I'm not sure I see your problem with New York. The program is voluntary, the families have the opportunity to live with kin rather than in a shelter, and they are plugged back into potential professional networks that can help them get back on their feet. Meanwhile, New York continues to devote resources to providing permanent housing to the chronic street homeless who don't have family support elsewhere.
Andrew, I'm a bit confused. You say, "Getting a tighter more accurate number does nothing to help individuals...." then you say, "The measure of a program's success should be how it affects the target population..."
Wouldn't achieving a more accurate number help us identify what policies and approaches are working, encourage us to expand them, and ultimately have a positive effect on the target population?
I actually completely agree with you that we need to expand use of tracking surveys. These surveys would enable us to monitor changes in the target population that could be attributed to the economy, weather patterns, etc. They also increase accountability and adaptability. Common Ground has actually begun employing these surveys, what we have called "mini-counts." They are methodologically sound and have shown hopeful results. We are hoping to expand them. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on them.
Hi Steven,
Great article. I work for Common Ground. You probably already know this but I wanted to let others know that Becky has actually started a blog to share information on VI. Swing by and say hello. http://vulnerabilityindex.blogspot.com/
The bloggers who are so upset about this gentleman having a cell ought to at least do a modicum of research. Finding this took maybe 30 seconds.
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
Question-shouldn't we be re-integrating homeless individuals into society by working to place them into permanent housing rather than devising new ways to quarantine them into 21st century Hoovervilles? I'm really not trying to pass judgment, just asking.