New $1.4 Million Available: But County Keeps On Housing

The Contra Costa Inter-Jurisdictional Council on Homelessness recently issued an advisory on “key components” of the county’s use of more than $1.4 million of new federal funding intended to prevent homelessness and to find housing for those who lose it. This money was part of $1.5 billion in federal stimulus funding for homeless programs. This new money, a National Public Radio report stated, would be “a big push in a new direction” in contrast to traditional programs that provided “food and shelter.” See NPR

This “Housing First” approach fits well with current Contra Costa County homeless programs, as described in the county’s five-year plan (2001-2006) and 10-year plan (2004-2014). The latter states, “First and foremost, they (the homeless) need HOUSING! Despite their different histories and their multiple needs, homeless people all need housing, which provides for them, as it does for everyone, a base of stability and security.” See “Ending Homelessness in Ten Years”

Not surprisingly, those fortunate enough to get housing through the county’s homeless housing program enjoy their new-found “stability and security.” Although it is probably an extreme example, the 2004 document cites the Shelter Plus Care program for those with serious disabilities in which 87% of the program’s tenants remained housed after 1 year and 79% remained housed after 5 years.

While the Housing First approach helps get some homeless people off the streets and is likely to reduce some use of emergency services and hospitalization, it is a large public expense that carries significant administrative costs. Likewise, the key components of spending the new federal funding, as described by the Council on Homelessness, involve using all of the money strictly for “homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing activities.” See Funding.

With the county’s current approach, when the money is gone, there are likely to be even more people expecting service from the homeless system, but even fewer resources to serve them. And, if the county uses the new money only for the Council’s key components, then it misses an opportunity to invest in skills-building and employment-generating programs such as offered by Saffron Strand. Such programs may be allowed to be funded, as the funding guidelines are more flexible than the Council on Homelessness would have us believe. See Overview

Programs such as those offered by Saffron Strand can help the homeless get or re-gain gainful employment, lift their income levels, and enable them to afford non-subsidized housing. Saffron Strand encourages economic independence, not ongoing, everlasting dependence. The object of Saffron Strand programs and services is to get the homeless out of the homeless system and back into their communities as productive members of society.

It would be encouraging if county authorities at least considered putting a few if the new federal eggs in a new or different basket. Otherwise, how can we expect anything other than the same old omelet?

Exporting the Homeless

According to news reports, cities in at least four states use a “cost-effective” way to reduce their homeless populations: Exportation. The link below is

quite an eye opener as to what happens to people in our society when they fall on bad times. However, these folks at least have somewhere to go: See ABC News report.

New York City officials are reported to point out that, for each family sent far away at the city’s expense, the city saves some of the $36,000 per year estimated to house that family in a city shelter. This approach might be good for the bottom line of “The Big Apple,”

but what about smaller cities across the country, especially those that receive New York’s homeless?

How can NYC’s approach be a viable solution if it cannot be applied in a significant number of cities everywhere? What about those who are homeless in their own home cities and towns and cannot be “exported”? What about follow-up of NYC officials in countries that receive the exported homeless, for example, the poorer countries of the Caribbean, like Haiti?

And, how “green” can it be to send families hundreds or thousands of miles away? What is the “carbon footprint” of such homeless export programs?

The Saffron Strand solution is to build job skills and employment capabilities locally, among homeless persons so that they can achieve gainful employment and afford to live in or near the communities they call “home.” The advantages: Lower initial and ongoing cost to taxpayers, higher skilled and more valuable local workforce, stronger communities and local businesses, happier local residents (including the formerly homeless), and much better effects on the environment.

Shelter Adieu!

In June, homeless Khadijah Williams graduated from Jefferson High School on the east side of Los Angeles. Her mother and younger sister, who are also homeless, said their goodbyes and Khadijah set off for summer college prep courses at Cornell University in New York state. In the fall, she was scheduled to start as a freshman with a full academic scholarship at Harvard University. See the Seattle Times article.

Like other homeless kids, Khadijah’s primary and secondary education was chaotic. She moved from place to place, with her mother and sister, up and down California. She attended 12 different schools in 12 years.

Despite the tremendous odds against her, Khadijah is succeeding in her higher education and in the goals she has set for her life. Success like Khadijah’s is rare, but not unique or impossible for others. Her success goes some way toward showing that homeless persons -- even kids! -- can find personalized solutions to homelessness. Also, their individual solutions do not necessarily depend on first having free or heavily subsidized housing, which, as many discover, is no guarantee against future homelessness.

The most cost-effective and reliable solutions to homelessness spring from a homeless person’s self-investment -- education, social skills, and job skills -- and result in economic independence, community engagement, and better opportunities for themselves and their children.