Government/Non-Profit, Research

Federal Housing Policy

Holder, Brandi L. “Federal Housing Policy: There Goes the Neighborhood.” Helix: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. (2016).

Federal Housing Policy:
There Goes the Neighborhood

Federal housing policies have existed since the 1930s. Citizen support for federal housing policies evokes a range of emotions from ambivalence to violent opposition. A recent decision by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is no exception. The ruling, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), is designed to deconstruct current housing policy and reassemble it in a fashion that prevents segregation, the concentration of poverty, and unequal access to community assets (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2015b). The policy seeks to address historical patterns of inequality by changing planning at the local level and has garnered a slew of negative press. For example, The Hill published a 2014 piece entitled, “Obama Making Bid to Diversify Wealthy Neighborhoods.” In addition, the spectacularly slanted article on decries, “War on Suburbs: Obama, Julian Castro Rev Up Affirmative Action Housing.” What images do these headlines conjure? Perhaps the attack on middle-class values? Fear? Loss of control? There are many unwritten words that the media outlets want the reader to fill in. It is a complex fabric of race, big government, and capitalism. The trite narratives in the media headlines are meant to induce drama and emotional reactions helping to sell more papers.

Like most redistributive policies, federal housing policy seeks to redistribute wealth in pursuit of the greater good. In this instance, by equalizing living conditions for those who cannot afford adequate shelter. Lawrence L. Thompson (2006, 2) points to the inception of housing policy at its modest beginnings as a step to bolster the economy and put the dream of homeownership in the hands of many. From these humble beginnings, federal housing policy has morphed over the years to address issues surrounding low and moderate-income families through mechanisms such as public housing, programs targeting urban decay, entitlements, and block grants. The controversy in housing policy does not lie so much with government provision of shelter, but with the definition of adequate shelter. According to Housing Quality Standards (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), minimums for shelter include a secure structure, plumbing, electric, cooking source, and heat. To taxpayers that could seem adequate. To those living in such housing, often described as “slums,” “hoods” or “projects,” that may seem far from adequate.

Does federal housing policy also have a duty for safety and access to jobs, education, and other community assets? In addition, to discuss housing without discussing race does a disservice to the underlying wicked problems presented in federal housing policy. The question becomes, how will this ruling be different from all those that have come before it? To answer that question means to delve into federal housing policy at the practitioner level by addressing the social constructs and narratives driving policy, historical housing policy, and the overarching goals of the AFFH regulation.  Continue reading “Federal Housing Policy”

Government/Non-Profit, Research

Policy Analysis: Student Debt


According to some economists, scholars, and researchers, the future of national student debt burden is bleak.  As the number of students attending college increases so too does the debt they incur.  An article in the New York Times cited that average tuition at a four-year institution has risen 68% over the last decade against the backdrop of decreased earnings (Blow, 2013).  Who shoulders the blame for soaring tuition? Is it government subsidies, borrower credit mismanagement, exploitation by the universities, inflation, or simple supply and demand?  Perhaps it is a tapestry of many sources laid to rest on the shoulders of the struggling college student.

In looking at the issue of student debt that is facing the nation, it is important to examine several components that affect both the policy formation and shape the future policy. This includes looking at the rational and non-rational elements in the form of stakeholders and policy narratives; in other words, the human element.  The approach used to accomplish this task is the Five-Step Method as outlined in the text, Public Policy Praxis (Clemons & McBeth, 2009).

1.Problem Definition

Before proceeding with the problem definition, it is important to note the importance of this phase of the policy process. It is argued time and time again that how a problem definition is crafted sets the tone for the rest of the policy cycle.  Two issues that can affect the policy process are what Professor Deborah Stone refers to as the “strategically crafted argument” and the social constructs surrounding policy narratives (Smith, 2009).   According to the book, Theories of the Policy Process, social constructs are created by policy makers to cast beneficiaries or recipients in either a positive or negative light.  In turn, the distribution of benefits or encumbrances reflects and further defines the perception of the target population.  The book further delineates target groups into four classifications: advantaged, contenders, dependants, and deviants (Sabatier, 2007, p 101-103).  Students, in particular, are cast into the classification of dependents.


p 102 Sabatier

As the chart from Theories of the Policy Process shows, the individuals and groups in the “dependent” category are conceptualized in a positive light but have little power.  Students fit this category because although they are not seen as a direct drain on the economy, they are not viewed as a politically powerful (i.e. monetary) contributor like those in the “advantaged group.”

