Home

Peer 1 Shamika:
How many people are negatively impacted by the current social policy? Is there a ripple effect from these consequences? If so, how does it manifest?
The policy I chose is social security. If we take a look at this policy, we are able to identify some of the hiccups with social security. Per research, it states women receive social security more often than men. Women tend to live longer than men, so they need as much retirement as possible (Garland, 2021). Even with that being said, men receive more benefits monthly than women. We can view this as a negative impact to social security policy. It is no secret that women are more likely to struggle with retirement savings than men (Hagen, 2022). Based on these negatives alone, consequences are for sure to follow. Although millions of individuals receive social security, many others are denied on a daily basis. This can be viewed also as a negative that affects those suffering with disabilities, along with a loss of wages when denied. The trickle-down effect if individuals left struggling to survive. Some of those may face homelessness, repossessions, foreclosures, and more. Poverty is not farfetched from the reality unfortunately. With a higher number of wealthy beneficiaries in the system, benefits are paid out more rapidly, acting as a further drain on social security reserves (Csiszar, 2023). Once again, we have another issue that clearly is witnessed with the social security policy and its negative impact. Funding for social security will diminish further if these impacts aren’t acknowledged and rectified.
References:
Csiszar, John. (2023). 9 Biggest Problems Facing Social Security in 2024. Retrieved from https://www.gobankingrates.comon January 10 2024.
Garland, Susan. (2021). A Woman’s Guide to Making the Most of Social Security. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
1
Clicks: Alison Duncklee on January 20, 2024.
Peer 2 Mike:
What forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination result from the policy you’ve selected? Discuss a case study that illustrates the negative impacts of the policy.
As a recap, the policy I have selected for my term project is the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended through December 29, 2022 (United States Housing Act, 1937) and I chose this because it laid groundwork for states to engage oppressing those convicted of drug related crimes by limiting their eligibility for subsidized public housing intended to assist those vulnerable and in need.
According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (2022), it is legal to discriminate against felons in many of the same ways it was to discriminate against African Americans. Once you are a felon, housing discrimination, denial of food stamps, ineligibility for certain public assistance programs and denial of the rights to vote or serve on a jury are all legal. As one of my peers pointed out, certain states do now allow felons access to some of these services, but that does not negate the point that they do not have to and not all states do. In fact, many federal policies specifically remove rights such as these, and although some of them do allow states to wave these restrictions, it is still a legalized option for oppression, and it also sets the stage for stigmatization.
Bernard (2020) did a study to examine the inhibitors to ex-offenders attaining housing. In this study she noted the United States Housing Act of 1937 was amended in 1988 with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 which required public housing authorities (PHA’s) to include language in their leases which prohibits tenants or people living with the tenant to engage in criminal activity on the property or elsewhere, opening the door for eviction if anyone living at the property is charged with a crime anywhere. This act also allowed PHA’s to make their own determinations regarding the eligibility of housing. In 1990, the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (NAHA) permitted the consideration of the criminal history of all potential household members when considering eligibility and the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 then made it a requirement of all law enforcement agencies to comply with criminal record requests made by PHA’s. It also encouraged PHA’s to evict tenants even suspected of drug related criminal activity.
As you can see, the policies which guide eligibility for affordable housing have been structured in a way where it is legal to discriminate against those with criminal histories, especially drug related criminal histories, and in some cases it is even required. Therefore, policies at the federal level regarding this population have exacerbated their risk of recidivism because housing insecurity.
References
Bernard, J. D. (2020). Key inhibitors to ex-offenders obtaining permanent housing. Walden University – Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10601&context=dissertations
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. (2022, November 29). Race and collateral consequences. NACDL. https://www.nacdl.org/Content/Race-and-Collateral-Consequences#:~:text=%E2%80%9COnce%20you’re%20labeled%20a,service%