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

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.