|
As citizens and taxpayers, our current “investment” in homelessness is huge. But it is difficult to recognize its awesome size because we are feeding, housing, and caring for so many of the homeless in so many different programs already. These measures are humane and very important. But they are emergency measures, they are not permanent solutions. Along with food, shelter, and basic medical care, homeless people need work-related skills and jobs. As yet, we are not giving enough homeless adults and youth the necessary skills to get and keep valuable jobs in the current or future economy. At Saffron Strand, we see first-hand the long-term negative consequences that shelter life has on the homeless. One of the worst effects is learned helplessness, when homeless people become conditioned to dependency on others. At the same time, their “soft skills” or work-related people skills atrophy. And their technical skills waste away. Last year former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan commented on the impact that recession has on those who have lost their jobs and how their unemployment affects the overall economy. Mr. Greenspan said, “People who are out of work for very protracted periods of time lose their skills eventually.” He said this means that “the economy loses skills.” He went on: “And remember that what makes an economy great is a combination of the capital assets of the economy and the people who run it. And if you erode the human skills that are involved there, there is a real and in one sense an irretrievable loss.” Richmond and other West Contra Costa communities already are home to multiple generations of “welfare families,” many of whom are homeless or threatened by homeless on a periodic basis. How do we break the cycle of dependency and get people back to work in a humane and dignified way? It is not enough to add employment opportunities to the “high-dependency mix” of donated or subsidized food, shelter, and medicine. Homeless people need the soft skills and technical skills to meet the demands of the job market, both now and in the future. We are not going to develop those competent, competitive, local workers overnight, especially among people who have been out of work for a long time. At Saffron Strand, we recognize that every homeless person is an individual dealing with her or his own unique and challenging situation. For this reason, our approach in helping them build their work-related skills must be individual, unique, and applicable to their personal situation. Beyond Saffron Strand, we look for enlightened leadership at the local, state, and federal levels. Such leadership supports basic human needs for the homeless – food, shelter, and essential medical care. But our leaders also should devote the same level of attention and investment in building human potential for productive work. We want the homeless to be able to help contribute to their own futures. We want leadership that puts comparable planning and money into job training and employment programs for the homeless.
|
|
|
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?
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
