Poverty is expensive, and so is letting people be poor

You know the funny thing about poverty? It is pretty expensive, and it is definitely more cost effective to just give people money and homes. Scott Keyes discusses this for ThinkProgress. Studies have proven this time and time again. Giving the homeless homes is more cost effective than having to place them during weather emergencies, and that is before the medical costs of living on the streets.

Keyes points to a new study coming out of Charlotte and the University of North Carolina Charlotte which examines a new apartment complex what aims to assist homeless people. Moore Place has 85 unit and was opened in 2012. The residents are required to contribute 30% of their income as rent, which includes benefits such as disability, veterans, or Social Security. The rest of the housing costs are covered by a mix of both local and federal grants and private donors, totally $14,000 per person annually.

Researchers found Moore Place saved taxpayers more than $1.8 million in the first year. These savings come from health care and incarceration. Because of course. The researchers found that Moore Place residents visited the emergency room 447 fewer times in the year after getting housing. These residents had fewer problems with the law as well; arrests dropped 78%. Additionally, despite opponents fears, only 15 tenants got in trouble and were asked to leave Moore Place in the first year. Due to the large success, Charlotte City Council has unanimously approved $1 million more to Moore Place for 120 more units.

Welp, can’t say any of this is surprising except that Charlotte is supporting this initiative. Fingers-crossed other cities take note including let’s say DC, with their ridiculous homelessness and housing problems. Remember DC don’t have many beds for the homeless, which was a huge issue this past winter because SNOW.

Cities are criminalizing the homeless and those helping them

Someone explain the reasoning behind this. Arresting and forcibly displacing the homeless doesn’t end homelessness. It overcrowds the prisons and pushes them into communities they have no ties to and are unfamiliar with. I listen to the story on NPR’s Morning Edition last week, “More cities sweeping homeless into less prominent areas,” by Jessica Jones. I recommend listening to or reading the article.

This story focuses on North Carolina’s efforts which include arresting those who distribute food to the homeless in parks. Take a minute. And why? Why would a city target an already vulnerable population and those trying to help them? Because these cities are trying to generate revenue, and god forbid the citizens they are trying to make money off of realize there are homeless people or worse actually have to interact with one. The article includes a statement from Candace Jefferies, 21, who depends on the meals provided in the park to survive; she believes the city is trying to remove the homeless, “I think the reason why they doin’ it ‘cause they don’t want us in the park at all—nobody, like everybody just disappeared.”

The article notes cities from Seattle to Tampa have engaged in these techniques to force the homeless and those who assist them. These techniques usually involve criminalizing homelessness. The article had a great quote from a local North Carolina activist, Patrick O’Neill, who argued, “If you want Moore Square to be free homeless people, then provide homes for people so they don’t have to come to Moore Square. If you don’t want us feeding the hungry…at Moore Square, if that’s unsightly and an embarrassment to our city, then do something about it, and make sure the hungry are fed.”

Preach. Rest assured that the city council won’t be arresting any more charities for feeding the homeless in Moore Square. However, this is a bigger issue that just Moore Square or even North Carolina. Much like so many other issues the homeless are taking a back seat to municipal attempts to develop themselves.

Aside from the immediate results, fewer to no homeless people being present, what are the results they aim to get here? Because one, the homeless can always come back. And two, this doesn’t address any of the issues that contribute to homelessness. Perhaps a better solutions to appear to have ended homelessness would be to actually try to end homelessness? Just me?

Teaching a specialized skill to one homeless man doesn’t solve homelessness, nor does it address why said man is homeless in the first place

I once knew a man named C. C choose to live homeless because when he lived with his family he drank, and he was an alcoholic. Living homeless, he was able to stay sober, while indulging in pot once in a while. He also regularly worked odd jobs, seasonal work, etc. I just blew someone’s mind. I’m obviously not saying all homeless individuals choose to be homeless, they don’t. But the idea that all homeless people are the same, whether that be destitute or lazy, and just in need of a specialized skill and all their problems will be solved is ridiculous. Now, I don’t think the techie, Patrick McConlogue, below is that simplistic, but I don’t think he understands the complexities of homelessness.

