For the teaching project, I partnered with Gabbi Carpinelli. At first, we had the idea of teaching a small lecture to both of our sororities. After much consideration, we realized most girls would either feel forced to be present, thus leading to loss of interest, or be too busy with finals giving room for low attendance. After debating these flaws, we decided to table outside of the commons. This concept allowed us to speak to students who were interested in the topic and gave us a general view of the opinions from the general student population. Our main goal of teaching in this manner was to breakdown negative stereotypes across campus, inform our fellow students of the simple facts regarding homelessness, hear the opinions and thoughts about the homelessness issue from the students whom are attending an expensive private university, and to have a structured and open conversation with the students about homelessness. The conversations not only taught the table-visiting students, but also taught Gabbi and I new perspectives regarding the homeless community, neighboring opinions, and governmental attitudes.

We tabled outside of the main eating area at the University of Redlands, otherwise known as the commons. We obtained a table plus two chairs from event services and set up during the busy time of the lunch hour in attempts of speaking to a good amount of students. We set up next to a couple other tables promoting events. On the table, we had small flashcards that were labeled with simple yet oblivious questions regarding homelessness. Questions included “What is the main cause of homelessness?”, “Within the San Bernardino county, what number should you call if you have any issues, complaints, or concerns regarding a homeless individual on the street?”, “What is one solution to homelessness?”, and “Is homelessness an internal (drug abuse, mental illness, etc.) or external (unemployment, social-inequality, unaffordable housing, etc.) issue?”.

We attracted students by asking simple questions about homelessness in order to gain knowledge regarding their personal beliefs and opinions. Although some students were knowledgable within the topic, many students were unaware of the concepts, issues with, and even the definition of the homeless community. Within the first half of tabling outside, I found a pattern in students actually believing personal substance abuse is the leading cause of homelessness. All students who voted “drugs and alcohol abuse” as the main cause of homelessness were extremely surprised when informed that is not the main cause of homeless. We even imposed the scenario of homeless individuals who are struggling with life turning to substance abuse as a form of escaping reality, and many students admitted they never considered homelessness causing substance abuse as a possibility. Due to the pattern of students believing substance abuse is the leading cause of homelessness, I started a small poll asking close students the question, “What is the one main cause of homelessness?”. Many students stated there could not only be one cause of homelessness, but once encouraged from Gabbi and I to decide which ONE factor leads to homelessness, more than half of the participants stated “substance abuse”.

POLL RESULTS:   “What is the main cause of homelessness?”

23 Participants

9 drugs

4 unaffordable housing

5 mental illnesses

4 veterans

1 other factors

As I am reflecting on the semester, I cannot help but realize what this class has forced me to do. Not only has this course pushed me to desire volunteering and learning more about the homelessness issue at hand, the course positively challenged me to face my inner struggles with public speaking. Throughout this course, I have become more aware of the homeless population. Homelessness has not dramatically increased within the past four months, the course realistically made me more aware of the issue and therefore my eyes were more vulnerable to visualizing the homeless population.

One key topic from this course was the idea of a solution to homelessness. I have realized there is no one solution that will stop and ultimately help society by obtaining equality, affordable housing, and equal wage opportunities. Every individual had there own personal opinion regarding the homeless population, thus proving one solution is not possible to helping the issue. Multiple things must be done in order for  society to change their aspects, opinions, and attitudes towards the homeless community. For example, I have been telling people about my volunteer opportunities at a shelter that remains unknown. The majority of the people whom I inform about my volunteer experiences, reply with some type of amusement and thankful of my “great duties”, but in reality, what makes me giving back to my community such an amazing thing? Should helping other individuals and your community be so rare and unexpected of all living citizens?  This concept truly set in when I was realizing how individual people do not have to crucify people of the homeless community in order to be clueless as to why/how we can help. There are citizens who see the homelessness issue and desire to make an actual change, people who see the issue but think they are not “big” enough to make actual changes, and those whom choose to be clueless about the issue. I plan to explore furthermore into the logistics of homeless shelter agencies and policies for the homeless community.

After last weeks class, I cannot stop thinking about whether shelters and agencies are actually helping the homelessness issue at hand or if we are only “beautifying” these issues. At first, I thought tiny houses were a great way to help create affordable housing while also reducing human footprint on the planet, but after consideration, the idea of beautifying these issues to fit public standards starting setting in my mind. Are tiny houses such a great option because it distracts the public eye from visually seeing tents or homeless camps on the streets? The idea of tiny houses was to create radically smaller homes dedicated to simplicity for affordable housing opportunities. The outside of the house can appear to fit the standards of typical housing, but the inside is not comfortable or can even fit the normal necessities by humans.