What are the implications of social constructs in the policy arena?  It can mean that the light and shadows cast by non-rational definitions surrounding money and power affect who gets what and how they get it. Social construction scholars contend that support and resources are not extended to dependent groups until predicated as past the point of no return or a crisis. In this case, what some call the looming and inevitable crash of the national student debt, is enough to grab the country’s political ear.

For this policy analysis it is important to define what student loan debt encompasses.  According to a study reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, student debt is any debt or loan that is qualified, by Equifax credit reports, to finance education.  This education includes all types of higher education degree levels, graduates, drop-outs, those in default, those in repayment and both federal and private loans (Lee, 2013).  Not included in this definition is family contribution, equity taken on property, personal loans, loans on assets, or credit card debt.

Although student loan debt is not new, it has experienced a rapid acceleration since the Great Recession.  According to Donghoon Lee, student loan debt is quickly approaching one trillion dollars.  It is the largest household debt second only to mortgages (Lee, 2013).  The average student borrowers now graduate with more than $26,000 in debt, and nearly 13% graduate with more than $50,000 of debt (Stiglitz, 2013).  Debts of this size coupled with a weak job market affect other areas such as the housing market, the purchase of vehicles or other consumer commodities and even household size.

The rising cost of tuition in conjunction with declining household income in a weak job market creates insurmountable student loan debt. Solutions to current tuition costs and higher education financing must be proposed to stop the bleeding. Care must be taken to prohibit compromising the quality of higher education or diminishing the quest of the American dream as realized through the pursuit of higher education.

2.Criteria to Evaluate Alternatives

Technical feasibility
Can changes be made to the future of student debt?  Will changes made at the state or federal level be effective in the long run? Do they make sense? This county certainly has the expertise to work out a plan that will hopefully save taxpayer money and continue to provide education for its citizens. But at what cost to current students, institutions, and taxpayers?

Economic Feasibility and Cost-effectiveness
What will the cost be to taxpayers, students, and institutions if the current system is overhauled? If there is a reduction in the Pell Grant Program it would certainly be a cost saving to taxpayers, but how will other stakeholders react? Does it smell of elitism? If institutions become state funded how will that affect staff members and the quality of education? Cost effectiveness primarily rests on an effective policy. However, not all effective policies are the least expensive to initiate.  The cost factor has to be weighed against the potential crash of the national student debt.

Political viability
How will affected stakeholders respond to proposed reforms in student debt? This criterion speaks the loudest to the previously mentioned “strategic argument” and social construction.  The picture of student debt reform can be painted as a “right” to the American dream through education.  Or excessive student debt could be touted as wasteful, superfluous and a reckless problem that students are to deal with alone.  Both sides of the aisle could opine their particular version to constituents.

Legality and ethics
No law governs the right to higher education.  However, policies would have to be examined from the standpoint of how new regulations could affect individuals who are currently facing student loan debt.  In addition, any changes such as state or federal tuition systems would need laws in place for what happens when repayment is not possible, such as in death or incarceration.  Also, for these types of policies how would repayment be tracked for people who relocate or cannot work. In the manner of ethics, is it ethical to slash subsidies?  It may be cost effective but what about the notion that higher education is tantamount to success in future earnings. Is it ethical to cut off the means of upward mobility to a sector of the population?

