Christina AnimashaunVoxRecently, there was a minor uproar.docx

Christina Animashaun/Vox
Recently, there was a minor uproar when Kardashian scion
Kylie Jenner, who is all of 21,
appeared on the cover of Forbes’s 60 richest self-made women
issue. As many people
pointed out, Jenner’s success would have been impossible if she
hadn’t been born white,
healthy, rich, and famous. She built a successful cosmetics
company not just with hard
work but on a towering foundation of good luck.
Around the same time, there was another minor uproar when
Refinery29 published “A
Week in New York City on $25/Hour,” an online diary by
someone whose rent and bills
are paid for by her parents. It turns out $25 an hour goes a lot
further if you have no
expenses!
The radical moral implications of luck in
human life
Acknowledging the role of luck is the secular equivalent of
religious awakening.
By David Roberts @drvox [email protected] Updated Sep 7,

2018, 8:58am EDT
https://www.vox.com/
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/7/14/17569650/kylie-
jenner-forbes-list-2018
https://www.forbes.com/self-made-women/
https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/7/26/17618264/refinery2
9-money-diaries-controversy
https://www.refinery29.com/money-diary-new-york-city-
marketing-intern-income
https://www.vox.com/authors/david-roberts
https://www.twitter.com/drvox
mailto:[email protected]
These episodes illustrate what seems to be one of the enduring
themes of our age: socially
dominant groups, recipients of myriad unearned advantages,
willfully refusing to
acknowledge them, despite persistent efforts from socially
disadvantaged groups. This is
not a new theme, of course — it waxes and wanes with
circumstance — but after a multi-
decade rise in inequality, it has come roaring back to the fore.
Of course, socially dominant groups have every incentive to
ignore luck. And they have
found a patron saint in President Trump, who once claimed,
“My father gave me a very
small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth

many, many billions of dollars.”
Neither side of that claim is true. But in this, as in so much
else, Trump’s brazenness
serves as cover, a signal that it’s still okay to cling to this myth.
These recent controversies reminded me of the fuss around a
book that came out a few
years ago: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of
Meritocracy, by economist
Robert Frank. (Vox’s Sean Illing interviewed Frank last year.)
It argued that luck plays a
large role in every human success and failure, which ought to be
a rather banal and
uncontroversial point, but the reaction of many commentators
was gobsmacked outrage.
On Fox Business, Stuart Varney sputtered at Frank: “Do you
know how insulting that was,
when I read that?”
It’s not difficult to see why many people take offense when
reminded of their luck,
especially those who have received the most. Allowing for luck
can dent our self-
conception. It can diminish our sense of control. It opens up all
kinds of uncomfortable

questions about obligations to other, less fortunate people.
Nonetheless, this is a battle that cannot be bypassed. There can
be no ceasefire.
Individually, coming to terms with luck is the secular
equivalent of religious awakening, the
first step in building any coherent universalist moral
perspective. Socially, acknowledging
the role of luck lays a moral foundation for humane economic,
housing, and carceral policy.
Building a more compassionate society means reminding
ourselves of luck, and of the
gratitude and obligations it entails, against inevitable
resistance.
So here’s a reminder.
How much credit do we deserve for who, and where, we end up?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-
election/presidential-debate-trump-said-clinton-said/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-
updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-
of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-how-much-help-did-
trumps-father-give-his-son/?utm_term=.46b97253eda0
http://www.amazon.com/Success-Luck-Good-Fortune-
Meritocracy/dp/0691167400?ascsubtag=%5B%5Dc2%5Bp%5Dc
io3gqck2005e70y97mi0teur%5Bi%5DZAqpbL%5Bd%5DD%5Br
%5Dgoogle.com%5Bz%5Dm
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/11/22/13652860/inco
me-inequality-meritocracy-robert-frank-success-luck-ethics

