Social Construction and Policy Design:

How Veterans do Better

Monica Wilson
POL_S 514
April 28, 2014

1
Introduction
The Social Construction and Policy Design Theory asserts that policy makers can shape

and reinforce our perceptions of target social groups as to whether they are more or less worthy

than another group to receive benefits through policy designs. These policy designs distribute

benefits and burdens according to the positive or negative attitudes already assigned to groups, as

well as the amount of political power a group may hold. Social constructions are a powerful

force in our society, and examining the impact of the perceptions they create about deservedness

and goodness is an important aspect of understanding inequality and inequity in all societies.

Looking beyond the interpersonal and even societal stereotypes and attitudes about

different groups, we must be willing to be critical of public policy design and implementation

that are designed to reflect social mores and “fails in it’s nominal purposes, fails to solve

important problems, perpetuates injustice, fails to support democratic institutions, and produces

and unequal citizenship.” (Ingram, Schneider, & Deleon, 2007; 93) The Social Construction and

Policy Design theory posits that past and current policy designs impact institutions and culture,

target populations, and society as a whole, which further impacts future policy designs. (Ingram,

Schneider, & Deleon, 2007; 93) While there is no shortage of examples where we might see this

theory in practice in the political arena in the United States, the social position of Veterans is ripe

for deconstruction as they are a privileged group as an aggregate but are far from monolithic

identity group.

Social support for Veterans has varied over time. From the "greatest generation on earth"

of the World War II vet, to the social stigma carried with Veteran status through Vietnam, the

All Volunteer Force (AVF) of post Vietnam to our current vets who serve in Iraq and

Afghanistan who enjoy a raised status in today's society. All Veterans have suffered in some

form stemming from their service, but some have faced barriers that lead to homelessness,

2
substance abuse and mental illness. We use the social construction theory to explain the social

status of Veterans, public policies, and programs that address these issues, including the

McKinney-Vento act of 1987, Project Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education

and Networking Groups (CHALENG) introduced in 1994, and the Opening Doors plan to

prevent and end homelessness by 2015. This paper maintains that such policies are designed and

implemented in order to preserve Veteran status and create opportunities for disadvantaged

Veterans to resume positions that carry more privilege and political power.

Attitudes toward Veterans

There are a number of social understandings about Veterans and their deservedness of

governmental support. Ingram et al document the creation of the advantaged social status held

by Veterans, tracing it back to early entitlements bestowed upon Continental Army Veterans of

the revolutionary war. “It is notable that the benefits allocated were clearly material—making

Veterans who fit the criteria relatively better off financially—but they were also honorific and

symbolic.” (2007; 98) Negative attitudes toward Vietnam era Veterans not withstanding,

American attitudes toward military servicemen and women continue to be, at their core, positive.

Compared to the social support that today's Veterans receive, Vietnam Veterans returned to the

United States to protests aimed not just toward the government over perceived illegal and

unethical military intervention, but toward the individuals who served. Instead of hugs, tears and

gratitude, Vietnam Veterans were welcomed back to American soil with virile, spit and in the

most extreme cases, hurled blood. (Henson, 2011) The tide noticeably changed with the first

Gulf War, exemplified by the prevalence of yellow ribbons donned by supporters and a ticker

tape parade in New York City for returning Veterans once the conflict ended (Bunke, 2012).

Scott Henson, a reporter who writes for the Truman State University newspaper, argues that the

3
September 11th attacks were also a catalyst for changing attitudes towards Veterans as they were

called on to defend the country after a devastating and destructive attack. In the last two decades

following the gulf wars and the Afghanistan war, Veterans have been returned to the good graces

of the American public as defenders of land and freedom, even for those opposed to the military

action. Americans have learned to support the troops, even when they don’t support the war.

In general, Veterans may be seen as disciplined, selfless heroes who, as an outgrowth of

their moral character, have risked their lives for their country, have taken it as their calling to

defend American freedom and way of life, and who are owed a debt because of their service.

