Thread: The homeless. Something should be done! Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020403
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
In sunny Leicester there's going to be a demo about homelessness. Well, that's something I suppose. I know order of magnitude (OOM) a hundred homeless and vulnerably housed people (20:1 M:F). Probably the penultimately and most acute. I can think of OOM 10 guys whose lives need living for them. That would cost a grand a week in a running system, which would cost a million to set up just for those 10. For the hundred the running cost would be a hundred grand a week. Many millions a year. After a set-up cost of a ten million. To transform their lives.
Meanwhile one third of Leicester's children are in poverty. Twenty six thousand. The national average is a fifth.
So, apart from the impossible of rich Christians being incarnational, what should be done?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I'm probably within a hairsbreadth of planking for saying this again but when there are something like 200,000 homes in England empty and have been for six months or more (and that doesn't include holiday homes) it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve this problem, and employ a few thousand others too.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Martin60:
Don’t know where you are getting what I think are your figures. Housing the homeless reduces the overall cost society encures from those same people if they are left homeless.
[ 18. December 2017, 13:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Initiative in Wales: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42371181.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I think Martin's figures are not miles out, based on my contacts in supported-living set-ups for folks who can't run their own lives. The place my mate (bipolar - the most highly-functioning of the 10 or so house mates) used to live, used to have all bills paid centrally along with rent. When the rules changed they ran up a £3k gas bill over the summer - because it was always on, windows opened to cool down a bit. The men spent their disposables on beer and at the bookies. So I know what Martin means by 'living their lives for them'.
What's to be done? Well, I volunteer... Warden-assisted over-55 flats seem to be working out for the most together guys I know. This includes men who will drink themselves to death but are basically competent (and continent), and also men who are stable methadone users. Younger guys and people with more severe mental problems? Much more difficult.
Most will never work again, that much is certain. Even H, a Christian and someone who would happily and reliably turn up on time to sweep up.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Salt Lake City -- a red city in a red state -- actually has an effective program for reducing homelessness. If I weren't this damn mobile phone, which makes it hard for me to navigate on these boards, I'd add a link for more info. But Google " Salt Lake City" and " homelessness."
In my small town, an empty hotel, a freeway off- ramp boondoggle by a major chain that was built but never opened, was transformed into housing for homeless vetrans...a private concern acting on the initiative of an Obama- era veterans program. It's had fits and starts, but at least It's a roof over people's heads. I can think of so many empty buildings that could be repurposed into homeless housing. Then there are cities like I think Portland, OR, which set up tiny- home communities for the homeless with laundry facilities and other common areas...not viable everywhere, but seems to work for them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
At a recent event I was seated behind a former mayor of my city who I had worked for in a professional capacity. I asked him what he was doing in retirement and he told me he was on the board of trustees of one of our homeless shelters, overseeing its current renovation.
Not quite in Jimmy Carter/Habitat for Humanity league but still, kudos.
The poor will always be with us. That's not an excuse for doing nothing, but I think it is an indicator that beyond each of us doing what we reasonably can at our own individual levels personally, socially, and/or professionally, it's out of our hands.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Our local churches are gearing up for the annual Night Shelter provision, though in a conurbation of some 250000 people, there are thought to be only about 50 sleeping on the streets - 50 too many, I know, but some do choose this way of life.
No doubt there are many others, technically homeless, who hop from sofa to sofa in friends' houses....
A monolithic office building that dominates one town centre, and has never AFAIK been fully (or even partially) occupied since being thrown up in the 1980s, is being considered for conversion to (presumably) affordable social housing/flats.
Well, it may not be a perfect solution, but it would certainly be an improvement. I don't know, offhand, if any churches (or rich Christians, for that matter) are involved in the proposal.
IJ
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Our Church runs a soup kitchen every evening in the town centre. Nurses, doctors and hairdressers also volunteer there.
Of course, the real answers are with the politicians, but we do what we can where we can.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Which is what Our Lord requires of us, I think.
The politicians must work it out for themselves.
IJ
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Martin60:
Don’t know where you are getting what I think are your figures. Housing the homeless reduces the overall cost society encures from those same people if they are left homeless.
Couldn't agree more lilBuddha. How do you get that visible expenditure transparently voted?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Martin60:
Don’t know where you are getting what I think are your figures. Housing the homeless reduces the overall cost society encures from those same people if they are left homeless.
Couldn't agree more lilBuddha. How do you get that visible expenditure transparently voted?
OK, here's some 100% bona fide anecdata. When a close friend was homeless he and partner went into a short-term private B&B at £60 per night. After six weeks (the statutory maximum) they went into a temporary (privately let) flat, at about £160 pw (One large room, including cooking etc, plus shower room/loo) then after three months to a two-bed social housing flat, at about £80 pw.
Right at the moment private B&B owners and landlords make money hand over fist.
Of course, there's a shortage of social housing* and if people don't have secure full-time jobs# they can't get credit so mortgages are out of the question.
*and we all know why
#we know why this is too
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Martin60:
Don’t know where you are getting what I think are your figures. Housing the homeless reduces the overall cost society encures from those same people if they are left homeless.
Couldn't agree more lilBuddha. How do you get that visible expenditure transparently voted?
It is difficult, because it is counter-intuitive for the way most people think. And multiple issues need to be addressed for it to be effective. Drugs, mental health, etc. It isn't a simple thing, but a place to stay out of the elements is the beginning.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Lutherchik commented
quote:
Salt Lake City -- a red city in a red state -- actually has an effective program for reducing homelessness.
