Step 5
Project the Outcomes
When the advocate attempts to project the outcome, he/she will be providing an overview of how the policy will make a difference in the community and to the people who use it. According to Bardach, “this is the hardest step of the eightfold path.” (Bardach, 2012 p.47) There are several ways an advocate can project the outcome of a policy, and according to Bardach, “at least three great practical as well as psychological difficulties must be confronted here.” (Bardach, 2012 p. 47).
Magnitude Estimates
Bardach states that magnitude estimates “requires you to think not just about the general direction of an outcome but about its magnitude, as well.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 49). The policy we have chosen is written to encourage “States and units of general local government to use amounts received under the community development block grant program and the community mental health services and substance abuse block grant programs to provide housing counseling and financial counseling for individuals before their release from inpatient or residential institutions for individuals with mental illness and periodic evaluation of the appropriateness of such counseling after such release.” (govtrack.us, 2012). For us, this suggests that if good supports are in place, the homeless people with serious mental illnesses often can be treated effectively after discharge from an institution or treatment facility, living in their own homes, rather than being homeless or requiring expensive hospitalizations. AHAR found that 1,593,150 individuals experienced homelessness (SAMHSA, 2012). This is a large number of individuals so we project that a forth of these individuals could be in their own homes receiving the care needed, as mentioned in the Community Assistance Act for Persons with Mental Illness, which includes financial counseling, outpatient counseling, and mental health care. Bardach says, “Sometimes a single point estimate of your best guess about the degree of magnitude will suffice.” (Bradach, 2012; p. 50).
Sensitivity Analysis
Bardach says, sensitivity analysis, “which uncertainties are most important, in the sense that relatively small changes in what you believe would cause you to change your mind about how desirable some alternative might be? By a process known as sensitivity analysis, you can discover these most important uncertainties.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 53) Authors, Stanhope, Henwood and Stefancic state in their article that the results revealed that those with housing first had lower rates of substance use than those with treatment first, it also revealed that a client with stable housing and significant life skills without supervision remained mentally stable and substance free. The asurety of the block grant programs would make available to the consumers secure housing, financial assistance and continued counseling after release from an institution and/or prison.
Step 6
Confront the Trade-Offs
When the advocate attempts to project the outcome, he/she will be providing an overview of how the policy will make a difference in the community and to the people who use it. According to Bardach, “this is the hardest step of the eightfold path.” (Bardach, 2012 p.47) There are several ways an advocate can project the outcome of a policy, and according to Bardach, “at least three great practical as well as psychological difficulties must be confronted here.” (Bardach, 2012 p. 47).
Magnitude Estimates
Bardach states that magnitude estimates “requires you to think not just about the general direction of an outcome but about its magnitude, as well.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 49). The policy we have chosen is written to encourage “States and units of general local government to use amounts received under the community development block grant program and the community mental health services and substance abuse block grant programs to provide housing counseling and financial counseling for individuals before their release from inpatient or residential institutions for individuals with mental illness and periodic evaluation of the appropriateness of such counseling after such release.” (govtrack.us, 2012). For us, this suggests that if good supports are in place, the homeless people with serious mental illnesses often can be treated effectively after discharge from an institution or treatment facility, when living in their own homes, rather than being homeless or requiring expensive hospitalizations. AHAR found that 1,593,150 individuals experienced homelessness (SAMHSA, 2012). This is a large number of individuals so we project that a fourth of these individuals could be in their own homes receiving the care needed, as mentioned in the Community Assistance Act for Persons with Mental Illness, which includes financial counseling, outpatient counseling, and mental health care. Bardach says, “sometimes a single point estimate of your best guess about the degree of magnitude will suffice.” (Bradach, 2012, p. 50).
Sensitivity Analysis
Bardach says, sensitivity analysis, allows one to look at, “which uncertainties are most important, in the sense that relatively small changes in what you believe would cause you to change your mind about how desirable some alternative might be? By a process known as sensitivity analysis, you can discover these most important uncertainties.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 53). Stanhope, Henwood and Stefancic state in their article that the results revealed that those with housing first had lower rates of substance use than those with treatment first. It also revealed that a client with stable housing and significant life skills without supervision remained mentally stable and substance free. The block grant program would be made available to the consumers to obtain secure housing, financial assistance and continued counseling after release from an institution and/or prison.
Step 6
Confront the Trade-Offs
Step six is to confront the tradeoffs. According to Bardach (2012), this almost always needs to be done because “it sometimes happens that one of the policy alternatives under consideration is expected to produce a better outcome than any of the other alternatives with regard to every single evaluative criterion” (p. 63). We as a team have chosen to weigh the criteria from an evaluative perspective by addressing the costs involved.