Will Oremus felt the need to defend McConlogue’s proposition as McConlogue shares in the link above. McConlogue laments in his piece that he walks past a homeless man every day. Oremus doesn’t defend McConlogue’s point of view. He is just as critical of the language employed by McConlogue as everyone else. McConlogue in pretentious fashion decides he’s going to fix it. McConlogue writes off most homeless people, but there is one guy, who he dubs “the journeyman hacker,” he feels is capable of learning, so he decided to spring into action.

McConlogue offers the man two options (he claims not to have offended the man, but I have my doubts)”

• Offers to come back the next day with $100 in cash
• Offers to come back the next day and give him three JavaScript books and a cheap laptop. Then he intends to come by an hour a day to teach the man to code when he feels ready

McConlogue asked his readers what they think the homeless man will do, and what he should do moving forward. Because while his intentions might be from a good place, albeit he has a limited understand of homelessness and lacks the ability to empathize, he turns it into a social experiment. His approach to the problem is full of patriarchy and paternalism after all he never asks the man anything about himself to inform the situation.

Oremus feels the Internet’s response to McConlogue is over-the-top. Oremus calls out Slate’s Evvgeny Morozov and Daily Beast’s Jamelle Bouie as examples. Morozov is kind of known for criticizing techies, while Bouie was just really not impressed by McConlogue’s point of view. Here is what Oremus says about why people are unhappy with McConlogue’s post:

“McConlogue’s post makes people uncomfortable not only because it is naïve and condescending, but because it raises an issue over which many of us quietly harbor guilt and doubts of our own. What is the proper response when your heart aches for a homeless person you pass everyday on the way to work? Is it to flip a few coins in the guy’s direction now and then? Maybe buy him a sandwich or two? Resolve to donate some money to a local shelter this year? Turn your head and walk on? And if your answer is any of the above: What makes you so sure that your approach is doing any more good than McConlogue’s?”

I’m going to pause here to answer these questions. Because these other methods don’t make assumptions about the “deserving poor.” Because giving someone money allows them to make decisions for themselves. Giving someone a sandwich has immediate results. And finally, because offering to teach a specialized skill to a man without any means to employ that is condescending. But maybe what we should all do is engage with them in conversation, speak with them as people and not some scenery on the way to work. Moving on…

Oremus notes that helping the homeless takes a level of commitment that many people can provide, and while most people would focus on the tangible things like food, shelter, and basic needs. Oremus thinks we should forgive McConlogue for his misguided attempts because he’s hearts in the right place. But I’m not convinced. See he turned this into a social experiment and his separates the deserving from underserving. This outlook on poverty is archaic and dangerous. It is rooted in the idea some poor people are lazy and doing it to themselves because being poor is better than working for a living. See if you just teach this homeless man some skill all his problems will be solved. It doesn’t matter who this man is, only McConlogue’s perceptions of him. Does McConlogue even know why this man is homeless? Does he have any medical or mental health issues? Because I can't imagine teaching someone in the middle of a schizophrenic episode, which many of the homeless suffer from (thanks Reagan!).

Below you’ll see the tweets from Bouie about this whole thing.

I hope the homeless guy takes the $100, just mess with this condescending dick-face. http://t.co/KvC5DhDFyl
— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) August 21, 2013

I should say that I think what’s most helpful to the homeless guy is giving him money. http://t.co/AxAiHr2IXZ @WillOremus
— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) August 22, 2013

Women Veterans on Memorial Day

On the housekeeping front, I probably won’t be blogging much this week. I have a conference in DC Wednesday through Friday, and I start classes tomorrow night so…yeah, probably won’t happen. That said, chin up, I have nothing interesting to say.

As you might imagine, I’m not a huge Memorial Day person. I appreciate the troops, but as a rule don’t support any war, and I’m pretty disgusted by the treatment of veterans after their return home, specifically women who were sexually abused in the military. That said, I love that DC doesn’t enforce parking regulations on federal holidays and day drinking.

I did find the time to read an article by Lizzie Warren on Salon about homeless women veterans (see bring together all my favorite things). Warren points out that while homelessness is dropping among homeless male veterans it is rising quickly among female veterans, who are the fastest growing homeless population in the nation. Warren who recently completed production on her documentary War Zone/Comfort Zone, which followed two women has they established Connecticut’s first transitional, supportive house for women veterans. The women spent more than four years trying to establish a home with fifteen beds for women veterans and their children.

