Housing-First vs. Rapid-housing

Today in class my group and I read over a few other solutions to ending homelessness: Housing First and Rapid Re-housing. Housing First homes people who have already lost their homes (permanent housing). Rapid re-housing PREVENTS people from losing their homes.Housing focuses on helping individuals and families while rapid re-housing helps families. The similarities they have are: they both help to save money and they both provide permanent housing.The questions we have are: How can a homeless person afford to pay for their medical bills...in general? If you're homeless and you have illnesses how do you afford medication, hospital bills, and etc? Also how does owning a home help you save money medically? That's so confusing and it doesn't make any sense? If you have a home AND hospital bills or medical needs then you're at risk for bankruptcy not the other way around.
We also focused on four different groups: Veterans, Families, Youth, and Chronic homelessness.
Each group has a different need and a need a different solution  when it comes to solving their homelessness. Not all homeless people need the same kind of attention. For example Chronic homelessness may need rehabilitation AND housing as for Veterans would need housing AND prevention policies for at risk and service intensive intervention.
My group likes this program....we feel like these people are working pretty hard with housing homeless people in a very legal way but we wonder if there is a certain downfall to a situation like this?

StreetWise

Today in class our group watched a video of this program: Streetwise, where the homeless can buy magazines for 72 cents and sell them for $2 each. I like this program and I feel that it's doing good things in a very legal sort of way. So far in class all we've heard about are illegal ways to alleviate homelessness or very long-term process for it, no one's heard of something that could help the people both ways: providing a job and a home. This program does both! It gives them a job first which enables them to save up and afford for shelter. But at the same time this program sounds too good to be true. There has to be a downfall to this sort of thing. Streetwise has to benefit from it somehow. My group and I agreed that something is a bit fishy. What if Streetwise is using the homeless to promote their company? But think about it: if they actually wanted to promote their company wouldn't they have sold the magazines to the homeless for at least a little bit more? Or hired people with homes and experience on advertising. Or least branch to other cities within Illinois? See this whole thing is controversial!
All in all our group agrees that this program is a pretty good program. It allows the homeless to work and do something other than sit around and have people look at them like they're not good for anything.It also gives them an opportunity to branch out and find a stable job (whether it be the company reaching out to them or they reach out the the company).
It's a win-win situation.

Website:
http://streetwise.org/

Home At Last

Pathways to Housing is an organization that houses substance abuse users BEFORE they sober up, of course along the way they are expected to try and sober up but I'm not sure what happens to them if they don't. Do I agree with this? Sure! Why not? I believe that everyone deserves a home or a roof over their heads. There is not one person who is undeserving of a home. What happens when they don't sober up? My group believes that Pathways should then try to force rehabilitation but I disagree. If a person isn't willing to change themselves, then what's the point in you trying to change them? At least you gave them a home. You provided them safety and security permanently.
There are people out there that believe substance abuse users should sober up before given homes. I believe that you should go ahead and give them homes. So why should you give homeless substance abuse users homes before they sober up? Well let me ask: what if the only thing that they needed to motivate them to stop using these substances was a home, would you provide it for them even then?
I believe that everyone deserves second chances, and change doesn't happen over night obviously it takes time. Even if they don't sober up at all you should still allow them to stay in the home because then that would mean that all of your hard work that cultivated throughout the years had gone to waste.

Website:

http://pathwaystohousing.org/

Home for the Homeless

Yesterday in our English 4 class we watched a video called Home for the Homeless. Max Rameau is doing something illegal, he's taking foreclosed homes and putting families in them. Of course it isn't a permanent housing situation but long enough for a family to save up and get started on their future. I applaud Max Rameau for what he has done. I’m very impressed that he was able to come up with an idea that is so brilliant and I’m even more impressed that he was able to make the police back off (although I’m sure some of them are just doing that for image purposes). I do however understand where Ron Book is coming from. Ron Book disagrees with Max Rameau. He doesn't believe in breaking the law to give people homes. He wants to do things by the book (no pun intended). He doesn’t want to break the law but I fail to see why he doesn’t see that his method is much more time consuming versus Rameau’s method. By the time Book is able to provide shelter for a family in a shelter home, Rameau could’ve sheltered five families and three of them would probably be well on their way to getting an actual home. I do believe that in this kind of circumstance, breaking the law is good.
Is housing a human right?
Yes I believe that housing is a human right. Everyone deserves a roof over their heads no matter what. Even if the person is a drug addict or a gambler they are still deserving of a home.If prisoners have a roof over their heads, why can't a family or an individual who is working have a roof over their head too?

VIDEO:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/index.html

Website:
http://takebacktheland.org/






Max Rameau:

On Compassion vs. Homeless

The thesis of On Compassion by Barbara Lazear Ascher is: we can't deny that homelessness exists when it hits us in the face everyday. Compassion is not a trait that we inherit, it is a learned experience. The thesis from Homeless by Anna Quindlen is the homeless were once just like us but something happened to them that made them lose their homes.