These attitudes make up the foundation of the positive stereotypes of Veterans, which impacts

their political power. “People tend to exaggerate the positive and negative traits of groups and

create myths and rationales that justify the domination of some groups over others. In time, these

myths become inoculated in the culture and embodied in policies so that their authenticity is

unquestioned, and they are accepted as fact.” Policies and programs such as the GI bill, pension,

Veteran preference in hiring practices, special Veterans courts, and medical care for Veterans

reflect this advantaged place in society. Further, programs such as the GI bill adds to social

understandings of the group as deserving, which is the backbone of their continued success in the

political arena. (Ingram et al, 2007)

Despite the aforementioned advantages, there are many Veterans who face barriers that

appear to relegate them into social statuses that are less privileged and hold less political power.

For example, homeless Veterans, those with substance abuse issues, and Veterans operating with

mental and physical health problems, create somewhat of dichotomy within the social group.

Ingram, et al positions the poor and the homeless as dependents, a group that may elicit

sympathy and pity but “lack the political power to effectively demand more.” (2007: 103) In

4
addition, 1.5 million Veterans are arrested each year and over 70,000 Veterans are currently

incarcerated in the United States (Levy, 2102). While civilians who are illicit drug users, or

those who are perpetrators of domestic violence could be considered deviants under this model,

Veterans who fall into these social traps have access to programs that help them maintain their

status that civilians do not. Based on this analysis, we argue that homeless and other

marginalized Veterans fall slightly closer to 'advantaged' than the disabled on Ingram et al table

of social construction.

Policy designs
If marginalized Veterans lack the social and political capital to push for change, how do

programs that benefit them end up on the policy agenda? Ingram, et al state that “policymakers,

especially elected politicians, respond to, perpetrate, and help create social constructions of

target groups in anticipation of public approval or approbation.” (2007; 106) Americans largely

expect Veterans to be cared for upon return from the theatre of war, hence public policies that

impact their welfare will often be politically appealing and have the potential to shore up votes

from constituents. Along with currying political favor, the theory asserts that problem definition

is an inherently political activity and that “labeling a phenomenon to be a ‘problem’ is a political

calculus largely based on values.” (2007; 94) In sum, when attempting to resolve problem

variables that negatively impact a positively constructed social group like Veterans, the political

attention given to these issues could be politically advantageous. Veterans are called upon to

evoke feelings of patriotism and nationalism, as a group they are symbolic of American values

and create opportunities for bipartisan legislative support.

The McKinney-Vento Act, enacted in 1987, is considered an example of support for the

homeless populations and not only defined homelessness, but established and authorized a

5
number of programs that are in existence today and provide the foundation for homeless support

programs from which to build. The Act includes provisions on emergency shelter, transitional

housing programs, substance abuse programs and mental health services, job training, and food

assistance. Indeed, the MckKinney-Vento Act “has created valuable programs that have saved

lives and helped hundreds of thousands of Americans regain stability.” (National Coalition for

the Homeless, 2006) Although Veterans had access to all of the programs resulting from the

McKinney-Vento Act, Title IX provided Veteran specific support through the extension of the

Veteran Job Training Act. (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006)

Less than a decade after passage of McKinney-Vento, the Veteran’s Administration

(VA) enacted Project CHALENG. Project CHALENG was tasked with exploring the needs of

homeless Veterans, assessing the services provided by non-profit organizations and government

programs, identification of the different components of overcoming homelessness, and

determination of how well Veterans needs are met (BlueHowells and Nakashima, 2014). While

assessing the issue is of great value, the project provides a directive to take action in meeting the

needs of Veterans that are identified through assessment and further to inform Veterans of the

resources available to them. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development stated, “Making

sure the heroes who answered the call to service are treated with the dignity they deserve when

they return is absolutely central to upholding our nation’s values.” (Donovan, 2011)

While Project CHALENG continues to be operational today, the continued plight of

homeless Veterans, coupled with a greater understanding of the variables contributing to their

homelessness, continues to be an item on the national agenda. In 2009 President Obama to

stated his goal to eradicate homelessness among Veterans by 2015. It would be misguided to not

6
attribute the previous 15 years worth of assessment compiled by Project CHALENG as a

foundation for moving forward with implementing such a lofty goal.

