Thesis title: “Analysis of Government Youth Homeless Policies in the United States.”
? Paper Layout:
• 20 pages double-spaced and the title page, executive summary, works cited, endnotes, and appendices will not be included within the page total.
• Times New Roman size 12
• 1” margins
• APA Format with APA in-text citations.
• Your thesis must use 15 scholarly journal sources and a minimum of 15 secondary and tertiary sources.
? Your thesis should be organized accordingly.
I) Title Page
II) Table of contents
III) Acknowledgements ***I will complete this section***
IV) Executive Summary
V) Introduction – should include the following.
• Statement of the Problem.
• Significance of the Problem.
• Concise but brief preview of the claim.
• Organization Plan (talk about the arrangement of the paper and sections).
VI) Body of Paper – should include the following ***Largest Section***.
• Literature Review
• Research Methodology
• Research Statistics
• Precise findings and analysis
• Recommendations, rationalizations, and plans of action.
• Reaffirmation of the argument and the conclusion.
• Appraisal of the thesis’s strengths and weaknesses.
• Full-bodied concluding paragraph that explains why and how the paper addressed the significant problem.
VIII) Lessons Learned from Master of Public Administration Curriculum (2 TO 3 PAGES).
X) Works Cited
? Public Policy Analysis
? You should comprehensively analyze four government policies that center on your public problem.
? Your analysis should follow the “Eightfold Path” that is emphasized in the Bardach & Patashnik (2015) book.
? Additionally, your analysis must use the underscored public administration theoretical framework (see below). You should use this theoretical paradigm to systematically structure your thesis.
? Likewise, your theoretical framework must be used to stress the strengths and weaknesses of each social policy. Make sure that you are specific about how each system meets or is deficient in contrast to your conceptual framework.
? Use tables or matrixes to emphasize these policy potencies and limitations.
? Your analysis must answer the following questions:
• What are the policy challenges? Be sure to concisely delineate exactly what problem exists presently?
• Make sure you are clear as to the social policy objectives.
• What are the value disputes?
• What is the framework of the policy (political, administrative, political, etc.)?
• What facts are relevant and germane to your social policy, and who are the persuasive actors?
• Who supports your public policy and who does not support the policy?
• What are the stances of the supporters and non-supporters of this policy?
• What are the dominant issues raised by the policy case?
• What two theorists in public administration would say that we should support these types of social policies and why?
• What are the most critical elements in the enlargement of the policy, the implementation of the policy, or the assessment of the policy?
• What are the benefits/costs of the policy, and which factions are helped or harmed?
• What alternatives are fitting for tackling this policy problem?
• Why are these alternatives appropriate methods for handling this policy problem?
• What recommendations emerge from your analysis? Be sure to justify them.
• What are the political implications and what are the conclusions?
? Theoretical Framework
? The study must comprehensively evaluate, (in first person tense), the substance and impact of four select domestic government homeless youth policy paradigms using the Four E s, (i.e., economy, efficiency (pareto), effectiveness, and equity), as outlined by Norman-Major, K. (2011), as an evaluative theoretical criterion.
? Moreover, you must concisely “define” and “operationalize” your conceptual framework throughout your policy analysis.
? Also, your conceptual framework should be used to help you to draw distinct conclusions about which policy alternatives are the most advantageous and unfavorable for addressing the critical challenge of youth homelessness, and what types of preemptive actions governments can take to prevent to end homelessness among adolescents and young adults in the United States.
? Additionally, it should be used to make practical recommendations for shaping future policies toward ending youth homelessness.
? Policies to Evaluate
• Runaway and Youth Homeless Act of 1974.
? Three pillars: Street Outreach (SOP), Basic Center (BCP), and Transitional Living (TLP).
• The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 2001. • HUD Homeless and Housing Programs Continuum of Care (CoC).
• The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP).
? Systematically scrutinize each of these existing domestic government policies that are meant to combat youth homelessness in the United States using the mentioned conceptual framework.
? Again, make sure that you are specific about how each policy meets or is deficient in contrast to your conceptual framework.
? Use tables or matrixes to emphasize these policies potencies and limitations.