Tiny houses are what made me begin thinking about the idea of beautifying  homelessness. And I realized, NIMBY (not in my backyard) is such an issue that help for the homeless population is almost never intact without attempting to beautify the issue. Individualistic Americans are so concerned with the appearance of their living state, that beautifying the homeless population might actually help in achieving neighboring support. I don’t believe in beautifying the homeless community, but if the idea of beautifying can actually achieve more support (in some areas) then maybe its not such a bad thing. This idea of building tiny houses,  attempts to normalize the homelessness issue. I believe tiny houses, in some way, are a good idea but I disagree along the lines of such small houses/living spaces where the resident cannot live comfortably. If tiny houses are used to support the unhoused community, then the living spaces should include a normal and healthy living area.

Last class, Dan McGuire spoke in regards to a nonprofit organization known as Homeless Solutions, inc. in New Jersey. He gave us a quick overview of the organization as a whole and included statistics that show the degree of helpfulness and support the agency receives. The nonprofit organization serves about 600 individuals with housing and shelters directly and approximately 40% of the homeless population per year. The main shelter in New Jersey supports up to 85 beds. Although this agency supplies many homeless individuals with shelters/housing or other necessary functions, Dan touched on the subject of shrinking state funds and local protests that support NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). The main issues with nonprofit organizations is receiving federal programs that support accurate funding in order to withstand the programs. Federal programming also imposes the idea of “one size fits all”, ultimately implying that giving one solution should help all aspects of homelessness, but that is not the case.

Despite minimum support from locals and governmental policies, the agency continues to supply affordable “green” housing. Not only is Homeless Solutions, inc. creating affordable housing opportunities, it is also creating such housing that is fundamentally “safe” for the environment. This idea of reducing one’s negative environmental impact as well as creating housing opportunities for the unhoused supports the concept of Tiny Houses, which are considered small housing facilities that greatly support quality over quantity with housing facilities. The idea of being environmentally friendly while supplying affordable housing can be a great incentive in support of building these facilities. Laura and I will touch more on this idea of Tiny Housing in our presentation!

In class, we discussed a model that showed possible causes of homelessness in a series of three. The three categories include moral (sin), disease (sickness), and systemic (structure/social change). People tend to automatically assume homeless individuals become homeless due to their personal and individual decisions, but in reality social systems influence the rate of homelessness more than assumed. One idea that was not directly discussed as a cause of homelessness if the fact that you can be born into it. As I continue to volunteer at a shelter that should remain unnamed, I am becoming more exposed to the idea of youths and teens being introduced to poverty and homelessness from the very start of their lives. Some people engage in activities such as drug abuse or alcoholism, some are not responsible with money intake, some refuse to get a job, some work hard to make the minimum amount of income to afford decent housing, and others have no choice but to start their lives with the struggles of homelessness and have the choice to work their way up or to remain constant throughout their entire lives. This realization has made me appreciate youth/teen shelters or programs so much more than I have ever acknowledged. Shelters provided for teens or children aim to help before hope is completely lost.

If you are looking for some community service opportunities, there will be an event Tuesday night at 7pm in Orton. An agency known as Steps for Life will host a benefit for victims of domestic violence where volunteers will help make care packages that will be delivered to women and children victims of domestic violence. Any help will be beneficial!

We started this weeks class by discussing the history and roots of homelessness. We discussed England prior to 1700 where little plots of land were obtained for living, crops, and farming. Once ideas of investing for private properly became a common principle, the poor did not have a safety net to fall back onto. This gave the idea of  giving work to the poor in which deserved work and rejecting the individuals who were unworthy of obtaining work. This created the ideas of “worthy” and “unworthy” poor. Even today the idea of some homeless individuals deserving to get off the streets versus individuals who have done wrong in their lives and deserve to be on the street is still a thought by the community. As each student presented their homeless shelter/agency, I realized even programs that are designed to help the homeless community are directed towards the “worthy” population. Each agency had some type of prerequisite to be considered a member of the shelter. Whether this principle was being a female, female mother, families, non-drug/alcohol addicts, homeless, victim of domestic violence or sex trafficking, or a youth, there were barely any agencies designed to help all categories of homelessness. Although this commonality within the agencies was common for the class, there are many outside shelters that are designed for all types of people and/or life situations. My question is, what factors of an individual allow one to be worthy or unworthy of obtaining natural life necessities? Can one person do so wrong in their lives where they actually do not deserve to have a safe and healthy lifestyle? And can individuals worthiness change over time? These are some concerning issues that arise when deciding which individuals, if not all, deserve help.

Prior to the start of spring break, the class was discussing our personal beliefs about homelessness, what we have learned, how we view the issue, etc. One issue we discussed that truly stuck out to me was how we (as people) should manage the homelessness issue properly. There is no single answer and there probably will never be one. Each individual interprets the issue differently at hand. Some may think increased welfare programs could help decrease the rate of homelessness and others may firmly believe more housing could end the crisis. The key to ending homelessness is impossible, but the second every citizen realizes they must acknowledge and address the issue is the moment when change can actually happen.