https://www.thecut.com/2016/05/why-americans-ignore-the-
role-of-luck-in-everything.html
How much moral credit are we due for where we end up in life,
and for who we end up?
Conversely, how much responsibility or blame do we deserve? I
don’t just mean Kylie
Jenner or Donald Trump — all of us. Anyone.
How you answer these questions reveals a great deal about your
moral worldview. To a first
approximation, the more credit/responsibility you believe we
are due, the more you will be
inclined to accept default (often cruel and inequitable) social
and economic outcomes.
People basically get what they deserve.
The less credit/responsibility you believe we are due, the more
you believe our trajectories
are shaped by forces outside our control (and sheer chance), the
more compassionate you
will be toward failure and the more you will expect back from
the fortunate. When luck is
recognized, softening its harsh effects becomes the basic moral
project.
Understanding the role of luck begins with getting past the old

“nature versus nurture”
debate, which has always captivated the public, not so much
because of the science but
because of the deeper existential questions involved.
“Nature” has come to serve roughly as code for the stuff we’re
stuck with, our bodies, our
genes — an arrow fate has already fired, with a preset path. And
“nurture” has become
shorthand for our capacity for change, our ability to be shaped
by circumstances, other
people, and ourselves, to wiggle and move about within that
path, or even escape it. It’s
shorthand for our range of control over our fates.
But this has always struck me as a misguided way to look at it.
Both nature and nurture happen to you
Of course it is true that you have no choice when it comes to
your genes, your hair color,
your basic body shape and appearance, your vulnerability to
certain diseases. You’re stuck
with what nature gives you — and it does not distribute its
blessings equitably or according
to merit.

But you also have no choice when it comes to the vast bulk of
the nurture that matters.
Child development psychologists tell us that deep and lasting
shaping of neural pathways
happens in the first hours, days, months, and years of life. Basic
dispositions are formed
that can last a lifetime. Whether you are held, spoken to, fed,
made to feel safe and cared
for — you have no choice in any of it, but it more or less forms
your emotional skeleton. It
determines how sensitive you are to threat, how open you are to
new experience, your
capacity to exercise empathy.
Children aren’t responsible for how they spend their formative
years and the permanent
imprint it makes upon them. But they’re stuck with it.
Legally speaking, here in the US, we don’t consider people
autonomous moral agents,
responsible for their own decisions, until they are 18.
Obviously, different cultures have
different ages and markers for adulthood (moral agenthood), but
all cultures mark a

transition. At some point, a child, an instinctual creature not
fully responsible for their
decisions, becomes an adult, capable of using higher cognitive
functions to shape and
moderate their behavior according to shared standards, and to
be held accountable if they
don’t.
For the purposes of this argument, it doesn’t matter much where
you draw the line
between child and adult. What matters is that it takes place after
the bulk of
temperament, personality, and socioeconomic circumstance are
in place.
https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-the-first-five-
years-of-a-child-s-development-are-the-most-important-
1.127401
So, then, here you are. You turn 18. You are no longer a child;
you are an adult, a moral
agent, responsible for who you are and what you do.
By that time, your inheritance is enormous. You’ve not only
been granted a genetic
makeup, an ethnicity and appearance, by accidents of nature and

parentage. You’ve also
had your latent genetic traits “activated” in a very specific way
through a specific
upbringing, in a specific environment, with a specific set of
experiences.
Your basic mental and emotional wiring is in place; you have
certain instincts, predilections,
fears, and cravings. You have a certain amount of money,
certain social connections and
opportunities, a certain family lineage. You’ve had a certain
amount and quality of
education. You’re a certain kind of person.
You are not responsible for any of that stuff; you weren’t yet
capable of being responsible.
You were just a kid (or worse, a teen). You didn’t choose your
genes or your experiences.
Both nature and the vast bulk of the nurture that matters
happened to you.
And yet when you turn 18, it’s all yours — the whole
inheritance, warts and all. By the time
you are an autonomous, responsible moral agent, you have
effectively been fired out of a
cannon, on a particular trajectory. You wake up, morally
speaking, midflight.

