Northern Virgina Family Service Case Study
Northern Virgina Family Service (NVFS) is a nonprofit organization providing social services to individuals and families in need. The organization has a history of community service and was originally founded in Alexandria, Virginia in 1924. From the simple beginnings of providing food, coats for children, and coal for heating, NVFS has grown into an organization with 15 locations in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties, and in the city of Alexandria. Commensurate with the growth in size, the mission of NVFS has also broadened. The mission of NVFS is “to empower individuals and families to improve their quality of life and to promote community cooperation and support in responding to family needs.” (NVFS Bridging Affordability, 2014, p. 4)
NVFS provides wide-ranging community …show more content…
services in programs including: anti-hunger programs; early childhood services; child placement services; health and mental health services; legal services, housing services; intervention and prevention services, and workforce development services. According to the last annual report, in 2014, NFVS provided services to 33,647 people (Northern Virginia Family Services [NVFS], 2014, p. 3,6). In 2014, NVFS had revenues of $30.7 million dollars with 59% of those revenues from government grants (NVFS, 2014, p. 6).
The particular area of service and the policy critiqued is in the housing services area (currently the author’s area of internship). The specific program is the administration of the Bridging Affordability (BA) Program. The BA Program is an initiative endorsed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in collaboration with county agencies, and nonprofit organizations. The goals of BA are to end homelessness in ten years, reducing by one half the number of people on waiting lists for affordable housing, and providing affordable housing for people with special needs. BA achieves these goals by providing funding to nonprofit organizations to administer long-term rental subsidies and capital for acquiring affordable housing (Sampson, 2014, p. 5). As an administrator of the BA program, NVFS must comply with federal, state, and county regulations. These policies include areas such as anti-discrimination, eligibility determinations, and denial of service. Denial of service policies includes activities such as methamphetamine conviction, use of illegal drugs, substance abuse-related threats to health and safety, and sex offenses. The sex offenders policy particularly states: “NVFS in its programs will deny assistance if any household member is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a sex offender registration program” (NVFS Bridging Affordability, 2014, p. 17). The sex offender denial of service policy is the subject of this paper and will be examined in the context of nondiscrimination regulations, ethical treatment, and the precepts of social work.
NVFS is bound to follow federal regulations regarding nondiscrimination in the treatment of applicants and participants and that they receive fair and equal treatment. In particular Federal law prohibits “…discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, and disability.” (NVFS Bridging Affordability, 2014, p. 9) The nondiscrimination regulations are silent on the treatment or the exceptions regarding housing for convicted sex offenders. Virginia also has laws regarding fair housing. It states,
“It is the policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide for fair housing throughout the Commonwealth, to all its citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, elderliness, familial status, or handicap, and to that end to prohibit discriminatory practices with respect to residential housing by any person or group of persons, in order that the peace, health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of all the inhabitants of the Commonwealth may be protected and insured.” (Virginia Fair Housing Law, 1972/Pending).
Again, as in Federal statutes, Virginia is silent on the housing rights of convicted sex offenders as a group. Drilling down to Fairfax County statutes, it’s policy for fair housing practices echoes Virginia’s regulation, but adds: “…to prohibit discriminatory practices with respect to residential housing by any person or group of persons, in order that the peace, health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of all the inhabitants of the County may be protected and insured” (Fairfax County Fair Housing Act, 2002). As with the State statute, there is no mention of convicted sex offenders as a class of people who may or may not be excluded from the practices of fair housing. In summation, convicted sex offenders do not appear to be specifically called out as a group who may or may not be accorded rights to fair housing practices from the Federal level down to local level regulations. If this is the case, where does the regulatory mandate derive from that prohibits sex offenders from receiving assistance in affordable housing derive? One answer is the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance on lifelong registered sex offenders. The HUD notice states: “…no lifetime sex offenders are admitted into federally assisted housing.” It goes on to declare “…if a household member was erroneously admitted…the owners or Public Housing Agencies must immediately pursue eviction or termination of assistance for the household member.” (HUD Prohibition on Sex Offenders, 2012).
