This past Thursday I went to hear Loretta Ross speak here at the University of Redlands. She spoke on white supremacy in the age of Trump. In addition to this she mentioned human rights. Among these were things like health care, shelter, education, and clean water. After mentioning 8 human rights, she added one more being access to the internet. Free access to the internet has the potential of becoming another human right that isn’t offered. This made me think of homelessness and the already present human rights which are denied to individuals in the United States. The statement Loretta Ross made holds truth. One can only access the internet if consuming in a place that provides that service along with their own free internet or consuming it themselves with paid plans. Money is the big factor and it’s what is needed to access the internet where almost everything operates. Access to employment and other resources is extremely limited without technology making it even more difficult to transition from homelessness if that is one’s situation. In addition, those who do not have a presence on social media and the internet can often be excluded and discriminated against, basically becoming invisible. They are denied a voice and discourse, and cannot become a part of established online communities.

I see what Loretta Ross said coming into play in the near future. I also recognize the potential for this to effect individuals near and in homelessness. Without systematic change in policy, it will be another entity that determines the fate of individuals experiencing homelessness.

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!

During one class period last week, I remember bringing up the possibility of affordable or low-income housing being implemented in the soon-to-come University Village train development, a facet of our University’s greater “North Star 2020” plan. In response, Jim essentially chuckled, and understandably so. The university administration have expressed no intention of implementing affordable or low-income housing in the area; their main intention is to spice up the campus and make it more attractive, a way to increase enrollment levels. In a sense, such spicing could entail creating another bourgeois downtown Redlands.

To provide some context, the University’s Institutional Plan reads:
“Let’s imagine just one student on this pathway with us who arrives at the University in 2020. She is a new graduate student who steps off an ultramodern, streamlined train onto the new “University Village” platform. She will cross through an inviting plaza to the north campus for her courses, encountering undergraduate students from the historic residential quad bicycling or walking through campus and on the new Orange Blossom and Zanja trails. When courses are over for the day, our new arrival will return south to townhouse-style apartments at the Village. Residences and apartments for young professionals, alumni, senior retirees and the general public encompass a lively plaza and green space dotted with amenities for our University and its town: a hotel-conference center, a coffee shop, a pub and restaurants, a significant college bookstore, a meditation-yoga studio, and a hub for neighborhood shopping, recreation, and services..”
How about that! Young professionals and yoga studios!
In my view, shaping the University Village into a bourgeois paradise would be a huge wasted opportunity to foster equitable housing solutions. Because the city of Redlands does not have much affordable housing in the first place, the future character of this development could be interpreted as a statement on the trajectory of this city. Will Redlands simply become more of an oasis for old white people and Esri employees in the sea of madness that we call the I.E. or will it become a space for inter-class mingling, where those living in South Redlands will no longer dominate city functions?
What have you all heard about the University Village development? Is its future character as significant as I describe?

I recently found an article in the New York Times that discussed food insecurity among students of all ages, both k-12 and college level. It is titled, “Have you Ever Experienced Food Insecurity,” and it is actually an opinion piece as well as it is a poll for students to comment on and express their experiences with food insecurity. According to the article and “Feeding America,” there are approximately 13 million students across the country that are being raised in food insecure homes. We don’t talk about this large portion of the population perhaps because it is embarrassing or shameful, but this is clearly a group of the American public who deserves more attention and fewer negative stigmas. Part of the process of removing stigmas is for schools to provide free school lunches to all, as districts in New York have begun to do. Another interesting component to the piece was its discussion of spring break for college students, and what this time off from school means for students who are food insecure. It is a widespread assumption that students leave the university for spring break, but this is not always the case. For students who can not afford to leave campus for vacation and are expecting their dining halls to remain open, they are often left disappointed and hungry. There are no solutions to this problem provided in the article, but perhaps the change could be as simple as university catering services remaining open during university breaks, just with fewer staff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/learning/have-you-ever-experienced-food-insecurity.html

At the shelter I volunteer at this past Thursday one of the girls was kicked out for having the remnants of a 4-loko in her room. She had not been drinking it, and it was most likely left over from her last group home. Because alcohol is forbidden at the shelter, she was immediately kicked out when staff found it in her room. Within a few hours a social worker arrived, the kid packed up her stuff, and she was off. I had not been informed of the situation at first and for the two hours prior to her departure we had been talking, cracking jokes, and playing cards with the other kids. As she left the building she turned back to the staff member Jason and said, “I’ll probably be back in a few weeks.” After she’d gone I asked Jason what his thoughts were on the strict nature of the shelter rules. He has worked here for some time and seen it all. “We just can’t have alcohol here. It’s not cool. It’s a problem. Alcohol has been responsible for some of our worst night,” he said. “Alcohol leads to fighting… someone slashes their wrist in the bathroom… we can’t tolerate anything.” Even though the rules seemed draconian and over the top, even thoug she probably would be back in a few weeks or months, and even though the staff really didn’t want to see her go there was no other choice. Each organization has its own rules for a reason. It’s just unfortunate that these kids are just shuffled around from place to place, from group home to group home. There is no concentrated or well-funded solution to the issues confronting homeless and runaway youth. These shelters are just a bandaid.

Last Wednesday, the class had a video presentation with Dan McGuire, CEO of Homeless Solutions in New Jersey. He talked about the history of Homeless Solutions and how it has expanded its programs over time. This program has a number of shelters. One shelter includes 85 beds for single men, women, families, and the mental health. It serves about 600 people directly every year. 40% of these people come to Homeless Solutions employed. This relates to their mission statement, “A hand up, not just a hand out.” Dan described this statement that the people who use the services also have to put in the effort to make a change, such as searching for jobs or participating in the therapy services.

