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

This week I learned a lot more about different types of services around the inland empire and LA county. Family services, women’s shelters, childcare, and what they offer in programs, their history, the language they use. I also learned more about how to explain my own experiences and to look out for the smaller things. I want to learn how individuals keep themselves motivated through the programs that are offered. I not only learned from the presentations, but from the readings about looking at homelessness from a different perspective. At a workshop I was in, we talked about a celebrity who spent a time on Skid Row filming a documentary showing the life there and how different that was compared to those in a different area, the woman who mentioned it also talked about making her own YouTube channel about being homeless and surviving. It was one of the moments where I realized the different situations people who were homeless were in, and how much they simply wanted to be heard. Then the readings made me question how much truth needed to be taught before the public really focused on the problems that contributed to becoming homeless. How much exposure on homelessness is necessary before the problem becomes dire, and is inescapably in need of a reaction from government. I think the woman was on track when she stress the need to inform the public that not all homeless are on drugs and lazy. It got me to thinking about a few questions, like: When does media really acknowledge homelessness? Without the help of the required readings of this course on different situations of homelessness, would I know or realize what is happening in the community? For instance, the employees at Disneyland. Why have activist movements to end homelessness not been a success? Why haven’t the means we are taking now not worked as efficiently?  

Listening to everybody’s reports on their internship sites was definitely eye-opening for me. There were a couple things that stood out to me. First, many of the organizations were started by people who have been affected by hunger and homelessness themselves. Second, most of them said something along the lines of “A hand out, not a hand up”, meaning they were there for resources but it is up to people to use them. I found both of these things to be hopeful, because it means that people in charge of running organizations have first hand experience and a more accurate understanding of people’s needs. Another interesting commonality is the use of language. Most organizations refer to people as clients or youth to avoid labeling people immediately as something negative. This seems like a very humanizing practice, and it makes sense that people who have been in the same situation would know how important labels and language around this kind of thing is.

In my internship at Family Services I am going to request to move to a different area so I can have a little more exposure to people. I am able to talk to people where I am in the donation center but it’s less frequent. And talking to people is definitely the most enriching part of everyone’s experience.

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.

I’ve been thinking a lot about privilege in this course recently, specifically, the privilege of academia. I wonder if it’s okay for a cadre of college students to volunteer their time at homeless shelters, groups homes, and the like. What ethical concerns should we have when thinking about ourselves in these contexts? Is it cool to just fill your 20 hours and bounce? Do you need to pass a certain bar to be justified in volunteering? I find it difficult to find distinction between ethical work and the pitfalls of “voluntarism” and voyeurism. Upon completion, have you done any good or contributed anything significant? Perhaps just the power of contextualization is important in it of itself – both in academic and personal senses. As we know, theory is useless without application and tangible review, but to what extent are we reinforcing armchair academia, and how can we mitigate the dissonance of what we learn in class, what we read for class, and the reality we find ourselves in.
Lyon-Callo’s book, “Inequality, Poverty, and Neoliberal Governance,” makes what I find to be an adequate structural analysis of the conditions – material and discursive – that produce, maintain, and perpetuate the features of homelessness and poverty. Lyon-Callo exposes the depth and various roots inherent in neoliberal hegemony – that neoliberalism frames homelessness in terms of individual production rather than a structural feature. I appreciate his analysis, and the use of Foucault’s insight on apparatuses of power, acknowledging the ways in which neoliberal hegemon is self-enforced. Macro analysis is crucial, and invaluable in intellectual discourse about policy direction. But just how useful is Lyon-Callo’s point in real life? I can’t reconcile the imperative to advocate implicit in his writing and just how out of touch it seems.

This past class was an interesting one as we each shared our experiences with our specific organizations. There were a variety of presentations with different information and formatting that allowed for a broad picture of the many organizations we spend our time with.  Something that stuck with me throughout each presentation was the mention of how language is used throughout each different organization. Language meaning how  they address those who utilize the services and resources the organization provides, walk through their doors, have inquiries, etc. The language used by the organization’s staff and volunteers can translate into the mindset of the individual receiving service. The terms used to describe the individual may have a picture that more times than not already comes with an image. This individual may internalize the image and perceive themselves in that way, whether positive or negative.

In addition to this I began to see and understand how each and every one of the organizations is different yet unique in their own way, being their intended purpose. There are a variety of organizations all focusing on one area that might be entirely different from another. The burden of assisting those who need a variety of different services is a big one. A good number offer everything that an individual might need but if not they end up having to be a part of several different organizations to receive the services they seek. However in what was presented I saw a balance of what some do and what some have less of a focus on.

The Los Angeles Times recently released an article describing a new coalition that has formed to assist with the homelessness problem that the area is facing.  This new coalition is called “Everyone In”.  They plan to train and organize people to advocate for new housing and services for homeless people.  “Everyone In”  has the goal to track progress toward countywide goals, educate the public, and provide opportunities to get involved with their cause.  The article quotes that this coalition identifies themselves as the “Army for the good”.  This leads me to question whether or not this is good mentality for them to have.  They want to rally community support for homeless housing and services.  Recently, Los Angeles voted to pass a $1.2 billion bond for new housing and a county tax.  The bond is supposed to usher in 10,000 new units with supportive services for the homeless.  The tax will bankroll services, rental subsidies, outreach and strengthen/expand shelter systems.  Both of these provisions were ways that the community felt would assist the homeless community.  The “Everyone In” campaign hopes to mobilize the ‘silent majority’ who support homeless housing their neighborhoods.  They have realized that the funding aspect of it will probably be the easy part.  The implementation of their ideas and providing housing will take more time.  Providing housing, I feel, is the first step in assisting with the homeless.  Housing is a good step in taking people off of the streets. 

Citation:  Reyes, Emily Alpert. “New coalition urges ‘Everyone In’ to combat L.A.’s homelessness crisis.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 9 Mar. 2018, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-everyone-in-20180309-story.html.

This week we presented our internships oral report. I really enjoyed doing this for a few reasons. I got to hear what the other people interning for my internship were experiencing that was different from what I was. I also liked presenting in front of the class because it brought me out of my comfort zone. Public speaking is one of my many fears but the format we did made the process go so smoothly.

It was amazing to hear the language used at every agency. None of them leaned towards the word homeless. The most common words used were youth and clients. This made the people being served feel equal which is extremely important when trying to collect yourself. Hearing what every agency does outreach the people who are going through a rough time was spectacular. The agencies put on different programs such as addiction help, counseling, and provide medical help. Some agencies also hand out food and have soup kitchens to help in any way they can. There are also racks of clothing to help them have new proper fitting clothes for themselves or for interviews. All these programs together really make an impact in the communities they serve because they are striving to help the Homelss get back on their feet and find housing, or just work on what they want to work on. Overall this week was by far my favorite week and I can’t wait to hear how everyone enjoyed their internships and what they did and did not like.