In On Compassion, Ascher presents us with three scenarios as I have mentioned before. A man who is walking down the street when a woman hands him a dollar bill. A man who receives bread and coffee from the owner of a cafe and the mayor of NYC who moved the homeless into the hospitals. We discussed whether or not the gesture was out of fear or compassion and I came to the conclusion that it was fear that motivated the gift. But, all in all what is Ascher's point? Her point of the story is: a person isn't born compassionate. As one goes on with their lives different events and experiences shapes their mind set that makes them grow compassionate.

In Homeless by Anna Quindlen she gives us a homeless woman named Ann. She was doing a story on homeless and the woman was trying to prove her wrong by showing pictures of her house. Anna realized that  this woman was just like all of us before. The point that Quindlen is trying to make: the homeless were people just like us once, they were no different.

Which article made me more sympathetic towards the homeless? The first one, written by Ascher did. Ascher described the situations of the homeless in a very sad way that made me think twice about the homeless. The way those people reacted towards the homeless had me thinking and I realized that there were people all over the world who acted like this towards the homeless. It made me very sad to think that people would often give money or goods to a person to keep them away, maybe instead of the dollar they would like some company for at least a minute.

Which article did I like the best? I liked the Homeless article/essay the best because it wasn't written in a negative tone. I felt like she (Quindlen) was trying to persuade us to see the homeless in a different set of eyes. That all they really need is a home. She starts off by telling us about her imperfect home, and lets us know that she loves it even though it's not that great. She's giving us a message to be grateful for what we have while others don't even have a dish rack to call their own.

Out of Fear or Compassion?

When you see a man in his late forties in rags, with a huge book bag beside him on the floor, a plastic cup on the other and a sign that says 'Homeless and hungry please help'. What do you do? Do you drive past him like the other hundred cars that did that today? Do you stop and hand him a dollar? Or do you drive to a near by restaurant, order some food, and hand it to the man? What triggers the first action? Ignorance? Belief that they can make it on their own or they're just con artists? What about the second one? Empathy. The last one? A level of compassion.

Today in class we read an essay written by Barbara Lazear Ascher 'On Compassion'. It gives us three scenarios, I believe on homelessness. We had a class discussion on whether it was fear or compassion that motivated the gift?

 In the first, there's a woman strolling her baby in a stroller. By the name of the stroller brand we learn that she's a wealthy woman. They cross paths with a man who is wearing rags with carefully braided dreadlocks. She rummages through her purse to find a dollar and holds it like a crucifix towards the man until he finally takes it.

-I believe it was fear that motivated the gift. The passage gives you details like 'her hands close tighter on the stroller's handle as she sees the man approach', 'rummages through its contents: lipstick, a lace handkerchief, an address book.', and 'bearing the dollar like a cross'. If you have to grip tighter onto something it means that you're aware you'll lose contact with whatever you're gripping onto. If Ascher has to add in the detail rummaging through its contents and list what she rummages through, you can tell the woman is nervous. Now, I'm not an expert on exorcism but bear the dollar like a cross? It's like the woman's life depends on the dollar.

The second scenario was a moody French woman who owned a cafe. A homeless man comes in and she hands him a Styrofoam cup of coffee and a bag of bread. After retrieving the bag he leaves.

-This one I could make an argument for both sides, but I'm going to meet in the middle and say that compassion drove this woman's actions but fear also played a role in it too.
This woman gave the man food, and from how the writer described it, it wasn't the first time she did that. That's compassion. But do you wonder why she didn't let him stay in the comfort of the cafe and eat his bread there? She didn't allow the man to stay because she feared that his presence would disturb the comfort of her customers.

In the last scenario, the Mayor of NYC moves the homeless into hospitals.

-I feel like neither compassion or fear drove this gesture. It was more about how things appeared on the outside versus really solving the problem. But if I had to choose between only those two, I'd be in favor of fear. The mayor would fear what tourists say about the homeless maybe?


All in all when coming to a conclusion on what motivated these three actions, I'd say it was fear and pity. The vibe I had gotten from the people from reading the passage was very negative. I feel that if Ascher wanted compassion to be the motivation for the action then she would be sure to tell us in the details.

Ascher Essay:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10276652/Homelessness/On%20Compassion%20&%20Homeless.PDF



Here's also a super neat thing I found:

State of Homelessness

Today in class, my group reviewed what we learned this past week. We learned demographics of homelessness and we also learned about what the future looks like when it comes to homelessness. It turns out that even though homelessness decreased nationwide, it's increasing in 24 states including Washington DC. Why? Why is it decreasing but at the same time increasing everywhere? Is something really being done or is the homeless just dispersing throughout the country? That brings us to what is being done? We want to know what actions the government is making. How is it helping the homeless? 
“Homelessness is a lagging indicator and the effects of the poor economy on the problem are escalating and are expected to continue to do so over the next few years.” 
This quote really shocked us because we expected things to get better as the years went by instead of increasing. That makes us wonder if there is something we can do that is a fast process to save the homeless, to meet their needs. 
It also made us question the existence of jobs. Why do we need jobs if people who have jobs are also homeless? If 20% of the people homeless have part-time jobs or full-time jobs why are they still homeless? Shouldn't they be able to make enough to eat and have a roof over their heads? This all doesn't add up. Where is the money going? What's the government doing to help? And can we alleviate homelessness?