Policy Implementation

There is no shortage of actors involved in the implementation of policies that address

homelessness in the Veteran community. There are a variety of non-profit or non-governmental

organizations that address homelessness as well as agencies and programs at virtually every level

of the government. Consequentially, homeless Veterans are represented by a fairly expansive

network that includes Veterans themselves, actors from nonprofits and advocates from the focus

areas of homelessness, substance abuse and public health, local, state, and federal governments,

Housing Authorities, the Veterans Administration, and the Executive branch. Ingram et al assert,

“policymaking dynamics incorporate policy entrepreneurs, interest groups, social movements,

agencies, and elected officials as well as their staff and others who have a more direct role in

determining future policy designs. (2007; 97)”

The network of advocates that represent Veteran interests in the legislative sphere is an

overarching accumulation of stakeholders, they hold formal and legal authority, impact public

opinion, garner a bevy of information, hold deep financial resources and exercise skillful

leadership. In addition, those who are truly concerned with the issue of homelessness, among

both Veterans and civilians, typically act out of moral obligations, especially when it comes to

the practitioners who are providing services to the vulnerable populations. Even given the deep

beliefs that these actors may have about the role of government in providing a safety net for

vulnerable Veterans, the fact that shoring up support for the programs allows actors to

accumulate political points cannot be overlooked. Ingram et al note, “social constructions of

target groups are important political attributes that often become embedded in political discourse

7
and the elements of policy design. Policy makers respond to and manipulate social constructions

in building their political base.” (2007; 94) Politicians know the value in touting their

commitment to the wellbeing of Veterans and appreciating their service, as evidenced by the

opportunistic display of gratitude for Cory Remsburg, a disabled Army Ranger Veteran, at the

2014 State of the Union Address. In addition to the nearly two minute standing ovation for the

soldier, President Obama testified to the importance of continued support of the newest

generation of service people, stating:

As this time of war draws to a close, a new generation of heroes returns to civilian
life. We’ll keep slashing that backlog so our Veterans receive the benefits they’ve
earned, and our wounded warriors receive the health care – including the mental health
care – that they need. We’ll keep working to help all our Veterans translate their skills
and leadership into jobs here at home. And we all continue to join forces to honor and
support our remarkable military families.

It is with this spirit of support and honor for Veterans that Project CHALENG, from it’s

inception, recognized the need to identify, assess, strengthen, and coordinate the services

provided to homeless Veterans as well as Veterans at risk of experiencing homelessness.

During the formation of this policy it was clear that “no single agency can provide the full

spectrum of services required to help homeless Veterans become productive members of

society” (BlueHowells and Nakashima, 2014). The over representation of vets in the homeless

population indicate that from the beginning of the implementation of project CHALENG, there

were still many needs that were not being met through the provisions of the McKinney-Vento

Act. Increasing services available to homeless Veterans specifically, instead of pushing for

more funding through the McKinney-Vento Act to impact homelessness generally, is an example

of the benefits bestowed to Veterans because of their social standing.

8
 Coordinating services through various levels of government and social service programs

has been necessary due to the multiplicity of federal and local institutions involved in the issue

because there are a limited number of federal agencies that focus on homelessness, such as the

VA, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), and the United States

Department of Housing (HUD). While there are local and community based organizations that

also provide assistance, they typically need the financial resources that the federal government

can provide.

Continuum of Care
As a strategy of the McKinney-Vento Act, also used as an implementation tool with

Project CHALENG, The Continuum of Care (CoC) incorporates a spectrum of services ranging

from preventative measures and outreach to permanent affordable housing and support services,

striving to ensure that there are no gaps in service between the ends of the continuum. Such gaps

and a lack of understanding of how to navigate available services are factors that contribute to

homeless Veterans. Connecting vulnerable Veterans to appropriate resources is no small feat,

but ultimately may the best safeguard that ensures that Veterans don’t fall between the cracks.

