I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank Shannon of Dirt ‘N Kids and Janon for their kind and insightful comments on last week’s post about paths toward ending homelessness and Utah’s successes in this regard.
I can summarize my thoughts on your responses in three general statements:
- Yes, it’s all about money.
- It is a mistake to think of human suffering in terms of abstractions.
- You have to start somewhere.
Yes, it’s all about money.
Some say that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. I would add “poverty” to that short list. As a man who unabashedly worships God, I think of the following Bible verse: “For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: Open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land.” Deut. 15:11 (JPS) The dual lessons here are:
- There is no such thing as “eliminating homelessness,” despite the appeal of the phrase as a sound bite. Even if it is possible to assure that those who are taken off the streets are provided with homes for the remainder of their lives, there will always be more individuals and families who will fall into homelessness due to the effects of the economy, mental illness and substance abuse.
- As homelessness is an ongoing issue, beating it back will require ongoing infusions of money. Even if we were collectively committed to ensuring that everyone has a roof over his or her head, that commitment must continue among those who come after us or we will quickly find ourselves right back where we started. The Biblical command to “open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land” is an edict for all time.
Shannon, you are right to be concerned about taxes and utilities. These are part and parcel of the costs of housing and must be covered by the public-private partnership that secured the house, apartment or single occupancy unit in the first place, as was done in Utah. In terms of taxes, essentially the municipality must be willing to forgo the income that could otherwise have been collected on these units. The loss of revenue is but a tiny fraction of the public funds that would have been expended on the individuals involved had they remained homeless.
You also ask about rules for sharing with others, medical requirements, hygiene and general cleanliness. While all of these concerns make perfect sense to me, in the big picture none of them matter. The philosophy in Utah is that when the keys are handed over, the newly homed individual essentially has free reign. The home is treated as a gift of unconditional love, no strings attached. The result of this is that there were a few cases in which the residence was totally destroyed and/or the beneficiary violated the law and ended up in custody. This is why, in Salt Lake City, some of the homeless who were unlikely to be able to live successfully in an unsupervised environment were sheltered in single occupancy rooms in a location where they can be checked up on daily and where critical mental health and substance abuse prevention services are available on site. As to the extremely rare cases in which the residence was trashed, I read that the individual was provided needed services and then given yet another home. While the agape love nature of such actions is delightful to see, those are the situations that make everyone nervous due to the very real potential for negative press and public backlash that could bring the entire endeavor tumbling down like a house of cards. Each time something like that comes up is a moment of collective breath holding accompanied by hope that the public realizes that, as the Jackson 5 sang back in the days of my youth, “one bad apple don’t spoil the whole wide world.”
Finally, Shannon, you asked about food. This was handled in a number of different ways, and I regret that your wonderful idea of a community garden was never mentioned in the articles I read (I am definitely a fan of your “lasagna” worm fertilization technique). Some of the newly homed are receiving job training and job search assistance in an effort to get them back onto their feet financially. Many others were helped to apply for Food Stamps. Finally, in some locations, such as the single room occupancy facilities, the local food bank made regular deliveries to the residents.
Janon, you incisively point out that “a Housing First program in a large city would require a large line item in the city’s budget directly associated with the program, and it will always be a target for cuts.” As I mentioned above, the difference between a temporary fix and a permanent solution will be whether those who come after us remain committed to the same goals and are willing to fund them. Ironically, when times are bad and programs are slashed to accommodate the shrinking public fisc, that is exactly when an increasing number of people are in danger of becoming homeless if homes are not provided. This is why layers upon layers of protection are needed, not unlike Shannon’s worm composting program. Housing First must be a joint effort of federal, state and municipal governments, religious organizations (like Loaves and Fishes here in Sacramento) and private philanthropy. Like an extended family in which various members step in to help in different roles depending on what is required at the moment, each of these parts must be willing to step up when another falters.
It is a mistake to think of human suffering in terms of abstractions.
Last week, I wrote about Henry and a few of the other homeless people with whom we have recently had contact in this area. They all have stories to tell, although not all of them are willing (or able) to tell those stories. They all had mothers and fathers once; few were born homeless. Homelessness, like so many things, exists at the intersection of chance and choice. Many homeless individuals never really had a chance, having suffered through horrible childhoods and turbulent adolescences that saw them tossed out to the vagaries of the four winds at an early age. I am fond of noting that mental illness seems inevitable among the homeless, including those who weren’t mentally ill when they first hit the streets. A few years of being assaulted, arrested, robbed, starved, exposed to the elements and subject to the disdain of nearly everyone would be enough to catapult nearly anyone into abyss of mental illness.
