Historical Background of Housing Policy Housing is one of the requirements in human life (not true!) . Therefore, it greatly influences the day to day life of citizens in a country as well as the country's economy. As a result of its importance, there should be secure policies in the state that protect citizens against exploitation and the economy of the nation This is not a neutral statement of the evidence  (Turis, 2011). Good housing provided with essential social amenities means healthy lives for the citizens since they will be enjoying all the services . Poor housing, for instance, can result in health issues for the individuals of a given society. Crime rates are also found to be higher in places with inadequate housing and this becomes a threat may be a threat to the security of the community. The housing policy , ?????? therefore, was formed so as to address the housing challenges facing the nation and its citizens (Turis, 2011). indent To deal with the housing problems (what housing problems?) the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (The correct name is Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. § 1437f) was established in 1974 as the Housing Act (Turis, 2011). This housing policy enables low income earners to pay for houses of their choice in the private market. The state funds the program and as a result, it benefits over five million low-income families as it enables them to pay for the housing with ease . Provision of the vouchers is one of the policies ways in which the state addresses the housing problem for its citizens (Turis, 2011). Compared to other policies such as…. , vouchers provide a wider range of shelter and they are less expensive. For the low-income earners to use the vouchers, the kind of houses they find should not exceed the maximum allowable rent by the vouchers and must be in line with the program policies.  The program also covers a wide variety of houses which include single family home; this was aimed at small families. Apartments and houses in towns are also covered by the program. This description of the HCV is not clear. indent   The housing voucher programs is managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Kotz, 2012) . Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) are the ones responsible for carrying out the local programs outlines (Kotz, 2012) . The mode of operation of this program is that an individual finds a suitable house for them to live and they pay rent to the landlords. The subsidy for the rent is paid by the PHAs to the owners of the house directly, and the person receiving such voucher will have to pay the remaining amount of money to the landlord (Kotz, 2012) . Therefore, in this program, the kind of benefits the citizens receive is subsidies on the rent they pay to the owners. A Certain amount is paid by the PHAs on the behalf of the low-income families, which makes houses relatively cheaper for citizens to choose where they want to li.

1. Historical Background of Housing Policy
Housing is one of the requirements in human life
(not true!)
. Therefore,
it
greatly influences the day to day life of citizens in a country as
well as the country's economy. As a result of
its
importance, there
should be
secure policies in the state that protect citizens against
exploitation and the economy of the nation
This is not a neutral statement of the evidence
(Turis, 2011).
Good
housing provided with essential social amenities means healthy
lives for the citizens since
they will be enjoying all the services
. Poor housing, for instance, can result in health issues for the
individuals of a given society. Crime rates are also found to be
higher in places with inadequate housing and this
becomes a threat
may be a threat
to the security of the community.
The housing policy
,
??????
therefore, was formed
so as to
address the housing challenges facing the nation and its
citizens (Turis, 2011).
indent
To deal with the housing problems

2. (what housing problems?)
the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program
(The correct name is Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. § 1437f)
was established in 1974 as the Housing Act (Turis, 2011). This
housing policy enables low income earners
to pay for houses of their choice
in the private market. The state funds the program and as a
result, it benefits over five million low-income families as it
enables them to pay for the housing
with ease
. Provision of
the
vouchers is one of the
policies
ways
in which
the state addresses the housing problem for its citizens (Turis,
2011). Compared to other policies
such as….
, vouchers provide a wider range of shelter and they are less
expensive. For the low-income earners to use the vouchers, the
kind of houses they find
should not
exceed the maximum allowable rent by the vouchers and must
be in line with the program policies. The program also
covers a wide variety of houses
which include single family home; this was aimed at small
families. Apartments and houses in towns are also covered by
the program.
This description of the HCV is not clear.
indent
The housing voucher programs is managed by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (Kotz, 2012)

3. .
Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) are
the ones
responsible for carrying out the local programs outlines
(Kotz, 2012)
.
The mode of operation of this program is that an individual
finds a suitable house for them to live and they pay rent to the
landlords. The subsidy for the rent is paid by the PHAs to the
owners of the house directly, and the person receiving such
voucher will have to pay the remaining amount of money to the
landlord (Kotz, 2012)
.
Therefore, in this program, the kind of benefits the citizens
receive is subsidies on the rent they pay to the owners. A
Certain amount is paid by the PHAs on the behalf of the low-
income families, which makes houses relatively cheaper for
citizens to choose where they want to live.
The funding of such policies requires a lot of money and it
is state funded. Since its role is to improve the wellbeing of the
citizens
is it????
, the state allocates finances in every financial year so as
to cater for the less privileged in the society
. In this regard, the primary source of funds used in this project
is revenue collected by the state and other grants from the
government (Kotz, 2012)
.
The allocation of the funding of such vouchers is based on
several factors, including the number of vouchers used in the
previous year. Inflation in the country is also taken into
consideration when allocating such vouchers to the citizens as
well as the cost of administration. Congress is responsible for
the allocations of funds for this program
in every financial year

