So, here is why HUD's end-all to solving the homelessness problem, Permanent Supportive Housing, will NOT end homelessness.
Reason One: The requirements of eligibility for Permanent Supportive Housing i.e., persons with mental or physical disabilities, and chronically homeless individuals and families knocks at least 80% of the homeless population out of the running for housing. The chronically homeless make up only 10 - 15% of the total homeless population, and yet currently receive 90% of services. There is something wrong with this equation!
Reason Two: Permanent Supportive Housing does NOTHING to plug the pipeline into chronic homelessness i.e., homeless teens and young adults, teens aging out of foster care and the juvenile justice system (up to 38% of whom will be homeless at least once in the two years following emancipation). 95% of teens and young adults are NOT chronically homeless (on the street for at least a year or 4 homeless episodes in the past 2 years), and we do not want them labeled as such; BUT they WILL be if they are not assisted now. Additionally, most teens do not qualify as disabled (thank heavens!), and we don't want them labeled as such. The teens at Promise House are in school, working, raising kids, and functioning in the world. But they wouldn't be without our help.
Reason Three: Teens and young adults have very different needs than do chronically homeless adults. They need a phased program that moves from fairly high structure and supervision all the way to independent living, which includes housing and support services. You can't just stick a teen in an apartment, or give a teen a housing voucher or 3 month's rent, say "Go be successful", and expect success.
The only way to truly stop chronic homelessness is to plug the pipeline into it. If you were to ask 20 chronically homeless adults if they were homeless as teens or young adults, at least 15 would say yes.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to get. Maybe when the "end homelessness by" deadlines pass and there is still homelessness, folks that make the funding decisions will scratch their heads and wonder why.
Maybe they should ask me.
Showing posts with label chronic homelessness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chronic homelessness. Show all posts
Friday, September 23, 2011
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
New Life Stage? We Already Know...
The New York Times Sunday magazine had a very long article about 20-somethings and the new "life stage" proposed by psychologist Jeffrey Arnett. He is calling it "emerging adulthood". Guess what ages this new stage encompasses? Yep, 18 - 24....the age group I have been preaching about for the last several years. Why have I been preaching about them? Because if we don't help these young adults who are aging out of the foster care system and/or the juvenile justice system, up to 45% of whom will be homeless within 2 years of their emancipation--not to mention the thousands of other homeless young adults who are not connected to any system--we will NEVER end homelessness. They ARE the future generations of chronically homeless adults.
Dr. Arnett posits several causes for this new life stage: the need for more education to survive in the information-based economy, fewer entry-level jobs after all that education, young people marrying later, young women waiting to have children, to name a few. The characteristics of this stage include: identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling in-between, and "a sense of possibility".
The characteristic we see most in the young people with which we work, of course, is instability. They lack the luxury of focusing on education, or self exploration, or possibility, as they spend all of their energy simply surviving. Like Maslow's Heirarchy of needs, until they have their basic needs met, nothing else happens.
Although Arnett's theory in one way seems to be based upon privilege (only those with sturdy support systems have the luxury of "delaying adulthood"), what I really like about it is his insistence that these young adults have very different needs than either adolescents or adults. Although they look grown, the great majority of them are not, which is now being borne out in neurological study of the brain. We now know that the brain does not fully mature until at least age 25, and many times until age 30. Consequently, although these young people are more mature than adolescents, they are NOT adults, as defined by our society.
This research gives validity to my argument that adult homeless shelters are in no way appropriate for homeless young adults ages 18 - 24. However, neither are teen shelters, which operate on rigid schedules with tight supervision and strict curfews. What is needed is a two-pronged approach: a less rigid emergency center AND longer-term transitional housing WITH critically needed support services tailored to this age group i.e., educational support, life skills, parenting skills, credit establishment, family reunification, etc.
As with most other societal ills, we are currently treating the tail and not the dog. If we intervened appropriately in the lives of homeless young adults at this critical stage of between 18 and 24 years of age, we wouldn't see them at age 40 or 45, chronically homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill (by the way, up to 40% of chronically homeless adults were in the foster care or juvenile justice systems as teens).
And, by the way, it's MUCH cheaper to treat them at 18 than it is at 45.
Why can't we get this???
Dr. Arnett posits several causes for this new life stage: the need for more education to survive in the information-based economy, fewer entry-level jobs after all that education, young people marrying later, young women waiting to have children, to name a few. The characteristics of this stage include: identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling in-between, and "a sense of possibility".