(Little and Zimmerman, 2009) Below is a simple diagram outlining the CoC, showing the

relationship between each of the elements that we will further detail in the following pages.

Outreach Permanent Permanent

Prevention Emergency Transitional
and Supportive Affordable
Shelter Housing
Assessment Housing Housing

Fundamental Components of Continuum of Care

9
 The inclusion of outreach and prevention services is one of the aspects that makes the

CoC model advantageous for Veterans at risk of being homeless, particularly those who are

experiencing situational poverty that is linked to temporary economic issues rather than longer

term social barriers such as generational poverty, mental and physical health impairments and

substance abuse. For example, the strategy of Rapid Rehousing is one employed to provide funds

for families and individuals who would be facing homelessness without emergency funding.

While homelessness may seem to boil down to economics, for the chronically homeless it is one

factor among many. For Veterans who are all but economically stable, Rapid Rehousing is a tool

that provides short and medium term financial assistance and support programs such as case

management, credit counseling, and assessment of eligibility for other benefits. As a

preventative strategy, Rapid Rehousing provides Veterans the opportunity to stabilize before

running the risk of falling into a less politically powerful constructed group, including the

chronically homeless.

In addition to Rapid Rehousing, other preventative measures employed in the CoC

model include the Montgomery and Post 9/11 GI bills, which provide funding for schooling that

can positively impact a Veterans future earning potential. Moreover, the post 9/11 GI bill extends

funding to cover living expenses that also provide vets stability while they pursue their

education. (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012) Further, Ingram et al present

conclusions of Susanne Mettler’s (2002) research:

The GI bill had lasting effects on Veterans’ participation both because it improved their
material circumstances via the greatly enhanced educational opportunities but also
because the policy design reinforced a positive social construction and generated (indeed,
invited) positive orientations toward government among those who had experiences with
the policy itself.” (2007; 99)

10
In addition, there are a variety of job training programs funded through block grants provided by

the federal government and the VA, which aim to provide Veterans with the skills necessary to

procure stable employment that pays a living wage.

While economic issues always play some role in homelessness, it is not typically the

primary foundation for homelessness among Veterans, particularly in relationship to chronic

homelessness. Rather, Veterans primarily face drug and alcohol abuse problems. The VA

estimates that over 70% of this population experience drug and alcohol dependence, and rates for

the next generations Veteran could be even more staggering. Service members who have been

deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) are

considered to have increased levels of substance abuse and the impact on their housing could

create even greater stresses on the resources available for homeless Veterans. (Little and

Zimmerman, 2009) Drug and alcohol abuse can be perceived as personal over-indulgence or

indiscretion and, given the events that Veterans have experienced during war time, it may be

more understandable that Veterans may not have control over their use.

In addition to substance abuse, the emotional trauma that Veterans experience through their

participation in armed conflict can weigh heavily on the basic functions necessary for one to take

care of themselves. Outside of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which impacts more than one

third of OIF and OEF Veterans, Veterans may also deal with depression, traumatic brain injuries

and emotional issues stemming from a trouble transitioning back to civilian life. Further, 26% of

Veterans have disabilities that impact their mobility and ability to work, which further adds to

the possibility of homelessness. (Zimmerman and Little, 2009) While any of these issues would

be difficult to navigate, most homeless Veterans do not experience them in isolation, further

compounding their ability to function at the level of their less socially stratified peers. Adding to

11
the tangled web that Veterans are caught in, many are going it alone. Each of the

aforementioned battles takes it's toll on family and social life. Costello (2012) attributes a lack

of social support after discharge from the military and a lack of a partner or spouse as being

another contributing factor to homelessness among Veterans. It is with this understanding that

the CoC provides more comprehensive programs to create housing options for homeless

Veterans.

The Supportive Housing Continuum (SHC) model addresses the problem of the current

transitional housing systems inability to meet the needs of many homeless. It's response is to

create a comprehensive system of supportive housing which combines "successful, cost-effective

combination of affordable housing with services that help people live more stable, productive

lives" (Ending Homelessness Among Veterans Through Permanent Supportive Housing, 2006).