4. as well as renewing of the existing vouchers
(Kotz, 2012)
.
Reasons for the policy
The Housing Voucher plan was designed
so as
to address
the social gap
in the population of the United States. This was designed
so as
to aid the low-income earners to be able to afford a decent life.
The homeless and also
those
internally displaced benefited from the vouchers. For low-
income families, the coupon can help by paying up to 30% of
the rent for them (Van Zandt & Mhatre, 2013). Therefore, HCV
promotes
social equality
for the citizens in the country such as people with disabilities
and elderly people
. These group of people
, therefore, are the ones who necessitated the formation and
implementation of this policy so as to bridge the disparity
between the citizens. The primary goal that led to the formation
of this voucher program policy by the government was to help
its citizens since the private sector had consistently failed to
provide decent houses for the low income families. This
program was conceptualized in 1937 as the National Housing
Act. Several attempts to provide state-owned houses for the
low-income earners and the immigrants were never successful

5. as several factors were hindering its implementations (Van
Zandt & Mhatre, 2013). Subsidies were, introduced so as to
tackle the challenge of lack of decent houses for the low-income
earners. It has gone a long way in enabling more than one
million elderly people and people with disabilities to afford
decent housing. Over two million families with children also
had benefitted from the program by the year 2009 (Van Zandt &
Mhatre, 2013).
The housing voucher program has undergone significant
transformation since its inception in 1974. All the structural
changes were geared towards making the program more
beneficial to the citizens of the United States. In 1974 the
housing and community development act allowed for the
formation of the Section 8 program that included the new and
the existing forms (Van Zandt & Mhatre, 2013). In the current
plan, the subsidies were to be introduced and were managed by
the PHAs. The Housing and Community Development Act of
1987 made the voucher policy in housing subsidies formal.
This, therefore, meant that low income earning families had
choices on where to live as there were no limitations on this
program. In the year 1998, the Voucher Programs and Rental
Certificates were merged and thus Housing choice voucher
programs as from the year 1999. The above changes have taken
place since the policy was implemented (Van Zandt & Mhatre,
2013).
Over time, the modification and the implementation of this
policy has faced several challenges. One of these challenges is
inadequate funds, and thus many low income families cannot
benefit from the plan making them live in slums.
Controversially one of the shortcomings of this policy is that it
has led to increased government spending as federal funds have
to be allocated to the program (Temkin, 2013). This will
decrease the development of other sectors such as education and
healthcare as this is a recurrent expenditure to the state.
Individuals earning less than 80 % of the median income were
supposed to qualify for the vouchers, however, the poorest

6. applicants are the only ones benefiting and thus many applicants
are excluded (Temkin, 2013). This can be attributed to
inadequate funding by the federal government. As a result, there
is a high concentration of poverty in the United States. Low
income earners have limited choices for their houses especially
as they always prefer to stay in areas familiar to them (Temkin,
2013).
Other challenges in the implementation of the voucher
policy include some landlords failing to accept the vouchers.
This phenomenon is common in wealthy neighborhoods as
compared to the poor localities (Temkin, 2013). This has posed
a challenge to low income earners as citizens are forced to stay
in the poorest regions. Discrimination by the landlords also
posed a significant threat in the implementation of the housing
voucher policy. The end result is segregation of the population
into classes, which leads to poverty concentration in particular
areas only and hence dilapidated living standards such as poor
social amenities and poor infrastructure. In addressing the
challenges, more stringent policy has to be put in place so as to
ensure that majority of the population that need the vouchers
are taken care of. Different states should also put in place
measures that allow individuals to live in houses of their choice
without any barriers and restrictions from the landlords. Other
alternative policies to the housing vouchers need to be
developed so as to help reduce the effect of poverty
concentration in particular environs only.
System description
The Government always put several measures in place to ensure
that citizens have decent lives. These measures include various
housing policies that allow the citizens to access decent houses
at affordable prices (Graves, 2015). As a result, it is necessary
to make sure that the cost of housing is manageable and that
houses are available for the citizens. Several changes have been
made to the housing policies so as to enable the low-income
earners access to the apartments at a subsidized cost by the
federal government (Graves, 2015). Among the several housing

