Mayor Bill de Blasio recently announced his new plan for monitoring homelessness on the streets of New York City. It’s called HomeStat, and the idea is to have outreach workers and police officers in the streets of the city on a daily basis tracking responses to reports of homeless people on the streets in real time. However, the overall goal of the plan isn’t really revealed in the article, and is therefore up to some speculation. For example, Judith Goldiner, head of the Legal Aid Society’s Law Reform Unit, said the increase of outreach workers is greatly appreciated; however, she is unsure whether or not the increase of police officers would be of much help. She stated that getting the homeless off the street and in to shelters is one of the Law Reform Unit’s top priorities, but the last thing they want to do is criminalize homeless people. With Police Commissioner William Bratton’s comment on the matter saying there’s a possibility some homeless people will be arrested for minor crimes, it has yet to be determined how effective the Mayor’s plan will be.

Despite having donated millions of dollars towards addressing the social causes of homelessness, in a recent poll 62% of those who participated disapproved of the Mayor’s plan. It’s been said Mayor de Blasio is not putting enough emphasis on getting people off of the streets. 61 year old Floyd Parks – who has been living on and off the streets for multiple years – believes the city should be focusing on trying to find permanent housing for those out of the streets instead of simply trying to get them in to shelters.

As of right now this plan seems quite ambiguous. It’ll be interesting to see how the influx of outreach workers and police affect the situation, and whether or not there will be any conflict between the two groups trying to accomplish relatively the same goal. Personally I don’t think we’ll hear much more about the plan for a couple months, but I think it’s a good first step towards keeping the public in the loop about the reality these people face, and hopefully it is the foundation for better things to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/nyregion/mayor-de-blasio-unveils-plan-to-track-homeless-population.html?_r=0

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?

While planning out a family with one minimum wage working parent and two children’s budget, I was awestruck at just how impossible it is to live on minimum wage pay. I spent much time tweaking expenses, and no matter what, the family would have to live with small housing, state health insurance (CHIP and Medicaid), and food from government programs and non-profits. While researching the eligibility requirements of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), I came across a recent news article regarding future plans for the Kansas Children’s Health Insurance Program. With the Kansas State budget appearing to have a deficit the governor is proposing to take money from the federal affordable care act; money originally allocated to the Kansas Children’s Health Insurance Program to balance the state’s budget. The governor’s spokesperson is claiming, “Children will continue to be served as they are now, and expenditures remain the same.” Should states really take that risk in shorting the Children’s Health Insurance Program in which countless children rely for their health care? If I were a parent in Kansas dependent on CHIP for my child’s health care, whether they are sick or healthy, I would be furious by the possibility of my child being unable to receive the same amount of care or being unable to register for CHIP due to the loss of the funds. This brings us to a larger issue of policy being determined by wealthy privileged politicians. Balancing the budget may put the governor in a good light, however, is a balanced budget worth the low-income families possibly losing health coverage for their children? Should we be questioning why privileged politicians get so much pull aiding low-income individuals?

http://ksn.com/2016/01/21/low-income-families-worried-about-funds-taken-from-chip-program/

In one of the books read this past week, it talked a little about “truly poor” versus “allegedly poor.”  I didn’t know what this meant and I guess I don’t know exactly what makes someone truly poor.  Where does one draw the line between allegedly poor and truly poor?  After the in-class activity of trying to create a budget under about $1,485, I saw how difficult it really is to choose what you want to use your money for and how you can go about saving it.  My group was not able to save any of our money.  Growing up very privileged it was hard to think of the most efficient ways to live our “poor” lives month to month.

I thought that this budget was insane to work with.  I would consider it truly poor but maybe its not.  There are people with even less.  I just cannot imagine the time it takes to be poor.  There is so much thought and effort put into it that I had no clue about.

I understand better that people can lose a lot (if not all) hope in themselves given the circumstances.  I would be tired of all that effort everyday, too.  As discussed in class, I think that hope is a big thing to have.  Without hope they may never see a glimpse of light.  It’s sad to think that they don’t want to see that light.  However, I do not blame the poor for not wanting to see the light, especially after learning about the Hurricane Katrina event.  The fact that the rescue team didn’t bother to check every nook and cranny makes me sick.  I am beginning to think that maybe society needs to show hope.

I wonder what could happen if society stopped separating being poor into two categories; if they recognized that poor is just poor; that we show that there is hope for them, they would have more hope in themselves.  Maybe even strive to get out of poverty and create an upwards spiral, instead of downwards one.

Family is a word that means something different to each individual. To some it is those who share your blood, who are family, to others it is those who have played a large and supportive role in their life. If someone is your family, doing whatever it takes to protect and support them usually comes with the title. But how far will you go for your family? Would you rob a super market so your kids could eat? Would you sell drugs so that you could provide a home for your family? Would you do something to save or protect your family and the ones you love even if it meant landing you in a concrete cell?