The characteristic we see most in the young people with which we work, of course, is instability. They lack the luxury of focusing on education, or self exploration, or possibility, as they spend all of their energy simply surviving. Like Maslow's Heirarchy of needs, until they have their basic needs met, nothing else happens.
Although Arnett's theory in one way seems to be based upon privilege (only those with sturdy support systems have the luxury of "delaying adulthood"), what I really like about it is his insistence that these young adults have very different needs than either adolescents or adults. Although they look grown, the great majority of them are not, which is now being borne out in neurological study of the brain. We now know that the brain does not fully mature until at least age 25, and many times until age 30. Consequently, although these young people are more mature than adolescents, they are NOT adults, as defined by our society.
This research gives validity to my argument that adult homeless shelters are in no way appropriate for homeless young adults ages 18 - 24. However, neither are teen shelters, which operate on rigid schedules with tight supervision and strict curfews. What is needed is a two-pronged approach: a less rigid emergency center AND longer-term transitional housing WITH critically needed support services tailored to this age group i.e., educational support, life skills, parenting skills, credit establishment, family reunification, etc.
As with most other societal ills, we are currently treating the tail and not the dog. If we intervened appropriately in the lives of homeless young adults at this critical stage of between 18 and 24 years of age, we wouldn't see them at age 40 or 45, chronically homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill (by the way, up to 40% of chronically homeless adults were in the foster care or juvenile justice systems as teens).
And, by the way, it's MUCH cheaper to treat them at 18 than it is at 45.
Why can't we get this???
Monday, August 2, 2010
Cliff Manor, Continued
In case you haven’t seen the Dallas paper this morning, there is an Editorial about Cliff Manor and the way DHA has handled the project. It remains curious to me how it is that DHA is taking ALL of the heat on this and Councilman Neumann is taking NONE. It was he who let the town hall meeting disintegrate into the Jerry Springer show, and it was he who chose to wait til 10:00 at the neighborhood taskforce meeting (after we had been there since 6:00) to announce that 13 individuals were being moved into Cliff Manor this week.
There have been recent DHA and Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance cooperative permanent supportive housing projects “installed” in other councilpersons’ districts that have occurred smoothly, with good neighborhood input, and with general support (after much education). The difference is this: the other council members showed leadership and were honest and upfront with their constituents about what and what not they had input. Neumann has continuously tried to play both sides and has caused chaos to reign.
The Dallas Housing Authority and Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance are going to house the homeless. Mayor Leppert has said he is in support of this. As a neighbor of Cliff Manor and an Oak Cliff resident for many years, I totally understand the neighborhood rebelling against anything that would impede our many years of hard work to improve Oak Cliff’s image and economic standing in Dallas. As a representative of MDHA, I know the ins and outs of permanent supportive housing and the research that lends credibility to the model. It works. It does not devalue neighborhoods. In fact, it adds value many times.
The knee-jerk reaction of "not in my back yard" is based upon the premise that permanent supportive housing is intrinsically bad, that it causes problems for neighborhoods, that it has a negative impact on home values, and that the people who live in these projects are bad people. Although the research in no way bears this out, the lay person DOES NOT KNOW THIS. It is our job as professionals who KNOW the jargon, who BELIEVE in the model, and who SUPPORT the individuals moving in to do a much better job of educating our neighbors on the benefits of permanent supportive housing, of the controls in place for the protection of the neighborhood, and of the intrinsic value of the individuals moving into their neighborhood.
Otherwise, the Cliff Manor uproar is only the beginning.
There have been recent DHA and Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance cooperative permanent supportive housing projects “installed” in other councilpersons’ districts that have occurred smoothly, with good neighborhood input, and with general support (after much education). The difference is this: the other council members showed leadership and were honest and upfront with their constituents about what and what not they had input. Neumann has continuously tried to play both sides and has caused chaos to reign.
The Dallas Housing Authority and Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance are going to house the homeless. Mayor Leppert has said he is in support of this. As a neighbor of Cliff Manor and an Oak Cliff resident for many years, I totally understand the neighborhood rebelling against anything that would impede our many years of hard work to improve Oak Cliff’s image and economic standing in Dallas. As a representative of MDHA, I know the ins and outs of permanent supportive housing and the research that lends credibility to the model. It works. It does not devalue neighborhoods. In fact, it adds value many times.
The knee-jerk reaction of "not in my back yard" is based upon the premise that permanent supportive housing is intrinsically bad, that it causes problems for neighborhoods, that it has a negative impact on home values, and that the people who live in these projects are bad people. Although the research in no way bears this out, the lay person DOES NOT KNOW THIS. It is our job as professionals who KNOW the jargon, who BELIEVE in the model, and who SUPPORT the individuals moving in to do a much better job of educating our neighbors on the benefits of permanent supportive housing, of the controls in place for the protection of the neighborhood, and of the intrinsic value of the individuals moving into their neighborhood.