7. policies in the United States
which include…..
, the Housing Voucher Program is the largest of them all, with
about two million low-income earners benefitting from the
program.
The policy further is friendly to the residents as
it always allows them to make choices
on where they want to live in privately owned houses as long as
it is within the stipulated limits. As a result of this, the policy is
designed with greater flexibility and freedom of choice in
housing. The administration of the plan is run by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the
management of the subsidies is done locally by the
PHAs (Graves, 2015). In these policies, HUDs and PHAs are
responsible for various factors, and among them is the
determining the eligibility of different individuals into this
program (Graves, 2015). After the eligible persons are
identified, it is then necessary to compile the list. The vouchers
are awarded based on the neediest benefiting first. The waiting
list then has to be managed by the PHAs in subsequent financial
years (Graves, 2015)
.
Other responsibilities of PHAs in the implementation of the
policy include approval of units that the beneficiaries can live
in, as well as inspection of the housing and determining the
quality of such houses. The payment of the subsidy is also made
by the PHAs as well as liaising with the landlords in case of any
emergencies in their buildings (Graves, 2015). For the voucher
program to be implemented, several steps are involved. The first
step is a selection of eligible families based on their income.
The
housing units that can qualify to fall under this program
are then identified and inspection on them is done (Graves,
2015). If the houses satisfy all the set standards, they are
approved, and the contract is signed with the homeowners. An
annual i

8. nspection is done on such buildings
so as to ensure that they meet set standards.
Policy analysis
The use of rental vouchers has offered several benefits to the
low-income earners as well as to the federal
government (Desmond, 2016)
.
This program is cheaper per unit as compared to other policies.
For instance, compared to building residential apartments by the
government for the poor, the voucher program is more
affordable (Desmond, 2016)
.
Building new houses is very expensive as they will be costly to
the state.
It also means the poor will be concentrated only in particular
localities and that acts as a form of discrimination as they will
be excluded from the middle and high-income neighborhood.
Management of these funds is also simple
as it only involves single agencies the PHAs. The unit becomes
less costly to manage compared to other programs.
The flexibility of the policy is also another positive effect
of the voucher program. Low-income earners
have the choice to live in places of their choosing without fear
as the program subsidizes the rents (Desmond, 2016)
.
This has enabled the low-income citizens to access various
utilities and thus improving their living standards.
In addition, the well-being of the low-income earners is
improved since the power rates in the country are minimized.
Other vices associated with low-income earners such as robbery
and other forms of crimes are reduced.
Is crime higher or lower in areas where the HCV is accepted?
This, therefore, helps in boosting the security of the United
States (Desmond, 2016)

9. .
Even though the program can be considered to be
successful, it has its limitations to the individuals as well as the
economy of the United States (Desmond, 2016)
.
This is because those who receive the subsidy will remain in
public houses for long so that they can enjoy the policy. This
will hinder the development of the cities as the investors are
discouraged from upgrading the standards of houses in the
towns (Desmond, 2016)
.
As a result of this, therefore, there is less development taking
place in cities, and hence low standards of housing dominate
over time. Some house owners also tend to make use of the
program as this is an active source of income to them and it
accounts for the larger percentage of the rent.
This, therefore, indicates that the vouchers have not helped to
eliminate the problem, but rather transformed it
(Desmond, 2016).
In this regard, building a better and motivated society, this
policy has to be changed so as to make low-income earners
learn to be more responsible in paying their rent. For instance,
the subsidy can only be emphasized on the physically
challenged and the homeless individuals or migrants. As a
result, the low-income earners will learn to be responsible and
hence improve their living standards
(Desmond, 2016)
.
This is unclear
Heading
In conclusion, therefore,
it can be viewed
that several housing policies are put in place by the federal
government. The voucher system can be considered as the

10. largest of them all with many citizens from different races and
of different ages benefiting. The impact of the policy on the
low-income earners is
found to be great
as their accessibility to social amenities is significantly
improved.
Segregation of communities based on their income is also
minimized by the policy and thus making the citizens share a
common platform.
Elderly people and physically challenged individuals are not
neglected as
they are taken care of by the scheme
.
This, therefore, enables the citizens to have a peaceful and
enjoyable life.
The research paper, therefore, illustrates well the importance of
the policy
. However, there are some few shortcomings in the research as
not all the data and information required are readily and
adequately available.
Such as?????
The effects of the policy on the state and its citizens
nevertheless are expounded by the research paper.
References