This thought is not one that you would think your average person would have to consider. But in fact, there is a large population of people, who are under recognized, who face this question everyday. These people are the homeless, the people who live in poverty, who each day struggle to find where their next meal will come from, or where they will sleep each night. There are stories about women who even though they know what they are doing is illegal, steal food so that their kids can eat. There are people out there for whom drugs or prostitution are their only options for their survival or the survival of their family. We place judgments on these people, assuming that their illegal ways are product of them being “bad people.” But if you took the time to stop and ask these people their story, you would discover that many of these “bad people” are doing these things because they are trying to stay afloat and to help the ones they love.

In Kenan Heise’s Book of the Poor a quote by a women named Virginia caught my attention. Speaking in the context of the lack of skill promoting programs that are offered to women who are locked up she said “And without skills how can we get jobs? One alternative is to take what we need. I am not going to sit by and see my babies hungry and do without. If I have to go to jail for that, I’m going to.” This quote was very powerful to me, because it took the meaning of family to a whole new level. We all joke about saying that we would “ kill for the ones we love” but when it came down to it would you really be willing to risk all you have for your family or loved ones? Would you sacrifice your life so that others could live theirs?

The Huffington Post has often been a part of my leisurely reads I come across with interesting and entertaining articles, but yesterday I found this article, which paired perfectly with what we had discussed in our previous class. The title “New California Law Gives Free IDs To Homeless People So They Can Access Housing, School” creates the idea that all California cities have begun giving IDs out at absolutely no cost. While this may be partly true, in another article I found from the San Diego Free Press regarding the same law, the writer points out that there are hidden fees within the documentation required to receive the IDs as well.

When further reading the Huffington Post article by editor, Eleanor Goldberg, she mentions the hardships of attempting to retrieve required identification necessary to attend school, join helpful programs and agencies, obtain financial assistance, and lastly, vote. Homeless people are not voiceless, and since Huffington Post is a popular source for my generation hopefully it will create more awareness. In fact, after reading this article, the next day, I found it floating around on Facebook. Homelessness is not something my generation often talks about, but needs to.

As discussed in class, we do not hear about the lower wage working class, or the homeless, because they do not vote. It is a voice that is not mentioned in the media, nor in political debates, in addition to a voice miscounted. I found a website that provides a manual of voting rights that was created during the project “You Don’t Need A Home to Vote” in 2012. It provides a clear list of each states ID and residency requirements. Although the state is moving towards the right direction, there are still underlying factors that prevent this population of people from voting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-id-homeless-people_us_55ae9054e4b07af29d568b34

California Offers Free ID to Homeless People

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/projects/vote/Manual_2012.pdf (Suggestion: Begin from page 44)

Who has hope? What is hope? These are some of the discussion questions we looked and evaluated over this week. Due to being raised in a wealthy family and having a very privileged life so far when I first think of hope I think of phrases such as, “I hope I get a 4.0 in this class.” Or “I hope I swim fast in the swim meet I have this weekend.” These are the hopes of a privileged twenty year old.

After this past week in class I think of hope on another level. Hope now means to have faith that there are positive things ahead and that life will turn around. Many of the stories from the website, invisiblepeople.tv.blog were of people that seemed to have hope. In many of the videos they ask the homeless person if they had three wishes what would they be. By them being able to answer this question it showed they had hope. If they would have come up blank when asked about wishes it would show they have given up all hope of a better future.

Hope has many different levels depending on whom you are talking to. To privileged people hope is not something with much meaning, while to less privileged people hope is one of the only things they do have. When you have nothing physically, mentally you can have hope that will help you get through each day because of the hope there will be a bigger and brighter tomorrow.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Oakland-Artist-Turns-Garbage-Into-Homes-For-The-Homeless-253620791.html

Let me know what you all think.

Sam

One of the biggest holdbacks in to improving poverty and helping out the homeless is the biggest institution of them all, government. They are the ones who run the show and allow what they want for the businesses and non-profits to do. I was talking with one of the case-managers at the internship that I volunteer at. I found out some interesting information about how the city can really limit the helping that these people and volunteers can do for the non-profits and shelters that help the homeless. The way I found this out was because I was curious why the church had the men’s shelter open for only 3/4ths of the year. I was told that is was because of the city. They only allowed for a permit for that length. They are in the process of fighting it to make it a full year, because it is stupid to kick the people in need out for a few months. The city is also doing sweeps right now and is pushing the homeless on the street out to another neighboring city. It would be a lot more beneficial to put the recourses towards the shelters that house them and not have them be on the street. The shelters are beneficial in the sense that they help the homeless try to find a better place to live, or try to give them the job skills that would allow them to get back up on their feet.