The program is state-wide, actually. They have found that if they house homeless people and then provide wrap-around services, including case management, health care, rehabilitation services, and job training or employment search services, they actually find it costs only 1/3 of what it would cost to allow the people to stay on the streets.
Los Angeles has adopted this program as well as a number of other cities and states. They are finding about the same results.
The Obama administration was also moving to this model. I do not think the Trump administration has moved to cancel it. It just takes time to fully implement it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
lilBuddha, Gramps49. Aaaaaargh! How can Utah get it right and UK can't? Did we ever? Will we ever? Would a Corbyn government take the same approach to our 20% impoverished kids: spend billions now to save money by the trillion?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
lilBuddha, Gramps49. Aaaaaargh! How can Utah get it right and UK can't? Did we ever? Will we ever? Would a Corbyn government take the same approach to our 20% impoverished kids: spend billions now to save money by the trillion?
Utah does it by making up-front capital investment which HM Treasury is bitterly opposed to, hence we in Britain get one "sticking plaster" solution after another because it is treated as revenue expenditure and that, for God Alone knows what reason, is what Whitehall prefers.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Because it doesn't commit to anything, it doesn't institutionalize the solution. And thanks Sioni Sais. I hadn't thought of that. How do we change that insane culture? OUR insane culture? Taxing business would be a start.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You need not think that the US is consistently excellent in its treatment of the homeless; we've also generated some spectacularly cruel solutions.
One of the problems with the issue is that there are so many causes, all of which demand different treatments: poverty, mental illness, spousal abuse. Also the problem doesn't stay in one place. Homeless people can and do move to areas where the benefits or weather is better.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
There are two huge barriers to "solving" the problem of homelessness:
#1: "Why should those people get free / subsidized housing when I have to work my ass off and pay taxes?"
My answer to that is that if it's such a cushy deal, why doesn't everyone try being homeless for a while to get free housing?
#2: "We don't want those people here."
To which my answer is they're already here and they're not leaving. Would you rather have them on or off the street?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
How were things in Britain before Thatcher made it possible for people to buy their council-owned homes? Was there a link between the number of people in publicly-owned homes and homelessness? It seems unlikely as I write, but my understanding of how housing works and evolved in the UK after the war is extremely limited.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There are two huge barriers to "solving" the problem of homelessness:
#1: "Why should those people get free / subsidized housing when I have to work my ass off and pay taxes?"
My answer to that is that if it's such a cushy deal, why doesn't everyone try being homeless for a while to get free housing?
Classic selfishness, not just by taxpayers. There is a housing shortage and it's kept that way by landlords and builders, with their mates in councils, to keep rents and property prices high. The "Help to Buy" scheme boosts prices too, but few realise this.
quote:
#2: "We don't want those people here."
To which my answer is they're already here and they're not leaving. Would you rather have them on or off the street?
Some of those people are ex-convicts who, at the end of their sentences, have been dumped on the street. With no fixed abode, little if any cash and a criminal record they don't have much chance of getting a job, let alone one that pays enough for rent. More still are veterans, discharged from the Army which is often the nearest thing to a family they have ever known. Their psychological problems don't help either.
I suppose the answer to that question is i) don't send people to jail and ii) don't have an army.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Homelessness in Britain was bad in the 1980s, there were a lot of initiatives during the Labour Government which have reduced over the last 7 years and have meant we are looking at much higher levels of homelessness than we have for some time. There is an article in today's Guardian entitled "MPs condemn 'abject failure' of homelessness policy". The reduction in social housing is mentioned as a factor.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Finally! Andy Burnham (mayor of Manchester) is looking at how Finland has changed its policy on homelessness and virtually eliminated rough sleeping.
Andy Street, new West Midlands mayor (ex CEO of John Lewis) is going to go one better and plans to implement the same strategy.
Put very crudely, what the Finns did was realise that none of the other problems many homeless people have can be addressed until the housing issue is sorted out properly; so there is now a right to a permanent home, and anyone who is homeless is given a proper place to live.
Now I realise this sounds very simple and that maybe its easier in a country that doesn't have a huge amount of empty properties, but that last is something we can and should tackle.
Last time I was in London I was near a brand new block at night and there were very few lights on, despite it being 10pm. I was told by the friend I was visiting that most of the flats were bought off-plan by "investors", mainly from the middle and far east, and that they aren't let out, just left empty. That is a scandal which needs to be addressed.
Fining people for leaving property empty won't work: the person who buys a couple of flats as an "investment" for close to £1m isn't going to be too bothered if the Council Tax is doubled, quadrupled, whatever. What is almost guaranteed to fire their interest would be if any property that was empty for a period of more than, say 1 calendar year without it being part of a deceased person's estate was made subject of a compulsory purchase order and that the price paid should be no more than 90% (at most) of the value when it was last inhabited or when it was last bought if it has never been occupied. Legal fees to be taken from the CP price paid before the proceeds are paid plus a surcharge of 1 year's Council Tax.
I make that suggestion as someone who has a couple of rental properties.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think you'd need to add "or the possession of a person who has had to move into residential care"
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
You'd also have to define "empty". If the people buying these flats as investments wouldn't be bothered by council tax rises, they probably wouldn't be too put out by having a weekend break in their flat once a year.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
I'm glad to see this discussion as I keep walking past homeless people on the streets of London and I hate to see them there and part of my brain says "the Bible says you should give to beggars" and part of my brain says "charities say handing out cash isn't the right thing to do" by which point I'm walking half way down the road having a very Anglican philosophical crisis which is no help to anyone.
