poor clients in an isolated and inferior
housing submarket. The United States today has more than 1.3
million publicly owned or managed housing units, and another 3.5
million receiving a continuing stream of housing subsidies (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development 1997). That represents
less than 5 percent of all dwellings. More to the point, much
262 Peter D. Salins
of this stock is perceived to be undesirable; much of it is expensive
to build and not especially affordable (even with subsidies). And
had these programs not been implemented, their beneficiaries
might have been better served in the primary housing market.
Why a government-guaranteed housing entitlement does
not make economic sense
When Hartman and other housing advocates argue that a massive
government investment in housing subsidies is money well spent,
and a bargain compared to defense outlays, they presuppose that
the primary obstacle to public support for such a policy is its prohibitive
cost. However, large-scale housing subsidies are a bad idea
not merely because they are expensive but because they distort the
economic dynamics of the housing market, with respect to both supply
and demand. The superior quality of America’s housing—as well
as its extraordinary variety—is no happy accident. It is a tribute to
the successful functioning of a relatively unfettered private housing
market that has been able to (1) efficiently and continuously produce
a high volume of housing responsive to a diverse set of consumer
needs and preferences, and (2) allocate that housing to a
mass market of consumers both rationally and equitably.
If government involvement in the provision of housing were significantly
extended, as Hartman proposes, the housing market would
become increasingly impaired, mainly to the detriment of housing
consumers—including the poor. Even existing housing programs,
marginal as they are, distort housing markets in the communities
in which they operate. Government agencies, operating in their own
right or as conduits for subsidies to private or nonprofit developers,
make inefficient housing producers; when they assist tenants they
distort the contours of housing demand. Most housing projects developed
by public agencies are expensive to build and maintain, and
usually designed to inferior construction and amenity specifications.
Federally mandated eligibility rules make them islands of extreme
poverty and social dysfunction, even by the standards of the poor
neighborhoods in which they are set. Publicly developed housing is
often so poorly designed that some public housing authorities have
resorted—amid widespread public approbation—to tearing them
down. Even when government programs underwrite privately
owned housing—Section 8, for example—many of the same problems
arise, and others are added. Subsidized for-profit landlords
often overcharge and undermaintain their units, and nonprofit
sponsor-owners often fail as managers or go broke.
This critique, which is now widely accepted, leads inexorably to the
case for housing vouchers. But the most extensive as well as perComment
on Chester Hartman’s ‘‘The Case for a Right to Housing’’ 263
verse market distortions result from the primary objective of all
housing programs—from public housing to vouchers—which is to
subsidize tenants. The most undesirable aspect of tenant subsidies
(including rent control) is that they misallocate housing. The
greater the subsidies, the greater the misallocation. Although the
bedrock principle underlying Hartman’s proposal, as well as most
housing reform efforts, is the promotion of equity, housing subsidies
subvert equity. Households with similar needs or incomes can end
up with housing of widely varying quality, because the subsidized
housing itself varies widely in quality. For households with different
needs or incomes, subsidies can have particularly perverse impacts.
Higher-income households can often secure larger subsidies than
households with lower incomes. Small households may get bigger
apartments than large ones.
But for urban residents, the most distressing misallocation is the
impact housing subsidies have on the social ecology of their communities.
Hartman stresses the importance of good neighborhoods and
clearly assumes that a housing guarantee would move more poor
households into good (i.e., middle-income) neighborhoods. But as
Husock (1997) and others have noted, to the extent that housing
subsidies promote this objective, they undermine the central role
the housing market has traditionally played in rewarding upward
social and economic mobility. Most hardworking, responsible households
see themselves slowly and laboriously climbing a ladder of
housing and neighborhood quality. From their perspective, subsidies
allow less industrious or less responsible households—even those
whose members might be drug dealers and violent teens—to get
better housing than they have and, adding insult to injury, to destabilize
their neighborhoods. In the end, the housing reformers’ objective
is largely unattainable, because working- and middle-class
households cannot be prevented from moving.