Legal protection in terms of fair housing has been discussed; there are ethical dimensions of the policy and the denial of service for sex offenders. Professional social workers are obligated to conduct themselves as outlined by the core values and Code of Ethics set forth by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). If the denial of service to fair housing for sex offenders from a regulatory standpoint can be perceived as an unjust or discriminatory practice, what are the ramifications to a social worker and the Code of Ethics? In particular, the NASW principle that states that Social workers challenge social injustice:
“Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people.” ("NASW," 2008)
If the denial of service for fair housing for sex offenders is viewed as unjust or discriminatory, how does a professional Social worker deal with the conundrum that the policy creates in relation to the Code of Ethics? The issue comes down to the Social worker’s evaluation of whether or not the convicted sex offender has in fact been discriminated against or whether as a result of a criminal conviction the sex offender has abrogated a subset of personal rights accorded to other persons.
The preceding discussion outlined some of the legal and ethical issues regarding denial of service for federally funded assistance for housing for lifetime sex offenders. Neither discussion answers the fundamental issues that underlie the policy. Multiple questions arise from the policy. First what rights do lifetime sex offenders have and second, what is the goal of denying federally assisted housing to sex offenders?
Again referring back to the foundational beliefs of the NASW, social work predicated on helping those who cannot help themselves, need assistance, or have been marginalized by society.
An argument can be made that sex offenders have been marginalized by society by their actions (no judgment is intended here). Therefore, should they also be accorded the same benefits that are provided by our Government to our citizenry? A sex offender might make the case that if he or she is employed and paying taxes that they should also be able to benefit from federal or state programs that their taxes contribute to. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes that federal laws requiring lifetime registration and the restriction of federal funds to states that do not comply with federal sex offender legislation violate the rights of sex offenders. Worse yet, these federal and state mandates (I.e. registration and housing assistance) may actually put children and society at greater risk to sexual offenses because they do not address the underlying causes of sex offenses or educational programs that properly address the controversial issue (Hardenbergh, 2009, p.
1).
In fact, the issue of sex offenders and how society treats them is extremely controversial and emotionally charged. Registered sex offenders report that they are victimized by job-loss, damage to their property, and verbal and physical attacks. If in fact the ACLU is correct in their assertion that our current programs are counterproductive, why do they exist? The ACLU believes that our current legislation is politically motivated and that due to the volatility of the subject and politicians fear taking a stand or discussing alternatives due to stigma attached to sex offenders. (Hardenbergh, 2009, p. 2) The answer to the question regarding why the legislation exists is one of public safety. The laws are written to protect those who cannot protect themselves – in particular children. The HUD notice referenced earlier takes the position that the “… potential public safety concern remains paramount.” This is in context with an audit conducted in 2009 that revealed that an estimated 2,094 to 3,046 assisted households included a registered sex offender (HUD Prohibition on Sex Offenders, 2012). This could be interpreted to mean, “The needs (or safety) of the many, outweighs the needs of the few.” The question at hand is, “Is that true?”
Is it true that sex offenders should be registered and have limitation placed on some of their rights? That question goes well beyond the scope of this paper, but it certainly is a question that our society needs to address. More research on treatment and addressing underlying causes of sex offenses is required. The emotion, although understandable, needs to be removed from conversation and facts need to be brought to bear. We owe our children who are often the victims of sexual offenses nothing less.
A guiding principle of NVFS is, “We believe that families are at the heart of our society and need to be strengthened and preserved. Services should be affordable, accessible and of high quality. All people should have access to adequate housing, health care, food and clothing. Communities should be environments for families.” ("NVFS guiding principles," n.d., p. 1) Judgments may be made regarding whether or not the mandatory removal of a sex offender from a family living in assisted housing or the registration of sex offenders and the impact to a community. These are all issues that should begin a conversation. At this point, NVFS has no choice in denying service to a registered sex offender because it is mandated for all programs that receive federal assistance.
