Since we have spent a lot of time this semester discussing how affordable and attainable housing is really the answer to our country’s issues of widespread homelessness, it was really refreshing to learn about some of the realistic steps being taken to achieving this. I read the book Housing First for my presentation, and learned so much about this movement that seems to have real potential to make a difference. I didn’t know much about the program before reading the book, which I think is part of the problem. More states, counties, cities, and individuals should be aware of how effective Housing First can be. Not only can it be successful in reducing the amount of people living homeless on the streets and in shelters, but it can significantly increase peoples’ independence, confidence, and potential. This is something I believe should be afforded to homeless individuals who have been victims to the streets, and to “treatment first” programs that discourage them from rebuilding social bonds, and disallow them from having a say in their road towards self reliance. Beyond getting the word out and writing books such as this one, I am lost for an answer as to how to get more cities on board with this movement. Perhaps a lot of it comes from the disparities separating places. As can be seen in the differences of programs in Seattle, Salt Lake, and New York, there is a lot of variation that comes from both the program itself, and the place in which it is installed. Nevertheless, it seems like it is worth the experiment, as it succeeds in empowering populations who were never given that chance before.

Our discussions about the structural causes of homelessness have begun to make me question the degree to which one is able to attribute misfortune and strife to external sources. Can you take the structural explanation too far? For example, I feel as if you could state that discipline in terms of reform of the individual is an obsolete idea. Could it be that values such as self-sufficiency and hard work are really just byproducts of the toxic and life-draining Protestant work ethic and the scourge of neoliberalism? Is the implicitly-stated importance of moving out of the house and not depending on my mother’s vacant basement that my godmother impressed upon me really a fallacy?
I discussed the structural explanations of homelessness with my friend this weekend on a quick jaunt to L.A. He, not having taken a class on homelessness, was quick to blame homeless people of laziness and personal vice, while I repeatedly stressed common external factors that lead to homelessness. Despite my macro-level sociological explanations, he essentially suggested that there is still somewhat of an impetus on the individual to get out of homelessness, and that there is still something to be said for not giving up in a society that is against you.
What do you all think are the limits of attributing suffering/strife/misfortune to structural elements? Where do y’all draw the “line?” Also, what do you all think is the “place” of values such as discipline and hard work in sociological outlooks like the ones we are adopting?
Also, what are your opinions on this course blog? Do you feel as if it is serving an important function for you?

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!

The LA Times, in their continuous coverage of the homeless population in the LA area released an article yesterday, Saturday March 17th, giving an update on the Orange County homeless story. After a population of homeless people living in Orange County were mass evicted from camps along the Santa Ana River Valley all homeless persons were given motel vouchers. Now, with the vouchers soon expiring, Orange County officials agreed, after a federal court hearing, to extend motel stays “on a case-by-case basis.” Andrew Do, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors, called the action a “big concession,” but warned that the county decision is “not a blanket extension.” The move can be attributed to an uncommon pushback from homeless advocates and a sympathetic federal judge, pushing one of America’s most affluent counties to face the issue of homelessness. Simply put, County policy for housing the homeless is full of problems: couples are split up, conditions often undermine the human dignity of homeless persons, and there are simply too few resources to provide for all of those who have been subject to the County’s mass eviction.
While this is no doubt a positive outcome for the homeless in Orange County, the voucher extension does not address the root problem of homelessness – housing insecurity. The County is merely extending another short-term solution, hoping, I would think, that soon this issue will go away. Most likely, it will. Out of sight out of mind is a reliable go to for local government’s confronted by homelessness. Though perhaps legal advocacy and humane federal rulings will hold the county accountable to the actions they have made. I don’t understand the logic behind County actions, however. Do they expect simply for homeless people to leave and go elsewhere? What happens if they don’t?

We have lately been discussing how shelter options are one of the most difficult aspects of homelessness. Aside from living on the streets, many homeless people create their own encampments and provide a place to come back to at the end of the day. Last month, an encampment along the Santa Ana River in Orange County was cleared out, evicting and re-displacing between 700-1,500 people (as we know, these counts are vast and inaccurate). Many of the homeless were placed in motels and given 30 days to figure something out. This week, a court hearing was held and it was ruled that the motel stays can be extended providing that adequate housing arrangements would not be available at the end of their stay.

This provides a problem because many of these people do not want to go to shelters. We have learned that shelters can mistreat those living there, with dirty conditions and abuse and control. One woman from the Santa Ana River encampment said “I don’t want to go to a shelter… At least at the riverbed there was freedom. I feel like I’m being punished for something”. Her time at the motel is almost up, and she is to be referred to an emergency shelter; yet she would rather be outside than in a place where someone could control her.

The Judge granted the motel stay extension, but provided his congratulations to those who cleared the encampment. He wants another encampment cleared within the next few weeks, this one at the Santa Ana Civic Center. I think this upcoming eviction is just going to add to the issue, but I hope they will be able to come up with a better solution for these people they are about to kick out.

