Homelessness is a social issue caused from a variety of changes within the socio-cultural make up of society. These include mental illness, deinstitutionalization, and changes in the family make up, economics, violence, and personal crisis. Homelessness is not a local issue; instead, it is an international public health crisis that costs billions of dollars in tax dollars, and social issues, not to mention healthcare and public health issues. In King County (Seattle, Washington area), statistics indicate that there may be as many as 10,000 individuals living daily without adequate food and shelter. Most statistics, in fact show there are about 8,000 to 10,000 individuals living in Seattles King County without shelter each and every night (Heim, 2009).
In fact, in the larger range of King County, many of the homeless have chronic health conditions to include diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health issues. Many of these issues are based on alcohol and substance abuse. At least 25% of the homeless have some form of mental illness. Many have developmental disabilities, and at least 10% have HIV (Ten-Year Plan, 2011).
Analyze four (4) policy choices of Mayor Schell that were made as part of the strategy for the homeless.
There were numerous options that Mayor Paul Schell could have used to address the issue of homelessness in Greater Seattle. For instance, the King County Community Homelessness Advisory Council had already developed strategies that Schell could use to combat the problem. While the city would not increase the number of shelters it could preserve the existing shelters capacity. This strategy took into consideration that additional funding might be used in other human service arenas as well as housing. Although this would not reduce the number of people turned away from shelters due to inadequate bed space, it would improve the condition of many of the older or dilapidated shelters. However, this particular strategy was counter-productive to achieving Mayor Schell’s pledge to remove homeless families and single women from the streets of Seattle (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 4).
A second strategy included assisting individuals by moving them towards permanent housing. This would aid in addressing and identifying the main causes and assist clients as they moved and advanced through the system. Third, the committee indicated that Seattle should look at those homeless who are currently underserviced, and make strategic plans to provide greater resources to these populations (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 4).
Finally, a larger branching network of homeless services should be developed that reached throughout King County and coordinated more client centered programs. These strategies all focused on maximizing efficiency within the current budgetary structure, but did little to address the very real concern of moving more individuals off the streets and into shelters (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 4).
Mayor Schell, however, had a different view. His strategy included a more vigorous economic increase that would first improve and build more homeless shelters and housing, which would assist more individuals.
Second, Schell decided to assemble a housing summit to address more tactical and strategic partnerships that could support the city in its need for affordable housing (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 4).
Third, Schell agreed and realized the city must address employment and affordable housing, which were the primary sources of homelessness. Lastly, Schell’s strategy was to aid with the transitioning of individuals into permanent housing to offer a more secure lifestyle (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 4).
Analyze the Pre-Implementation and Design Strategies of Mayor Schell and interpret four (4) practical outcomes of his choices.
Mayor Schell already developed a pre-implementation strategy that included a more enthusiastic emergency assistance package for homeless families and single women. This was designed to remove susceptible individuals from danger, and to assist them in finding permanent housing and employment. Schell was dedicated to offering improved housing and wanted to sponsor a summit that would look into the pattern of homelessness from several different viewpoints (academic, social, budgetary, governmental, mental health, etc.). Schell remained firm that it was not enough to simply provide updated facilities for Seattle’s homeless population, but there was a clear need to increase the capacity (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 4).
The first outcome expected from the strategies was an increase in shelter capacity. By accommodating more homeless people this will decrease the homeless population and assist in cleaning up the streets in Seattle.
Secondly, the strategy of providing affordable housing and employment services will not only decrease the overall problem, but also afford an encouraging and proactive way to diminish the situation.
Next, ways should be determined to relieve budgetary troubles for the city by working with non-profit organizations, corporations, foundations, and other agencies to sponsor homeless programs.
Lastly, service emphasis should be shifted from short term, quick fix strategies, to more long-term, growth strategies. Instead of just improving existing services, services should be increased and designed to get people off the streets and into productive lives.
One specific area that Schell failed to address was the issue of homeless men. While the realization is that it is impossible to reduce the homeless population to zero. It is far better to set the bar as high as possible in order to garner as much improvement as is achievable.
Reconstruct four (4) steps taken by Mayor Schell to reengineer the program in order to fit the new objectives.
The first step would be to hold the housing summit. This will bring together those interested parties to work together and in small groups to define a workable solution of the homelessness problem in Seattle. Groups should brainstorm for strategic direction, keeping in mind that budgetary concerns do exist (Norton, E., & Weeks, T., 2006, p. 5).
The second step is to have a strategic meeting with appropriate stakeholders. Holding strategic meetings based on the implementation of materials gathered from the summit to include more fiscal and planning services.
The third step is the planning and development of transitional housing and employment services. By working with nonprofits a liaison partnership can be established with strategic foundations and business leaders within the city. Also, local and community resources can be used to seek sponsorships.
The fourth step would be to improve coordination and networking with nonprofit organizations working to provide shelter and improve the homeless situation in King County.
Analyze four (4) reasons for the importance of conducting assessments prior to new program implementation.
Assessments are necessary prior to implementing new programs so that the research can determine the scope of the issue, the ability to fund that issue, and the manner the issue can be addressed from a public policy viewpoint. In this case, prior to implementing any new program, sound facts must be collected to determine the actual number of individuals that are homeless so that adequate housing plans can be made (Report, 2009).
Additionally, geographic and demographic data are necessary to find the most vulnerable areas to rank importance in construction and strategic areas of the city (Report, 2009, p. 7).
It is not always clear which sub-groups are being served or under-served within the homeless population. Adequate data is necessary to plan for expenses, tactical and strategic planning, staff development, and future budgets. There are also issues of Federal grant money that might be available to the city (Report, 2009, p. 4-22).
Finally, assessment is vital because it assists the city (or any organization) in determining the main causes of not only homelessness but also other public health issues. Through the assessment, if Seattle can determine sound causes for homelessness, it can take more long-term steps to assist those already on the streets, but more importantly prevent others from experiencing homelessness.
Conclusion
While Paul Schell had great intentions, the process of eliminating homelessness has not been an easy one. In 2005, King County established a ten-year plan that is not only a community-wide effort but also a housing and human services effort. Resources continue to be needed but as more is learned about the dynamics of homelessness more successful strategies can be implemented. These strategies will aid in creating a map for success with the ultimate goal of ensuring there is “a roof over every bed in King County” (Ten-Year Plan, 2011, p. 38).

References
Ensign, J., & Panke, A. (2002). Barriers and Bridges to Care: Voices of Homeless Female Adolescent Youth in Seattle, Washington, USA. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(2), 166-172.
Heim, K. (2009). Homeless are Economic Assets. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2009944773__photographersource_jeff_raike.html
Norton, E., & Weeks, T. (2006). Mayor Schell’s Zero Homeless Family Pledge. Retrieved from https://blackboard.strayer.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/PAD/500/1116/PAD500%20Mayor%20Schell%27s%20Zero%20Homeless%20Family%20Pledge.pdf
Report on Findings. (2009). Seattle Homeless Needs Assessment. Retrieved from www.seattle.gov/housing/homeless/HNA_report_11-09.pdf Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. (2011). Human Services Department – Seattle.gov.
Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/humanservices/emergencyservices/tenyearplan.htm