I noticed that many of the agencies that our classmates are interning at also value this mission statement. I do agree that the people should put in effort, but I fear that if they are not showing any change, the agencies might release them. What could happen to those people if they are turned away because they are not making enough progress? At the agency that I work at, I have heard about people being released and not allowed to return to any of their services. These have been because of altercations or not cooperating with the staff. It upsets me that these individuals do not appreciate the help that they are being offered. I ask myself where else do these people go once they have been turned away. Thankfully, there are agencies like Homeless Solutions that change the lives of people who commit to making a change and put in the hard work.

This weeks speaker  was from Homelss Solutions Inc which is a nonprofit that focuses on housing and shelter in New Jersey. They are around 35 years old and help hundreds yearly in Morris county. They have a few programs which are very helpful to everybody needing assistance. They offer shelter to men and women who are single, families, and people who have a mental health diagnosis. Homelss Solutions also offers a transitional housing program and full apartments. With some of the housing options you are allowed to stay up to 18 months. In addition you have to pay for part of you stay, go to budget training, learn about credit and nutrition, and they are a curfew. I found it so interesting when they said that about 75% of the people in the transitional housing have a dual drug and alcohol problem.  Homeless Solutions also offers a home called Mt. Kembel. This is a home for senior women with low income. It amazes me that the took the older generation into consideration because most organizations only focus on the younger youth up to around age 50. But the older generation is very important for our society because they made our cities what they are now. The speaker mentioned that everyday 8 households get evicted. I was shocked to hear that and it made me so sad. I know this number is continuously growing but that means the number of people on the streets will continue to rise. The government needs to step in and start helping more.

This week we got to hear from the CEO of “Homeless Solutions” in New Jersey. He gave us some background on the company, such as that it directly serves around 600 people annually, through housing and other services offered. Indirectly, they help hundreds more. 85 beds are located in the main shelter, and they also have other housing offered for elderly, low income, and a building that houses 10 families. Even though government funding for shelters is significantly decreasing over the years, 47% of this organization is funded in that way.

The basis of this organization is great. I would rather have it than not; however, I must be critical. There were a few things mentioned about the organization that I did not necessarily agree with. The first thing that I found a bit unordinary was that families were charged a fee to stay in the housing. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but so many other shelters are free during program duration that I find it a bit unfair. Families are also required to be full time workers- which again, is not a bad requirement, but what about families who can only get part time work? He also mentioned that they have curfews- which makes me think of the stories of homeless we have heard who avoid shelters because they do not want someone having control over them. I’m sure we all hated curfews as teenagers; as an adult, I would feel belittled.

The housing program does offer many great services and I think it’s wonderful that they focus on building credit scores. They also offer scholarships if the money would sufficiently help someone steer off the road of homelessness. There is a lot of good in this non-profit, and I think there is much they can improve upon to help even more. I find it to be quite strict, which is a pro because people need structure and discipline, but also a con because people who don’t meet the standards may desperately need help, or will reject the help to keep autonomy. Giving a hand UP instead of a hand OUT is a great method of assistance, but even people who do not meet all requirements deserve a hand up.

I remember during our midterm discussion, the class talked about affordable housing solutions. Jim asked us what could be some steps we could take. I raised my hand and answered that a possible solution could be to find an area of land to build affordable housing and just start there. He argued that although it has been done, the problem with my answer is that once that housing is built, the area could become unappealing. I did not think about that at first, but unfortunately it is true.

During the summer of 2014, I volunteered at the Alameda Point Collaborative in Alameda, CA. Here, the volunteers and I built affordable housing in a rural part of the city for low income families in that area. I am curious how the city went about finding the area and funds to build it. This was before I learned about the extreme challenges with finding affordable housing and I am happy that I did my part in building it.

In the recent book presentations, it has been interesting to hear about the affordable housing solutions. Many authors have different views in regards to successful approaches. I wonder how many agencies or shelters believe in the housing first approach vs. the treatment first approach. I would hope that most would be housed first, in order to give them some stability during their struggles. I also hope that cities, like Alameda, can find areas where they can build housing for families and individuals in need.

Since we have been spending a lot of our class time hearing about what local agencies are doing to combat homelessness, I set out to do some research on what my hometown is doing to solve its housing crisis. Portland, as we know, has a high population of unhoused people that has only gotten worse since rent has increased significantly.

When I typed in “Portland homeless” to Google, the first article I saw caught my attention. Apparently back in 2015, the city of Portland aimed to provide a bed for every homeless child in the area. The shelter was city-funded and had an obvious “no turn away” policy which they prided themselves on. By February of 2016, the shelter was at capacity and since the city had made this promise, they were spending thousands of dollars housing children and families in motels (the cost of housing a family in a motel was $3,000 a month while monthly rent was $1,800). The lack of beds and increase in cost led the city to break its promise of offering a bed for each child and blamed the “no turn away” policy for the increase in homeless families the city was seeing.

I felt frustrated when reading this article because it seemed that the city had been moving in the right direction by acknowledging the lack of beds for children. But when things got costly and the promise seemed impossible, the city turned to blame the policy of allowing anyone to sleep in the shelter. If the city of Portland really wanted to solve this problem, they would need to take a look at the rising costs of rent and the gentrification process occurring on the east side of Portland.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oregon/articles/2018-03-16/portland-aim-to-house-all-homeless-kids-proves-too-ambitious