According to Bardach (2012), “The most common trade-off is between money and a good or service received by some portion of the citizenry, such as extending library hours from 8pm till 10pm, weighed against a cost of $200,000 annually” (p. 63). Secondly we have chosen process values from the evaluative perspective. According to Bardach (2012), “American democracy values process and procedure that is having a say in policy issues that affect you, rationality, openness and accessibility, transparency, fairness, nonarbitrariness—as well as substance.” (p. 37). The final criteria we have chosen is robustness and improvability. According to Bardach (2012), “A policy alternative, therefore, should be robust enough that even if the implementation process does not go very smoothly, the policy outcomes will still prove to be satisfactory” (p. 43)
Efficiency of Cost
This criterion’s purpose is to answer the question, Will the benefits and savings in costs of implementing this alternative housing program outweigh the costs that the community has to pay in terms of sick and homeless families as well as increased crime rates? We offer support for housing and outpatient services for the substance abusers, mentally ill and ex-felons. This level of support could better prepare these consumers for re-entry to society, as well as cutting back on the court staff time spent reviewing their paperwork and decreasing judicial time spent in the courtroom with them. However, the costs involved could increase significantly providing these services. Though policymakers might see the need for increasing self-represented litigant services due to increase in demand, the cost for these services will be a huge factor for the decision of whether or not to actually implement them. According to Social Work Speaks, “policy making in relation to the problem of homelessness illustrates a drastic reshaping of the federal social welfare agenda in the United States during the past 25 years, but no single legislative answer has solved or significantly reduced homelessness (Burt, 2000).” Is it really fair to rehab someone, release them from an institution and then send them back to an unsure/unstable environment increasing their chances of ending up where they started or worst? An ideal outcome in terms of this criterion would have the greater benefits outweigh costs, and rating low on this criterion would be an outcome that costs more than the benefits it generates.
Process of Values
While addressing this criterion of the process of values we proposed the question; Are the values and voices of the consumer equally recognized amongst the homeless, substance abusers and ex-felons? In most cases the consumer is not heard, but according to Bardach (2012), “In addition to building up legitimacy for your work, you may be surprised at how much you can learn, especially from people who are very unlike yourself socially or ideologically” (p. 37). Implementing the voice of the consumer in their outcome is beneficial to maintain their dignity and build their self-esteem. According to Kadden & Litt (2011), “effective treatments should not only improve a person’s ability to maintain sobriety in the face of high-risk situations, but also help them to recognize that improved ability.” Therefore, if we include the values and voices of the consumer, it provides more opportunity for independency, increased dignity for the consumer and improved communities.
A high rating for the criterion is an outcome that would be supported by all of the key decision policy makers involved, and a low rating could be an outcome for which it is difficult to gain support. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, (2009), “homeless people may have difficulty remaining sober while living on the streets where substances are so widely used (Fisher and Roget, 2009).” Providing policy makers with a video or live version of the homeless person voicing their pain and issues would be robust enough to make this policy satisfactory.
Step 7
Decide
We have chosen these criteria because I find them to be essential to analyzing the outcomes of the policy options at hand. Though the criteria are at high levels of importance, some may be slightly at a higher level of importance than others in determining which policy alternative has the best outcome. Therefore, we have applied weights to the criteria as a starting point for the analysis. Because of the current economic status in Michigan, I think that criterion A, Efficiency of Cost, will be very important and should be weighted heavily. Thus, I think it is important to weigh cost more heavily than the other criteria. Because of criterion B, the process of values criterion deals with the very core of the purpose of the requested funds, I have decided that it should be heavily weighted to support criterion A. Finally, criterion C, the robustness and improvability is also a very important criterion. For us to receive support from policymakers it is essential that the voices of the homeless be heard so that the policy maker will support our policy.
Step 8
Tell Your Story
According to Bardach, “identify and assess the likely audience”(Bardach, 2012, p.71) Our policy analysis is to bring to light the fact that the provision of services to the homeless, mentally ill, substance abusers and ex-felons remains largely un-discussed at a statewide level. We address the policymakers to expose this disparity and explain why attention should be focused on implementing services for the mentally ill and homeless population. The major recommendation that emerges is this: shelter and after-care services upon discharge from an institution should be brought to the forefront of policy discussions throughout the United States. In order to assist with accomplishing this, we as advocates for the homeless also recommend that the individual states and the communities unite to bring attention to this issue. The individual states operate very independently from one another and do not always come together to identify issues that affect all of them. Dealing with the mentally ill and homeless is part of those issues, and it deserves attention at a nation-wide level.