Seems like there are two problems that are coming up here:
1) Not enough homes. Fairly clear cut one that.
2) People who can't cope and/or don't want a home. Really difficult one to solve there.
If you put people who couldn't cope in a home without other help, presumably they'd still not be able to cope. A friend reports a guy who decided to live in the churchyard of her church even though he had a house.
So - what to do...???
Aaaargh
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I think there are general principles that can validly be discussed across jurisdictions, but I suspect that once you get a roof over someone's head, dealing with the underlying cause of a person's homelessness becomes more and more about specifics. I mean offering tailored assistance to each individual. I'm quite negative about systems. I think they can get in the way of seeing the person and allowing them to tailor their own assistance.
That said, I remember seeing a report some months back which said that the experience in Finland (?) is that if people have a place to call home (as distinct from crisis accommodation) it reduces the size of their underlying problems.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You'd also have to define "empty". If the people buying these flats as investments wouldn't be bothered by council tax rises, they probably wouldn't be too put out by having a weekend break in their flat once a year.
There is one thing guaranteed to make them bothered - a court order entitling people to enter, get utilities connected and live there rent free until the landlord or council sort out housing.
As for a "weekend break" you're ignoring the need for security of tenure. Shelter is a pretty fundamental human need and shouldn't be subject to whims and vague thoughts that some people don't want to be housed: if they have problems that serious they might need some kind of assisted housing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not in a thousand years or ten. Thousand. Property rights are utterly sacrosanct, more so than life itself.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not in a thousand years or ten. Thousand. Property rights are utterly sacrosanct, more so than life itself.
Nailed it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Salt Lake City -- a red city in a red state -- actually has an effective program for reducing homelessness. If I weren't this damn mobile phone, which makes it hard for me to navigate on these boards, I'd add a link for more info. But Google " Salt Lake City" and " homelessness."
SLC is just one of another cities who has done this thru a federal program called "housing first" which is what I'd recommend googling for more detailed info. It's about moving people out of shelters and into transitional and then permanent housing. It's quite costly but very successful, tho not without its critics (notably Andy Bales of LAs Union Rescue Mission.
It works best as a coalition of several parties. I'm part of the effort in my city, leading our churches part in hosting the bad weather shelter (first line in a "continuum of care"). We have local government, businesses and churches all working together, all providing funding and staffing, with funding as well from federal, state and local govt. it is a huge effort, but thru this endeavor we have reduced homelessness in our city by 50 percent in 5 years, and ended homelessness among families with children
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
What you have done there cliffdweller is to point out that the solution isn't as simple as I make it out to be, that the problem is very serious indeed but that the situation can be considerably improved. I too doubt that there will ever be zero poverty and zero homelessness, but we ought to strive so that these is a lot less of both about.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What you have done there cliffdweller is to point out that the solution isn't as simple as I make it out to be, that the problem is very serious indeed but that the situation can be considerably improved. I too doubt that there will ever be zero poverty and zero homelessness, but we ought to strive so that these is a lot less of both about.
Absolutely. I'm very proud of the progress we've made in our city. And thrilled to be a part of it
The one dark spot is housing first is an Obama-era federal program and Trump seems determined to undo everything Obama ever did. It would be a tragedy if that happens just as we're starting with to gain traction nation wide on a decades long challenge. But the horrific tax bill passed yesterday has me very concerned
[ 20. December 2017, 15:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think there are general principles that can validly be discussed across jurisdictions, but I suspect that once you get a roof over someone's head, dealing with the underlying cause of a person's homelessness becomes more and more about specifics. I mean offering tailored assistance to each individual. I'm quite negative about systems. I think they can get in the way of seeing the person and allowing them to tailor their own assistance.
That said, I remember seeing a report some months back which said that the experience in Finland (?) is that if people have a place to call home (as distinct from crisis accommodation) it reduces the size of their underlying problems.
This is the foundational research behind housing first. Basically whatever the underlying problems are-- addiction, mental illness, etc-- they are so complicated by homelessness they become intractable. With housing, intervention programs have a much better success rate
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There are two huge barriers to "solving" the problem of homelessness:
#1: "Why should those people get free / subsidized housing when I have to work my ass off and pay taxes?"
My answer to that is that if it's such a cushy deal, why doesn't everyone try being homeless for a while to get free housing?
Classic selfishness, not just by taxpayers. There is a housing shortage and it's kept that way by landlords and builders, with their mates in councils, to keep rents and property prices high. The "Help to Buy" scheme boosts prices too, but few realise this.
quote:
#2: "We don't want those people here."
To which my answer is they're already here and they're not leaving. Would you rather have them on or off the street?
Some of those people are ex-convicts who, at the end of their sentences, have been dumped on the street. With no fixed abode, little if any cash and a criminal record they don't have much chance of getting a job, let alone one that pays enough for rent. More still are veterans, discharged from the Army which is often the nearest thing to a family they have ever known. Their psychological problems don't help either.
J
I suppose the answer to that question is i) don't send people to jail and ii) don't have an army.
Another large category in the US is aged out foster kids. Every parent of an 18 year old knows how much parental effort it takes to "launch" a newly emerged adult, whether they're going off to college or job/vocational path. Doing so w/o any adult guidance, mentoring, funding, or safety net when you try and fail can be a daunting task
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is clear, when you look at the apartment buildings and houses, that there is enough housing. The number of empty flats in London is notorious. And I was surprised, when bucketing around France, to see how many houses and flats were simply closed up. The shutters up, the doors locked, but clearly owned and tenanted by somebody who wasn't there. A weekend house? A rental currently unrented (but with no 'for rent' sign posted)? A tax shelter for some rich tycoon? In any case, there's a lot of housing stock that is not being lived in.