All of us, basically. | Javier Zarracina/Vox
Bettering ourselves frequently means overcoming our own
inheritances
How capable are we of altering our trajectories? How much can
we change ourselves?
Here, a distinction made famous by psychologist Daniel
Kahneman in his seminal Thinking,
Fast and Slow is helpful. Kahneman argues that humans have
two modes of thinking:
“system one,” which is fast, instinctual, automatic, and often
unconscious, and “system
two,” which is slower, more deliberative, and emotionally
“cooler” (generally traced to the
prefrontal cortex).
Our system one reactions are largely hardwired by the time we
become adults. But what
about system two?
We do seem to have some control over it. We can use it, to
some extent, to shape,
channel, or even change our system one reactions over time —
to change ourselves.

Everyone is familiar with that struggle; indeed, the battle
between systems one and two
tends to be the central drama in most human lives. When we
step back and reflect, we
know we need to exercise more and eat less, to be more
generous and less grumpy, to
manage time better and be more productive. System two
recognizes those as the right
decisions; they make sense; the numbers work out.
But then the moment comes and we’re sitting on the couch and
system one feels very
strongly that it doesn’t want to put on running shoes. It wants
greasy takeout food. It wants
to snap at the delivery guy for being late. Where is system two
when it’s needed? It shows
up later, full of regret and self-recrimination. Thanks a lot,
system two.
To become a better person is, at least to some degree, to
consciously decide what kind of
person one wants to be, what kind of life one wants to lead, and
to enforce that meta-
decision through day-to-day smaller decisions. They say you are
what you do repeatedly;
our choices become habit and habit becomes character. So

forming a good character,
becoming a good person, means repeatedly choosing to do the
right thing until it becomes
habit.
To make this more concrete, an example: For whatever reason, I
hate waiting on people. I
can barely stand to walk behind people on the sidewalk. Driving
behind people leaves me in
constant, low-level seething rage. Watching the people ahead of
me in line at the store
bumble through their slow transactions makes me want to claw
my eyes out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330161843.
htm
When I use system-two thinking, I understand that this
instinctual reaction of mine is both
irrational and uncharitable — irrational because we’re all
always waiting for one another and
there’s no way to avoid it; uncharitable because I expect
alacrity from others than I don’t
always display myself. I make others wait just as much or more
than anyone, but I

absolutely can’t wait for others.
To put it more bluntly, I tend to be kind of an asshole in that
particular way. And I don’t want
to be! It makes other people tense. It makes me miserable. It
serves absolutely no
purpose.
Me, basically.
The only way to change it is to use system-two thinking to
override system one — to
intervene in my own anger — again and again, until a different,
better reaction becomes
habitual and I become, in a literal sense, a different, better
person. (That project is, uh,
ongoing.)
The same is true for being a good parent, saving money, making
more friends, or any other
long-term life goal; it often involves overriding our own
instincts — many of which are
grossly maladaptive.
Do people deserve moral credit for what they do with their
system-two thinking? Perhaps
that’s the mechanism through which meritocracy works, through
which people really do

get what they deserve?
| Christina Animashaun/Vox
If you are a go-getter, lucky for you! No, really — that’s luck
too.
There are two reasons why system-two thinking can’t get us out
of the luck trap: Both the
capacity and the need for system-two thinking are inequitably
distributed.
First, the capacity.
Using system two to regulate system one is difficult. Exercising
the kind of self-discipline
necessary to override system one reactions with deliberative,
system-two choices is
effortful. It drains energy. (See Brian Resnick’s fascinating
discussion of the famous
“marshmallow test” for more on this.)
Doing it requires certain conditions: a degree of self-
possession, a degree of freedom from
more basic physical needs like food and shelter, some training
and habituation. Even with
those advantages, it’s difficult. There’s an entire “life hacking”