Researching this paper took me to unexpected places and raised unanticipated questions. It challenged some of my unexamined beliefs. While I do believe that society needs to do all that it can do to protect our children and those who cannot protect themselves, I am not sure that some our current policies are the most effective means in accomplishing that goal. I believe that further research and assessing the successes or failures of our current policies regarding sex offenders are warranted.
NVFS provides wide-ranging community …show more content…
services in programs including: anti-hunger programs; early childhood services; child placement services; health and mental health services; legal services, housing services; intervention and prevention services, and workforce development services. According to the last annual report, in 2014, NFVS provided services to 33,647 people (Northern Virginia Family Services [NVFS], 2014, p. 3,6). In 2014, NVFS had revenues of $30.7 million dollars with 59% of those revenues from government grants (NVFS, 2014, p. 6).
The particular area of service and the policy critiqued is in the housing services area (currently the author’s area of internship). The specific program is the administration of the Bridging Affordability (BA) Program. The BA Program is an initiative endorsed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in collaboration with county agencies, and nonprofit organizations. The goals of BA are to end homelessness in ten years, reducing by one half the number of people on waiting lists for affordable housing, and providing affordable housing for people with special needs. BA achieves these goals by providing funding to nonprofit organizations to administer long-term rental subsidies and capital for acquiring affordable housing (Sampson, 2014, p. 5). As an administrator of the BA program, NVFS must comply with federal, state, and county regulations. These policies include areas such as anti-discrimination, eligibility determinations, and denial of service. Denial of service policies includes activities such as methamphetamine conviction, use of illegal drugs, substance abuse-related threats to health and safety, and sex offenses. The sex offenders policy particularly states: “NVFS in its programs will deny assistance if any household member is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a sex offender registration program” (NVFS Bridging Affordability, 2014, p. 17). The sex offender denial of service policy is the subject of this paper and will be examined in the context of nondiscrimination regulations, ethical treatment, and the precepts of social work.
NVFS is bound to follow federal regulations regarding nondiscrimination in the treatment of applicants and participants and that they receive fair and equal treatment. In particular Federal law prohibits “…discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, and disability.” (NVFS Bridging Affordability, 2014, p. 9) The nondiscrimination regulations are silent on the treatment or the exceptions regarding housing for convicted sex offenders. Virginia also has laws regarding fair housing. It states,
“It is the policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide for fair housing throughout the Commonwealth, to all its citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, elderliness, familial status, or handicap, and to that end to prohibit discriminatory practices with respect to residential housing by any person or group of persons, in order that the peace, health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of all the inhabitants of the Commonwealth may be protected and insured.” (Virginia Fair Housing Law, 1972/Pending).
Again, as in Federal statutes, Virginia is silent on the housing rights of convicted sex offenders as a group. Drilling down to Fairfax County statutes, it’s policy for fair housing practices echoes Virginia’s regulation, but adds: “…to prohibit discriminatory practices with respect to residential housing by any person or group of persons, in order that the peace, health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of all the inhabitants of the County may be protected and insured” (Fairfax County Fair Housing Act, 2002). As with the State statute, there is no mention of convicted sex offenders as a class of people who may or may not be excluded from the practices of fair housing. In summation, convicted sex offenders do not appear to be specifically called out as a group who may or may not be accorded rights to fair housing practices from the Federal level down to local level regulations. If this is the case, where does the regulatory mandate derive from that prohibits sex offenders from receiving assistance in affordable housing derive? One answer is the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance on lifelong registered sex offenders. The HUD notice states: “…no lifetime sex offenders are admitted into federally assisted housing.” It goes on to declare “…if a household member was erroneously admitted…the owners or Public Housing Agencies must immediately pursue eviction or termination of assistance for the household member.” (HUD Prohibition on Sex Offenders, 2012).