Surely this is not just.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It might not be just but it's not simple to resolve.
Most of the places where there are not-lived-in-at-all homes in France are in places nobody wants to live because they are too far from jobs and servies, especially for those without their own transport.
Many French people have a second home because compared to the UK we became an industrialised nation that bit later, so rural family homes are still around.
Other homes are tied up in divorce or succession wrangles. You can't do much with them until those are resolved.
And finally, from a landlord's point of view, squatters' rights are a disincentive. Once you are in accommodation you cannot be evicted during the winter months and even thereafter it can be difficult.
ETA also, my investment property is a good bit of the meagre pension income I'm expecting, if I can manage to pay off the loan for it. Would you like me to relinquish that?
[ 20. December 2017, 15:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is clear, when you look at the apartment buildings and houses, that there is enough housing. The number of empty flats in London is notorious. And I was surprised, when bucketing around France, to see how many houses and flats were simply closed up. The shutters up, the doors locked, but clearly owned and tenanted by somebody who wasn't there. A weekend house? A rental currently unrented (but with no 'for rent' sign posted)? A tax shelter for some rich tycoon? In any case, there's a lot of housing stock that is not being lived in.
Surely this is not just.
fwiw, this is definitely not the case here (Calif.). Here a severe housing shortage is part of the problem-- both in driving up rent and in finding places to house our homeless, even with subsidies. A big part of our success (and why it needs to be a multi-level coalition of city, business and church interests) has come from rather heavy-handed zoning/permitting that requires developers to set aside a percentage of new units built for low-income housing. Without this heavy intervention on the part of the city, we would not have been able to achieve the success we've had, no matter what funding we were able to raise.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I simply point out the larger picture. There is housing; there are places for people to live. We just haven't figured out how to get the people in need to live there. (Another thought -- the half-empty villages in rural Italy. Of course they are half-empty because there are no jobs in rural Italy...)
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
It's ok though, coz they not all on the streets... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Yes that is actually what our Prime Minister said when asked about homeless children...
Link to clip from PMQs 20/12/17
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Incandescent is what I am.
AFZ
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I simply point out the larger picture. There is housing; there are places for people to live. We just haven't figured out how to get the people in need to live there. (Another thought -- the half-empty villages in rural Italy. Of course they are half-empty because there are no jobs in rural Italy...)
The political will to do this is not present in my state, or my country. Politics might be the art of the achievable, but Australian pollies are not in the business of expanding that category.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And I was surprised, when bucketing around France, to see how many houses and flats were simply closed up. The shutters up, the doors locked, but clearly owned and tenanted by somebody who wasn't there. A weekend house? A rental currently unrented (but with no 'for rent' sign posted)? A tax shelter for some rich tycoon? In any case, there's a lot of housing stock that is not being lived in.
Surely this is not just.
This is related to another problem. Down our way in the South West, housing is plentiful. Employment isn’t. The rents are cheap (literally, about 30% of what they are in Paris ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
), but if you can’t find a job anywhere nearby, you’re not interested in living there.
There are plenty of apartments sitting empty in Paris, and I find it scandalous. Trying to find affordable housing here is a nightmare. When you turn up to view an apartment, there are commonly forty other people in the queue to look at it as well. People on average incomes live in poky, badly maintained, overpriced accommodation because they have no choice. Meanwhile, rich people buy property, leave it empty, and speculate. For my money, the tax code needs major overhaul – until recently you paid less tax on an empty property than on an inhabited one. I want the government to start taxing the living daylights out of the speculators.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It's the same in London, by all reports. Huge luxury apartment blocks sitting empty while poor people scramble for shacks. There are cities on our side of the pond (Vancouver BC, New York, San Francisco) which have something of this, but it's not as bad.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Oh, and here's a long article from the Guardian about one solution. I will say that the shuffling of the poor or homeless from one jurisdiction to another dates back to medieval times.
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on
:
Housing is one problem but it is much more complex, as has been said already.
There are people on the streets who can't cope in housing. They have been so long on the streets they don't know how to live in a house or feel shut in.
There are people with drug and drink problems who need treatment and putting them in houses without that support won't help them. Many on the streets originally didn't take drugs, now do, in order to help them cope with being homeless.
I think what is more worrying are the hidden homeless i.e. those that sofa surf and rely on friends to give them a bed at night.The families living in one room B&B. They aren't so obvious. 6 months after the Grenville Tower fire, in spite of fine words and promises of all sorts of help, people are still in temporary accomodation! What an indictement on our society!
I'm afraid the British Government couldn't care less.They never really listen to, nor talk meaningfully to the agencies who are coping with homelessness. I would guess that no one in the Cabinet engages with people living on the streets, B&B or attending Food Banks. Doesn't it remind you, just a little, of a story Jesus told. (Wonder if Teresa May actually listens to that parable or indeed reads her Bible to find out what Jesus had to say about it all. She goes to church but............)
Central Government has drastically cut the money coming to councils so that they can no longer afford the case workers to be out in the streets finding out what is happening, nor afford to fund accomodation with support. Where do MPs think money is coming from to run these services? Telling councils to do better on less funds would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
Until politicians get out into the real world the situation won't change. I would love to see Teresa May and the rest of the Cabinet on Christmas Eve, helping in Night Shelters and soup runs and talking to people on the streets. But no, they sit in their nice expensive houses (usually more than one)sipping expensive wine and opening presents, ignoring the real world outside their posh doors.