genre devoted to tricks and
techniques that system-two thinking can use to counteract
system one’s predilections for
salty snacks and procrastination.
And the thing is, not everyone has equal access to those
conditions. Whether and how
much you have the ability to exercise system two in this way is
largely — you guessed it —
part of your inheritance. It too depends on where you were born,
how you were raised, the
resources to which you had access.
Even our desire and ability to alter our trajectory is largely
determined by our trajectory.
Second, the need.
Some people don’t much need the ability to self-regulate,
because their failures of self-
regulation are forgiven and forgotten. If you are, say, a white
male born to wealth, like
Donald Trump, you can blunder about and fuck up over and
over again. You’ll always have
access to more money and social connections; the justice system
will always go easy on
you; you’ll always get more second chances. You could even be

president someday,
without being required to learn anything or develop any skills
relevant to the job.
Axios @axios · Aug 21, 2017
The President gazes upon the sun and the moon
https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/6/6/17413000/marshmallow-test-replication-
mischel-psychology
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-
trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/
https://twitter.com/axios
https://twitter.com/axios/status/899706595063496705
But if you are, say, a black male, you are called upon to
exercise an extraordinary degree of
self-regulation. You will frequently be surrounded by people on
a hair trigger, prone to
suspect or fear you, to turn down your rental application or
deny you a loan or pass you
over for a “safer” job applicant, prone to calling the cops on
you, prone, if they are cops, to
target and abuse you.
Axios
@axios

And he goes for it pic.twitter.com/XC2Xdvyumq
10:58 AM - Aug 21, 2017
6,125 2,992 people are talking about this
https://t.co/XC2Xdvyumq
https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=899707278647070720
https://twitter.com/axios/status/899707278647070720/photo/1
https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256
And, especially if you are poor, one step out of line — one
incident at school, one brush
with the justice system, one stupid teenage prank — can mean
years or even a lifetime of
consequences. Subaltern groups have to self-regulate twice as
much to have half a
chance.
Neither the capacity nor the need for self-regulation is
distributed evenly or fairly. In a dark
irony, we demand much more of it from those — the poor, the
hungry, the homeless or
housing-insecure — likely to have the least access to the
conditions that make it possible.

(Just one more way it’s expensive to be poor.)
Your capacity for self-regulation and self-improvement, and
your need for them, are both
part of your inheritance. They come to you via life’s lottery.
Via luck.
Acknowledging luck is profoundly threatening to the lucky
I get why people bridle at this point. They want credit for their
achievements and for their
better qualities. As Varney said, it can be insulting to be told
that one’s success is in large
part a lucky roll of the dice.
Of course, people aren’t nearly as eager to take credit for their
failures and flaws.
Psychologists have shown that all humans are subject to
“fundamental attribution error.”
When we assess others, we tend to attribute successes to
circumstance and failures to
character — and when we assess our own lives, it is the
opposite. Everyone’s relationship
with luck is somewhat self-interested and opportunistic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/

01/25/why-it-costs-so-much-to-be-poor-in-
america/?utm_term=.6b6b05ff7643
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
And the more one benefits from life’s lottery, the greater the
incentives to deny it. As a
class, the lucky have every political incentive to frame social
and economic outcomes as
reflective of a natural order. Life’s winners have been telling
stories about why they’re
special since civilization began.
But that’s my point about the moral implications of luck: They
are radical and inevitably
corrosive to the established order. They cast doubt on every
form of privilege and light on
every mechanism by which privilege perpetuates itself.
Acknowledging luck — or, more broadly, the pervasive
influence on our lives of factors we
did not choose and for which we deserve no credit or blame —
does not mean denying all
agency. It doesn’t mean people are nothing more than the sum
of their inheritances, or
that merit has no role in outcomes. It doesn’t mean people
shouldn’t be held responsible