Women make up 14 percent of active duty service members and about 20 percent of the National Guard, and when they return home they are often met with communities that aren’t equipped or are unwilling to assist them. Women veterans face all kinds of issues upon returning home including low wages, lack of childcare and family housing options, inadequate gender specific services at the VA, and PTSD from combat and sexual trauma.

Military Sexual Trauma is cited as a specific trend in the stories of women who are homeless after service. A study by Dr. Donna L. Washington of the UCLA Medical Center and the VA of Greater Los Angeles, estimates more than half of homeless women veterans are victims of sexual assault. Then they get out of the military and the housing options for them are inadequate. One woman Warren interviews, Lauren, who served as a military police officer, recalled what her commanding officer told her when she reported being drugged and raped by a member of her unit, “You’re just about to stir a pot of shit that we’re just not willing to deal with right now.” [Classy] Lauren was able to move in with her parents. Another woman, Caroline, a veteran raped by two fellow soldiers she considered friends, resulted in a struggle with alcoholism and homelessness for years. She hated the idea of going to the VA for help, “It’s almost like coming back to your very rapist and saying help me. Even though they’re not the actual rapist, they represent them because that’s who they protected.” While Caroline was able to receive treatment from the VA, she still has no place to live.

So Happy Memorial Day, think we can protect the women soldiers now? Actually, I’d like a Memorial Day that includes the treatment of mental health as a priority for all veterans upon returning home, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Homeless people need to be protected under law too

Let’s talk about discrimination for a minute. Firing someone for being homeless is a discriminatory policy. The end.

 

The Clarion Ledger.com had the story by Emily LeCoz. A woman hired earlier this month was fired on Monday by KFC for being homeless. Eunice Jasica had been staying in the Salvation Army lodge since December after losing her job, home, and car.

 

The Salvation Army requires its residents to look for employment daily, and after finding it to pay for lodging and save for a place of their own. Jasica had been job hunting for months, but only just found employment on March 11. Jasica had been hired to perform “prep work” and would receive a pay check every two weeks. However, when Jasica showed up for work on Monday, franchise owner Chesley Ruff withdrew the offer after learning she lived at the Salvation Army.

 

Jasica says, “He told me to come back when I had an address and transportation. But how am I supposed to get all that without a job?”

 

Ruff signed a letter on Monday stating she couldn’t be employed “due to concerns of lack of residence and transportation.”

 

Of course, on Thursday, Ruff changed his tune saying that he was protecting her from the real reason he couldn’t hire her: she has not prior food prep experience and seemed to elderly to lift the 40-pound boxes. Yeah, that is way harsher than you’re homeless and unworthy of a job. Ruff said, “I was trying to spare her feelings, I guess. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, but I know it was stupid.”

 

Jasica has experience in retail and security, but no food experience. According to KFC Corp spokesman Rick Maynard, KFC operates more than 5,200 restaurants nationwide and follows all applicable employment laws, but notes that independent franchisees make hiring decisions. Additionally, this happened in Mississippi, which is a right to work state so you know minimal labor protections and the employer and employee can terminate a relationship at any time as long as it doesn’t violate anti-discrimination statutes. And this doesn’t because the homeless aren’t protected. However, Jasica might have an argument due to Ruff’s comments about her age.

 

Ruff is arguing he didn’t terminate Jasica because she hadn’t been hired. Of course the documentation signed by the store’s general manager says different. The general manager had no comment. Ruff has hired the homeless in the past, so you know he can’t be discriminating against them now when there is a high unemployment rate. Ruff also described it this way, “Over the 20 or so years I’ve been in Tupelo doing business. I’ve helped people before.” [I need a shower to get that self-congratulatory statement off me.  He’s helped people so much. *tears*]

 

So in conclusion, people are awful and things are rigged. You have no way of escaping poverty once you’re there. Mike Elk posted that Rhode Island is the only state with a homeless bill of rights which prevents the police, medical professionals, etc from treating the homeless poorly because of their housing status.