We need leadership and compassion from our Government. But I'm afraid we won't get it; they think the country is doing well because the money markets are OK. But money isn't people. Until politicians stop worshiping at the shrine of the economy and change their focus from money to real live people, sadly, the situation won't get any better.
So let's get involved ourselves in helping at night shelters, food banks, volunteering or giving to charities such as Emmaus, Shelter, Crisis, Centrepoint etc. Let's start bagering our counsellors and MPs to do something. invite them to come with you and talk to homeless people of all kinds.
It could happen to any of us. All that needs to happen is our job goes, then we can't pay the rent/mortgage and..................
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
hear hear. Excellent post.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Wild Haggis is quite right that there are multiple factors leading to homelessness, that complicate things. The thing is, the reasearch that the "housing first" model is based on shows that any interventions to assist with those factors is pretty much as ineffective unless and until they are in permanent supportive housing. Otoh, as Andy Bsles (director of LAs Union Rescue Mission) has pointed out, right now we're putting all our meager resources intonfinding/ bldg that housing and none at all into those supportive services
The issue with couch surfing isn't as problematic imho. For some, it's precisely what's needed to bridge the gap after a setback or even stupid mistake. The key is to reach people before they end up actually on the street. I've been doing this work for 5 years now (not that long) and I'm always amazed and heartbroken by how quickly people decline and even become dehumanized by others once they're on the street-- often only a matter of days. Once that happens it to really really hard to turn it around. Kind friends with a spare couch are often all that's standing in that breach
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on
:
I work with large numbers of homeless and have for about 25 years. Although many do not want to admit it, there are many who will always be homeless, no matter what is done for them. Often it is related to just an inability to manage their funds, the inability to follow the rules in homeless shelters or other living situations. There are also many who prefer being on their own, even it means they are on the streets.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The reasearch that the "housing first" model is based on shows that any interventions to assist with those factors is pretty much as ineffective unless and until they are in permanent supportive housing.
Which is why initiatives such as "Hope into Action" are important, as they offer housing and support. (I'm surprised and pleased to see that they've been commended by The Guardian, not always the most church-friendly of nwspapers).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Has anyone done an objective study that would prove to a city council that they would save money by running managed shelter? Any city itself?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Has anyone done an objective study that would prove to a city council that they would save money by running managed shelter? Any city itself?
I don't think the housing first research supports that. Shelters alone seem to simply perpetuate the status quo. You don't have people dying on the street as you do without them, but you aren't moving people out of homelessness either. What works and eventually should save money (but we're talking very long term) is the housing first model with a continuum of care. Shelters like the one I help run are the stop but very temporary, in a process leading to permanent housing with appropriate supportive services
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I work with large numbers of homeless and have for about 25 years. Although many do not want to admit it, there are many who will always be homeless, no matter what is done for them. Often it is related to just an inability to manage their funds, the inability to follow the rules in homeless shelters or other living situations. There are also many who prefer being on their own, even it means they are on the streets.
This is certainly true. In out area the homeless tend to fall into two groups: those who live in the city and have lots of interaction (most of it negative, but some charitable or friendly) and those who live up n the hills/mountains very isolated. In prior times we would have called them "hermits". The latter group in particular are not interested in dense housing
I cringe when this is brought up though. It is so often used as an excuse (not by you, but others) to do nothing. As if the fact that some small percentage of homeless enjoy their lifestyle is a reason to do nothing fit the 1000s who are not
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I should have said accommodation perhaps, cliffdweller, I was using shelter in its broadest sense. I intuitively believe the claim that the bottom line cost to society is lower if everyone who needs it is in appropriate social accommodation, but where are the figures? Not just budgeted, projected, but actual, historical, savings and costs?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
...part of my brain says "the Bible says you should give to beggars" and part of my brain says "charities say handing out cash isn't the right thing to do"
So - what to do...???
Aaaargh
I think the chrities may be their own worst enemies here.
Some of the 'advice' given is pretty nasty, blaming those who give for sustaining the problem, which may be true, but among those who toss a few small coins to appease their conscience are those who care and want to do something to help. To give advice that will alienate those who would help is an own goal.
Instead of telling people off for what they do wrong, why can't we educate people on the right thing to do?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Giving acknowledgement, a verbal blessing, an apology, sympathy is minimal. And often all you can do and more than enough. Don't go with money in your pocket. You'll end up with none or feel like a bastard if you have any left.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Giving acknowledgement, a verbal blessing, an apology, sympathy is minimal. And often all you can do and more than enough. Don't go with money in your pocket. You'll end up with none or feel like a bastard if you have any left.
I agree that training yourself to look away is not helpful-- it hardens our hearts and nurtures apathy. Doing something is better than doing nothing
It's helpful if you can provide what they are asking for directly-- i.e. Buy them a sandwich or give them a bagged lunch you brought from home. Warm, dry socks are the most requested item in the shelter-- easy to pop a few pairs in your bag to give out rather than cash. You can also carry gift cards for fast food restaurants
We also may be a bit too precious/controlling about where our $$ is spent. Alcohol and weed can be forms of self medicating for those dealing with mental illness or just the misery of life that on the street. Are we really much better?