 

How are the homeless?

We've looked at another sheet on homelessness. In this we discussed the causes, different types of people, and what the government is doing about homelessness. The greatest causes of homelessness is lack of affordable housing, poverty, unemployment, substance abuse, and mental illness. 1.5 million American children are homeless each year. Forty percent of homeless men are veterans. You would think that since the veterans served the country that the government would at least provide a roof over their heads. Thirty-eight percent report alcohol use, twenty-six are drug use, and thirty-nine have some form of mental health problem. Homelessness seems to be bigger in central cities rather than in rural areas.
Our group agreed that this is the case because the cost of living in a city is much more expensive than the cost of living in the rural area. That made us think: why don't they just move somewhere else where the cost of living is less expensive? Of course move there before they go completely homeless, but the truth is, you never know. Often times homelessness creeps up on you and when it hits you, it hits you all at once and it hits you hard.
We all learned something new today: The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act was the first major federal legislative response to homelessness. This has created several programs that helped Americans regain stability through shelters, housing, job training, health care, and education. Although this Act may have helped the symptoms of homelessness, people argued that they needed to focus more on the causes.

Another thing we did today was discuss the previous video: Faces of Homelessness 2 with our teacher. He had asked us each which part was the most shocking and we each had a different answer. Mine was the homeless shelter. I told about how surprised I was that homeless shelters didn't actually provide safety and security. One of my partners answered how one of the women there was raped.
We then discussed how we felt about the homeless. If we had ever thought about people who were homeless before we were exposed to this project and both of my partners answered that they knew there were people out there who were homeless but never thought much of it until they saw them out on the streets. My response was yes. I did think about it before this project. With my parents having me at the very young age of 16, my mom attending college, and my dad being the only one working we struggled a lot yet my parents always reminded me to count my blessings. I remember when my dad had lost his job and we ended up moving in with my grandparents my parents kept telling me that we were blessed to have somebody to fall back on because most people didn't. Ever since then I've tried to never take things for granted and I'm thankful that there's a roof over my head, food on the table, and a bed to sleep in at night.

Different ages of homeless children:


Homeless person(s):

Faces of Homelessness

We watched a video on YouTube called Faces of Homelessness 2. It was a very sad video. People told us their stories of when they were homeless. In this video we discovered that homeless shelters aren't one of the safest and best place to live in. We pictured a nice clean facility with tons of bunk beds and blankets and pillows with bathrooms for all and cubbies where people can store their things but, no. Instead there are thieves, crack heads, criminals, and rapists staying there. Over ten people share one bed and you'd be lucky if someone didn't steal a bar soap from you. This is horrible! Homeless shelters are suppose to provide safety, security, and a roof over your head. It needs all three not just one. We found out that some of the homeless would even rather live out in the streets than an actually shelter. If homeless shelters aren't providing homes for the homeless then what are they good for? What use is it if we are just sheltering criminals? I'm pretty sure even prisoners in jail have it better than homeless people do. At least in jail you get food, toiletries, a bed, and a roof over your head. That's so much more than what a homeless person has.
And lastly, we were amazed at how people still had faith and hope that one day their lives would turn right side up. We were amazed at how they didn't lose faith in the American Dream, how they believe it was still out there and all they needed to do was work a little harder, have a little faith and it'll happen.

Faces of Homelessness 2 Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUAYjt67IM4

Should the Government Help the Homeless?

There are about 2.5 to 3.5 million people whom are homeless each year. About 166,000 people are homeless for a certain period of time every year. My group and I were talking about it and it made us question "Will we be homeless?". Twenty percent of homeless adults have full-time or part-time jobs. If a person has a job, shouldn't they be able to keep a roof over their heads at least? So what caused the homelessness? We found out that the stability of jobs were one of the main causes, lack of health insurance for emergency or chronic illnesses, family separations, death of family member and government assistance. We were curious when it came to "What did the government do for the homeless?". We came across the website Debate.org where the question was: "Should the Government Help the Homeless?" Surprisingly there were 14% who disagreed to the Government helping the homeless. Their reasons for being so is because: 1. The government shouldn't support their drinking habits (they're automatically assuming that all homeless people are drug addicts, alcoholics, and gamblers). 2. Homeless people are lazy and choose NOT to have a job. 3. They qualify for food stamps and medicaid they just need a 9.00 a month PO Box to get the benefits. 4. If the government took away their 'support' the homelessness would suddenly be 'capable'. 5. The government should promote general welfare, not provide it.

But also we were surprised that among the 86% who agreed that the government should help the homeless, we found that a couple people believed that we should help out only because it made our country look bad.