Legal protection in terms of fair housing has been discussed; there are ethical dimensions of the policy and the denial of service for sex offenders. Professional social workers are obligated to conduct themselves as outlined by the core values and Code of Ethics set forth by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). If the denial of service to fair housing for sex offenders from a regulatory standpoint can be perceived as an unjust or discriminatory practice, what are the ramifications to a social worker and the Code of Ethics? In particular, the NASW principle that states that Social workers challenge social injustice:
“Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people.” ("NASW," 2008)
If the denial of service for fair housing for sex offenders is viewed as unjust or discriminatory, how does a professional Social worker deal with the conundrum that the policy creates in relation to the Code of Ethics? The issue comes down to the Social worker’s evaluation of whether or not the convicted sex offender has in fact been discriminated against or whether as a result of a criminal conviction the sex offender has abrogated a subset of personal rights accorded to other persons.
The preceding discussion outlined some of the legal and ethical issues regarding denial of service for federally funded assistance for housing for lifetime sex offenders. Neither discussion answers the fundamental issues that underlie the policy. Multiple questions arise from the policy. First what rights do lifetime sex offenders have and second, what is the goal of denying federally assisted housing to sex offenders?
Again referring back to the foundational beliefs of the NASW, social work predicated on helping those who cannot help themselves, need assistance, or have been marginalized by society.
An argument can be made that sex offenders have been marginalized by society by their actions (no judgment is intended here). Therefore, should they also be accorded the same benefits that are provided by our Government to our citizenry? A sex offender might make the case that if he or she is employed and paying taxes that they should also be able to benefit from federal or state programs that their taxes contribute to. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes that federal laws requiring lifetime registration and the restriction of federal funds to states that do not comply with federal sex offender legislation violate the rights of sex offenders. Worse yet, these federal and state mandates (I.e. registration and housing assistance) may actually put children and society at greater risk to sexual offenses because they do not address the underlying causes of sex offenses or educational programs that properly address the controversial issue (Hardenbergh, 2009, p.
1).
In fact, the issue of sex offenders and how society treats them is extremely controversial and emotionally charged. Registered sex offenders report that they are victimized by job-loss, damage to their property, and verbal and physical attacks. If in fact the ACLU is correct in their assertion that our current programs are counterproductive, why do they exist? The ACLU believes that our current legislation is politically motivated and that due to the volatility of the subject and politicians fear taking a stand or discussing alternatives due to stigma attached to sex offenders. (Hardenbergh, 2009, p. 2) The answer to the question regarding why the legislation exists is one of public safety. The laws are written to protect those who cannot protect themselves – in particular children. The HUD notice referenced earlier takes the position that the “… potential public safety concern remains paramount.” This is in context with an audit conducted in 2009 that revealed that an estimated 2,094 to 3,046 assisted households included a registered sex offender (HUD Prohibition on Sex Offenders, 2012). This could be interpreted to mean, “The needs (or safety) of the many, outweighs the needs of the few.” The question at hand is, “Is that true?”
Is it true that sex offenders should be registered and have limitation placed on some of their rights? That question goes well beyond the scope of this paper, but it certainly is a question that our society needs to address. More research on treatment and addressing underlying causes of sex offenses is required. The emotion, although understandable, needs to be removed from conversation and facts need to be brought to bear. We owe our children who are often the victims of sexual offenses nothing less.
A guiding principle of NVFS is, “We believe that families are at the heart of our society and need to be strengthened and preserved. Services should be affordable, accessible and of high quality. All people should have access to adequate housing, health care, food and clothing. Communities should be environments for families.” ("NVFS guiding principles," n.d., p. 1) Judgments may be made regarding whether or not the mandatory removal of a sex offender from a family living in assisted housing or the registration of sex offenders and the impact to a community. These are all issues that should begin a conversation. At this point, NVFS has no choice in denying service to a registered sex offender because it is mandated for all programs that receive federal assistance.
Researching this paper took me to unexpected places and raised unanticipated questions. It challenged some of my unexamined beliefs. While I do believe that society needs to do all that it can do to protect our children and those who cannot protect themselves, I am not sure that some our current policies are the most effective means in accomplishing that goal. I believe that further research and assessing the successes or failures of our current policies regarding sex offenders are warranted.