Why its putative beneficiaries would not thank us if a
government-guaranteed housing entitlement were
implemented
Having government develop or subsidize housing—whether in a
sweeping commitment like Hartman’s or through more typical incremental
programs—cannot satisfy the housing aspirations of
Americans, regardless of income or social class, because housing is
a consumer good, not a public good. While not always stated explicitly,
Hartman’s proposal and most housing reformers’ demands assume
that housing is a public good, or as it is sometimes stated, a
‘‘public utility.’’ When government policy treats a consumer good as
if it were a public good (as happens often in other societies) consumers
are sure to be unhappy. While few goods are purely ‘‘public,’’
264 Peter D. Salins
public goods can be distinguished from private ones by three key
characteristics. Their consumption presumably confers such a significant
benefit on the community that subsidies are justified to
make sure they are consumed in greater quantity or quality than
market forces of supply and demand would occasion. As such, they
are not to be consumed for their intrinsic enjoyment but as the
means to an end. Finally, because they serve the community as
much or more than their consumers, their quality need not rise
much above some threshold of adequacy. From the consumers’ perspective
these criteria mean: (1) there is no relationship between
what consumers pay for a public good and what it is worth, (2) consumers
rarely get much pleasure from a public good, and (3) they
rarely get a public good whose quality rises above a mediocre standard.
All goods that are now heavily subsidized—education, health,
transportation—meet some or all of these criteria; housing does not
and, more to the point, should not.
To begin with, it is hard to demonstrate the community benefit secured
by subsidizing housing. We can be persuaded to pay for our
neighbors’ public education because, arguably, it makes them better
citizens and more reliable workers. Using public funds to confer ostensibly
superior housing on selected members of the community
(regardless of the selection criteria) serves no equivalently compelling
community-wide interest. And the negative community impacts
of inferior housing, in aesthetics or—in extreme cases—public
health, can be more effectively controlled by regulation than subsidies.
But the most salient reason why we should not treat housing
as a public good is that few Americans—regardless of class or income—
view their homes as just a means to an end—that is, as
mere shelter.
Not only can housing vary widely in quality beyond the threshold of
‘‘decent’’ and ‘‘suitable,’’ it can vary widely in design and as a setting
for divergent lifestyles. All Americans—including the poor—
cherish these qualitative differences in their housing. Thus, we
would do the potential beneficiaries of a subsidized housing guarantee
no favor if we adopted a policy that truncated the diverse and
consumer-responsive private housing market by expanding a submarket
of arguably adequate but joyless ‘‘housing as a public good.’’
Wouldn’t vouchers—as in the case of food stamps (another consumer
good supported by subsidies)—allow us to have it both ways:
funding housing as a public good while permitting its quality to reflect
the standards of a private good? Probably not, because the
costs and equity effects (noted earlier) of applying vouchers to as expensive
and variable a commodity as housing lead inevitably to the
establishment of criteria and restrictions aimed at keeping them
within the quality limits of public goods. And the wider or costlier a
Comment on Chester Hartman’s ‘‘The Case for a Right to Housing’’ 265
voucher program becomes, the tighter the restrictions are likely
to be.
There is a policy alternative to a universal housing entitlement.
The most persuasive of the housing advocates’ arguments for a government
role in housing is that not all households are well served
by the private housing market. First, there unquestionably remains
some degree of racial discrimination in the sale and leasing of housing
that needs to be overcome. The best way to do so is not with
housing subsidies or by siting low-income housing developments in
middle-income neighborhoods, but through aggressive enforcement
of antidiscrimination laws. However, the most valid concern of
housing advocates is that households at the bottom of the income
and social scale have a hard time finding good quality housing that
is ‘‘affordable.’’ A recent estimate is that 5.3 million households—
primarily recent immigrants and single-parent families—spend
more than half their income on housing or occupy very inferior
dwellings (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
1998). The proper response to this concern is not to lace unaffordable
housing with producer or consumer subsidies (especially when
they do not necessarily reach the poorest or most deserving households)
but to make privately developed and owned housing ‘‘truly
affordable’’ (i.e., without subsidies). In virtually every other consumer
good sector, private enterprises have been able to serve the
entire spectrum of American households. There is no reason why
housing need be an exception.