for bad things they do or rewarded for good things. Nor does it
necessarily mean going full
socialist. These are all familiar straw men in this debate.
No, it just means that no one “deserves” hunger, homelessness,
ill health, or subjugation —
and ultimately, no one “deserves” giant fortunes either. All such
outcomes involve a large
portion of luck.
The promise of great financial reward spurs risk-taking, market
competition, and
innovation. Markets, properly regulated, are a socially healthy
form of gambling. There’s no
reason to try to completely equalize market outcomes. But
there’s also no reason to allow
hunger, homelessness, ill health, or subjugation.
And there’s no reason we shouldn’t ask everyone, especially
those who have benefited
most from luck — from being born a certain place, a certain
color, to certain people in a
certain economic bracket, sent to certain schools, introduced to
certain people — to chip
in to help those upon whom life’s lottery bestowed fewer gifts.
And it is entirely possible to do both, to harness market

competition while using the
wealth it generates to raise up the unlucky and give them
greater access to that very
competition.
“If you want meritocracy,” Chris Hayes argued in his seminal
book Twilight of the Elites,
“work for equality. Because it is only in a society which values
equality of actual outcomes,
one that promotes the commonweal and social solidarity, that
equal opportunity and
earned mobility can flourish.”
https://www.vox.com/the-big-
idea/2018/8/16/17698602/socialism-capitalism-false-dichotomy-
kevin-williamson-column-republican-ocasio-cortez
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006OI2BMC/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist
firebrand who won her House
Democratic primary in New York’s 14th District, is fond of
saying, “in a modern, moral, and
wealthy society, no person should be too poor to live.”
Neither human genes nor human societies distribute life’s gifts
according to any principle

we would recognize as fair or humane, given the extraordinary
role of luck in our lives. We
all become adults with wildly different inheritances, starting
our lives in radically different
places, propelled toward dramatically different destinations.
We cannot eliminate luck, nor achieve total equality, but it is
easily within our grasp to
soften luck’s harsher effects, to ensure that no one falls too far,
that everyone has access
to a life of dignity. Before that can happen, though, we must
look luck square in the face.
A Green New Deal is on the ballot in Washington state on
Tuesday
The midterm elections will give some voters a chance to
legalize marijuana
This year’s most bizarre ballot initiative? Florida’s referendum
on vaping and
offshore drilling.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
POLITICS & POLICY
SCIENCE & HEALTH
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394790-ocasio-cortez-
democratic-socialism-means-no-one-should-be-too-poor-to-live
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-

environment/2018/9/28/17899804/2018-midterm-elections-
washington-1631-carbon-fee-green-new-deal
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/10/10/17943156/marijuana-legalization-midterm-
elections-michigan-north-dakota-utah-missouri
https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/11/5/18055844/amendment-9-florida-vaping-
offshore-drilling
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health
Running head: COMMUNITY YOUTH HOMELESS SHELTER
GRANT APPLICATION
GRANT APPLICATION Lowe
Week 8 Assignment: Abstract & Cover Letter
Alexis Lowe
Walden University
April 20, 2019
My Grant Proposal Application
Researcher: Alexis Lowe

Research Focus: Homelessness and Communal Rejection
Institution:Walden University
Presentation Type: Oral Presentation
Contact: (941) 301-6658
Abstract:
My research will explore the issue of homelessness and
communal rejection among youths.
As per many writers, it is apparent that social exclusion is a
wide construct and that requires overlook of deprivation as well
as marginalization. The methodological decision that I will
employ in the study indicates my acknowledgment of youth’s
homeless and my obligation to socially just and fairness. In
order to have a deeper insight into the issue of youth’s
homelessness and marginalization, the study will treat homeless
youths as collaborators who will reveal their experiences as
homeless individuals.
The main objective of the study is to uncover the main micro-
sociological as well as macro-sociological suggestions that the
experiences of homelessness have on youths. To achieve the
objective, the study will examine this approach via the usage of
qualitative approaches that aid in unmasking the experiences of
homeless youths. In this line, I will seek to place who are
participating in my study as the producers of understanding.
This will be in line with my trust that every participant is taken
as equally able giving argumentative materials to help build on
scientific knowledge. The method of collecting data will be
completed via center groups in which the youths under my
guidelines will narrate their experience as homeless individuals
(Waldorf, 2001).
Having worked with homeless people for many years, I
developed a desire for social justice and equality. To have a
clear scope of the issue, I figured it is reasonable to conduct a
study to get relevant information from homeless youths from the
general population. As I gather information, it will be easier to
gain the help local organization. Simply, I hope to conduct a
meaningful study that will motivate me to be more involved in