Story has it that CS Lewis was once out with friends, and gave a few $$ to a beggar. Lewis' friend rebuked him, saying, "he'll just spend it on booze". Lewis replied, "that's all I was going to do with it"
[ 26. December 2017, 12:20: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hmmm. Deep pockets full of socks to be bountiful with. But they'd lose them, swap them for fags, sell them at 10%; they only ever want things when they want them. They can't keep anything. And it's, er, patronizing, saying that I don't trust you to spend my money appropriately. As ever Jack was spot on.
[ 26. December 2017, 12:24: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Story has it that CS Lewis was once out with friends, and gave a few $$ to a beggar. Lewis' friend rebuked him, saying, "he'll just spend it on booze". Lewis replied, "that's all I was going to do with it"
Yep, I'm with Lewis here. (As so often).
Until October I worked in Birmingham and on my walk from New Street to work I passed several homesless people on the streets. I talked to quite a few and learned their names. I have given money quite often.
For me, it's really patronising to say 'they'll only spend it on booze' - it's not for me to judge. But yeah, it is a complex thing and I understand the arguments for not giving cash but mostly I think the key here is that it's so each to harden one's heart and just walk on by and that is clearly not the Christ-like thing...
AFZ
[ 26. December 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don’t give cash, I offer to buy a sandwich and hot drink. I also carry new socks to give to them - portable in a pocket and much needed/appreciated in this horrible wet weather.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
And the thing about the homeless spending money on booze/drugs is this... if they are addicted physically, they need that substance to keep from going into withdrawal. Withdrawal is a pretty rough thing without medical help. It can kill.
So realistically, they may need that substance as much as they need anything else.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When we take our guys away and chuck 'em off disused railway viaducts and walk up rivers and stuff, I'm the beer monitor. And this is run by charismatic evangelicals.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I don't know if you remember this case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/828565.stm
A huge problem in ending rough sleeping, regardless of other forms of homelessness, is the lack of places for people who are continuing to use/drink.
There's no point in providing a place if your going to chuck people out for breach of tenancy five seconds later. Oh and could they kindly give up their pet at the same time they are magically curing their own addiction in 5 seconds flat.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A huge problem in ending rough sleeping, regardless of other forms of homelessness, is the lack of places for people who are continuing to use/drink.
In the article that you quote, the shelter managers were said to be turning a blind eye to dealing rather than using. Now, "dealing" covers a fairly wide swath of ground, but it strikes me that there is something of a difference between a homeless person in a shelter using drugs and a homeless person in a shelter pushing drugs to the other residents.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I cringe when this is brought up though. It is so often used as an excuse (not by you, but others) to do nothing. As if the fact that some small percentage of homeless enjoy their lifestyle is a reason to do nothing fit the 1000s who are not
Yes, and as you point the causation often runs the opposite way - in that a stay on the streets can make it harder for people to integrate back into a normal lifestyle purely because of whatever they've gone through.
There is also a strong correlation between those who make these excuses and those who vote in governments who preside over rises in homelessness
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
There will be homeless people until and unless there is structural change, and that won't happen unless our values as a society change. As it is, we have an economic and social system which regularly forces people out of housing. We look at the many apparent causes -- someone loses their job in a recession and never gets back on their face, someone is mentally ill, someone is alcohol- or drug-dependent, etc -- and despite the fact that one addresses these different causes in different ways, in the end these people all became homeless for the same reason: they don't have the money to pay for housing. We can and should address the various issues that cause people not to have money for housing, but fundamentally what needs to change is our notion that housing is something people deserve if they can pay for it. As long as we say people don't get to be housed if they can't pay for it, we will continue to have a system that creates homeless people.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
People are housed in the U.K. if they can’t pay. But this doesn’t prevent homelessness.
UK housing benefit eligibility
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
In the UK many private landlords will not house tenants on housing benefit and there are long waiting lists for social housing should the homeless person qualify, meaning many people end up in temporary accommodation for some time before being housed. Such temporary accommodation is not usually known for its salubrious conditions.
To qualify for a permanent tenancy a homeless person or family may have to spend years in temporary accommodation.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I wonder how long it takes to negotiate the bureaucracy administering the housing benefit. If someone is living paycheck to paycheck and loses their job on the 10th of the month, will they be able to get housing benefit in time to pay rent on the 1st? Will it cover their rent?
Also, you have to have a place to live and be paying rent already to be eligible to get the housing benefit. I clicked through that link, Boogie, and then through a bunch of other links, to get to a calculator to see what they ask when determining eligibility. The options under current housing status are "private tenant, social tenant, owner - mortgaged, owner - no mortgage, shared ownership, living with parents, tenant not liable to pay rent, and other." I selected "other" and got this:
quote:
To qualify for Housing Benefit you must have a legal duty to pay rent to a landlord under a commercial arrangement, for the accommodation you live in. To qualify for Council Tax support you must have a legal duty to pay the Council Tax bill.
If you are paying money towards 'housing costs' on an informal basis you will not be able to get Housing Benefit or Council Tax support so the 'Your Home' section of this calculator will be missed out.
You get similar messages if you check "living with parents" or "tenant not liable to pay rent." So if you can't pay your rent and you move in with your parents or start couch-surfing with friends, it looks like you can't get housing benefit. The next question under "housing status" is "What is your postcode?" It appears that if you have nowhere to live, you are not eligible for any housing benefit.