To the degree that the American private housing market cannot affordably
serve many of the country’s poorer or more idiosyncratic
households (e.g., the young, the old, the disabled), it is because a
variety of regulations—mainly at the local level—have made it difficult
to do so. Local housing codes (of the kind that Hartman applauds)
have raised the cost of housing production and, more seriously,
have inhibited the adaptation and reuse of existing dwellings
to make them suitable and affordable for poorer, smaller, and nontraditional
households. Unquestionably, the most binding constraints
on housing affordability arise from local zoning and subdivision
regulations, especially in the suburbs. Most suburbs (and
many cities) make housing more expensive by mandating unaffordably
large lot sizes, restricting multifamily housing, prohibiting
manufactured housing, and imposing expensive design and site
standards. The newer generation of local subdivision regulations
not only saddle developers with the full cost of building the municipal
road and utility infrastructure, they set much higher standards
for that infrastructure than are necessary (or than prevail in the already
settled parts of the community). The effects of local regulations
are magnified by the actions of housing lenders that look
askance at lower-cost and untypical housing developments. Just
266 Peter D. Salins
about every dwelling type in which this author lived as he was
growing up—all places that were both affordable and amenable for
a family struggling to make ends meet—would be impermissible in
most localities today.
In conclusion, no, we most certainly do not need or want ‘‘a right to
decent, affordable housing,’’ but yes, we want to assure that everywhere
in the United States we have decent, affordable housing.
Happily, we can count on the private housing market (coupled with
rising prosperity) to do 95 percent of the work in implementing
such an assurance. The remaining 5 percent—mainly devoted to
bringing down the cost of housing because housing quality is a fading
issue—requires concerted measures to scale back onerous housing
regulations that currently prevent private housing developers
and owners from meeting the needs and pocketbooks of lowerincome
and untypical households. It would be nice if housing advocates
like Hartman set aside their anachronistic aspirations and
unrealistic policy nostrums and supported such an effort.
Author
Peter D. Salins is Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the State
University of New York.
References
Husock, Howard. 1997. We Don’t Need Subsidized Housing. City Journal 7(1):50–
58.
Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. 1997. The State of the
Nation’s Housing: 1997. Cambridge, MA.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. 1990 Census of Housing. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. American Housing Survey: 1993. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1997. A Picture of
Subsidized Households—1997. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1998. America’s Affordable
Housing Crisis. Washington, DC.

Changes in the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy have been directly affecting the U.S. economy that includes the financial institutions and markets. For this Final Paper, select one large U.S. financial institution/intermediary (e.g., a commercial bank, an investment bank/company, an insurance company, or any other financial institution) to evaluate how changes in the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy—expansionary or contractionary—have been affecting the U.S. financial institutions and markets
In your Final Paper,
Evaluate how the Federal Reserve monitors and influences unemployment and inflation in the U.S. economy.
Describe the Federal Reserve’s traditional and nontraditional monetary policy tools.
Describe the pros and cons of the Federal Reserve’s implementation of expansionary or contractionary monetary policy tools under different economic situations (e.g., a recession/depression vs. an economic boom).
Assess your institution\intermediary’s financial situations during the previous five years.
Appraise how your institution/intermediary has been responding to changes in the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.
Explain how the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy affects your institution/intermediary in the financial market. Discuss in detail.
Explain how you would expect the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy to change in the next six months, based on the financial market today, addressing the following:
Is the Federal Reserve more likely to implement expansionary policy or contractionary policy?
How would this change affect your institution/intermediary and the financial markets?
How would your institution/intermediary respond to the anticipated Federal Reserve’s monetary policy change?