1
CHANGE SCENARIO
Change Scenario
Tiffany Burgi
School of Business, Liberty University
Author Note
By submitting this assignment, I attest this submission represents my own work, and not that of
another student, scholar, or internet source. I understand I am responsible for knowing and
correctly utilizing referencing and bibliographical guidelines.
2
CHANGE SCENARIO
Abstract
Making a change in government entities is not an easy task to take on. There are waitlists in
many housing authorities. Those who are allowed in the programs need to be looked at, and
changes need to be made regarding that aspect. People in subsidized housing that are able to
make a contribution to their rent payment but are choosing not to contribute need to be inspired
to make changes. If no change is willing to happen on the participants parts, they will lose their
place in the program. However, changes will benefit the participants willing to make a difference
as well as those on the lengthy waitlist.
Keywords: change, able-bodied, subsidized housing, self-sufficient
3
CHANGE SCENARIO
Change Scenario
Introduction
Housing subsidy has been developed in order to provide safety and security in the form
of housing and is very crucial in communities. However, subsidized housing has many stigmas
that are attached to it. Many people assume subsidized housing is dangerous, ghetto, or even
drugs related, which are words that can often come to mind. These assumptions, in some cases,
can be true. The Housing Choice Voucher system needs to change to empower participants to
become more self-sufficient.1
Identification of Industry and Area in Need of Change
Government subsidized housing began on November 9, 1965, in the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. HUD
provides subsidized housing for low-income participants and Housing Choice Vouchers,
formally known as section 8 vouchers. Those are just two of the programs that HUD offers.
These program parameters are based only on the annual gross income of the whole family
residing in the home, United State citizenship or eligible immigration status and criminal history,
which is how eligibility is determined (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
This leaves an opening for able-bodied people to have the government pay for their housing
without attempting to get a job and become self-sufficient.
It is the calling of Christians to help and desire to help the misfortunate. There are many
places in the Bible where God speaks about how He will treat the poor. The Bible provides
Christian’s instructions many times over on what to do when it comes to the poor. One verse that
sticks out is "when the poor and needy search for water and there is none, and their tongues are
parched from thirst, then I, the Lord, will answer them. I, the God of Israel, will never abandon
4
CHANGE SCENARIO
them" (Isaiah 41:17, New Living Translation). This verse shows Christians how God will treat
the impoverished. Another verse that has significant meaning shows many individuals and those
who are Christians how they should be treating the poor, "But if there are any poor Israelites in
your towns when you arrive in the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted
or tightfisted toward them (Deuteronomy 15:7, New Living Translation). Many people
"perceiving the system as accountable for poverty, people may feel moral outrage rather than
guilt" (Krauth‐Gruber & Bonnot, 2019, p. 61). Many people believe the misfortunate need help
and even think that it is the government's responsibility. As previously noted, it is evident there
needs to be help and understanding for those in need, but to what degree of help is or should be
required?
At first glance, the HUD's subsidized housing programs are beneficial, which they are in
assisting others, but often the participants are not setting themselves up for success. "Consensus
that many voucher holders reside in neighbour hoods with high levels of poverty and racial
segregation" (Colburn, 2019, p. 1468). Another article comments, "Policymakers and scholars
continue to express critical concern that affordable housing policies have resulted in poverty
being concentrated in socioeconomically and environmentally marginalized neighborhoods"
(Woo et al., 2019, p. 243). I think there is an issue with who is allowed to receive the assistance
of HUD's subsidized housing programs and I believe the problem is allowing people to stay in
the programs without requiring them seek self-sufficiency. There will always be a need for these
programs, however, the people that are allowed to remain in them for years should be heads of
households that are disabled, single parents or those that are in school or working. If program
participants are not trying to become self-sufficient, it is not the government responsibility to
continue to take care of them. I worked at the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority in the
5
CHANGE SCENARIO
Housing Choice Voucher program and saw many participants that were able-bodied adults that
were not working, going to school or making changes to become self-sufficient. Instead, these
individuals knew their rent would be taken care of, so there was no motivation or incentive to
make changes. These participants were in the program for years and potentially taking much
needed housing away from others who have waited for years or are currently waiting on the
waitlists, which could take years before housing becomes available.
Plan for Implementing the Change
The change I am proposing is that participants who are able-bodied cannot remain on
subsidized housing for more than five years. The reason is that there is an issue because of how
long other families wait to get assistance and, in some cases, families never receive the
assistance they require. "Not all eligible households receive a voucher, rather their names are
placed on a waitlist that, in many communities, may be years in length" (Colburn, 2019, p.