voluntary works with this group.
To cater for logistics, the study will require $6000
Cover Letter
Alexis Lowe
School of Human & Social Work
Walden University
100 Washington Avenue South. Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55401
April 20, 2019
Community Foundation of Broward County
910 E Las Olas Blvd #200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Application for Social Research Grant Program: Raising Social
Awareness about Youths Homelessness.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am pleased to submit a grant proposal with the title Youth
Awareness for consideration under the Local Social Work
Research Grant Program Raising Social Awareness as discussed
with Program Officer Michael Brown.
The reasons for this grant funding request are:
As per many writers, there has been rampant homelessness
among the youths (Wright, 2007). The core aim of the study is
to reveal underlying issues in regard to youth homelessness. In
addition, the study will voice the voices of homeless youths.
Based on the setting of the study, homelessness youths who
have had experiences in the towns of Tri-Cities will provide
relevant information about the subject. In response, the
information gathered will act as reparation to the youths.
This project is in conformity with the mission of NIH and
Walden University. As you will notice in the application,
Walden University’s Office of Research will be providing in-

kind resources in the entire grant funding period.
In case you have any questions during the grant review, I am
more than happy to answer your questions or provide any
clarification. I can be reached on any working day (Monday-
Friday) from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Please, you can contact me
through (941) 301-6658. Also, you can also e-mail us through
[email protected]
I am really grateful for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alexis Lowe
References
Waldorf, D. (2001). “Homelessness and the issue of freedom.”
UCLA Law Review, 39: 295-324.
Wright, T. (2007). Out of Place: Homeless Mobilizations,
Subcities and Contested Landscapes. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
YOUTH HOMELESS SHELTER METHODOLOGY
Alexis Lowe
Walden University
Professor Nicole Hamilton
HUMN 6207: Grant Writing
March 24, 2019
Running Head: METHODOLOGY
The methodological decision that I have made in undertaking
this study indicates my acknowledgment of youth’s

homelessness stopping from the expertise in the sector and my
obligation to social just. During my study, I will employ a
participatory concept where I will particularly use
methodologies from the margins. My key objective will be to
unpack the main micro-sociological and macro-sociological
suggestions that the experience of homelessness has on youths.
I will require to right integrate and create this plan through
aspects of the youth who have been homeless. During this study,
I will employ the concept of social exclusion. As per many
writers, I have realized that social exclusion is a wide construct
and that requires overlook of deprivation and marginalization. I
will need to examine this approach via the use of qualitative
approaches that would enable the voices of homeless youths to
be considered in an academic study. The qualitative methods
based on occasions, processes, and structures of individuals
lives. I trust that there will be well matched for an attempt
which finds to discover the lived understanding of homeless
youths. In addition, the qualitative approach enables the co-
production of understanding between the investigator and the
topic of study. My choice of the qualitative approach indicates
my individual anxiety to level the playing field in the study
process. The thesis of my study will be crafted to discover the
traits of communal marginalization that youth thought most
contemplative of their Survived experience of homelessness.
However, it is not rational to expect homeless youths to daily
lives, my research will aim at working with them in exploring
their homelessness and communal rejection (Waldorf, 2001).
In my study, I will treat the homeless youths as not the
matter of my study but as my collaborators who will speak up
their experience as homeless individuals. The homeless youths
will develop key topics to be examined. In addition, I will seek
to place youths who are participating in my study as the
producers of understanding. This will be congruent with my
trust that everybody is taken as equally able giving argument
germane to the building of scientific knowledge. As I start, I
will request the youths to determine what, what, any, if youth