3.Policy Alternatives

Several possible policy suggestions could be prescribed to alleviate student debt.  Four are listed below:

  1. Do nothing: It is clear from looking at the evidence of how an impending crash in national student debt could affect stakeholder groups. Therefore “do nothing” is not an option and it will not be considered in the next section.
  2. Reduce the Pell Grant program: This might be the most cost effective means in reference to taxpayers. However, it does not appear to be worth its salt regarding ethics. It also does not hold political viability regarding helping disadvantaged groups.
  3. State Funded Tuition: This is an alternative that is currently entering the policy cycle in Oregon. Under this policy, students enrolled in college do not pay tuition or take out loans. Instead, they later pay back the cost to the state based on their income (Perez-Pena, 2013). This system has the potential to appease many stakeholder groups, but the cost effectiveness might be called into question.  There could be an issue if students do not become employed, or take longer to finish school.  What if they become incarcerated or incapacitated? What if they relocate to another state? What is the cost of tracking from state to state?  In addition, how will this affect the quality of education? Regarding political viability could this system affect tourism or economic development? It is feasible to think that residents of one state may flock to another for a “free education.”
  4. Federally Funded Tuition: If higher education comes under the direction of the federal government it will cause states to shoulder the administrative time and cost. The benefits would be trackability of students and politically viability to economic development and tourism stakeholders. A solution of this magnitude might be the easiest to administer in terms of locating the decision making and repayment tracking to one central location. It would also reduce program variability. But would this, in turn, mean an increase in the size of government or the cost to operate the program? It certainly is not against any laws or ethics, but how would some stakeholder groups feel about “Big Brother” taking over the organization of higher education?

4.Evaluate and Select Policies

There are many ways to examine proposed policy alternatives against the evaluation criteria.  In this instance, the Goeller Scorecard with Weighted Criteria was used to evaluate policies B, C, and D.  The scorecard allows the decision maker to assign a numerical ranking to each policy regarding desirability across cost, political feasibility, and administrative feasibility.  As a single analyst, I performed this evaluation and found that policy B and C tied with 13 points each.  Policy D received 10 points.  When performing the tie-break, policy B, State Funded Tuition came out ahead and will be pushed forward as the recommended policy. When looking at the evaluating criteria the least expensive option may not always be the most politically viable option, the easiest to administer, or most ethical and vice versa. It should also be noted that given larger time and space constraints most analysts would base policy selection on numerous other sources. The Goeller Scorecard although subjective, could be used in conjunction with other sources such as expert opinion, group brainstorming sessions, stakeholder interviews, surveys or focus groups.

5.Evaluate Adopted Policy

If the State Funded Tuition policy is adopted, it will need to come with a proposal to assess the success of the program in mitigating the risk of excessive national student debt.  Policy makers will have to propose some goals so that they can be measured for short term and long term results. Evaluations could be surveys of enrollment, analysis of institution financials, rates of graduation, surveys of the job market, measures of national average household size, home ownership by age, and fluctuations of commodities. Evaluation outcome determines program continuation, mutation or termination.


In reality, the policy process is a social construct heavy, value-conflict laden, messy process.  In many instances, policies can take years (or new Administrations) to pass.  It is also possible that policies can be a combination of parts of several policies that appease certain stakeholders. It is evident there is no way to separate non-rational elements of judgments and values from the process. Nor is there any perfect way to include every group or individual in the stakeholder selection.  In the end, the process is decidedly non-rational in nature but necessary to Democracy as we know it.


Blow, Charles M. (March 8, 2013). “A dangerous ‘new normal’ in college debt.”   

Clemons, Randy S. and McBeth, Mark K. 2009. Public Policy Praxis. Pearson Education, Inc.

Lee, Donghoon. (February 28, 2013). “Household debt and credit: student debt.”   

Sabatier, Paul. Theories of the Policy Process.Second Edition. 2007. Boulder, Colorado. West    View Press.

Smith, Kevin B. and Christopher W. Larimer.The Public Policy Theory Primer. 2009. Boulder,  Colorado. Westview Press.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (May 12, 2013). “Student debt and the crushing of the American dream.”