A few students presented a book where the main belief towards ending homeless derives from availability of housing. The author put into context the idea that increased housing will be the most beneficial and influential strategy to ending homelessness. Housing will be the solution to homelessness was the main point. To some extent this may be true, but it brings safety, expenses, and social status concerns. If a city decides to build affordable housing for low income workers, will the area surrounding the building social status decrease? Along with these concerns, an issue that is found common among shelters is the available living spaces within the facility. If more affordable housing is built, there is no guarantee that the facility will be able to host every homeless individual.

Another point that caught my attention was the idea that shelters and programs are only assisting the problem, not adding any factual solutions. In some sense, I agree with this statement. Some shelters are only provides living spaces, which can be seen as assisting the homeless instead of  benefiting the individual on their journey to get off the streets. This topic is something I want to discuss more and learn more about.

One topic during the class discussions and guest speakers that truly held an impression on me was the cost of Point-in-Time Counts. Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts are done every two years throughout every county, typically during the last week of January. PITs are unfunded mandates that find multiple sponsors to fund the expenses, the time, and the quality of the count itself and require hundreds of volunteers to participate. The range of cost for a PIT count could be all the way up to a million. For example, the PIT count for Los Angeles count is approximately 600,000 dollars. My big question is does the expenses to conduct a PIT count outweigh the amount of money that is received towards services for the homeless? What if the 600,000 dollars was directly contributed to services and shelter for the homeless community instead of being donated to a middle-man type of service? PIT counts do provide useful and effective information about the homeless community but the fact that the amount of money received for the community does not directly tie to the number of people counted during the PIT does make me wonder. One reason I believe PIT counts do actually benefit the community is the process does prove a correlation between the number of homeless individuals to the effectiveness of the services being provided. If the amount of homeless individuals are declining, thus can prove the services are actually having a benefit to society.

This past week we discussed the many causes of homelessness and divided these influences into two categories: personal and structural. Personal being alcohol/drug abuse, mental illnesses, disabilities, and family tragedies. Structural including housing losses, hospital closures, changes within the job market, and lowered social support. This helped me open my eyes to the realities of homelessness: not every person whom “resides” on the streets was driven there by their personal choices to engage in illegal actives (drug/alcohol abuse, etc). Today many individuals admit there are issues dramatically arising with the quantity of homeless individuals, yet these people prefer to believe the government systems are indeed benefiting these individuals at every cost. Is that always the case?

It seems that policies tend to “help” the homeless community by forcing them out in order to “better” the existing city. Not every homeless individual was driven by alcohol, drugs, or mental incapabilities. Policies, unequal wages, de-institutionalization, divorce, unemployment, etc. are all impacting the rates of poverty, just as addictions.

This horrifying realization brings me to promote an opportunity to help the homeless community (Community being these homeless individuals who, in fact, do share the same place to call “home” and personal characteristics. Home is the streets to most of these people). This week students will be tabling outside of the commons during breakfast and lunch hours in hopes of receiving donations. Donations include clothes, non-perishable food, and unopened toiletries. These items will be provided to an agency, who shall not be named, that strives to help homeless individuals. After donations, this group will deliver the items on Friday February 16th and help cook/serve meals for anyone who turns to this camp/agency for guidance. Students are more than welcomed to donate items AND volunteer for meal prep. This seems like a great opportunity for students to get involved with the homeless community in order to realize the strong influence that take over each life. If you want more information on this opportunity please reach out to me! jordin_lowes@redlands.edu

The film, Taylor’s Campaign, introduces the story of one homeless man who decides to actually fight for the rights that should already be given to the homeless community naturally as all humans deserve these rights. Throughout the film, the audience can visually see the life of the homeless throughout Santa Monica and how society throughout the city handles this type of “community”. The film portrayed the acts against feeding the homeless, implemented by their very own city’s council. How can homeless citizens continue to have the willpower to live when the city in which they reside in constantly dehumanizes them? The council’s defense against feeding the homeless was the act itself allowed the homeless community to gather together to receive food, thus creating a “disturbing” sight. Instead of the government creating policies to help these citizens get off the streets and into a safe living environment, the council attempts everything possible to get these “humans” as hidden from society as possible. Tourists do not want to go on a weekend getaway and be surrounded by the one community who cannot afford or even dream about experiencing a weekend getaway. This scene of the film truly opened my eyes to the fact that the majority of everyday society is aware about the homeless community, but instead of creating useful and practical policies, we decide to blame these individuals for doing something so bad in their lives that they end up alone and homeless. In reality these individuals experience multiple factors that could have led them into poverty, but who says society needs to automatically assume they deserve the life without constant food, water, shelter, and a safe sleeping environment?