If we truly believed that everyone deserves to sleep indoors, we would have provisions for making that happen. We don't.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Now imagine navigating all that without access to a computer. Some of our insufferable pols here in the U.S. even begrudge the poor owning even a smart phone, even though as you've just demonstrated access to public services is heavily dependent on that sort of technology
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's helpful if you can provide what they are asking for directly-- i.e. Buy them a sandwich or give them a bagged lunch you brought from home. Warm, dry socks are the most requested item in the shelter-- easy to pop a few pairs in your bag to give out rather than cash. You can also carry gift cards for fast food restaurants.
Good suggestions. Small things like cheap stocking caps and gloves are good, too. Even cheap ones should raise their body temperature a few degrees, and that may help keep them from illness or even death. I do give them spare change--I generally limit it to a dollar, due to my own finances. Sometimes, it's just a quarter. I've also given food and material items. Sometimes, I'll leave a bag of stuff by someone who's sleeping; but not get too close, in case I startle them and they're defensive. I avoid ones I know to be frequently angry. God knows they've got reason to be furious--but putting myself in a situation where I could be their victim isn't good for anybody.
Note: fast-food gift cards can sometimes be a bit complicated, if the person stinks or is extremely disheveled. Fast-food places aren't always happy about obvious homeless folks coming in. Doesn't mean you shouldn't give cards, but be aware.
Plus many homeless people in California were turned out of psych facilities, ostensibly to give them better lives in the community. But AIUI they didn't necessarily have someone supervising them. They had to go to a central place to get their meds. If they missed that, then they were off meds and too sick to do anything about it or even realize it. So, besides people who developed mental illness from the trauma of homelessness, there are lots of people who were *known* to have severe mental illness, and fell through the Grand Canyon-sized cracks in the system. I ate at a soup kitchen a couple of times, when I was in danger of homelessness; and I met one or two people who were doing well to realize they needed food, let alone find a place where they could get it, and for free.
quote:
We also may be a bit too precious/controlling about where our $$ is spent. Alcohol and weed can be forms of self medicating for those dealing with mental illness or just the misery of life that on the street. Are we really much better?
No, we aren't. I think we desperately need to believe that *we* can't become homeless, so we demonize them. Anyone can become homeless--particularly if they don't have anyone who can and will take them in.
I wonder if the massive opioid epidemic is changing attitudes? Surely, some affected wind up homeless.
quote:
Story has it that CS Lewis was once out with friends, and gave a few $$ to a beggar. Lewis' friend rebuked him, saying, "he'll just spend it on booze". Lewis replied, "that's all I was going to do with it"
Good story. Add to that one about Einstein. People used to go to him and ask for money. (Don't know if any were homeless.) People criticized him as being a soft touch. He said he'd rather give money to someone who didn't need it, than not give to someone who did.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's impossible to get a clear picture of what's going on, the ambiguities of language and figures being what they are, but this would indicate that at the moment there are 160,000 homeless 'households', say 200-250,000 people. 10% of these are rough sleepers one way or another (9,100 really rough and 9,100 'hidden' rough, both to extremely dubious two significant figures, things will all be smooth in 10 years, according to the government, regardless of turnover, churn). The large (internally dynamic, churning) number includes families in B&Bs.
The government are spending a billion 'to 2020'. That's over four years. £250m a year. About a grand a year per person. 5% of what it costs.
5%
[ 30. December 2017, 14:59: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Until politicians get out into the real world the situation won't change. I would love to see Teresa May and the rest of the Cabinet on Christmas Eve, helping in Night Shelters and soup runs and talking to people on the streets. But no, they sit in their nice expensive houses (usually more than one)sipping expensive wine and opening presents, ignoring the real world outside their posh doors.
This may be true of the current government, but not the former, at least not all of them. A friend in London was helping in a soup kitchen and talking to the chap who was doing the washing up. She asked what he did, and he said he worked for the government. She queried whether he was a civil servant, and he replied he was an MP and government minister. The chap in question gave an evening a week to help in the soup kitchen, alongside Parliamentary commitments, although could not attend as regularly when he became a Cabinet Minister a few years later. He didn't publicise his charity work, just quietly got on with it.
I always remember that when I hear "they're all as bad as each other".
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A friend in London was helping in a soup kitchen and talking to the chap who was doing the washing up. She asked what he did, and he said he worked for the government. She queried whether he was a civil servant, and he replied he was an MP and government minister. The chap in question gave an evening a week to help in the soup kitchen, alongside Parliamentary commitments, although could not attend as regularly when he became a Cabinet Minister a few years later. He didn't publicise his charity work, just quietly got on with it.
I always remember that when I hear "they're all as bad as each other".
How wonderful. That should be better known. I suppose if it did become well known though, the person in question would be very embarrassed because he obviously wanted to do his good works in private. I wonder if other MPs do likewise even now.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Can't answer that question, but here's a telling experience:
My church and its sister congregation set up a very bare-bones cold weather shelter program about 15 years ago. 100% volunteer-run, though there were costs to the congregations -- air mattresses, cots, blankets & linens, extra heating/lighting bills, etc.
Winter deaths from exposure dropped some.
The plan was to apply pressure on city government to Do Something, so that our two small churches could get out of the shelter business, for which we were less-than-ideally-equipped (though by the end we also had boatloads of extra-congregational volunteer help, and some donations & small grants to help defray, though never cover, extra costs).
So what happened?
OUTCOME 1: After 10 years, the city council released a "plan" which describes the local homeless situation in the vaguest possible terms, a description of the relevant populations which has no actual numbers attached, a discussion of possible "causes" which relies heavily on the "poor decisions" (i.e., it's their own damn fault) model while completely ignoring the medical bankruptcies which propelled at least half the families I met into homelessness during years of volunteering, and including NO proposals regarding what the city planned to do to reduce the numbers of homeless people, create more affordable housing, develop some sort of case management for victims, etc. Nothing. Nada.
