In our country, we tend to try to make a profit off of anything we can.  In terms of healthcare, we make money off of people getting sick.  Pharmaceutical companies raise the prices of drugs, making it a stretch for lower class citizens to afford the medication that they need.  Insurance companies raise premiums when they see that a client has recently been diagnosed with something.  Even with Obamacare, health insurance companies are still profiting off people being sick.   The private sector always seems to win.

A peer of mine once told me “Our country has the greatest healthcare program in the world.”  I think what he is referring to is the quality of care one CAN THEORETICALLY obtain, by forking over a large some of money.  The same goes with mental health issues.  A private psychiatrist can charge however much he or she wants for treatment.  The quality of care will likely be much better than a government funded social worker.  Both of my parents are therapists, and are in the business of help.  The homeless and other low-income individuals will never be able to afford this high quality of treatment.

Paradoxically, top tier doctors and physiatrists don’t seem to be using their skills on those who need it most.  They tend to treat minor issues of the upper class, such as minor pains and depression.  The homeless and low income individuals typically have the most severe cases, don’t they? How can we mesh top quality care with the lowest quality of living?

Towards the end of January I first set foot on the grounds of a non-profit, religiously affiliated mission, and was greeted by a supportive and friendly staff.  Knowing that this organization had a religious affiliation, I was skeptical.  I had the feeling that the staff would try to force faith onto me and it’s clients.  However, the religious aspect of the organization was minimal, and it was clear that its main mission was to give the local homeless population a pathway to recovery.

I use the term “pathway” because that is really what the organization seeks to create.  This is not a day and day homeless shelter, in which anyone can use the services and sleep inside the congregation.  There is a fairly lengthy intake that each client must go through before he starts receiving the services.  In addition to a background check (primarily making sure that the client does not have a record of any sexual crimes) he must work with a case manager to create a set of goals or benchmarks.   As the case managers have told me, “We need to see something from them that shows us they want to improve.”  After hearing this, I was concerned that they might have overly harsh policies towards their clients.  These goals might include finding employment, getting proper identification to apply for social benefits, or getting in touch with family to find permanent and sustainable housing.  This organization has many success stories.  However, there is a 70 person cap, and the shelter cannot take in everyone.  What they do especially well is give advise to those who they cannot shelter.  They keep good ties with other nearby non-profit organizations that provide similar services.

Two case managers deal with all the clients.  This is my main critique of the organization as a whole.  I found them to be understaffed.  Of course, they likely do not have the funds to hire more, but I could see that the two of them often times suffered from burnout.  There are typically around 70 clients that are enrolled in the shelter’s programs.  Along with regular clients are resident volunteers, who receive full access to all the shelter’s services in exchange for volunteer work on the grounds (primarily janitorial services).  I found that the resident volunteers played an important role in the dynamics of the organization.  They were able to provide guidance for the other clients, because they have all lived on the streets before, but are sheltered and nourished.  These resident volunteers were very welcoming to me and were supportive of my internship.

Some of the regular clients were approachable, and others were not.  Some were quiet, and others could talk for hours.  Most of the clients I interacted with hated to be labeled “homeless.”  The felt that it ruined their identity to be labeled that way.  Labeling people, however, is part of normal human cognition.  We always tend to categorize people into groups, and because of that we negatively stigmatize people.  Its amazing how by simply hearing these client’s stories, the “homeless” tag that these clients had on them didn’t exist.  This first hand personalization is why I value my time spent at this organization.

I have had many discussions with my friends and family about homelessness: what life is like, why people become homeless, and how we can combat the issue.  One thing that I noticed in almost every one of these discussions is that every time the word “veteran” is brought up, there is a shift in people’s tone.  Sure, having fought in war takes a severe toll on people, physically and mentally.  Even members of the Republican Party, who have a conservative and hands-free approach to dealing with homelessness and poverty, feel an obligation to give back to veterans, and make sure they are taken care of.

In some ways this is a good thing, that we are making sure people who have served this country have basic necessities (or at least saying we are).  But what  infuriates me is how it polarizes different groups of homeless people and glamorizes war.  If you fight, we actually care about you.  But any other circumstance by which you are homeless, we may or may not.  Isn’t domestic violence just as big of a toll as war a lot of the time?  What about disease or disability?  We are such a militarized country that we tend to put all of our energy to only homeless veterans, and classify others as undeserving or unworthy.

Democratic Mayor Bill DeBlasio has just made an initiative to retrain 600 peace officers who work in the shelters of New York.  This is in an effort to address the notorious violence that occurs in shelters throughout New York.  There is no doubt that the hostility and danger inside shelters is an issue, and is often a reason for homeless to choose to stay in the streets rather than go to a shelter.

