July 8, 2011 ·
I have been thinking for years about what would constitute the perfect homeless shelter. Most people who contemplate this have never really had need of one. In the past 20 or so years though, design contests and creative thinking have come up with everything from tent cities to moveable personal shelters, but regular shelters leave alot to be desired even when they are safe and well funded. Persons who run the shelters think they understand the needs of the homeless but they really have only preset solutions they think will work: in too many cases, the homeless become a ‘product’ of a new industry, and the bottom line is fundraising, not the care of human beings facing desperation.
Poignant advertisements appear every day portraying sad looking children and mothers clinging to one another, or old grisled men holding tight to a can, imploring the plight of the homeless in an effort to raise monies for the housing and feeding of the homeless. Most shelters though fall into two categories: those that house the single homeless and those that house families: neither really meet the need, although without them the situation would be intolerable.
The general public holds to stereotypes of the homeless which do not aid in solving the problem. Most think that all homeless people are unemployed, on drugs or mentally ill, and most ascribe them to a criminal element. Many see homeless families as people who did not work or try hard enough to make a living. The truth is quite different: up to half of the single homeless are employed full time, often at back breaking work that few others would want. They sleep and eat at shelters until they can save up enough money to secure housing or other circumstances. Some to be fair fit the stereotype: years of mental issues and family problems have broken their spirit and they no longer make plans, but rather survive day to day by any means possible. These days there is a new echelon of the homeless, as previously successful couples, often double incomed, and mortgages with kids, soccer, ballet, and PTA find themselves jobless with no solution, foreclosed, and packing everything into an RV or SUV they were able to keep, initially for a stay with relatives, and later on the street like everyone else. Persons with graduate degrees in medicine, education, business etc, find that welfare or unemployment will not even meet the mortgage much less utilities, food and necessities, and horrified at the events of their lives, have to sell or leave most behind. I have wondered lately if our recent surge in creative solutions for the homeless have come in part from the tragic fall of many into the homeless population who should never have encountered even the thought.
Creative solutions though are beginning to abound, and those who care for the homeless have started mini apartments for homeless families, homeless churches, tent and RV cities etc as well as creative architectural designs for overnight structures for the unsheltered. All these creative ideas though are not often practical: collapsible structures are no good if the police destroy them when placed even on public property. Some cities have ordinances that do not allow an individual to even sit on a park bench or stand in an area for more than 2 hours without being charged with loitering. Some cities are so hard on the homeless that their aim can only be seen driving them into some other city. While some shelters have become almost showplaces others are oppressive and have limited or forced solutions. They either sign everyone up for welfare and give them a joblist, or try to institutionalize them.
The most horrible problem exists in family shelters: up until at least 10 years ago, most family shelters had an age limit for boys: since a preponderance of homeless families are single parent families, this is a devastating cruelty: no one wants their ten year old child sent three blocks over to sleep in a room of homeless men because a family shelter only allows boy children up to 8. That is, if one can get a space at all, and so many mothers try to live out of their car until finding a solution. This horrifying situation is compounded by a ‘social work’ mentality, in which some staffers at family shelters are far from interested in keeping families together, and going to a shelter may create an even worse scenario of the a child being removed into foster care. In this new clime of educated hard working homeless, the extra stress leads many to despair. Further, there is little privacy in the shelters, further assaulting the well-being of stressed families, and mothers with very young children and no daycare are handicapped beyond words!
On this ‘landscape’ though, it seems that there are some very functional changes which can be made and really meet the need of getting families and individuals stabilized and back to work. Just thought I’d throw out a few ideas: feel free to post others:
1. More shelters, especially more family shelters. In northern CA, there are 20 homeless people for every shelter bed. This is unacceptable in a civilized society. If everyone making over 30,000 a year would even contribute a buck or two a month, and/or volunteer, the need could be met.
2. Designate portions of a city for ‘wild camping’. One cannot camp on private property. One cannot camp free on city, state or federal property after dark. One cannot camp out on the street. When some camp under bridges, police come and destroy the tents. These tent cities though take the temporary burden of overcrowding off of existing shelters. Ideally, an acre or two in every city could meet the problem: for a smaller amount of money than building a new shelter, the property could be kept and even guarded to avoid criminal activity, and kept by residents. Extended lengths of time are necessary for some to get back to work. Rules can be instituted for peaceful living. At least family, and women could be kept together, with some leeway. Many many homeless people only need a place to stay and a few basic provisions, for they already have the skills necessary to locate and land work. They do not need to be thrown to social work systems with patronizing attitudes that throw salt on the wound. They need a place to stay, not a diagnosis and treatment plan.