The SHC builds social services into housing options for vulnerable Veterans, particularly the

chronically homeless. The primary supportive housing approach for Veterans is the HUD-VA

Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program, which provides vouchers that pays a significant

portion of the housing costs for Veterans to reside in supportive communities that provide

varying levels of support. Examples of services include case management, on-site clinicians and

social workers that work one-on-one with Veterans and facilitate support groups and peer to peer

support, crisis management, socialization and are often in close proximity to other necessary

services, such as a VA office or hospital, although some supportive housing complexes are

located on VA campuses. (Handleman, Jawaid, and Brennan, 2013) While some Veterans will

need intensive support to develop life skills and stability for an extended period of time, if not

permanently, others will be ready to transition to fully independent living more quickly after

having completed the program.

12
 Even for those that are prepared to live alone economic factors could continue to be an

issue. Moreover, Veterans who experience any or all of the aforementioned afflictions may

prefer to live independently, and to require them to participate in services as a condition of their

housing is to essentially ensure they stay on the street. The Housing First Model provides

housing support for homeless Veterans but does not require them to take part in wrap around

services as a condition for their shelter. Under this model it is assumed that once Veterans have

procured housing they will begin or continue to work on other issues, such as substance abuse or

mental health hurdles, in ways that are appropriate rather than mandated. (United States

Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2012) Further, this model is one example of policy

designs which, as Ingram et al explain, “structure the subsequent opportunities for participation,

allocate material resources, and send messages that shape the political orientations and

participation patters of the target group as well as other members of the pubic.”(Ingram et al; 97)

This model puts housing as a priority because the Veterans are deserving of such, rather than as a

reward for doing what is proscribed. (Santos, 2014) The ideal is for homeless Veterans,

particularly the chronically homeless, to work their way from dependent or disadvantaged social

categories to more politically powerful and positive constructions.

In addition to the models outlined above, homeless Veterans may also take advantage of

resources that are made available to the general public as well, giving them even more

opportunities to improve their lot. Government programs such as Temporary Assistance to

Needy Families (TANF), Section 8 vouchers, federal financial aid, state need grants, and

transitional jobs programs can all be used to assist Veterans find stability, housing, and improve

their job skills and educational levels. Yet for chronically homeless Veterans, awareness of

13
available programs and ability to navigate eligibility and enrollment requirements can be quite

daunting. Ingram, et al (2007) explain:

The way clients are treated by government during implementation differs significantly
depending upon the power and social construction of target groups. The deserving
groups typically are clients of federal programs with professionalized services and
specific rules of allocation, whereas the less or underdeserving are subject to state or
local administrators with greater discretion in the hands of caseworkers. 104

This is apparent in the services available to Veterans. Programs such as the GI bill are

administered directly to the Veterans with little intervention from VA representatives, while

intervention is often in the form of support and guidance to compliance with the relatively simple

program requirements. While a Veteran is not likely to use the GI bill to escape homelessness,

those likely to use the benefits will still belong to the more positively constructed Veteran group

as a preventative measure to guard against the economic forces that can lead to homelessness.

However, supportive housing and housing first approaches are likely to have more complex

entrance requirements as well as long waiting lists, an example of how “Target populations are

often subdivided in policy design so as to direct benefits to the most powerful and positively

constructed of the subgroups.” (Ingram, et al, 2007; 104) As demonstrated in the above

discussion of supportive housing, case management and participation in the services provided by

social workers and clinicians are required as condition of housing. Further, many supportive

housing programs will have sobriety requirements and Veterans will be subjected to various

qualification tests to determine whether they are deserving or eligible to participate in or benefit

from the programs. Such difference in treatment of Veterans of differing circumstance is yet

another example of how their social designation impacts the benefits that they receive.