homelessness and communal elimination 112 were essential to
their lives. This will be completed via center groups in which
the youths under my guidelines their experience as homeless
individuals.
Working with homeless people for various years as a
volunteer, I sensed that my desire for social equality and justice
in the study period could not be achieved through going to the
field and getting important information from Youth
Homelessness from populations of people and existing. I
realized that the restricted intermingling and rapport between
the youth and myself would probably lessen the extent of their
involvement. Furthermore, I will appreciate that from a stance
of social justice. My interaction and rapport with the youths
really required to be meaningful and to give gain those engaged.
This will motivate me to be more involved in voluntary work
with this group.
This study will focus on the youths who have had experienced
the state of homelessness in the towns of Tri-Cities. Youth
(n=13) engaged in groups and people interviews (n=30) that I
will do at three shelters for homeless youths. Few of those
youths who involved in the focus team also will take part in the
personal interviews (n=7). I will start gathering information
after spending time on the study for around 2 years working a
volunteer at one of the areas. During this moment of gathering
information, I will employ different stages to gain information
from the participants. The first stages entailed engaging and
understanding the youth’s expertise of their existence of youth
homelessness. The result of the focus teams would explain the
ways of finishing journals and interviews. The main tool for
gathering information will be journaling. I would consider
journaling as a process that will specifically be suitable for my
implementation of methods from the margin concept. I purpose
pressure that the list will be proposing, not in-depth and all
contributors will free to deal with whatever issues they selected.
I will issue those instructions aiming to motivate them to be
capable to exercise their powers over the study process

(Wrights, 2007).
As I gather the information, I will capable of accessing a
sample of homeless youths via my voluntary work with the local
organization. Though, my capability to gain the help of these
companies I will be needed their formal and informal policies.
In addition, the group that will participate in my study as I
gather information, I will have to compensate them. The
compensation will be an approximation of $ 200 for each group
of homeless youths.
The youths will act as my focus group who will be my data
collecting tool. The targeted group will act as soliciting
background information on the overall topic of my choice,
enhancing research questions as measuring advantages for the
program development. In addition, the focus team will be used
to approve ideas on a certain population sample. The
recruitment for focus group will take two weeks prior to the
study. An interview will be tailored to every participant because
this enables the research to acquire more understanding of the
resources that every participant provide.
References
Waldorf, D. (2001). “Homelessness and the issue of freedom.”
UCLA Law Review, 39: 295-324.
Wright, T. (2007). Out of Place: Homeless Mobilizations,
Subcities, and Contested Landscapes. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Running Head: HOME FOR THE HOMELESS
1
HOME FOR THE HOMELESS

HOME FOR THE HOMELESS
Alexis Lowe
Walden University
March 31st, 2019
The homelessness has been a serious problem facing the general
population because of the high cost of housing throughout the
country. The problem is worse when youths are involved when
they are still in school. It makes studying problematic because
of the stress involved in carrying the personal effects the whole
day and finding the spot to spend during the night. For the
future of this country, there is a need to find a stable home for
such youths so that they can build their future along with the
future of this nation more securely. The budget below includes
all that is needed to build homes and renovate the available ones
to create enough rooms for all the youths in this state. All shall
be required for this project to be completed from personnel to
the numerous equipment and machinery. The budget below
shows how the project is broken down (Von, 2016).
The total budget for the whole project that will involve the
construction of building from the ground and renovation of the
old ones is $4,012,938. This amount is expected to cover a total
of 25 sites corresponding to the tertiary institutions in this state
and shall be broken down as explained below. The leading