1467). Furthermore, "Establishing a sense of urgency is crucial to gaining needed cooperation"
(Kotter, 2012, p. 37). There are also many groups of people that are not able to become fully
self-sufficient and "chronic homelessness have extensive street and shelter homelessness
histories and disabling psychiatric disorders, chronic illnesses, disabilities, or substance use
disorders" (Brown et al., 2019. p.642). "Subsidized housing programs are frequently lengthy and,
therefore, may further prolong homelessness" (Brown et al., 2019. p.644). Change should be
enacted due to the fact there is such an extensive wait and sometimes no help for families who
urgently require assistance.
The full change to who falls into the category of having a five-year limit to receiving
subsidized housing needs to only be able-bodied people that are not working at all, going to
school to set them up for more success in the future, or in some kind of training program(s). This
6
CHANGE SCENARIO
five-year limit does not apply to disabled heads of household per the government, single parents,
individuals that are working and contributing financially towards their rent more than the
minimum payment. If a person does not fit in one of the prior categories, there is no reason for
them to remain on the system and have the government provide help when they are not willing to
help themselves.
This change cannot happen overnight or even in one year. Enacting it immediately would
disrupt the system too quickly and at a large number. This change should have a year of
educating the participants currently on the subsidized housing programs. The participant that are
being onboarded into the program will also be made aware of the upcoming change. After a full
year of informing the participants, the next phase will start, which begins the five-year transition.
The participant will be given this time to change their circumstances and begin to become self-
sufficient. Along with this time period, housing authorities will bring on staff for the five-year
time frame to assist the participants in accessing resources like workforce centres for job seeking
and education options. After the full five years, the participants that have not complied with the
changes will be eliminated from the housing program. At this time, housing authorities will
allow participants into the program if they do not meet the qualifications and can only join if
they can prove they have been homeless in the last year. These participants will be given two
years to become compliant with the program qualifications.
Prior to these changes being established, a group of key members of housing authorities
need to be brought together to explain the changes. Being able to clearly explain to the housing
authorities why the change needs to be made and how it needs to be done will be critical.
"Clarifying the direction of change is important because, more often than not, people disagree on
direction, or are confused or wonder whether significant change is really necessary" (Kotter,
7
CHANGE SCENARIO
2012, p. 71). Bringing these people together before the change will address any issues that could
potentially come up. Then a training program needs to be put together for the housing authorities
"training programs actually enhance the effectiveness of large-scale change" (Zala-Mezö et al.,
2019, p. 105). I believe an actual training program will be more effective in implementing the
change than simply sending out a policy change via a paper document. The training will provide
a better way for the housing authorities staff to understand the difference in the prior policy.
After a housing authority has gone through the training, it will be that housing authority’s
responsibility to train their future employees.
Conclusion
Making changes to a system that has been in place for many years is not an easy task and
cannot be done overnight. Our country has a great need for subsidized housing. There are
qualifications established in order to make sure those that truly need assistance can receive it.
The waitlist is long, and there are numerous people that are currently in the programs that prefer
to simply have the government pay, in full, their rent. The financial ease has removed any
incentives for those individuals to become proactive and make contributions to their rent, which
is why changes need to be made. Those changes can eliminate the individuals who desire free
housing, which prevent families and other individuals in need from receiving the help. It is
essential to develop changes that can best help the community and individuals in need.
8
CHANGE SCENARIO
References
Brown, M., Mihelicova, M., Collins, K., Cummings, C., & Ponce, A. (2019). Housing options
for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness: Subsidized and non-subsidized housing
outcomes among pathways to independence participants.1Journal of Social Service
Research,146(5), 642–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2019.16128221
Colburn, G. (2019). The effect of market conditions on the housing outcomes of subsidized
households: The case of the US voucher programme.1Housing Studies,134(9), 1465–1484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2019.15811451
Holy Bible new living translation. (2021). DaySpring; Candace Cameron Bure
Kotter, J. P. (2012).1Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.1
Krauth‐Gruber, S., & Bonnot, V. (2019). Collective guilt, moral outrage, and support for helping
the Poor: A matter of system versus in‐group responsibility framing.1Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology,130(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.24281
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.).1Q and a about Hud. HUD.gov /
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Retrieved February 2,
2022, from https://www.hud.gov/about/qaintro1
Woo, A., Yu, C.-Y., & Lee, S. (2019). Neighborhood Walkability for subsidized households:
Revisiting neighborhood environments of housing choice voucher and low-income
housing tax credit households.1Cities,189, 243–251.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.002
Zala-Mezö, E., Raeder, S., & Strauss, N.-C. (2019). More knowledge helps implement change:
Evaluation of a training program during educational reform.1Studies in Educational
Evaluation,161, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.0081
9
CHANGE SCENARIO
