Introduction:
The essay is concerned with the definition of housing services and has an explanation of the hard-to-reach groups. It further sheds some light on the reasons for which the residents must be involved in the decision-making process. In general, it talks about the hard-to-reach groups and the advantages of the involvement (Bean, Shafer & Glennon, 2013). Analysis of the same is done with the help of Arnstein’s ladder of participation and the different forms of involvement are also discussed.
What are housing services?
Housing Services happens to be a nonprofit social service that helps manage and develop housing programs for people belonging to lower-income groups. It was found late and was made to cater to the needs and demands of men, women, and children with special needs (Baker, Grover, 2013). These people were found to be living in a range of housing obstacles including veterans, old people, and other family members. The on-the-site programs of the housing services include case management works that are taken care of by the staff from the company and include front desk management and programs involving the financial, medical, and nutritional needs of the people. Housing services are responsible for the development and preservation of many housing in the pocket-friendly cooperative sections (Byrne, 2015).
Hard-To-Reach Groups:
Hard-to-reach group refers to that segment of the population of a locality that happens to be in places that are very expensive to reach. This population of people is stigmatized in the entire population and hence it becomes very hard to communicate with them and talk to them (Bryant, 2015). In the current world scenario, the hard-to-reach group of society refers to that part of the society that remains away from the normal population like the groups of transgender and cross-dressers. This group does not interact with the rest of society and is kept aloof.
Involving ‘residents’ in decision-making, particularly the ‘hard to reach groups’ and the advantages of their involvement
Decisions are made for the welfare and benefit of the public as a whole. At times when the decision-making process involves the public itself, it makes all the members informed about the decision and also makes sure of giving a fair chance of speech to everyone.
Additionally, involving the residents in the process of decision-making makes it an easier affair as this happens to be a lot of decision-making authorities. It helps to maintain the rules and regulations given by the authorities.
The involvement of the residents sticks to the democratic fundamentals of the locality. It makes sure of going with the democracy and thus gives a perfect decision at the end. The involvement also makes sure to take the discussion in the right direction thereby landing on the correct inference (Clark, Young, Teague & Rynearson-Moody, 2016).
Involving the residents would help get more amount of information in the process. Additionally, when more people get involved, it results in giving more perspectives to a particular matter (Lloyd-Ellis et al., 2014). This can help get additional information about a particular topic.
Getting the residents involved in making decisions helps in having an increase in mutual understanding (Fisher, 2016). This will make sure that the relationship between the people is maintained and remains healthy. It also makes a point of getting free advice and consultations from the people thereby making the process simpler and convenient.
Analysis of Arnstein’s ladder of participation:
Sherry Arnstein gave the model of participation that is framed as a ladder that has eight different levels in it. The different levels of the ladder are categorized into three main divisions namely citizen power, tokenism, and nonparticipation. The division of citizen power has all the top levels of participation like citizen control, delegated power, and partnership in the ascending order (Fowler & Chavira, 2014). The next division named tokenism contained placation, consultation, and information. The last division is nonparticipation which includes therapy and manipulation.
In the case of hard-to-reach groups, one has to have the quality of controlling the citizens so that s/he can lead the group to a decision-making process. The leader must be supported by some of the delegates who would be there to stand with him in his time of need. Hard-to-reach groups may be more in number and for this purpose, the leader needs to have a partner who would help and take steps hand in hand.
When it comes to part tokenism, in the case of reaching groups, it is important to keep track of placing every member in the right position so that they are prepared for any kind of adverse situation. In the case of consultation, before approaching the hard-to-reach groups, it is necessary to consult the experts (Fisher, 2016). It will make sure of taking the right steps at the right time thereby maintaining harmony with the entire population (Grossmann, Schäfer & Steger, 2015). After the process of consultation, the leader along with the group members must inform the decisions that have been taken by them. Information being a level in the ladder plays an important role in the complete process. The final section of the ladder happens to be the non-participation segment (Holtgrave et al., 2013). It includes the therapies helpful for the process of maintaining healthy relations and balance. Finally, it is manipulation that comes at the bottom of the ladder. All these steps need to be followed before letting the hard-to-reach people, know about a particular topic.
Conclusion:
It is hence concluded that one must make sure to involve the hard-to-reach groups in the process of decision-making (Byrne, 2015). They are the groups that remain away from the normal process every time and hence making them a part of can be helpful and bring harmony to society. The involvement of the group can result in making the process convenient, easier, and better each time.
References
Baker, D.A. and Grover, E.A., 2013. Responding to victims of human trafficking: Interagency awareness, housing services, and spiritual care. Social Work and Christianity, 40(3), p.308.
Bean, K.F., Shafer, M.S. and Glennon, M., 2013. The impact of housing first and peer support on people who are medically vulnerable and homeless. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 36(1), p.48.
Bryant, A., 2015. Homes & Housing strategies.
Clark, C., Young, M.S., Teague, G. and Rynearson-Moody, S., 2016. Development of a Measure of Housing and Housing Services. Community Mental Health Journal, 52(1), pp.66-72.
Fisher, K., 2016, June. A collaborative model for housing and services for veterans. In 2016 National Health Care for the Homeless Conference & Policy Symposium. Nhchc.
Fowler, P.J. and Chavira, D., 2014. Family Unification Program: Housing services for homeless child welfare–involved families. Housing Policy Debate, 24(4), pp.802-814.
Grossmann, V., Schäfer, A. and Steger, T.M., 2015. On the Interaction Between Migration, Capital Formation, and the Price for Housing Services.
Holtgrave, D.R., Wolitski, R.J., Pals, S.L., Aidala, A., Kidder, D.P., Vos, D., Royal, S., Iruka, N., Briddell, K., Stall, R. and Bendixen, A.V., 2013. Cost-utility analysis of the housing and health intervention for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. AIDS and Behavior, 17(5), pp.1626-1631.
Lloyd-Ellis, H., Stacey, D. and Head, A., 2014. Income Inequality, Neighborhoods, Prices and the Liquidity of Housing. In 2014 Meeting Papers (No. 1163). Society for Economic Dynamics.
McCauley, K., Montgomery, P., Mossey, S. and Bailey, P., 2015. Canadian community mental health workers’ perceived priorities for supportive housing services in northern and rural contexts. Health & social care in the community, 23(6), pp.632-641.
Michelsen, C., Rosenschon, S. and Schulz, C., 2013. Real estate companies’ size and the production of energy-efficient housing services: Evidence from Germany’s apartment housing market.
Nguyen, N.P., 2013. An Empirical Analysis on Estimating the Demand for Housing Services across the United States.
Punzi, M.T., 2013. Housing market and current account imbalances in the international economy. Review of International Economics, 21(4), pp.601-613.
Terzian, A.S., Irvine, M.K., Hollod, L.M., Lim, S., Rojas, J. and Shepard, C.W., 2015. Effect of HIV housing services on engagement in care and treatment, New York City, 2011. AIDS and Behavior, 19(11), pp.2087-2096.