OUTCOME 2: One of the two head pastors lost his job. His congregation, utterly burned out with washing sheets & blankets, staying up all night with guests, transporting & dumping human beings onto below-zero streetcorners at 7 a.m. on frigid mornings, dealing (without training of any kind) with psychotic breaks, drug & alcohol abuse, occasional violence, lice, fleas, occasional fire-setting, medical emergencies, and on and on, held a meeting and voted him out of his pulpit (Congregationalists, so they can do this).
OUTCOME 3: The churches closed their shelters.
OUTCOME 4: a couple of other churches are now offering cold-weather shelters with less space, shorter time frame (starts later in the season and ends earlier) and serving fewer people.
OUTCOME 5: The homeless population has nearly doubled since our churches closed our shelter doors after 10 years.
LESSON LEARNED: As long as the churchgoers, synagogue members, mosque attendees, and civic-minded atheists of this community are willing to volunteer their time, talent, and treasure to keep (some of) the homeless from freezing to death (it was -8 F this morning when I got up), the government will do nothing.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the US the libertarian-minded insist that all this charity should indeed be the job of the church and not the government. They are of course perfectly willing to have people die in the gutter.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
As mentioned above, our city coalition has in fact been able to reduce homelessness in our city by 50% in the last 5 years, and end homelessness among children this year.
This was possible ONLY because of the coalition we were able to build of civic, business and faith communities all working together to make it happen. Without all 3 of those entities, and without funding from federal, state and local level, it just wouldn't be possible.
This year we're dealing with extreme challenges due to Hep A outbreak among our homeless, and the possibility of significant loss of funding from the federal govt. Very possibly the hard work of all these people will be swept away in another one of the GOP purges.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Dear God Ohher. How do you bear it?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
11,000 homes empty for more than ten years!.
WTF is going on? A lot of them are in depressed areas but even in those there are homeless families. Here is a new year resolution for local government - get your finger out and bring these homes back into use.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
But that would take capital expenditure as you pointed out Sioni.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But that would take capital expenditure as you pointed out Sioni.
So do HS2, Trident, the (no-aircraft as yet) carriers and any amount of shiny kit. That capital has to be raised through taxation so why not, as I have said before, get people off welfare and thereby reduce taxation by hiring people to do the semi- and unskilled jobs needed to fix these flats and houses?
It's almost as if those in government wants millions of poor people.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There's no knighthoods providing for the poor.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
11,000 homes empty for more than ten years!.
WTF is going on? A lot of them are in depressed areas but even in those there are homeless families. Here is a new year resolution for local government - get your finger out and bring these homes back into use.
I went back upthread and couldn't find the post where I mentioned something similar. But I believe the reply was that these properties are owned by somebody or another, and it would be clearly unjust to simply take them away from the owner. Is there a way to compel an absentee landlord to actually rent the empty property out?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's no knighthoods providing for the poor.
Well, I know a civil sernat who got one - after retiring from working in the field of provision for the poor.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
11,000 homes empty for more than ten years!.
WTF is going on? A lot of them are in depressed areas but even in those there are homeless families. Here is a new year resolution for local government - get your finger out and bring these homes back into use.
I went back upthread and couldn't find the post where I mentioned something similar. But I believe the reply was that these properties are owned by somebody or another, and it would be clearly unjust to simply take them away from the owner. Is there a way to compel an absentee landlord to actually rent the empty property out?
Yes, they do so in Germany (Baden Württemberg). I’m not sure how it works but my friend has a flat and has to prove it’s ovcupied to the local council (air b&b does count)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Our local Winter Night Shelter began its work last night - it's an interdenominational effort, shared out amongst a number of different churches.
A Good Friend is heavily involved, and has been for the past two years, so I await with interest her reports on how it's going this time round (IIRC, it will operate up to Easter this year).
As I may have said before, the actual number of homeless people living on the streets of this conurbation of 250000 is relatively small - 50 or so, it is thought - but that's 50 too many (and doesn't include an unknown number of 'sofa surfers').
IJ
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
A good work, but I'm surprised you don't start till January. The one in my last church in Ipswich began at the end of November but admittedly ended a bit before yours - early March (about 14 weeks in total).
I think it's noticeable how much of this work, and Food Banks and Street Pastors too, is done on a voluntary basis by Christians. So can religion - as the secularists so stridently aver (good word, that) - be such A Bad Thing after all?
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Dear God Ohher. How do you bear it?
I don't. My small apartment includes heat, however erratic (comes on like gangbusters about 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.; right now, at about 2 p.m., I am wearing three thin layers & am reasonably comfortable).
Others, however, bear appalling cold; it was -18 F this morning (-28 degrees Celsius, if that's what you're used to). That's before factoring in wind chills, which were fairly fierce overnight. That's in the downtown area of my city. If people died of cold last night, it probably won't be discovered for a couple of days.
Is this actually a society we're living in? A society?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Baptist Trainfan said:
quote:
A good work, but I'm surprised you don't start till January.
Fair point, and I'm not sure why it doesn't start earlier. Possible reasons are lack of volunteers before and over the Christmas period, and perhaps the mild (even warm) late autumn weather.
It's a work in progress, with lessons being learnt as they go along, so it may be that the timing will change in future years.
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, our local Night Shelters are up and running, some run by churches, and others by secular agencies.
But this potential tragedy happened here today.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
IJ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0