Critics of this initiative claim that stricter, more highly trained peace officers (in controlling “escalation,” whatever that may mean) will only deter people from going into these shelters.  Personally, I would critique this initiative in a similar way.  Being from a city with a very poor public school system, I was thinking of an issue similar to the one presented in the article.  Oakland public schools have always addressed issues of violence and deviance by putting in more security.  Does this solve the issue inside the schools? Perhaps by a little bit at first, but in the long run, but it has an effect on the students that is quite severe.  Seeing all kinds of security and policing around and inside their schools conditions the students to naturally see themselves as deviant criminals.  This does terrible things for students confidence and sense of self-worth.  In turn, treating them as criminals will make them more likely to conform to the stereotype.

So, I would bet that increasing security in homeless shelters would have a similar effect.  This proposed initiative doesn’t even add that much more advanced security.  It is merely a three day retraining process.  To me, this seems like an attempt from the mayor to make it seem like he is at least doing something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/nyregion/new-york-police-will-retrain-security-staff-at-homeless-shelters.html?_r=0

From the book that Kelsey and I are presenting on, I have thought about a few problems that might arise when we make affordable housing more available.  This is not to say that we should axe affordable housing all together, rather, we should just keep some things in mind.  First, if we have an open application process for affordable housing, i.e. anyone can apply, and most likely get it, wouldn’t that possibly create a dangerous community among those who live in low income ousting areas?  I remember reading Sidewalk and hearing stories about how people would make a choice to either stay on the street or purchase a spot in a shelter for the night.  The cost wasn’t an issue for them, rather it was safety.  The shelters themselves were dangerous.  How would we provide a safe environment among low income housing communities?

Another issue that the book looks at is the increasing standards of living among the middle and upper middle class.  Real estate agents and city councils want to attract high income individuals to their areas, so housing construction includes putting in more amenities, more bedrooms, bathrooms, better technology, ect.  And not surprisingly, this is raising housing costs.  How to House the Homeless suggests that we bring the standards of housing down, with fewer regulations as to what amenities must be included in any kind of housing.  So, a lower standard of living would be present among these communities.  With hardly any regulations, these low income housing areas could have the potential to appear  somewhat like a prison complex.  How do turn the “projects” into real communities?

From the time I have spent in my internship, most of the time I have spent has observing what a case manager at this San Bernardino mission goes through on a daily basis.  The two case managers (yes, there are only two for nearly 70 people) have the daunting task of properly accounting for every single client in the mission, and venting every new person that comes in.  The venting process requires that the case manager acquire legitimized identification, and perform a basic background check to see if the client has committed any sexual offenses (CA Criminal Code 290).  Each client wishing to receive the services of the mission must also set up a meeting with a case manger to create “a plan.”  The mission has a policy that a client can stay no longer than 90 days, and that  each month he must meet with a case manger to determine how he will achieve permanent housing and employment, and send him on the right path.  The client and the case manager must explore every possibly way of attaining residence.  This involves primarily getting in contact with any friends or family members that he might have.  Often times this task alone is incredibly difficult, because the patient has no ties, or has been outcasted from his entire family.  It is expected that during his time in the shelter, he will create ties with other inhabitants.

This religiously affiliated mission has several policies, which to many may seem especially strict.  for example, no client (with the exception of resident volunteers) is able to be on the mission grounds from the hours of 6:30am to 7pm, and are only allowed one meal per day.  In addition, if a client does not show up to the mission for more than one night without notifying the staff and case manager, he is no longer allowed to stay at the mission.  Also, physically disabled (and severely mentally disabled) are not eligible to receive the services.

However, after observing the work of a case manager, it is understandable why these policies might be put into place.  The case managers are constantly bombarded with phone calls from various individuals and other organizations, who are requesting that the mission take in homeless people who have been a “nuisance.”  With a cap of only 70 people, it is understandable that the mission must refuse to take in certain people.  In addition, the staff and case managers have to deal with clients who are exhibiting inappropriate behavior on the mission grounds.  As one of the case managers told me, “they have to show us that they want to change their lives.”

Despite the somewhat selective process that the mission goes through, and the seemingly harshness of the mission’s policies, the staff and resident volunteers are exceptionally friendly and helpful towards everyone inside the shelter, rather it be a volunteer or a client.  I have enjoyed the upbeat and positive attitude that the entire staff exhibits, and I know the clients do as well.

