| Course | MSW 547 Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Distributive justice write-up |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 547 Week 6
Distributive Justice Write-Up on Six Rapid Rehousing Slots and Nine Eligible Households: The Shortage Taken as Given, a Rule an Intake Desk Could Run, Two Rejected Rules Run Anyway, the Household Turned Away and What the Service Is For
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 547: Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Distributive Justice Write-Up on Six Rapid Rehousing Slots and Nine Eligible Households: The Shortage Taken as Given, a Rule an Intake Desk Could Run, Two Rejected Rules Run Anyway, the Household Turned Away and What the Service Is For
The Shortage, Taken as Given
In October, the county's rapid rehousing program has six slots: up to six months of rent help and a case manager. Nine households passed the eligibility screen. Why there are only six is a funding question for another paper.
The Applicants, by Position
Table 1
Eligible Households, October
| Household | Nights unsheltered, last 30 | Child under 5 | Applied | Income at entry |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 30 | Yes | Oct 9 | None |
| B | 0 (shelter) | No | Oct 1 | Part-time |
| C | 22 | No | Oct 3 | None |
| D | 30 | No | Oct 7 | Disability benefit |
| E | 12 | Yes | Oct 2 | Full-time |
| F | 0 (doubled up) | Yes | Oct 4 | Part-time |
| G | 18 | No | Oct 8 | None |
| H | 5 | No | Oct 5 | Full-time |
| I | 30 | Yes | Oct 6 | Part-time |
Note. Note. Households described by position only. All nine passed eligibility; this table concerns priority.
A Rule an Intake Desk Could Run
Rank by nights unsheltered in the last 30. Break ties first by a child under 5 in the household, then by the earliest application date.
Result: three households have 30 nights; A and I have a child under 5, and I applied first, so the order begins I, A, then D. C (22 nights), G (18) and E (12) follow. Order: I, A, D, C, G, E.
The Rules Not Chosen, Run Anyway
First come: B, E, C, F, H, I. Households A, D and G, each unsheltered for 18 to 30 nights, are left out because they applied later. Most likely to succeed after six months, by income at entry: E, H, then B, F, I and D. This rule leaves out A, C and G, who have no income. Each rule has a defense: first come is simple and resists favoritism; success-weighted allocation makes the subsidy go further. Frameworks for scarce resources caution that one principle alone rarely suffices and that rules ought to be combined in the open (Persad et al., 2009).
The Household Turned Away
H., a single adult working full time and unsheltered five nights, is seventh under my rule and does not receive a slot. B., in shelter since September, and F., doubled up with a child, are also left out. H. is placed on the waitlist and referred to the county's one-time rent deposit program, which H. qualifies for, on the day of the decision.
What the Service Is For
Rapid rehousing is meant to end homelessness quickly for people who are homeless now. My rule fits that purpose better than a success rule, but it accepts a cost: three of the six chosen households have no income, and some will need longer help than six months.
Eligibility and Priority, Kept Apart
Nobody here is judged unworthy. All nine are eligible; the rule only decides who goes first.
References
Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E. J. (2009). Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. The Lancet, 373(9661), 423-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9
Reading the MSW 547 Week 6 instructions
The distributive justice write-up allocates a scarce service among eligible applicants. Take the shortage as given and leave its causes for another paper. Describe applicants briefly by position, not by moving story. Write your rule as an instruction someone at an intake desk could follow, including tie-breaks and anything that disqualifies. Run it and print the list it produces. Then run at least two rules you did not choose, stated fairly, and print their lists too. Name the applicant your rule turns away and what happens to them. Say what the service is for and whether your rule serves that purpose. Keep eligibility and priority separate. Keep the table of applicants on the page so the lists can be checked.
How this MSW 547 Week 6 example is built
The shortage section gives six slots of rent help and case management. A table lists nine households by nights unsheltered, a child under five, application date and income at entry. The rule section ranks by nights unsheltered, then a young child, then the earliest date, and produces I, A, D, C, G and E. The rejected rules section prints a first-come list and a success-by-income list, notes each one's defense and cites Persad et al. (2009). The turned-away section names H. and the deposit program referral, and B. and F. The purpose section accepts that three chosen households have no income. A closing section affirms that all nine are eligible.
Reading the MSW 547 Week 6 grading rubric
Graders look for a rule someone could operate and the lists that prove its cost. A write-up that chooses fairness or need as a principle with no tie-break loses the most. Credit goes to the shortage taken as given, applicants by position, an operable rule, its list, at least two rejected rules run fairly with their lists, a named household turned away and a discussion of purpose. Collapsing eligibility into priority loses marks. Sources on allocation should be cited in APA. Arithmetic in the lists must be correct, since a reader can check it against the table. A rejected rule described in a form nobody holds will be marked as a straw figure.
Common MSW 547 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Write-ups most often slip by never running the chosen rule, so its consequences stay hidden. Another common gap is rejected rules described unfairly. Some papers turn applicants into stories, which lets sympathy do the allocating. Others drift into explaining why there is a shortage. If two rules produce the same list for your applicants, add an applicant who separates them. A write-up that shows exactly who is left out under each rule, and what happens to the person turned away, demonstrates the honesty distributive decisions require. Build the applicant table first and check every list against it by hand before writing the discussion.
Get a MSW-547 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the scenario, the number of places if your assignment fixes one, and any table or template your section publishes. A custom Week 6 write-up is written to it and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Tell us which allocation rule you lean toward and the example will run the two strongest alternatives beside it.
More MSW 547 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 547 Week 1: Who Owed the Interpreter Post
- MSW 547 Week 2: Obligation Analysis of Client Primacy
- MSW 547 Week 3: Right to Housing Framework Paper
- MSW 547 Week 4: Duty Conflict Write-Up on W.
- MSW 547 Week 5: Code Application to a Closure Order
- MSW 547 Week 7: Justice Argument Paper
- MSW 547 Week 8: Applied Ethics Synthesis
- MSW 548 Week 6: Two Country Case Study
- MSW 546 Week 6: No-Change Explanation for B.
- MSW 549 Week 6: Intersectional Case Analysis
- MSW 545 Week 6: Crisis Step-Down Plan for V.
MSW 547 Week 6 questions, answered
Can the answer be that the rule should be a lottery?
It can, and a defended lottery is one of the harder arguments to write well, which some markers reward. The write-up has to say why treating equally situated applicants as equally situated is the right response to this particular shortage, and it has to meet the objection that a lottery ignores exactly the differences the service exists to notice. Run it over the applicants like any other rule.
How many applicants should the example describe?
Enough that the rules separate, which usually means five or six. Two or three tend to produce the same list under every rule and the comparison collapses. Describe each one in the terms the rules need, income, distance, how long they have waited, and leave out the material that would make a reader want to choose with their feelings.
Is it acceptable to say the program should just be expanded?
As a closing line, yes; as the argument, no. The assignment fixes the shortage precisely because expansion is not available in the situation described, and a write-up answering with more funding has declined the question it was set. Make the allocation, then add the sentence about capacity at the end, where it costs nothing and reads as honest rather than evasive.
Where can I find a free MSW 547 Week 6 sample paper?
This page holds the complete MSW 547 Week 6 allocation of six rapid rehousing slots among nine households, with the lists each rule produces.
Who is turned away in the MSW 547 Week 6 sample?
Household H., a single adult working full time and unsheltered five nights, ranks seventh and is referred the same day to the county's one-time rent deposit program; B. and F. also miss out.