3. Family Shelters with liberty and keen planning. Many family shelters are nicely decorated and have bright red and blue bedspreads, but they require group meetings, assessments, treatment plans, and they want to make parenting decisions that are not theirs to make. They are patently unfriendly to homeschooling or to those who will not accept government entitlements as their only solution. Parents need a very safe, small, clean place to stay, with a lock, and flexibility. They need a safe place to leave their possessions so they can go look for solutions. They need a ‘judgment free’ zone, where one does not have to answer to models of family mental health. They need ready access to phones, an address that doesn’t scream ‘homeless shelter’ and privacy. Even a talented parent, with a great background and work history will lose a job if their employer calls a number to give them an interview and the person answering says, “Valleydale Homeless Shelter, how may I help you?”. The job more often than not is lost before the interview. Women who have skills but have not worked in an office for awhile may need office clothing to get started: some thrift stores and churches have specialized programs to meet the need but they only offer one or two outfits which will not get the mother to the first paycheck. Some of the recent homeless in the news have included a CEO of a large tech firm, a former Miss America, and a former advertising executive: there is a very vicious process out there when some people of advanced degrees and specialization end up in disfavor, which leads to blackballing and the loss of everything at a very high level: they were never lazy a day in their lives.
When all resources are accounted for though, what is most needed in a shelter is quiet, privacy, unconditional regard (love and care without judgment), separate living, a place to work, and an ability to turn down other people’s ideas. The condemnation in some shelters is horrible: one either toes their line, e.g. staying out of the shelter between 8 and 5, forced personal interviews, and other nonessential restrictions, or one lives with the fear of being tossed back to the streets, an cruel and unnecessary extra stress.
Functional, simple and comfortable shelters need to be built and funded, preferably by churches before governmental agencies. Private sector shelters can be the best or worst. Easy to clean floors and surfaces, places to sit and sleep, and the ability to at least heat up small amounts of food or drink in each unit.
The length of time should be at least 3 months at the outset, which allows time to look for work and save money: for some it will require some time more. One very effective program in Jacksonville Fla, had a full apartment complex which charged 1/3 of a person’s income: at first it was ‘o’ up to a certain limit. They allowed 2 years per family to stabilize, save money and look for more permanent housing: this allowed families who were not opposed to government housing to apply and wait. This was a very fine solution but I have seen it only in a couple of cities, and it meets the needs of only a few families. I think the more liberal time of 6 months is more realistic, though some would shudder as they rely for funding on turnover.
Rather than just postings, it would behoove shelters to work actively with employers in the area who will receive a few persons into their employ on a regular basis. This would help those who have a hard time finding employment because of lack of skills or conversely too advanced skills, or who may not have worked in a while or who do not have the ever critical references. It gives them a chance to build up those gaps and apply for housing. FEMA did something like this in the wake of Katrina, doing a sort of ‘speed-job application’ bringing in employers from around the country.
The ideal shelter needs to provide for free hygiene products and medical/dental care as possible: the total reliance on government resources has never fully worked. Daycare, likewise is an essential service for mothers and fathers applying for work, with a drop off capability. Some day-cares around town may agree to meet the need for a few parents. One shelter in South Carolina has an onsite daycare as do many, allowing parents to apply for, find and keep work, until other arrangements can be made. Most shelters know how essential bus passes or other transportation is for parents in trouble. The more independent one keeps families, the better, with the helps so essential to the process.
In the near future, FEMA and other organizations know, we are going to have to meet massive numbers of displaced persons. Now is the time to explore what can be done in a hurry: empty shipping containers translate into simple temporary housing. Tiny pallet houses translate into simple housing. Refurbished outdated mobile homes translate into ready housing as do the multiple designs proffered by architectural contests around the world.
The greatest element apart from inexpensive temporary shelter that is necessary to put homeless families back on tract is freedom, and the support of family cohesion, not the destruction of it. Where are shelters which teach budgeting and alternatives to work a day jobs to earn money? How about teaching simple low risk investments? Who offers courses on regular banking and how not to lose money?