Project the Outcomes
When the advocate attempts to project the outcome, he/she will be providing an overview of how the policy will make a difference in the community and to the people who use it. According to Bardach, “this is the hardest step of the eightfold path.” (Bardach, 2012 p.47) There are several ways an advocate can project the outcome of a policy, and according to Bardach, “at least three great practical as well as psychological difficulties must be confronted here.” (Bardach, 2012 p. 47).
Magnitude Estimates
Bardach states that magnitude estimates “requires you to think not just about the general direction of an outcome but about its magnitude, as well.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 49). The policy we have chosen is written to encourage “States and units of general local government to use amounts received under the community development block grant program and the community mental health services and substance abuse block grant programs to provide housing counseling and financial counseling for individuals before their release from inpatient or residential institutions for individuals with mental illness and periodic evaluation of the appropriateness of such counseling after such release.” (govtrack.us, 2012). For us, this suggests that if good supports are in place, the homeless people with serious mental illnesses often can be treated effectively after discharge from an institution or treatment facility, living in their own homes, rather than being homeless or requiring expensive hospitalizations. AHAR found that 1,593,150 individuals experienced homelessness (SAMHSA, 2012). This is a large number of individuals so we project that a forth of these individuals could be in their own homes receiving the care needed, as mentioned in the Community Assistance Act for Persons with Mental Illness, which includes financial counseling, outpatient counseling, and mental health care. Bardach says, “Sometimes a single point estimate of your best guess about the degree of magnitude will suffice.” (Bradach, 2012; p. 50).
Sensitivity Analysis
Bardach says, sensitivity analysis, “which uncertainties are most important, in the sense that relatively small changes in what you believe would cause you to change your mind about how desirable some alternative might be? By a process known as sensitivity analysis, you can discover these most important uncertainties.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 53) Authors, Stanhope, Henwood and Stefancic state in their article that the results revealed that those with housing first had lower rates of substance use than those with treatment first, it also revealed that a client with stable housing and significant life skills without supervision remained mentally stable and substance free. The asurety of the block grant programs would make available to the consumers secure housing, financial assistance and continued counseling after release from an institution and/or prison.
Step 6
Confront the Trade-Offs
When the advocate attempts to project the outcome, he/she will be providing an overview of how the policy will make a difference in the community and to the people who use it. According to Bardach, “this is the hardest step of the eightfold path.” (Bardach, 2012 p.47) There are several ways an advocate can project the outcome of a policy, and according to Bardach, “at least three great practical as well as psychological difficulties must be confronted here.” (Bardach, 2012 p. 47).
Magnitude Estimates
Bardach states that magnitude estimates “requires you to think not just about the general direction of an outcome but about its magnitude, as well.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 49). The policy we have chosen is written to encourage “States and units of general local government to use amounts received under the community development block grant program and the community mental health services and substance abuse block grant programs to provide housing counseling and financial counseling for individuals before their release from inpatient or residential institutions for individuals with mental illness and periodic evaluation of the appropriateness of such counseling after such release.” (govtrack.us, 2012). For us, this suggests that if good supports are in place, the homeless people with serious mental illnesses often can be treated effectively after discharge from an institution or treatment facility, when living in their own homes, rather than being homeless or requiring expensive hospitalizations. AHAR found that 1,593,150 individuals experienced homelessness (SAMHSA, 2012). This is a large number of individuals so we project that a fourth of these individuals could be in their own homes receiving the care needed, as mentioned in the Community Assistance Act for Persons with Mental Illness, which includes financial counseling, outpatient counseling, and mental health care. Bardach says, “sometimes a single point estimate of your best guess about the degree of magnitude will suffice.” (Bradach, 2012, p. 50).
Sensitivity Analysis
Bardach says, sensitivity analysis, allows one to look at, “which uncertainties are most important, in the sense that relatively small changes in what you believe would cause you to change your mind about how desirable some alternative might be? By a process known as sensitivity analysis, you can discover these most important uncertainties.” (Bardach, 2012; p. 53). Stanhope, Henwood and Stefancic state in their article that the results revealed that those with housing first had lower rates of substance use than those with treatment first. It also revealed that a client with stable housing and significant life skills without supervision remained mentally stable and substance free. The block grant program would be made available to the consumers to obtain secure housing, financial assistance and continued counseling after release from an institution and/or prison.
Step 6
Confront the Trade-Offs
Step six is to confront the tradeoffs. According to Bardach (2012), this almost always needs to be done because “it sometimes happens that one of the policy alternatives under consideration is expected to produce a better outcome than any of the other alternatives with regard to every single evaluative criterion” (p. 63). We as a team have chosen to weigh the criteria from an evaluative perspective by addressing the costs involved.