Our discussion over the Crack epidemic in the 1980s made me think about the whole issue of imprisoning those who have committed nonviolent drug offenses.  Of course, we know that someone is much more likely to become homeless when the get out of prison (much thanks to our so called “correctional” facilities).  I read that almost 2 million people are currently imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses.  This is where a large problem exists within our correctional system.  We treat everyone who has committed a crime, no matter what that may be, as if they need to be banned from society and punished, rather than rehabilitated.

From a liberal mindset, one might say that to address this issue, we should simply reduce the sentencing for these crimes, or even make drug use legal.  It would reduce prison populations, and possibly help control drug cartels.  However, what might be the ramifications for this?  Would drug use increase if we reduced fines and sentencing?  Do we have any country that we can use as a model?  Would this model be relative to our society?  In other words, could we say that if a smaller, less developed country legalized drugs and benefited from it, could we rightfully assume that it would help us?  I think its important to look at the other side of the spectrum when discussing issues such as this.

Also, I hope that we can also discuss the way prisons operate and are organized.  I read that the cost to house a prisoner is something like $30,000 a year.  Also, how are prisons “privatized?”  and how does that influence the homeless population?

A little over a month ago, New York’s governor Andrew Cuomo gave an order to  “compel the police, state agencies and social service providers to seek out and in some cases forcibly move homeless people to shelters when the temperature falls below 32 degrees.”  I found the article to be of particular interest, primarily because it deals with the idea of criminalizing homelessness, and using police force to try to combat the issue.

The first thing that angered me about Governer Cuomo’s claim was that he said that it was “natural human instinct”  to not want to stay outside in 32 degree weather, yet he still ordered police to move the homeless, and use force if necessary.  While getting people out of the cold should be a priority, it should also be mentioned where they are being taken to.  The shelters, as the article mentions briefly, don’t really “shelter” as much as they “endanger.”  Once inside the shelter, the homeless are more susceptible to theft and assault, and are put in a hostile environment.

The one’s making the policies regarding homelessness and putting forth these orders truly don’t know what it is like to be homeless.  They probably don’t know the dangers that are present inside these shelters.  I can also believe that the Governor, city councilman, and mayors do not consult with homeless people on the streets when they make these policies.  Perhaps we should talk to the people the policy is affecting before we make the policy itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/nyregion/questions-over-cuomos-order-on-homelessness.html?_r=0

I saw this poster when I was going out to dinner with some friends at a pizza parlor.  Surprisingly, this was the first anti-panhandling poster I have ever seen, or at least can remember seeing.  I found this poster to be very abrasive and very political.  The bold title of the poster really conveys the message that panhandling will only lead to more problems and increase the number of homeless, or so one would think.

At the bottom of the poster, it tells the viewer to instead make a donation to a charitable organization, not necessarily hinting at a particular one.  It instead directs the viewer to a website.  What is disturbing to me is that the words telling the viewer to not promote panhandling are surprisingly larger and more “in your face”  than the small text saying to give to a charitable organization.  To me, this poster was made only fore the pizza business, and did not have the intention o having people donate to charitable organizations.  The business likely had panhandlers outside of the store, perhaps deterring business.

Another thing that bothered me is that this poster compares donating to a charitable organization to giving spare change to a panhandler.   Giving spare change to a panhandler is almost always a much smaller amount than in a donation to an organization.

What do you think the main intention of this poster is?  Have you all seen any posters similar to this around Redlands?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/finally-urgency-on-new-yorks-homeless.html?_r=0

With a title like this, one could be scrolling through the New York Times, a renowned  source for news, and think that a homeless Mecca like New York is taking big steps to address the problem of homelessness.  We might think to ourselves, “there is nothing to worry about, the mayor has it under control.” But if we take a better look, it seems as though the mayor hasn’t actually done much to tackle the issue.  He has merely hired a new colleague to “work” on the issue.  The only proposition that mayor Bill De Blasio mentions is to get a better count on the actual number of homeless individuals in New York.

Is this really necessary?  Sure, it might help us get a better idea of the issue, but is this count doing anything to combat the issue?  We already know that there is an abundance of homeless in New York.  Sure, there are some that we can’t see, and unfortunately are not accounted for.  I would see that a thorough count of homeless would be most effective in less-populated cities, those in which homeless people are very hard to notice.

Maybe this count would be a good start, but it seems that the mayor is not going to do anything beyond this count.  What bothers me is they way this article is presented.  Its presented in a way that shines a light on the mayor.  This, to me, seems like pure rhetoric, a strategy for the mayor to get more public approval and votes.  What are some ways that we can publicly question these people in power, to really “put them on the spot” to actually see what, if any, steps they are actually going to take?  Is this kind of fluff used by those in power avoidable?