Homelessness is a nation wide issue that is vastly increasing, and is a term that can be interpreted and defined by diverse meanings. The controversial issue is an ongoing field of study where numerous stakeholders and professional individuals, continuously seek the importance of what constitutes homelessness. This essay will briefly explore the context of homelessness, and will critically compare and contrast writings from Parsell, Jones, Head (2012), Policies and programmes to end homelessness in Australia: Learning from international practice, from the International Journal of Social Welfare and Farrell (2012), There’s more to homelessness than ‘rooflessness’, published in The Conversation.
In the article, Policies and programmes to end …show more content…
(2012), and Farrell (2012) present main arguments within the central focus concerning the issue of homelessness. Parsell et al. (2012), presents multiple arguments in perspective of the Australian Government and their responses in reducing homelessness. The Australian Government policy initiatives and programs that were implemented were solely established on housing which presented argument that the only aspect to achieve the ambiguous target of reducing and working towards eliminating homelessness is providing permeant housing. This is evident as Parsell et.al (2012), stated, “Through increased funding into affordable housing…Australia is working to achieve this ambiguous target.” This is also evident in the policy programs as all new objectives introduced around refining Australia’s homeless state merely were based upon providing and funding supportive accommodation. However on the contrary, Farrell (2012), argued that Australian policy such as the white paper, does not sufficiently support or differentiate the state of homelessness in Australia. Farrell (2012), argues this due to the policy program solely focusing on permeant housing and support, which is not believed to be the only avenue, as he stated, “Policy makers and service providers must acknowledge that ending homelessness isn’t just about providing a roof.” Farrell (2012), then goes on to support his evidence with statistics released by the ABS, and suggests that other factors …show more content…
2012; Farrell 2012), differ in writing style and tone. Farrell (2012), employs emotive language with a biased undertone through the involvement of personal opinions. Whereas, in comparison Parsell et al. (2012), has incorporated formal academic language, with a professional tone which provides factual engagement and a level of seriousness.In relation to the credibility of the articles, Parsell (2012), provides an in-depth study of what would be considered more credible due to additional evidence used to base factual knowledge being discussed, as well as research conducted. It is also noteworthy that policies and programs to end homelessness in Australia: Learning from international practice, has come from a International Journal of Social Welfare, provides current and relevant references which are cited. However, the article written by Farrell (2012), is composed of the corresponding opposites, where limited facts are presented and only has one reference which is the Australian Bureau of
In the article, Policies and programmes to end …show more content…
(2012), and Farrell (2012) present main arguments within the central focus concerning the issue of homelessness. Parsell et al. (2012), presents multiple arguments in perspective of the Australian Government and their responses in reducing homelessness. The Australian Government policy initiatives and programs that were implemented were solely established on housing which presented argument that the only aspect to achieve the ambiguous target of reducing and working towards eliminating homelessness is providing permeant housing. This is evident as Parsell et.al (2012), stated, “Through increased funding into affordable housing…Australia is working to achieve this ambiguous target.” This is also evident in the policy programs as all new objectives introduced around refining Australia’s homeless state merely were based upon providing and funding supportive accommodation. However on the contrary, Farrell (2012), argued that Australian policy such as the white paper, does not sufficiently support or differentiate the state of homelessness in Australia. Farrell (2012), argues this due to the policy program solely focusing on permeant housing and support, which is not believed to be the only avenue, as he stated, “Policy makers and service providers must acknowledge that ending homelessness isn’t just about providing a roof.” Farrell (2012), then goes on to support his evidence with statistics released by the ABS, and suggests that other factors …show more content…
2012; Farrell 2012), differ in writing style and tone. Farrell (2012), employs emotive language with a biased undertone through the involvement of personal opinions. Whereas, in comparison Parsell et al. (2012), has incorporated formal academic language, with a professional tone which provides factual engagement and a level of seriousness.In relation to the credibility of the articles, Parsell (2012), provides an in-depth study of what would be considered more credible due to additional evidence used to base factual knowledge being discussed, as well as research conducted. It is also noteworthy that policies and programs to end homelessness in Australia: Learning from international practice, has come from a International Journal of Social Welfare, provides current and relevant references which are cited. However, the article written by Farrell (2012), is composed of the corresponding opposites, where limited facts are presented and only has one reference which is the Australian Bureau of