According to Bardach (2012), “The most common trade-off is between money and a good or service received by some portion of the citizenry, such as extending library hours from 8pm till 10pm, weighed against a cost of $200,000 annually” (p. 63). Secondly we have chosen process values from the evaluative perspective. According to Bardach (2012), “American democracy values process and procedure that is having a say in policy issues that affect you, rationality, openness and accessibility, transparency, fairness, nonarbitrariness—as well as substance.” (p. 37). The final criteria we have chosen is robustness and improvability. According to Bardach (2012), “A policy alternative, therefore, should be robust enough that even if the implementation process does not go very smoothly, the policy outcomes will still prove to be satisfactory” (p. 43)
Efficiency of Cost
This criterion’s purpose is to answer the question, Will the benefits and savings in costs of implementing this alternative housing program outweigh the costs that the community has to pay in terms of sick and homeless families as well as increased crime rates? We offer support for housing and outpatient services for the substance abusers, mentally ill and ex-felons. This level of support could better prepare these consumers for re-entry to society, as well as cutting back on the court staff time spent reviewing their paperwork and decreasing judicial time spent in the courtroom with them. However, the costs involved could increase significantly providing these services. Though policymakers might see the need for increasing self-represented litigant services due to increase in demand, the cost for these services will be a huge factor for the decision of whether or not to actually implement them. According to Social Work Speaks, “policy making in relation to the problem of homelessness illustrates a drastic reshaping of the federal social welfare agenda in the United States during the past 25 years, but no single legislative answer has solved or significantly reduced homelessness (Burt, 2000).” Is it really fair to rehab someone, release them from an institution and then send them back to an unsure/unstable environment increasing their chances of ending up where they started or worst? An ideal outcome in terms of this criterion would have the greater benefits outweigh costs, and rating low on this criterion would be an outcome that costs more than the benefits it generates.
Process of Values
While addressing this criterion of the process of values we proposed the question; Are the values and voices of the consumer equally recognized amongst the homeless, substance abusers and ex-felons? In most cases the consumer is not heard, but according to Bardach (2012), “In addition to building up legitimacy for your work, you may be surprised at how much you can learn, especially from people who are very unlike yourself socially or ideologically” (p. 37). Implementing the voice of the consumer in their outcome is beneficial to maintain their dignity and build their self-esteem. According to Kadden & Litt (2011), “effective treatments should not only improve a person’s ability to maintain sobriety in the face of high-risk situations, but also help them to recognize that improved ability.” Therefore, if we include the values and voices of the consumer, it provides more opportunity for independency, increased dignity for the consumer and improved communities.
A high rating for the criterion is an outcome that would be supported by all of the key decision policy makers involved, and a low rating could be an outcome for which it is difficult to gain support. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, (2009), “homeless people may have difficulty remaining sober while living on the streets where substances are so widely used (Fisher and Roget, 2009).” Providing policy makers with a video or live version of the homeless person voicing their pain and issues would be robust enough to make this policy satisfactory.
Step 7
Decide
We have chosen these criteria because I find them to be essential to analyzing the outcomes of the policy options at hand. Though the criteria are at high levels of importance, some may be slightly at a higher level of importance than others in determining which policy alternative has the best outcome. Therefore, we have applied weights to the criteria as a starting point for the analysis. Because of the current economic status in Michigan, I think that criterion A, Efficiency of Cost, will be very important and should be weighted heavily. Thus, I think it is important to weigh cost more heavily than the other criteria. Because of criterion B, the process of values criterion deals with the very core of the purpose of the requested funds, I have decided that it should be heavily weighted to support criterion A. Finally, criterion C, the robustness and improvability is also a very important criterion. For us to receive support from policymakers it is essential that the voices of the homeless be heard so that the policy maker will support our policy.
Step 8
Tell Your Story
According to Bardach, “identify and assess the likely audience”(Bardach, 2012, p.71) Our policy analysis is to bring to light the fact that the provision of services to the homeless, mentally ill, substance abusers and ex-felons remains largely un-discussed at a statewide level. We address the policymakers to expose this disparity and explain why attention should be focused on implementing services for the mentally ill and homeless population. The major recommendation that emerges is this: shelter and after-care services upon discharge from an institution should be brought to the forefront of policy discussions throughout the United States. In order to assist with accomplishing this, we as advocates for the homeless also recommend that the individual states and the communities unite to bring attention to this issue. The individual states operate very independently from one another and do not always come together to identify issues that affect all of them. Dealing with the mentally ill and homeless is part of those issues, and it deserves attention at a nation-wide level.