Moreover, while outreach to homeless Veterans, informing them of the programs that

exist and assisting them in completing entrance requirements, is sorely lacking and varies from

14
state to state. It is estimated that it would cost the federal government an additional 4.5 billion

dollars a year if all eligible Veterans actually filed a claim and received the disability benefits

that they were entitled. (Young and Adams, 2004) Instead, over a half million Veterans have not

filed claims. One factor contributing to this is the government support provided to assist

Veterans. There are intense local and statewide outreach programs where Veterans file and

receive disability payments at nearly double the rate of states where such outreach programs are

not in operation. (Young and Adams, 2004) Criticism of flawed or absent outreach should not

fall solely on the shoulders of state and local agencies and bureaucracies, but instead highlight

the fact that the VA has not implemented the yearly outreach plan mandated by the Veterans

Right to Know Act, enacted in 2000. (Young and Adams, 2004) Outside of assisting service

members who are currently transitioning out of the military with filling out paperwork and

informing them of their benefits as part of their discharge process, the VA does little else in

terms of outreach and assessment. Given the fundamental nature of outreach to the success of

the CoC, the VA is missing an opportunity to contribute to the current administrations goal of

ending homelessness among Veterans by 2015.

President Obama established the goal of eradicating Veteran homelessness in 2009, by

signing into public law the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing

(HEARTH) Act. Quoted as saying, “We will provide new help for homeless Veterans because

those heroes have a home—it’s the country they served, the United States of America. And until

we reach a day when not a single Veteran seeps on the street our business is unfinished,” (Ashire

and Nakashima et al, 2011) the President signals the necessity for enhancements for Project

CHALENG and provisions of the McKenney-Vento Act. The HEARTH Act requires “greater

coordination with the community, national, and local service providers, and other Federal and

15
state partners, to develop and implement services focused on outreach, treatment, intervention,

supportive services, transitional and permanent housing, and the prevention of homelessness.”

(Ashire and Nakashima et al, 2011) Further, the HEARTH Act “codifies the continuum of care

planning process as a required and integral local function necessary to generate the local

strategies for ending homelessness.” (National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, n.d)

This signifies a strengthening of the CoC model, which can be achieved through capital support.

Since the Obama Administration has pledged to end Veteran homelessness, an increase in funds

available for housing programs has been key. During the fiscal year of 2013 the federal

government provided $1.4 billion to specialized homeless programs and $4.4 billion to

healthcare for Veterans that are homeless (Blue-Howells and Nakashima, 2014). The president

has included a 12.5 percent increase in funding for programs combatting homelessness among

Veterans in his 2015 budget proposal, bringing the funding level to $1.6 billion. (Blue-Howells

and Nakashima, 2014)

Considering the smattering of stakeholders involved in this policy area, the delicate

normative understandings of the beneficiaries, and a lofty and complicated goal of ending

homelessness for Veterans, a continuous evaluation of the needs of Veterans and where to

improve policy has been necessary. Multiple amendments and revisions to the McKinney-Vento

Act have “expanded the scope and strengthened the provisions of the original legislation.”

(National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006) In 2010 a Veteran specific survey was implemented

into Project CHALENG, allowing participants to reflect on the strength of the program in

meeting needs as well as identifying areas of improvement. This method “represents the only

national effort to catalog the needs of homeless Veterans by using Veterans input,” (Blue-Howell

and Nakashima, 2014) and is intended to involve Veterans in the implementation and design of

16
homeless services. This illustration is a fine example of how a “policy design may facilitate

participation by providing leadership or points of access.” (Ingram et al, 100) The CHALENG

Survey is n opportunity for involvement for Veterans to provide feedback that reflects their will

capitalizes off of their collective agency.

In addition to the survey is the introduction of HUDStat, which is a quarterly review led

by the secretary of HUD. This allows the VA and HUD to monitor the progress of the HUD-

VASH housing program “within the context of ending Veteran homelessness by 2015” (United

States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2012). The progress of the HUD-VASH program

is measured bi-annually at a meeting between representatives of HUD, the VA, and local

practitioners and fieldworkers and specifically evaluates measurable outcomes related to

“voucher utilization, lease-up times, and targeting.” (United States Interagency Council on

Homelessness, 2012) Through these evaluation meetings, HUD and VA officials to review and

improve the policy, resulting in numerous positive changes over the years to project CHALENG

policy including: a data sharing program that decreases discrepancies and errors previously

identified in reporting systems, production and sharing of a report on best practices, analyzing

the processing times of ‘housing first’ programs to facilitate it’s successful expansion, and

reducing cost impacts on Public Housing Agencies for administering the HUD-VASH vouchers.