members of the project are the director, project coordinator,
secretary, academic coordinator, clinic coordinator, and project
evaluator. Most people are supposed to work full time because
the project is large and demanding.
Salaries for the people coordinating the whole process is
significantly large because of their qualifications and skills
which was a requirement for transparency, efficiency, and
competence that were needed to accomplish the project.
Among those working full time are project director, clinic
coordinator, project evaluator and project secretary who will be
paid $ 9,822, $ 7,587, $ 7,124 and $ 6978 respectively. Per
hour, each will be paid $ 61.4, $ 47.42, $ 44.52, and $43.61
according to the minimum wage requirement in their respective
job group. Each one of them will be working a maximum of 40
hours in a week, and all of them will be reporting to the project
director. The whole project will take a whole year to complete
the above-mentioned salaries, and their benefits are monthly for
the whole year. In one month, salaries will be totaling to $ 41,
410 and the benefits will be $ 2,074 which sum up to $ 43, 474.
In a year this will be $ 521,688. Project coordinator and
academic coordinator will be working part-time since they are
the employees of one of the tertiary institutions in the country
where they will still be serving for the most part of their time.
The cost of consultation $ 2,750 for the whole year. It is
not possible to break it down into weeks since consultation will
be done once for every site that shall be open where about 25
sites are expected to open in the whole state that corresponds to
the number of tertiary institutions in this country.
For contracts, the whole amount needed is $ 3,456, 000 which
include all the subcontractors such those who will install
lighting and elevator, ventilation and air condition, drainage,
and water piping, doors, and kitchenware, painting, among
many others. Travel will cost around $ 10,000 for the whole
year where each month $ 833 will be spent on fuel for traveling
from one site to another attending meeting in the many sites.
Itemized equipment includes site safety equipment for staff,

office furniture, printers, and desktops in the office that will
cost around $ 10,000 the whole year. Supplies will only cost $
3500 for the whole year. Supplies will include printing papers,
ink for printers, files, and stationery for the whole year. Other
expenses are the insurance, electric bill, water bill, and first aid
equipment. They will cost approximately $ 9, 000 for the whole
year (Von, 2016).
Personnel Name
Personnel Title
Time/Effort Percentage (%)
Time/Effort Hours/Week
Dollar Amount Requested for Salary
Dollar Amount Requested for Fringe Benefits
Grand Total Dollar Amount Requested
total for the whole year
Dr. Johnson Davis
Project Director
100 %
40 hrs
$ 9,822
$ 500
$ 10,322
$ 123, 864
Eng. Trevor Ramsey
Project Coordinator
50 %
20 hrs
$ 5542
$ 400
$ 6942
$ 83,304
Prof. Nancy Williams
Clinical Coordinator
100 %
40 hrs

$ 7587
$ 345
$ 7932
$95, 184
Prof. George Williams
Academic Coordinator
63 %
25 hrs
$ 4357
$ 253
$ 4,600
$ 55, 200
Mrs.
Project Evaluator
100 %
40 hrs
$ 7124
$ 345
$ 7469
$ 89,628
Name #6
Project Secretary
100 %
40 hrs
$ 6978
$ 231
$ 6209
$ 74,504
Subtotals
205 hrs/ week
$41,410
$2,074
$43,474
$ 521,688

Consultant Costs
n/a
n/a
50 hrs ( for whole year)
$ 2,750
n/a
$ 2,750
Contracts
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 3,456, 000
Staff Travel
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 10,000
Itemized Equipment
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 10,000
Supplies (itemize by category)
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 3500
Other Expenses ( insurance )
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 9,000
Subtotals
Grand Total Direct Costs
Reference
Von, D. L. (2016). Fiscal decentralization and budget control.

Christina AnimashaunVoxRecently, there was a minor uproar.docx

Christina AnimashaunVoxRecently, there was a minor uproar.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Christina AnimashaunVoxRecently, there was a minor uproar.docx

Similar to Christina AnimashaunVoxRecently, there was a minor uproar.docx (14)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Christina AnimashaunVoxRecently, there was a minor uproar.docx