Citation: https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/03/17/81751/it-stops-now-judge-demands-oc-find-solution-for-70/

We have focused our attention on the United States homeless population.  Have you ever thought of what other countries are experiencing when it comes to homelessness? The Guardian recently posted an article discussing Australia’s homeless population. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recently released that homelessness is up 14% in the past five years.  For every 10,000 people, 50 are homeless and more than 43,500 homeless people are under the age of 25. These are striking numbers when it comes to viewing the homeless population within a country. It is estimated that 116, 427 people are now thought to have no permanent home.  Australian chief executive, James Toomey recently spoke out about the issue.  He claimed this to be an ‘international embarrassment’.  He believes that this has been caused by a lack of serious political commitment and nationally to build more social housing and affordable homes.  The population that is facing homeless the most is the elderly.  Those between the ages 65 and 74 have been experiencing an increase in homeless by 27 people per 10,000 in 2016.  The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines homeless as, “if their current living arrangement is in a dwelling that is inadequate, has no tenure, and does not allow control of and access to space for social relations”.  Given what we have talked about in class in relation to the differing definitions of homelessness, what do you think of ABS definition? Is this a proper way to define the homeless population? Has your view of the United States homeless state change?

Citation: Knaus, Christopher, and Melissa Davey. “Homelessness in Australia up 14% in five years, ABS says.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/homelessness-in-australia-up-14-in-five-years-abs-says.

This weeks class was very interesting. I feel that having everybody read certain chapters, and as a class  go over each one so we didn’t have to read the full book was very helpful. Having to group together with the people that read your chapters and draw a picture that represents what you read about was a great visual learning activity. This book I feel like is the same as the others using the river analogy but went into greater depth explaining it. It also explained what the workers were doing to help the youth get back on their feet. The workers stated that they start with a large sum of youth and then once they start to integrate programs such as health programs, and jobs the youth start to filter out. In the end they have a small amount still left in the programs. This made me sad because all the resources are readily available but the youth just weren’t taking advantage of them.

This past week we had another series of presentations, this time focusing on the housing offered to the homeless population. One of the presentations was on a book called “Housing First.” This book was interesting because they recognized that the housing approach was not working and decided to do something about it. First, they asked the homeless population what they wanted and they all responded that they wanted housing. It baffles me that they did something as simple as ask the people what they wanted and acted on it. Most people beat around the push or assume they know what is best for someone when more often then not we have no idea until we ask the person who it is directly affecting. Since they said they wanted housing that is what they received. Most services first option to help the homeless is putting them in a shelter, but Housing First’s approach is to get them housing first and the very last option is for them to go into a shelter. The reasoning behind getting housing first is that people said they do not succeed in a shelter or transition home. By having a house they are able to get a fresh start to focus on themselves. I agree with this approach because people who live in shelters were ultimately on a cycle of getting a bed, going back on a waiting list, and then back to the streets while they wait for an available bed. It is an unhealthy cycle for anyone to be living in, but Housing First is offering a real chance at a do over that can go a long way for people.

This week we looked at how the poor have been controlled over the decades. The 18th and 19th centuries have been a war against the poor, despite things being implemented in order to help them. When people began to fight for a minimum wage and the 8 hour work day, that is when labor started to become more just. It is surprising to think that it was not even that long ago, not even 100 years, when people were working for next to nothing in horrible conditions. The Social Security implementation did help some poor, by keeping the number of impoverished elderly down. Nowadays, it’s mainly the younger crowd who are without money.  What stood out to me was the distinction between the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor. This sense of control has been going on pre 700, back in England. Those who were able-bodied and did not have a noticeable problem were seen as “unworthy” poor, because if you could work there should be no excuse for you to not be. You did not deserve help. Those who were “worthy” of assistance were people like mothers, widows, and handicap. These people were seen as less and that they could not support themselves, so they were deserving of help. You can still see how these ideas from hundreds of years ago are still in the minds of people today. Many look down on the poor and say “I work, so you can to. I’m not giving the money I earned to someone who did not work for it”. Not everyone’s poverty situation is something that can be seen on the surface, and we all need help from time to time. Rather than controlling the poor, we should work on ways to help them learn how to control their lives again, which is what many of these shelters we are looking into are striving to do.

An article posted early this morning from the L.A. Times stated that Los Angeles city lawmakers are blocking the momentum of creating homeless housing projects, though it is unclear if the block is intentional or unintentional. The project needs to receive funding but before this can happen, city council members must send in a “letter of acknowledgment” to the housing department. So far, no such letter has been received. This news is frustrating on several layers. Los Angeles has worked hard in the past years to pass certain rules and regulations that would allow for the improvement of street life for their homeless population. Housing proposals have been submitted to the city’s department of housing but will be rejected until these letters get sent in. Homeless advocates say that this “letter-blocking” is a political move, while council members argue that they simply are waiting for the proposal that looks “right”.

Once L.A. gets its act together, however, the proposed housing projects would fit in well with the community. From my observations, the projects look like nice apartment buildings that you would see in any city. It is hard to imagine that people would have a NIMBY approach to these proposed buildings, but then again, it is hard to really understand neighborhoods that would want to push out the homeless in the first place. Regardless of the issue, I am hopeful that developers and city councilors will get on the same page to get these projects moving. The longer they wait, the longer their homeless population is living on the streets and not properly housed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-council-power-20180312-story.html