(United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2012)

Another instrument used in the evaluation process to facilitate carrying out this policy is

the guidance and technical assistance provided by HUD, the VA and USICH. Establishing

guides on best practices, promising practices, and innovative strategies is a significant result of

such assistance, imperative for communities that desperately need support in providing

appropriate services to homeless Veterans. Additionally, this provides support to communities in

17
need of troubleshooting and information sharing which will address issues specific to their local

needs. (United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2012). Further, a national non-

profit agency, Rapid Results Boot Camps, provides another federally funded tool used to

improve the administration of the HUD-VASH programs throughout the country. This program

works with local community leaders to streamline the process of locating housing and placing

those in need in to stable housing. Standardization of processes inherently creates an opportunity

for accessible services to Veterans, regardless of which state they reside in.

Problem expansion
A major proposal for a solution to end homelessness is contained within the “Opening

Doors” plan, which is a “Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness” described in

an initiative proposal under the same name. In addition to ending homelessness among Veterans

by 2015, the proposal lists goals of ending chronic homelessness and preventing and ending

homelessness among families, youth and children while setting forward on a path to end all types

of homelessness, with timelines for each of the goals ranging from five to ten years. A series of

objectives were formulated in accordance to this plan with which the agency used to choose their

solution path and propose the steps to accomplish these goals. USICH proposed to increase

leadership, collaboration and civic engagement by “Provid[ing] and promot[ing] collaborative

leadership at all levels of government and across all sectors to inspire and energize Americans to

commit to preventing and ending homelessness”, and to also “Strengthen the capacity of public

and private organizations by increasing knowledge about collaboration, homelessness, and

successful interventions to prevent and end homelessness” (United States Interagency Council on

Homelessness, 2010). Other themes and objectives included: increasing access to stable and

affordable housing by providing permanent affordable and stable housing to those in the most

18
need of it, increase economic security, improve health and stability, and “retool” the homeless

crisis response team to rapidly re house those who have found themselves homeless (United

States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2010).

If the goal of ending homelessness for Veterans was lofty, expanding the goal to the

general population in an additional five years teeters on the futile. There is no shortage of

political support for Veteran causes, because even when the beneficiaries of the policy designs

are mentally ill, criminals, or drug addicts, they are still Veterans, and as such are constructed as

deserving. The same cannot be said of civilians who experience homelessness. Instead,

homeless civilians fall very low on the social construct table, with little political power and not

holding either positive or negative attitudes toward them, in general. Yet when we consider that

for the civilian population, as with Veterans, homelessness is often a symptom of other social

and legal hurdles, their place on the social construction table may move further toward deviant.

However, it could be possible that through successful implementation of housing programs for

homeless Veterans, policy makers can manipulate the image of the general homeless population

as more deserving. More likely, policymakers will frame the issue as a benefit to already

advantaged populations through the implementation of the Opening Doors plan.

Considering that homelessness is a burden to all advantaged members of society via the

high costs of services such as emergency room stays, if providing housing is cheaper, advantaged

groups benefit. This is exactly the case, evidenced by a 2009 findings from the Los Angeles

Homeless Services Authority which indicate “that the monthly cost of housing and supportive

services for one person was $605, while the public costs of a person living on the streets were

roughly $2,900 a month.” (Santos, 2014) Although support from the president and the groups

that make up the advocacy network for the homeless is impactful on the implementation of the

19
Opening Doors plan, continued support should not be assumed. “Even though target groups may

win policy victories that appear to afford more resources and more positive images, change for

the better is not secure. In a changed and almost always contentious political environment, there

may be a re-emergence of negative discourse and, with the help of moral entrepreneurs, gains by

dependent or deviant groups may be lost.” (Ingram et al, 2007; 111) Essentially, while the

current administration has focused on ending homelessness for Veterans and civilians, a new

administration may deemphasize or even end support for ending homelessness in general,

although retracting support for homeless Veterans would be unlikely given their political

position.