? Research Methodologies
? Your study must follow a mixed research design that incorporates qualitative and quantitative research approaches.
? The qualitative data must be based on a comprehensive document analysis of U.S. federal, state, and local public records, annual reports, policy positions, press releases, blogs, and tactical approaches that are centered on eradicating youth homelessness.
? Your research should succinctly explain what documents you have chosen for your research, and you must also discuss why you chose those documents.
? Use a minimum of 2 qualitative methods to visually display the data.
? One must include a qualitative chart displaying the populations vastly impacted by youth homelessness in the United States.
? Use a minimum of 2 quantitative methods to elucidate and display the data collected.
? One must include a quantitative multivariate correlation analysis that explores the association of existing public policies over time on the outcomes of itinerant adolescents and young adults.
? The other must include 4 years of statistical and demographic information for all states of the United States homeless youth populations impacted. It should be displayed quantitatively and contrasted against the last four years of the homeless youth populations in the state of Ohio.
? Required works for project
? Each source must be incorporated within paper.
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2015). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (5th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Friedrich, C. (1940). Public Policy and the nature of administrative responsibility.
Fredrickson, G.H., Smith, K.B., Larimer, C.W., & Licari, M.J. (2016). The public administration theory primer (3rd ed.) Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Fredrickson, G.H. (2010). Social equity and public administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications.
McCrae. J.S. (2009). Emotional and behavioral problems reported in child welfare over 3 years. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(1), 17-28.
Norman-Major, K. (2011). Balancing the four E s: or Can we achieve equity for social equity in public administration? Journal of Public Affairs and Education, 17(2), 233-252.
Reilly, T. (2003). Transition from care: Status and outcomes of youth who age out of foster care. Child Welfare, 82(6), 727-746.
Zlotnick, C. (2014). Children living in transition: Helping homeless and foster care children and families. Chichester, NY: Columbia University Press.
? Optional Works (optional).
? These are sources to consider but not required.
Breakey, W.R. & Fischer, P.J. (1990). Homelessness: the extent of the problem. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 22, 31-47.
Byrom, T., & Peart, S. (2017), Young and homeless: Exploring the education, life experiences and aspirations of homeless youth. London: WC: UCL Institute of Education Press.
Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2018, April 4). Congressional Research Service Careers. Retrieved February 15, 2019, from https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/
Johnson, N.J., & Svara, J.H. (2011). Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kraft, M.E., & Furlong, S.R. (2013). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Missed Opportunities: Youth Homelessness in America. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2019, from http://voicesofyouthcount.org/brief/national-estimates-of-youth-homelessness/
National Alliance to End Homelessness. -An Emerging Framework for Ending Unaccompanied Youth
Homelessness.- Retrieved February 16, 2019. http://endhomelessness.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/ending-homelessness-for-unaccompanied-youth.pdf
Ncsl.org - Legislative News, Studies and Analysis. Homeless and Runaway Youth. (2016, April 4). Retrieved February 15, 2019, from http://www.ncsl.org/
Roman, N.P., & Wolfe, P.B. (1995). Web of failure: The relationship between foster care and homelessness. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Bassik, E.L., & Gallagher, E.M. (1990). The impact of homeless on children. Child and Youth Services. 14(1). 19-33.
M. P., Cunningham, M., Burt, Lee, P., Howell, B., & Bertume, K. (2013, July). Counting Homeless Youth.
Retrieved February 15, 2019, from https://www.urban.org/search?search_api_views_fulltext=youth.
Homeless youth: The saga of -pushouts- and -throwaways- in America. (1980). Washington: US Government Printing Office.
Homelessness. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2019, from https://www.abtassociates.com/what-we-do/focusareas/housing-communities-asset-building/homelessness.
Whitebeck, L.B., & Simmons, R.L. (1990). Life on the streets: The victimization of runaway and homeless adolescents. Youth and Society, 22, 108-125.
Zide, M.R., & Cherry, A.L. (1992). A typology of runaway youths: An empirically based definition. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 9, 155-168
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.chapinhall.org/impact_area/youth-homelessness/
? See attached data sets