Occasionally over the next year, I will include in this column practical suggestions and feature the ideas some have designed which meet the need.
More next time, ekb at Really Poor.
Poignant advertisements appear every day portraying sad looking children and mothers clinging to one another, or old grisled men holding tight to a can, imploring the plight of the homeless in an effort to raise monies for the housing and feeding of the homeless. Most shelters though fall into two categories: those that house the single homeless and those that house families: neither really meet the need, although without them the situation would be intolerable.
The general public holds to stereotypes of the homeless which do not aid in solving the problem. Most think that all homeless people are unemployed, on drugs or mentally ill, and most ascribe them to a criminal element. Many see homeless families as people who did not work or try hard enough to make a living. The truth is quite different: up to half of the single homeless are employed full time, often at back breaking work that few others would want. They sleep and eat at shelters until they can save up enough money to secure housing or other circumstances. Some to be fair fit the stereotype: years of mental issues and family problems have broken their spirit and they no longer make plans, but rather survive day to day by any means possible. These days there is a new echelon of the homeless, as previously successful couples, often double incomed, and mortgages with kids, soccer, ballet, and PTA find themselves jobless with no solution, foreclosed, and packing everything into an RV or SUV they were able to keep, initially for a stay with relatives, and later on the street like everyone else. Persons with graduate degrees in medicine, education, business etc, find that welfare or unemployment will not even meet the mortgage much less utilities, food and necessities, and horrified at the events of their lives, have to sell or leave most behind. I have wondered lately if our recent surge in creative solutions for the homeless have come in part from the tragic fall of many into the homeless population who should never have encountered even the thought.
Creative solutions though are beginning to abound, and those who care for the homeless have started mini apartments for homeless families, homeless churches, tent and RV cities etc as well as creative architectural designs for overnight structures for the unsheltered. All these creative ideas though are not often practical: collapsible structures are no good if the police destroy them when placed even on public property. Some cities have ordinances that do not allow an individual to even sit on a park bench or stand in an area for more than 2 hours without being charged with loitering. Some cities are so hard on the homeless that their aim can only be seen driving them into some other city. While some shelters have become almost showplaces others are oppressive and have limited or forced solutions. They either sign everyone up for welfare and give them a joblist, or try to institutionalize them.
The most horrible problem exists in family shelters: up until at least 10 years ago, most family shelters had an age limit for boys: since a preponderance of homeless families are single parent families, this is a devastating cruelty: no one wants their ten year old child sent three blocks over to sleep in a room of homeless men because a family shelter only allows boy children up to 8. That is, if one can get a space at all, and so many mothers try to live out of their car until finding a solution. This horrifying situation is compounded by a ‘social work’ mentality, in which some staffers at family shelters are far from interested in keeping families together, and going to a shelter may create an even worse scenario of the a child being removed into foster care. In this new clime of educated hard working homeless, the extra stress leads many to despair. Further, there is little privacy in the shelters, further assaulting the well-being of stressed families, and mothers with very young children and no daycare are handicapped beyond words!
On this ‘landscape’ though, it seems that there are some very functional changes which can be made and really meet the need of getting families and individuals stabilized and back to work. Just thought I’d throw out a few ideas: feel free to post others:
1. More shelters, especially more family shelters. In northern CA, there are 20 homeless people for every shelter bed. This is unacceptable in a civilized society. If everyone making over 30,000 a year would even contribute a buck or two a month, and/or volunteer, the need could be met.
2. Designate portions of a city for ‘wild camping’. One cannot camp on private property. One cannot camp free on city, state or federal property after dark. One cannot camp out on the street. When some camp under bridges, police come and destroy the tents. These tent cities though take the temporary burden of overcrowding off of existing shelters. Ideally, an acre or two in every city could meet the problem: for a smaller amount of money than building a new shelter, the property could be kept and even guarded to avoid criminal activity, and kept by residents. Extended lengths of time are necessary for some to get back to work. Rules can be instituted for peaceful living. At least family, and women could be kept together, with some leeway. Many many homeless people only need a place to stay and a few basic provisions, for they already have the skills necessary to locate and land work. They do not need to be thrown to social work systems with patronizing attitudes that throw salt on the wound. They need a place to stay, not a diagnosis and treatment plan.