While this paper has largely explored specific programs for Veterans that target

homelessness, there is no shortage of programs that are available to Veterans that assist them in

maintaining their social status. Veterans courts, reintegration programs, jobs programs,

cemeteries, suicide prevention services, preference in hiring, discounts that extend their

purchasing power, honorific holidays, and specialized liaisons and priority treatment at many

institutions such as schools further signal the advantaged position in American society. While

there are Veterans who struggle, the combination of Veteran specific resources and general

social welfare resources provides them advantages that are not available to the larger civilian

population that may be experiencing similar stresses, allowing Veterans to fare better overall.

20
Bibliography

Abshire, C., Nakashima, J. and Kuhn, J. 2011. THE EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL PROGRESS
REPORT COMMUNITY HOMELESSNESS ASSESSMENT, LOCAL EDUCATION AND
NETWORKING GROUPS (CHALENG) FOR VETERANS FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2011
SERVICES FOR HOMELESS VETERANS ASSESSMENT AND COORDINATION.

Blue-Howells, J. and Nakashima, J. 2014. Project CHALENG – Homeless Veterans. [online]

Available at: Http://www.va.gov/homeless/chaleng.asp#one [Accessed: 10 Apr 2014].

Ending Homelessness Among Veterans Through Permanent Supportive Housing. (2006). In: A
Leadership Dialogue A Leadership Dialogue National Housing Conference. Washington
D.C.: NCVH, p.8.

Guina, R. and Guina, R. 2014. Types of Military Discharges - Understanding Discharge Ratings.
[online] Available at: http://themilitarywallet.com/types-of-military-discharges/
[Accessed: 14 Apr 2014].

Handleman, Ethan; Jawaid, Sarah; and Breenan, Maya. (2013) Veterans Permanent Supportive
Housing: Policy and Practice. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.nhc.org/media/files/VeteransPermanentSupportiveHousing.pdf

Henson, Scott (2011, November 10). Attitudes change toward Veterans. Truman State
University Index. Retrieved from http://index.truman.edu/pdf/2011-
2012/november10/page14.pdf

Ingram, H., Schneider, A. and Deleon, P. 2007. Theories of the policy process. Boulder, Colo.:
Westview Press.

Levy, Douglas (2012, March 2) Countywide Macomb program working with VA, court system
to rehabilitate those who served. Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved from
http://milawyersweekly.com/news/2012/03/02/countywide-macomb-program-working-
with-va-court-system-to-rehabilitate-those-who-served/

Mattson, E. 2011. Where Does VA Stand in Compare to Other Countries. Veterans Today,
September 11.

National Alliance to End Homelessness (2014). VA Homelessness Programs. Retrieved from

http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/va_homelessness_programs

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006) McKinney-Vento Act. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/McKinney.pdf

21
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (n.d) HEARTH Act—An Overview.
Retrieved from
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/ADV_2013_06_03a_HEARTH_Ac
t_Overview.pdf

Sabatier, P. A. 2007. Theories of the policy process. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Santos, Fernanda. (2014, January 16) Program to End Homelessness among Veterans
reaches a milestone in Arizona. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/program-to-end-homelessness-among-Veterans-
hits-milestone-in-arizona.html?_r=1

U.S. Departent of Veterans Affairs. (2012) Summary of VA Education Benefits. Retrieved from
http://benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/benefitssummary/SummaryofVAEducationBenefits.pd
f
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2010. Opening Doors: Federal Strategic
Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. Washington D.C.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. 2012. United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness Report to Congress on Homeless Veterans.

Young, Alison and Adams, Chris. (2004, July 06) Aging Veterans fail to tap benefits more than
half a million aren’t getting what they earned, a study found. Some fault the VA’s
Outreach effort. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from
http://articles.philly.com/2004-07-06/news/25372688_1_homeless-Veterans-disability-
benefits-Veterans-affairs

22