As I pointed out in my post about Henry, rapidly gobbling down any food that comes your way is a common behavioral pattern among the homeless. If you haven’t eaten in a while, I can’t reasonably expect you to observe Emily Post table manners and to say grace before chowing down. If you don’t eat it all immediately, it will likely be stolen from you. And, as if that weren’t enough, competing with you in your panhandling endeavors are those who are no more homeless than I am, but choose to take advantage of the opportunity to engage in a bit of fakery to see whether they can get something for nothing. For those of us who would help the homeless, we are left with the difficulty of distinguishing between the truly homeless and the charlatans. If we don’t want to “go there,” we can simply help anyone who asks (within the extent of our resources) without making judgment, or, more commonly, can resort to averting our eyes and helping no one.
The latter option is perennially tempting to government, as the cost of social services staff and programs to determine who is “deserving” of assistance can run nearly as much as providing that assistance does. And when it comes to local governments, state legislatures and, yes, Congress, deciding whom to help, there are always Tea Party Republicans and naysayers back home in the district to provide ample chastisement about the waste of public funds. After all, how appealing is it to spend money on an intractable problem? Tomorrow, there will be more people who need to be helped, even apart from those “just looking for a handout.”
This is why it is imperative that those whom we elect to serve us remember that it is a mistake to think of human suffering in terms of abstractions. Those of us who care need to write and call our legislators and testify before legislative and Congressional committees to let our representatives know that we are not blind to the suffering that is occurring all around us. While we are limited as to what we can do as individuals, together we can move mountains. Ending homelessness is not an election campaign issue or a line item in a budget. It is forging a path through the rhetoric to put roofs over the heads of our neighbors who freeze, burn and are soaked from sleeping outdoors and show up at hospitals with hypothermia and pneumonia. These are the people who are routinely abused, assaulted and killed as if they were some kind of trash rather than someone’s son, daughter, mother, father.
The biggest mistake of all is thinking that it can’t happen to you. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
You have to start somewhere.
The jaded among us say that every public program, every act of generosity done by a church or an individual, is flawed (and likely motivated by some hidden agenda, as well). Some of the “undeserving” will be the beneficiaries of our largesse along with those who are “truly deserving.” This line of thinking is rather sad. Those of us who attempt to walk in the path of God know that every act of kindness is perfect. As your mother told you when you were little, it truly is the thought that counts.
While we’re on mothers, another thing that they like to say is “little kids have little problems and big kids have big problems.” As Janon astutely points out, the same is true of municipalities. It is a lot easier for a state with a relatively small population, such as Utah, to erase homelessness than it is for a more a populous place to do so. I was recently pleased to read that Medicine Hat, Alberta is the first city in Canada to eliminate homelessness. Then again, Wikipedia tells me that Medicine Hat has a population of just 61,180. This is a far cry from such populous places as Los Angeles and California. (On a side note, one might think that Canada, with its socialist-oriented policies, would not have much homelessness. Anyone who reads Dennis Cardiff’s blog, Gotta Find a Home, on a regular basis knows that this is anything but true.)
One thing to consider is economies of scale. First, large scale operations cost considerably less to operate on a per capita basis than smaller operations do. Second, populous cities and states have larger tax bases than less populous places do. There are more businesses and more people paying property and income taxes. Generally, there are more churches and other charitable organizations in the area. And hopefully, there are more philanthropic minded individuals available to assist than there would be in a more rural or remote area.
In places like California, where there are so many in need, the scope of the problem may seem insurmountable. Providing housing for all of our homeless may seem an impossible dream. Fortunately, Housing First is a big dream that is turning into reality. However, it takes time, it takes resources and it takes commitment. It can’t be done alone or by just a few, and it can’t be done in a day. It takes the collective will.
We will never be able to convince all the naysayers that housing the homeless is a just cause, and we will always contend with competing priorities for limited resources. But that doesn’t give us license to sit on our rears, turn the other way and do nothing. We have to start somewhere.
As the Talmud teaches us, “whoever saves a life, it is as if he has saved an entire world.”