Otherwise, the Cliff Manor uproar is only the beginning.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Jerry Springer Show Comes to the Cliff
Welcome to the Jerry Springer Show! The only thing last night's Town Hall Meeting in Oak Cliff lacked was chair throwing and hair pulling. For the first time in 22 years, I'm embarrassed to say I live in Oak Cliff. I'm embarrassed NOT because people are against this project, but because of the way they have been allowed to act about the issue. MDHA and DHA have done a terrible job working with Oak Cliff on this issue.....that is crystal clear. There are, however, several things that are NOT clear to me.
Such as:
Such as:
- Why did Dave Neumann front load the question line with citizens he knew are adamantly opposed to this project? Those of us who might have had voices of reasons didn't stand a chance and would have had to stay til midnight to get a word in edgewise.
- Why hasn't Mr. Neumann met with citizens in Oak Cliff who either support the project or at least are not rabidly opposed to it? He has met only with those persons who are railing against the project. I've heard no call or request from him to hear the other side.
- Why did Mr. Neumann allow the meeting to degenerate so quickly? As facilitator, he had a great opportunity to show his leadership as a representative of Oak Cliff. He failed miserably.
- Why hasn't MDHA and DHA put together an educational power point showing research outcomes for permanent supportive housing and the impact on surrounding neighborhoods? The citizens of Oak Cliff are badly informed about this and need good, solid, credible information.
- Why haven't MDHA, DHA, and LifeNet put together a formal presentation on how Cliff Manor will change for the better, exactly what services will be offered (kind, quantity, quality, frequency, etc.) and the impact it will have on the neighborhood? When asked those questions last night, the answers were vague and useless.
- Why didn't Bob Stimson check his research on the saturation of group homes in Oak Cliff? The saturation in Oak Cliff is from unlicensed and/or illegal group homes, hotels, and flop houses; which I would fight against just as hard as anyone. Cliff Manor is not one of these.
- If Mr. Neumann knew about this project for a full year, why wasn't he talking about it much sooner?
It's pretty bad when opponents of this project come to the table with more facts and figures (even if they are inaccurate) than the promoters of the project. This is definitely a lesson in how NOT to move permanent supportive housing into a neighborhood.
It is critical for those of us who support these projects to be totally prepared with excellent educational materials, credible facts, information on how the project will improve the surrounding neighborhood, and to be able to second-guess objections and answer them BEFORE the shouting starts. Just because DHA has the ability to move forward with this project without approval from the neighborhood, that is no excuse for inadequate preparation, unconcerned attitudes about neighborhood reaction, and re-iteration of federal law.
On the other hand, just because the introduction of this project has been handled very poorly, that is NO excuse for the behavior of my neighbors that occurred last night. I hold Mr. Neumann partially responsible for allowing it to occur, but ultimately, each citizen is responsible for his or her behavior. I think we need some lessons in manners!
In the end, if we are going to end chronic homelessness in Dallas through permanent supportive housing, which I totally support, we are going to have to do a MUCH better job of educating our neighbors and building strong relationships with ALL the neighborhoods in Dallas. Nobody likes surprises or having something crammed down their throat.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Building is on Fire!
Grim news for kids aging out of Foster Care. A recent study (Youth Today's most recent issue) of 600 midwestern foster care alumni who were tracked beginning at age 17, and who are now 23, showed the following results:
1. 94% did not have even a two-year college diploma.
2. Over 1/2 were unemployed.
3. Eight in ten males had been arrested at least once.
4. 2/3 of the young women had at least one child.
5. 44% of males were responsible for parenting a child.
6. 1/4 had been homeless at least one time.
7. Over 1/2 had serious, untreated mental health issues.
Geez....where do I begin? We have been hearing similar statistics in the youth services field for years, so the results of this study are no surprise to me. What continues to surprise me, however, is how totally unresponsive government and the private sector continue to be regarding the plight of these kids. It truly baffles my mind on a daily basis how we think we can really end homelessness without attending to these kids. How many different ways do you have to say, "FIRE!" before people finally start to leave the building?! These kids are burning right before our very eyes, and we just continue to sit around and pretend they don't exist. Will SOMEONE please explain that to me????
My last blog post had a long list of "what needs to happen to solve this problem", so I won't go into that again. What I will say again is that these are kids who were supposed to be taken care of by the state, who were removed from their homes through no fault of their own, who were bounced around their entire lives, who were caught in the unbelievable web of bureaucracy that is government, and then who were flung from the web and told to fly......but given no wings with which to do it. It makes my head explode.
How can we as a nation be so uncaring? How can we continue to allow our legislatures to cut critically needed services for these kids, or even worse, ignore the fact that services like transitional living programs are so desperately needed?
Sometime I'd like to do an informal study. I'd like to sit a group of people down and show them various slides of animals, babies, children, teens, and young adults......all of whom needed rescuing from some type of abusive or life-threatening situation. I would bet my house that teens and young adults would be the LEAST chosen group to be saved. We care more about puppies than we do these kids!
Until we face THAT reality, the reality that as a whole, we just don't really like teens, especially those who look weird or scary or angry; or at the least, we just don't think about them at all when we think of groups that need help; until we face that and the fact that even though we may not like them, they still need our help; and the reality that up to 48% of chronically homeless adults have history in the foster care system (if you don't like them as teens, wait til you get to deal with them as chronically substance abusing, mentally ill adults!), I guess we'll just keep pretending the building is not really on fire.,
As for me, I'm leaving the building! I hope some of you will come with me.
1. 94% did not have even a two-year college diploma.
2. Over 1/2 were unemployed.
3. Eight in ten males had been arrested at least once.
4. 2/3 of the young women had at least one child.
5. 44% of males were responsible for parenting a child.
6. 1/4 had been homeless at least one time.
7. Over 1/2 had serious, untreated mental health issues.
Geez....where do I begin? We have been hearing similar statistics in the youth services field for years, so the results of this study are no surprise to me. What continues to surprise me, however, is how totally unresponsive government and the private sector continue to be regarding the plight of these kids. It truly baffles my mind on a daily basis how we think we can really end homelessness without attending to these kids. How many different ways do you have to say, "FIRE!" before people finally start to leave the building?! These kids are burning right before our very eyes, and we just continue to sit around and pretend they don't exist. Will SOMEONE please explain that to me????
My last blog post had a long list of "what needs to happen to solve this problem", so I won't go into that again. What I will say again is that these are kids who were supposed to be taken care of by the state, who were removed from their homes through no fault of their own, who were bounced around their entire lives, who were caught in the unbelievable web of bureaucracy that is government, and then who were flung from the web and told to fly......but given no wings with which to do it. It makes my head explode.
How can we as a nation be so uncaring? How can we continue to allow our legislatures to cut critically needed services for these kids, or even worse, ignore the fact that services like transitional living programs are so desperately needed?
Sometime I'd like to do an informal study. I'd like to sit a group of people down and show them various slides of animals, babies, children, teens, and young adults......all of whom needed rescuing from some type of abusive or life-threatening situation. I would bet my house that teens and young adults would be the LEAST chosen group to be saved. We care more about puppies than we do these kids!
Until we face THAT reality, the reality that as a whole, we just don't really like teens, especially those who look weird or scary or angry; or at the least, we just don't think about them at all when we think of groups that need help; until we face that and the fact that even though we may not like them, they still need our help; and the reality that up to 48% of chronically homeless adults have history in the foster care system (if you don't like them as teens, wait til you get to deal with them as chronically substance abusing, mentally ill adults!), I guess we'll just keep pretending the building is not really on fire.,
As for me, I'm leaving the building! I hope some of you will come with me.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
How to REALLY End Homelessness
There has been positive press lately about the Annual Homeless Count conducted by the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance. Stories have described the progress made in providing housing for chronically homeless adults, the success of the Bridge (the homeless assistance center), and the work of many influential individuals in the community to help end homelessness. Mike Rawlings, the Homeless Czar, said that although we haven't won the race yet, we can at least see the finish line.
There HAS been much progress made....BUT.....and it is a very big BUT.....once again a vital component has been left out of the conversation, out of the stories, out of the press. The only way to truly end chronic homelessness is to stop the pipeline into homelessness....the biggest one of which is the 20,000 eighteen year olds who age out of the foster care system every year in the United States.
The statistics are dismal. Within two years of aging out, up to 48% of these teens will have been homeless at least once. One in four will be incarcerated. Only 58% of foster youth receive highschool diplomas as compared to 87% of the total teen population, making them very UNemployable.
Worse than these statistics, though, is the fact that these kids know NOTHING about how to survive in life (the failure of the Foster Care System is another story). Without intense support, they flounder, they drift, they become the next generation of chronically homeless aduts. IN FACT, a significant percentage of chronically homeless adults were in the foster care system as kids!
The equation seems easy enough to me. Aging out with no support equals high risk of becoming homeless. Why, then, have we created solutions only at the end result i.e., chronically homeless adults, but none for shutting the door INTO homelessness through support for the young people who are most at risk of becoming the next generation of chronically homeless adults?
The tragedy of this is, they are in this highest risk category THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. They were removed from their homes with no say in the matter, most likely shuffled through many different placements throughout their young lives, and then told "Bye!" at age 18.
AND, instead of helping them THEN, when prevention services can have great impact at a reasonable cost, we wait until they are deep into chronic homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse, etc....when the cost of help for them is extraordinary! What is wrong with us?!
To win this race, it is time NOW to turn our attention to these kids. Here is what needs to happen:
There HAS been much progress made....BUT.....and it is a very big BUT.....once again a vital component has been left out of the conversation, out of the stories, out of the press. The only way to truly end chronic homelessness is to stop the pipeline into homelessness....the biggest one of which is the 20,000 eighteen year olds who age out of the foster care system every year in the United States.
The statistics are dismal. Within two years of aging out, up to 48% of these teens will have been homeless at least once. One in four will be incarcerated. Only 58% of foster youth receive highschool diplomas as compared to 87% of the total teen population, making them very UNemployable.
Worse than these statistics, though, is the fact that these kids know NOTHING about how to survive in life (the failure of the Foster Care System is another story). Without intense support, they flounder, they drift, they become the next generation of chronically homeless aduts. IN FACT, a significant percentage of chronically homeless adults were in the foster care system as kids!
The equation seems easy enough to me. Aging out with no support equals high risk of becoming homeless. Why, then, have we created solutions only at the end result i.e., chronically homeless adults, but none for shutting the door INTO homelessness through support for the young people who are most at risk of becoming the next generation of chronically homeless adults?
The tragedy of this is, they are in this highest risk category THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. They were removed from their homes with no say in the matter, most likely shuffled through many different placements throughout their young lives, and then told "Bye!" at age 18.
AND, instead of helping them THEN, when prevention services can have great impact at a reasonable cost, we wait until they are deep into chronic homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse, etc....when the cost of help for them is extraordinary! What is wrong with us?!
To win this race, it is time NOW to turn our attention to these kids. Here is what needs to happen:
- HUD (The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) needs to lift its restrictions on the type of new projects Continuum of Cares can propose. Currently, the only new projects eligible are permanent supportive housing projects, which are for chronically homeless adults with a disability. Eighteen - 24 year old kids are too young to qualify for chronic homeless status and most do not have a long-term disabling condition. Transitional housing projects for this specific age group should not only be allowed, but encouraged or mandated by HUD.
- Congress should appropriate MUCH more funding for the Runaway, Homelesss Youth Act, through the Department of Health and Human Services, in particular the Transitional Living Program funding. Further, DHHS should lift its restriction on this funding that disallows foster youth from taking advantage of these transitional living programs.
- Every state should have a line-item in their budget specifically for transitional housing funds WITH supportive services for this age group. The State of Texas, through the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, agreed to funding for several large cities to help end homelessness. However, the funds were for chronic homelessness.....again.
- Every county and city should channel funding into transitional housing projects for homeless young people, again, WITH supportive services. Dallas County decided to divert all its Emergency Shelter Grant funding as of January 2010 to the Bridge, instead of dividing it between several shelters, as it had done in the past. Again, this funding now will help only chronically homeless adults.
- Mike Rawlings, Homeless Czar, Mike Faenza, CEO of Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance, John Castle, incoming Chair of the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance Board of Directors, the MDHA Board of Directors, and all agencies who are members of the alliance MUST turn our attention to these kids and ensure they are taken care of . It's time, and it's the next logical step. Aside from the moral issue of ignoring these kids, the economics of prevention v.s. the economics of long-term intervention are stunning. Why can't we get this?
- The Dallas Morning News needs to turn its attention long-term to this group of homeless young people. The News' influence in this city can go a very long way to bringing attention and funding to this issue.
- We need the influential individuals in this city (you know who you are) to rally around the cause of these homeless young people just as you did for the cause to end chronic homelessness. These kids are the missing piece to completing the task.
- Every discussion regarding ending homelessness MUST include solutions for this age group. AND institutions that regularly deal with young people i.e., school systems, colleges, churches, should be at the table and should be offering help.
It would truly be a shame to be crossing the finish line of the race and think we have won, only to look over our shoulder and see thousands of homeless young people coming up fast behind us.
Is that what we want?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
