Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
SLO Homeless
San Luis Obispo, CA
Recent Activity
-
SLO commented on the article |Mark,
This is such an awesome post... thank you so much for sharing this family with us.
- m -
-
SLO commented on the article |Becky,
Kudos. Your last paragraph says it all... and all the more so because tomorrow the U.S. Census Bureau is expected to release it latest report on the numbers of individuals who are experiencing poverty in the U.S. and if analysts are correct, there will have been a sharp increase of Americans who have joined the ranks of those living at or below the poverty level in the past year.
Poverty (nor homelessness - which is the most extreme manifestation of poverty) is a crime. The "crime" is being able to remedy it, but doing nothing more than pay lip service to the idea of "helping the homeless."
-
SLO commented on the article |"People are going to judge you by what they think and not how it is!"
Ne'er a truer statement was made.
Unfortunately, what most people think homelessness is; why folks find themselves experiencing homelessness; or what it will take to remedy homelessness, seldom intersects with reality.
-
SLO commented on the article |It seems that more and more communities are trending toward these homeless mega-centers touting how it will make providing services for the homeless more efficient. However, based on what my researching has turned up (and despite the rhetoric being put forth) these "one-stop" do not have any more success at reducing homelessness in their communities than the "old-fashioned" homeless shelters. If anything, they invariably turn out to be nothing more than "business as usual" - except on a larger, more expensive scale. And, in the end, it is the community who ends up footing the larger bill through their tax-dollars and private donations - all without homelessness being reduced by any significant percentage.
-
SLO commented on the article |Culhane is hard on the U.S. shelter system. "Shelters may be the final safety net," he writes, "but that net scrapes perilously close to the ground. To be in a shelter is to be homeless, and the more shelters we build, the more resources we divert from the only real solution to homelessness: permanent housing."
Regarding the "homeless shelter" system...
At one time, I believed that the 'system" needed to be fixed. Over time, I have come to a different realization: the 'system' isn't broken, it's never worked.
Subsequently, I question the prudence of continuing to finance an industry that has a zero success rate at reducing homelessness.
-
SLO commented on the article |David,
I don't know if I would have characterized my stating that Housing First is ultimately the less expensive than the shelter system as "flippant," since that would imply I used inappropriate levity in doing so.
That aside, however, you are incorrect regarding the lack of data supporting my maintaining that housing the homeless is less expensive than sheltering them. I would not have made the statement otherwise.
As I stated previously, I agree with you that, whenever possible, preventing homelessness before it occurs is the best approach. I also agree with you that there is a need for "... a robust short term rental assistance program." - rather than "... long-term supportive housing..." - especially with regards to the episodically homeless.
Also, it's true that Housing First is far from being implemented nationwide. And, yes, there are still some "kinks in the system." That is because it is still basically a "new technology" that is still undergoing some "tweaking." Hopefully, as it becomes more widely used, it can be made an even more effective tool to reduce homelessness.
However - in the here and now - communities that are using that approach have shown remarkably positive results.
End the end, though, it is up to those of us who care about reducing homelessness, to become involved at the local level, urging both HSS and local governments to move away from "business as usual."
Great post and discussion - and as always: thought provoking.
Keep 'em coming, David.
- michael - -
SLO commented on the article |
I made an incorrect statement when I wrote: "Last month, HUD released a study that showed that it was far less expensive to house a newly homeless family than to run them through the shelter system... "
The study was released in March.
My apologies for the error.
BTW - Here's a link to HUD's press release (which includes a link to the actual report): http://tinyurl.com/ylo8qpu
-
SLO commented on the article |
Penny,
Your argument doesn't hold water.
I am dyslexic (Have been all of my life). Furthermore, for nearly the last 25-years, I have suffered the effects of military service connected PTSD.
Are you implying that I would be better off in a homeless shelter (or on the streets) than I would be being housed? Or that I should have be "fixed" by the system before I was allowed to become housed?
That's pure nonsense.
Admittedly, there are some (albeit a small percentage) of homeless for whom a housing first approach many not work - or least, not work the first time around. However, the collective nationwide success rate using a housing first approach is 80% to 85%! This means that roughly 5 out of every 6 people who are assisted using the housing first approach remain permanently housed and attain some measure of self-sustainability.
Can the traditional HSS model make the same claim? No.
-
SLO commented on the article |
I'll agree that working toward preventing homelessness in the first place is paramount to significantly reducing the numbers of homeless overall, since the best way to avoid being hit by a train is to not be on the tracks when it passes.
However, to say that using a housing first approach is a cost effective method for the chronically homeless - and thereby implying that using a housing first approach to assist the episodically homeless is not as cost effective does not line up with the hard data.
Last month, HUD released a study that showed that it was far less expensive to house a newly homeless family than to run them through the shelter system - and in some areas, the savings were as much a two-thirds.
The reality is this: in over 130 years of organized homeless support services agencies and organizations, all that has been accomplished is to fund poverty - with no significant reduction in the numbers of homeless.
The only ones who have actually benefited from HSS are those employed by the HSS industry.
It's time for HSS to step aside and make way for a housing first approach (which incidently has proven to work).
-
SLO commented on the article |I've been following this story - and was able to predict with reasonable certainty that this ordinance would be challanged, since similar ordinances here in California have been challanged and either overturned by the courts, or repealed by the cities themselves after the lawsuit if filed.
What is so absurd is the number of local governments that see passing "no camping" ordinances as a viable solution to homelessness. But, of course, politics and reality seldom intersect. In the end, it costs the community more to defend a policy that will be overturned than it would be to provide adequate numbers of shelter beds.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits
