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.