3. Family Shelters with liberty and keen planning. Many family shelters are nicely decorated and have bright red and blue bedspreads, but they require group meetings, assessments, treatment plans, and they want to make parenting decisions that are not theirs to make. They are patently unfriendly to homeschooling or to those who will not accept government entitlements as their only solution. Parents need a very safe, small, clean place to stay, with a lock, and flexibility. They need a safe place to leave their possessions so they can go look for solutions. They need a ‘judgment free’ zone, where one does not have to answer to models of family mental health. They need ready access to phones, an address that doesn’t scream ‘homeless shelter’ and privacy. Even a talented parent, with a great background and work history will lose a job if their employer calls a number to give them an interview and the person answering says, “Valleydale Homeless Shelter, how may I help you?”. The job more often than not is lost before the interview. Women who have skills but have not worked in an office for awhile may need office clothing to get started: some thrift stores and churches have specialized programs to meet the need but they only offer one or two outfits which will not get the mother to the first paycheck. Some of the recent homeless in the news have included a CEO of a large tech firm, a former Miss America, and a former advertising executive: there is a very vicious process out there when some people of advanced degrees and specialization end up in disfavor, which leads to blackballing and the loss of everything at a very high level: they were never lazy a day in their lives.
When all resources are accounted for though, what is most needed in a shelter is quiet, privacy, unconditional regard (love and care without judgment), separate living, a place to work, and an ability to turn down other people’s ideas. The condemnation in some shelters is horrible: one either toes their line, e.g. staying out of the shelter between 8 and 5, forced personal interviews, and other nonessential restrictions, or one lives with the fear of being tossed back to the streets, an cruel and unnecessary extra stress.
Functional, simple and comfortable shelters need to be built and funded, preferably by churches before governmental agencies. Private sector shelters can be the best or worst. Easy to clean floors and surfaces, places to sit and sleep, and the ability to at least heat up small amounts of food or drink in each unit.
The length of time should be at least 3 months at the outset, which allows time to look for work and save money: for some it will require some time more. One very effective program in Jacksonville Fla, had a full apartment complex which charged 1/3 of a person’s income: at first it was ‘o’ up to a certain limit. They allowed 2 years per family to stabilize, save money and look for more permanent housing: this allowed families who were not opposed to government housing to apply and wait. This was a very fine solution but I have seen it only in a couple of cities, and it meets the needs of only a few families. I think the more liberal time of 6 months is more realistic, though some would shudder as they rely for funding on turnover.
Rather than just postings, it would behoove shelters to work actively with employers in the area who will receive a few persons into their employ on a regular basis. This would help those who have a hard time finding employment because of lack of skills or conversely too advanced skills, or who may not have worked in a while or who do not have the ever critical references. It gives them a chance to build up those gaps and apply for housing. FEMA did something like this in the wake of Katrina, doing a sort of ‘speed-job application’ bringing in employers from around the country.
The ideal shelter needs to provide for free hygiene products and medical/dental care as possible: the total reliance on government resources has never fully worked. Daycare, likewise is an essential service for mothers and fathers applying for work, with a drop off capability. Some day-cares around town may agree to meet the need for a few parents. One shelter in South Carolina has an onsite daycare as do many, allowing parents to apply for, find and keep work, until other arrangements can be made. Most shelters know how essential bus passes or other transportation is for parents in trouble. The more independent one keeps families, the better, with the helps so essential to the process.
In the near future, FEMA and other organizations know, we are going to have to meet massive numbers of displaced persons. Now is the time to explore what can be done in a hurry: empty shipping containers translate into simple temporary housing. Tiny pallet houses translate into simple housing. Refurbished outdated mobile homes translate into ready housing as do the multiple designs proffered by architectural contests around the world.
The greatest element apart from inexpensive temporary shelter that is necessary to put homeless families back on tract is freedom, and the support of family cohesion, not the destruction of it. Where are shelters which teach budgeting and alternatives to work a day jobs to earn money? How about teaching simple low risk investments? Who offers courses on regular banking and how not to lose money?
Occasionally over the next year, I will include in this column practical suggestions and feature the ideas some have designed which meet the need.
More next time, ekb at Really Poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment