New Campaign Shows Progress for Homeless

[lindisfarne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/us/07homeless.html?ei=5094&en=293d57ee2b6d21ee&hp=&ex=1149739200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print


June 7, 2006
New Campaign Shows Progress for Homeless
By ERIK ECKHOLM
DENVER — Arthur Sena spent years living in a hole that he had dug near the railroad tracks. He would probably still be there, defying offers of help from social workers and using cardboard to ward off the chill, if Denver had not adopted a radical strategy of putting homeless people into apartments of their own, no strings attached.

The "housing first" policy that this city adopted last year is part of an accelerating national movement that has reduced the numbers of the chronically homeless — the single, troubled men and women who spend years in the streets and shelters — in more than 20 cities.

In this campaign, promoted by a little-known office of the Bush administration, 219 cities, at last count, have started ambitious 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.

The cities include New York, which is stepping up efforts to house the estimated nearly 4,000 people huddling on sidewalks or sleeping in parks, and Henderson, N.C., population 17,000, which recently counted 91 homeless people, 14 of them chronic cases.

Many of the early starters are reporting turnarounds. In Philadelphia, street dwellers have declined 60 percent over five years. In San Francisco, the number of the chronic homeless is down 28 percent in two years, in Dallas 26 percent and in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., 15 percent.

<snip>

P.S. Read the whole article - these are just the first 4 paragraphs.

[EFerrari]

1. Two problems with these numbers. First, the fastest

growing demo among the homeless is families, not single people.

And two, there is no credible evidence that I know of that supports Gavin Newsom's numbers for San Francisco, much as I wish there was.

/grammar

[lindisfarne]

2. Read the article! It discusses some of what you mention. DU doesn't

allow pasting the entire article in. But here's a little more:
"More important, he said in an interview, visible progress against the most visible face of homelessness will inspire more financing. Already, Mr. Mangano added, documented gains have persuaded the White House and Congress to increase spending. Federal money to work on homelessness has climbed over the last five years to more than $4 billion, from $3 billion.

Mr. Mangano "is great at spin," said Bob Erlenbusch, chairman of the National Coalition for the Homeless, an advocacy group based in Washington. But Mr. Mangano is glossing over the broader trend, Mr. Erlenbusch said, because federal programs for low-income housing, which can prevent homelessness, have languished in the Bush years or been cut."
====================
It is true that it can be much cheaper to provide an efficiency apartment, relative to the cost of dealing with some of the chronic homeless; I've seen figures from other sources as well.

Of course, we shouldn't have to economically justify providing homes for the mentally ill, etc., it should be part of our being human that we would not want people to have to live on the street.

[EFerrari]

3. Mangano's job is to privatize services to the homeless.

He's the BushCo pointman on this issue so, I take whatever he says with a pillar of salt and a garlic necklace.

I'm glad to see this getting ANY press, actually. But I agree with the Coalition that Mangano is full of it and that we're no likely to get reliable reports from him.

In CA, mental health services are about 40 years behind the technology and have been actually dangerous for most people for years now. I don't know as much about other kinds of supportive services -- such as for addiction and so on.

We are working with someone on our block right now that would like to go in somewhere and I can't find anywhere to take him. Maybe tomorrow will be better. :)

[lindisfarne]

4. I saw the article as good news that some chronic homeless are getting

housing; I didn't see the article to be a Bush admin. plug - reading the entire article makes that clear (sorry for those who aren't registered for the NY Times but can't paste entire article in). The article also mentions the organization which started this approach and argued that it was cheaper to provide housing than to deal with the problems caused by chronic homelessness - it was not the * admin. that started it!

[EFerrari]

5. No, but it was the admin that decided to manipulate

Fed funds used to fund these progs all over the country by attaching BushCo strings to them. If I remember, this or a similar model was developed in Philly.

Any article that features Mangano is a BushCo plug, whether the reporter bothered to find this out or not. And as one, it needs to be read carefully in the way we read about "Clear Skies" or "Healthy Forrests" or "Help America Vote".

Here in San Francisco, the main impact this program has had is surreptitious rousts on homeless camps that Newsom won't cop to and encouraging homeless people over the county line. But, since people believe Mangano's PR, they tend to believe the issue is being handled when it is not. That's the downside.

[teryang]

6. I don't believe a word of this article

I'm tripping over increasing numbers of homeless people on the street every day. Local agencies are overwelmed with homeless people.

[lindisfarne]

8. I don't think similar programs exist in every city in the US. Perhaps

it's worth bringing up to your city council member that providing housing may be cheaper than paying the other costs associated with chronic homelessness and provide backup data (perhaps you could contact the organizations which do provide housing in other cities for help in promoting this in your city, as well as trying to bring on board the organizations in your city which do help the homeless).

Is there really absolutely nothing in the article you can agree with?

This surely sounds reliable: "The state and city governments are also joining to build 9,000 supportive housing units in New York over 10 years." as well as "But in a study here, officials found that 25 men were taken into emergency detoxification centers for an average of 80 nights each in one year, at a total cost of $772,000. Officials have found that they can provide housing and most medical and other services for about $15,000 a year per person." and "The growing focus on housing the chronically homeless was driven, many officials said, by a study in 1998 by Prof. Dennis P. Culhane, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Culhane showed that a vast majority of people staying in shelters did so briefly and got on with their lives and that 10 percent were in and out repeatedly for years, accounting for half of total bed use. "

[teryang]

9. Outdated academic studies really don't impress me

I work with and talk to homeless people every day and I don't see a damn thing being done to house them, (on edit) except jail and prison.

[lindisfarne]

10. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But sometimes it's more

persuasive to say "far too little is being done" as opposed to "I don't see a damn thing being done". Many people, including me, tend to disregard such sweeping "nothing is being done" statements as they are rarely true, and the speaker loses credibility as a result. Often, people make such statements out of frustration, but it's important to realize that you risk losing credibility.

If absolutely nothing is being done in your city, it's an accurate statement, but if some things are done, you may find yourself more convincing if you say "X and Y are being done, but it's really only addressing a small amount of the situation."

[teryang]

11. Your the one that needs help being convincing n/t

[oscar111]

7. hope it works. Aside.. ten years... need to shorten that

if i were freezing out there, i would want a room in less than five minutes.

when dems get back in, i am sure we should see a fix for hmlessness in months. RR began it all suddenly in the early eighties by chopping two thirds off of housing vouchers, i read here at a DU post. So a sudden end should happen as well.

but of course, any progress at all is a good thing. Let it not lull us into a satisfied state tho. I would like it all to end in one week of fast legislating and oval office signing.. on a fast track.