11. This page is not formatted correctly
Desmond, M. &. (2016). Are landlords overcharging housing
voucher holders.
city and community
, 15(2) 137-162 doi 10.111/cico.12180.
Graves, E. (2015). Rooms for improvement: A qualitative
metasynthesis of the housing choice voucher program.
housing policy debate
, 26(2) 346-361 doi:10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573.
Kotz, R. (2012).
The spatial concentration of subsidized housing .
New Jersey: New Brunswick Rutgers .
Temkin, K. T. (2013). Sharing equality with future generations.
An evaluation of long term affordable homeownership program
in the U.S. housing studies
, 28(4), 553-578 doi:10.1080/02673037.2013.759541.
Turis, N. (2011).
Poverty deconcentration, housing mobility, and the construction
of recent U.S housing policy.
Delaware: University of Delaware.
Van Zandt, S., & Mhatre, P. (2013). The effect of housing
choice voucher household on neighborhood crime.
longitudinal evidence from Dallas. Poverty & Public Policy
, 5(3) 229-249 doi:10.1002/pop4.36.
Content: Expansion from Paper 1 (based on the feedback from
the instructor)
The following criteria will be used by the instructor in
evaluating Paper 2. Each criterion will be scored as follows: 3 =
Good, 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor, 0 = Missing. As there are 15 criteria
for Paper 2, the range of scores is 0 to 45 (15 criteria x 3 points
each).
1. The formal name of the social policy being discussed, and a
discussion of the goals of the policy, a description of the
policies target population.

12. 1/3
2. The agency (agencies) charged with its implementation, the
types of benefits provided (i.e., cash grants, vouchers, concrete
goods, services, etc.).
3/3
3. A discussion of how the policy, and the programs created or
maintained by the policy, are funded, including, when
appropriate, the type of funding (e.g., block grants,
reimbursements, etc.), and the source(s) of funding (federal,
state, mix of federal and state).
2/3
4. The magnitude and dimensions of the social problem/issue
that the social policy was designed to address. This should
include relevant demographic data to establish how prevalent
the issue or problem and its effect on individuals, families,
communities, and society.
1/3
No data on how many people use the program annually
5. The development and evolution of the policy, including
identification of previous policies that the current policy
modified or replaced, social and political conditions under
which the current policy was formed, and factors that have
affected implementation of the policy, including any
modifications.
2/3
Needs to be stated more clearly and organized better
New Content for Paper 2:
6. A review of the literature on the effectiveness of the policy.
The review should include an overview of recent empirical
studies that have sought to measure the outcomes of the policy
or the problem the policy is designed to address.
2/3
7. The review includes an introduction to the nature and scope
of the body of research related to the policy.
1/3

13. 8. The student’s analysis of the effectiveness of the policy
based on their review of the research literature. This should
include an assessment of the limitations of existing research.
2/3
9. The student’s assessment of areas for further needed
research.
1/3
Quality of Writing
10. Title page, running head, and basic formatting of the paper
in APA Style 6th edition (see sections 2.01, 2.05, 3.03, 8.03, &
8.07 in the APA Publication Manual). An abstract is not
required for Paper 2.
3/3
11. Headings are utilized to organize the paper (see sections
3.02 & 3.03).
1/3
Some headings used; paper is somewhat disorganized
12. In-text citations are formatted in APA Style (see Chapter 6)
2/3
13. Direct quotes are not overused. When they are utilized, they
are cited in APA Style (see sections 6.03 – 6.09). If no direct
quotes are utilized, then the student automatically receives 3
points for this criterion.
3/3
14. The list of references is formatted in APA Style. (See 2.11,
6.22-6.26,6.27-6.31, and all of Chapter 7).
1/3
References pages are not formatted correctly
15. Paper is well written: including organization (see 3.01-
3.04), style (3.05-3.11), unbiased language (pages 70-73 &
3.12-3.17), grammar (3.18-3.23), & mechanics (Chapter 4).
Paper is between 5 to 8 pages in length (not counting title page
and references).
2/3
Paper has grammar and sentence structure problems. The paper

14. also needs to be organized in chronological order so that
problems come before solutions and outcomes.
Total: 27/45